Pros & cons 331 vs. 347 stroker - Page 2 - Vintage Mustang Forums
Vintage Mustang Forum
HomeForumGalleryClassifiedsAbout UsAdvertiseContact Us
» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
Go Back   Vintage Mustang Forums > General Discussion > General Discussion (Non-Vintage Mustang)
Vintage-Mustang.com is the premier Ford Mustang Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 09-25-2007, 11:37 PM   #16 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NJ & PA
Posts: 11,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sportsroof1970
I can't speak from personal experience, meaning I haven't built both and directly compared them, but from what I have read from some of the most knowledgeable Ford builders out there, the ONLY reasons to build a 331 vs. a 347 is if you are restricted by some class rules for the racing you are doing, or if for whatever reason you just want less power. That is it.



I tend to agree. The difference is an addition 16 cu.in.. IIRC, the 347 has a rod ratio close to the the Ford 428 and the Chevy 454, two very well kown and respected engines.
__________________
Tom


Rehab is for quiters!

Huskinhano is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 09-26-2007, 07:03 AM   #17 (permalink)
Jim
Senior Member
 
Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: In Your Head...
Posts: 7,032
Default

The difference is that those are very large displacement engines with a lot of stroke and not much RPM range. I would think a 347 would need to run much higher RPMs to make good power, which brings into play the stress created by the rod angle.
Jim is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-26-2007, 07:53 AM   #18 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NJ & PA
Posts: 11,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim
The difference is that those are very large displacement engines with a lot of stroke and not much RPM range. I would think a 347 would need to run much higher RPMs to make good power, which brings into play the stress created by the rod angle.

Jim, I'm playing devil's advocate here. Personally I favor a short stroke/long rod set up myself. It's my nature to question everything, even things you agree with and look at the flip side as well. IIRC, Coast Automotive produces or produced a 347 that carried a CA smog excemption and was guarenteed for 100K miles. The used even a shorter rod then the regular 347 to keep the wrist pin out of the oil ring land. Theoretically, the shorter rod will make for even a worse rod ratio creating more cylinder wear but Coast gave it the 100K mile blessing.

At some point when I get time to make a long post, I'm going to stir up the hornets nest by questioning the "therories" of big bore/short stroke vs small bore/long stroke and power production. I think I can make some very valid points. I'm sure there are some people out there that have a good idea of what I will say.
__________________
Tom


Rehab is for quiters!

Huskinhano is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-26-2007, 09:11 AM   #19 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
cmayna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Menlo Park, CA.
Posts: 10,794
Default

Tom,
Looking forward in reading your nest stirring article.

Chris, why not put a stroked 351 in your car?

__________________
'50 Chevy 1/2......'65 coupe/302/AOD......'68 fb/351c/T5Z
cmayna is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-26-2007, 10:24 AM   #20 (permalink)
Moderator
 
HoosierBuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Probably in the garage
Posts: 6,307
Default

My take on it is the whole 331/347 debate is over rated.

Either type of build could make more power than the other based on the totality of the build.
Either type of build could be more reliable than the other based on the totality of the build.

That being said, the only reason I wouldn't go with a 347 would be if I suddenly came into a lot of money and could afford a big-bore 8.2 block with a 3.4" stroke. That would get me somewhere around 360 CID.

The BEST choice would probably be one of the 351W based strokers...say a 408. But, it'd be a bit too tight for me on the '65, I'm afraid. Besides that, I couldn't use my exhaust, intake, etc.

Phil
__________________
http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/at...s-dsc25105.jpg

"Two barks means faster!" Enzo
HoosierBuddy is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-26-2007, 11:02 AM   #21 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
fastlane_65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Shreveport, LA
Posts: 3,016
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim
Rod angle.
Sounds like a porn star, a "professional" wrestler or a TV bass fishing pro.

I plan on going 347 in the '67. It will never be a daily driver so I'm not worried about getting 100,000 miles out of the motor. Someday the '65 will have either a stroked 351 (408? 427?) or a DOHC 4.6.
__________________
.
Highly modified 67 coupe, rusty 68 vert, 03 Sonic Blue Cobra Convertible, 03 King Ranch daily driver
(not pictured) stripped 65 fastback waiting to be a street machine

http://www.photographiti.com/cars/misc/sigpic09.jpg
fastlane_65 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-26-2007, 04:07 PM   #22 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Marcs66and06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Las Vegas, Nv
Posts: 838
Default

I built a 347 in a 1968 302 and aluminum heads and the whole nine yards. It has been really good so far! I only would recommend getting a roller block to use for the cam/lifter combo. That was my only oops. That also eliminates all the need to worry about what oil to use and oil additives and all that garbage. Just make sure to beef up your drive line before. My C4 didnt take to well to that 347- 3 months and it was toast.
Marcs66and06 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-26-2007, 04:12 PM   #23 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
fastlane_65's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Shreveport, LA
Posts: 3,016
Default

What is the forum opinion on the best stroker kit? Probe? Scat? Others? Going into a roller 5.0 block with aluminum heads (Ford GT40 crate motor.)

Any cam recommendations?

.
__________________
.
Highly modified 67 coupe, rusty 68 vert, 03 Sonic Blue Cobra Convertible, 03 King Ranch daily driver
(not pictured) stripped 65 fastback waiting to be a street machine

http://www.photographiti.com/cars/misc/sigpic09.jpg
fastlane_65 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-26-2007, 09:07 PM   #24 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Marcs66and06's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Las Vegas, Nv
Posts: 838
Default

Alright I guess I will put in my .02 cents worth here... I purchsed a Eagle forged crank, forged I-beam rods and hyper pistons. I would recomend getting better pistons..forged if you can afford it. Are you going to put nitrous to the car? Forced induction? If so keep in mind about your compression ratio and cylinder head cc's. It all factors I screwed up and forgot about the blower aspect so I have to get new pistons to handle the boost-so I was told. I am running the comp cams XE274H. The cams lift is .520-.523 the duration is 230 and 236 the Lobe angle is 110. Another thing you- what trans are you using rear end-etc? Are these items already beefed up? My stock C4 blew up after about 3 months with that 347. I had it raced built to handle 600 hp so I will be good for now. Just remember any weakness in your drivetrain after the engine rebuild and it will become painfull obvious after you pick up the pieces. Good luck!
Marcs66and06 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-27-2007, 09:37 PM   #25 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Sportsroof1970's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: AZ USA
Posts: 645
Default

I'm curious, did you have slicks or drag radials on when that C4 gave up, or did the trans give out during street tire useage? Thanks.
__________________
-Tim-

http://members.cox.net/sk8token/14.2.jpg

70 sportsroof: 342 stroker, Dart Sr. heads, Victor Jr. Intake, Camshaft Innovations billet hydraulic roller cam,
T-5 trans, 3.55's, 1 3/4" long tube headers, Yuma Yellow paint, black standard interior, 17x8 2000 Mustang
GT wheels, 78 Granada front discs, A/C and P/S
Sportsroof1970 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Vintage Mustang Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.