|
Author
|
Topic: Stealth FI
|
talaposa
¯
Member # 2460
|
posted
 
 
I'm building a sleeper engine for my early falcon using my 427-W stroker. This time though I'd like to run the 302 upper plenum and 351 lower plenum .
Is this possible? Do they match? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 91 | From: Auburn,CA | Registered: Feb 2003
| :
|
|
silverLX
¯
Member # 3207
|
posted
depends what intake you use. There is a GT40 lower for 351w and a cobra, GT40, or box upper will bolt on to it. Trickflow also makes a 351w intake. hope this help!
--------------------
88LX hatch 410w
88LX vert gears, exhaust
95GT H/C/I
Posts: 1613 | From: Sonoma County | Registered: Aug 2003
| :
|
|
talaposa
¯
Member # 2460
|
posted
Thanks...that means to the average joe I can pretend it has a 302 and he can pretend he can pass me! Hmm maybe the new iron eagle with AFR's and some juice might help.
Posts: 91 | From: Auburn,CA | Registered: Feb 2003
| :
|
|
FasterDamnit
Bad Attitude
Member # 442
|
posted
You want to put a long runner intake meant for a 302 on 427 cubic inches? Guess you don't want to make any horsepower- just tons of torque below 3k.
--------------------
'92 LX T5
Looked stock, went 11's 11.90 at 115mph.
'65 Mustang 347
www.fordmuscle.com
Livin' in the Carolina Pines
Posts: 2971 | From: NorCal | Registered: Sep 2001
| :
|
|
talaposa
¯
Member # 2460
|
posted
Its a trade off of course but I have to look at the use of the vehicle. Will rarely be used on the strip but on the freeway and in town.MPG is important. It's a 62 falcon (2900 lbs) and the engine has been in it for some time. The last model A with a 454 chevrolet I smoked nailed the engine as a 351 "probably stroked"
Posts: 91 | From: Auburn,CA | Registered: Feb 2003
| :
|
|
FasterDamnit
Bad Attitude
Member # 442
|
posted
Trade off?? How about a serious choke on power? Why bother putting in a 427 if all you want is the power of built 302? That much displacement needs far more cfm than any 302 EFI upper can provide.
Posts: 2971 | From: NorCal | Registered: Sep 2001
| :
|
|
talaposa
¯
Member # 2460
|
posted
I already have a built 302 that pulls strong in a ranchero. As you know the narrow passages will limit upper rpm horsepower but increase lower RPM horsepower and torque. On the street lower rpm port velocity is king. How many people drive to reno over 4000 rpm?
Posts: 91 | From: Auburn,CA | Registered: Feb 2003
| :
|
|
FasterDamnit
Bad Attitude
Member # 442
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by talaposa:
I already have a built 302 that pulls strong in a ranchero. As you know the narrow passages will limit upper rpm horsepower but increase lower RPM horsepower and torque. On the street lower rpm port velocity is king. How many people drive to reno over 4000 rpm?
With such a big jump in displacement, you will be hurting power MUCH lower than 4k rpm. I will dig up some calculations on CFM needs per displacment per rpm and compare to the 302 upper that might hit 180cfm per runner if you are lucky. I think you will be very disappointed w/ this combo.
--------------------
'92 LX T5
Looked stock, went 11's 11.90 at 115mph.
'65 Mustang 347
www.fordmuscle.com
Livin' in the Carolina Pines
Posts: 2971 | From: NorCal | Registered: Sep 2001
| :
|
|
talaposa
¯
Member # 2460
|
posted
Assuming a max bore of 4.185 and stroke of 4.0 on the iron eagle I'd need 636.8 CFM at 4000 rpm which would be 104 mph with my existing tires. If the 302 uppers (performance) won't make that then I have a problem. Of course the other option is to utilize a carb type manifold but once you learn FI you'll never want to go back to carbs.
Posts: 91 | From: Auburn,CA | Registered: Feb 2003
| :
|
|
Email this post to someone!
Printer friendly view of this Ford topic
