This is topic Anybody run the E cam 4 degrees retarded? in forum Tech Talk at Northern California Ford Owners  .


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://californiafords.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=019060

---

Posted by Casey90GT (Member # 6175) on :
 
I've got a 331 with an E cam and Edelbrock Performer heads and intake. I was talking to a friend/American Iron racer that said the E cam will give me a little more rpm if I install it 4 degrees retarded. He said it also knocks about 50 lb-ft of torque off the top of the curve, which will help driveability with the relatively small heads and intake. I am also going to be running an S-trim with 8-10 psi, and am trying to keep things conservative. I'm chipping my MSD at 6,200 rpm, and plan to shift at 5,800.

What do you guys think about retarding the cam? Should it still pass smog 4 degrees retarded? Also, with the 331 and the supercharger, will I need to port the Performer intake to make it even make power to 5,800 rpm? Anybody have any experience with how much to open it up?

Thanks in Advance!

[ December 09, 2008, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Casey90GT ]
 

---

Posted by turbo50 (Member # 6700) on :
 
There is some advance ground into them from the gate from what I hear.

I have to ask why you want to RPM the motor harder?
 

---

Posted by Casey90GT (Member # 6175) on :
 
I don't really...I know desktop dyno isn't 100% accurate, but it shows this motor making over 500 lb-ft of torque from 1,500 rpm through 5,500 rpm peaking at almost 600 lb-ft in the middle with 10 psi. I was building this thing to be a street car, and that sounds like it would be damn near impossible to drive. Retarding the cam 4 degrees (at least in desktop dyno) moves the whole power band and makes a much flatter curve where torque and horsepower meet. I'll attach a graph. The red and green lines are with the cam straight up, the yellow and blue lines are 4 degrees retarded.


 

---

Posted by turbo50 (Member # 6700) on :
 
LOL that thing will definitely be a transmission killer. Nice torque numbers, not sure how accurate desktop dyno is tho.

Unless I am mistaken it does not show much of a powerband shift, which I would expect with 4 degrees OR advance on the cam? It is still peaking at around 5600 RPM (hp)tho the torque peaks have changed a bit just not what I expected.
 

---

Posted by turbo50 (Member # 6700) on :
 
I would ask around on several forums to find someone that my have played around with the E cam.

I see alot of folks playing with the f cam and I have retarded the F cam 4 degrees and added about 700rpm to peak HP production and softened up low end torque a bit, never had it on the dyno this was all at the track and seat of the pants on my buddies S trim car.
 

---

Posted by turbo50 (Member # 6700) on :
 
Another thing to remember is that the E cam is a 107/117 cam so I think it will perform best straight up.

Ask 93PONY as he seems to have a better grasp on the science of this.
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
E303 is one of those odd-ball cams. It has Zero advance ground in. It's a 110ICL / 110ECL.

In all-motor setups I tested retarding the E303 from 'straight up' to 4 & 6 degrees retard & found no MPH at the dragstrip. The cars did idle better however. Boosted it'll be worth some HP as it will move the power band UP slightly, which will allow a touch more boost.....as boost is dependand on RPM with an SC setup. It will also flatten out the TQ curve a bit....but not 50FT/LBS.
 

---

Posted by Casey90GT (Member # 6175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 93PONY:
E303 is one of those odd-ball cams. It has Zero advance ground in. It's a 110ICL / 110ECL.

In all-motor setups I tested retarding the E303 from 'straight up' to 4 & 6 degrees retard & found no MPH at the dragstrip. The cars did idle better however. Boosted it'll be worth some HP as it will move the power band UP slightly, which will allow a touch more boost.....as boost is dependand on RPM with an SC setup. It will also flatten out the TQ curve a bit....but not 50FT/LBS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 95331StrimVert:
My old S-trim 331 had the e303 retarded 4degress. It was awesome and made great power. 490 rwhp tuned by Byron. I still have the chip, air meter with the SC calibration and injectors for that setup. All was awesome until I split the block.

However, if you looking for sound advice do what Shaun recommends. He is a straight talker who lives this stuff day in and day out.

---

How was the idle, and did it smog? How much torque did the engine make, and what other mods did you have?
 

---

Posted by CobramanPhil (Member # 2170) on :
 
Is there a problem going with a custom cam or are you sticking with the e303?

[ December 13, 2008, 05:08 AM: Message edited by: CobramanPhil ]
 

---

Posted by Casey90GT (Member # 6175) on :
 
I could go custom, but I'm already going to make way more power than I ever intended with this setup. I guess if I could trade some torque for horsepower, keep everything under 6k rpm, and still pass smog with flying colors then a custom cam might make sense.

For what it's worth, in Desktop Dyno, I ran every comp cams hydraulic roller in the Magnum, Xtreme Energy, Blower, and Nitrous lines, and every one of them made more torque than I already have. Some of them kept peak horsepower where it is, with the added torque (which I don't want), and the rest of them raised the horsepower beyond where I want to rev the motor. I also ran specs on two custom ground 331 blower cams that I have laying around and on both of them I got even more torque.

I think that the massive torque, low horsepower numbers come from my supercharger (Novi1220), which according to Paxton spools really fast and makes a ton of boost down low. Even with the F cam, DD shows a substantial increase in torque over my current combo.

[ December 13, 2008, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: Casey90GT ]
 

---

Posted by bwkelley76 (Member # 8792) on :
 
First of all I want to say good choice on the 331, it's a great motor combo and it should last you a long time if you take care of it.

This may sound crazy but it sounds like for what you want you need to lose the blower or run less boost. Either way you definitely may want to reconsider your camshaft.

A little history on me if you're weary... My theory on things comes from my experience with both of my factory supercharged Lightning trucks as well as experience from joint efforts with few of my buddies I've built boosted race motors with.

Bare with me here and by no means am I trying to say anyone is wrong or crazy. This is just my take on things. Lets compare apples to apples here first of all.

If you look at a stock Ford Lightning truck @ 8-10psi, (fairly comparable to a 331 with a stock to mild cam and decent flowing heads and a blower) ..similar to your combo minus the cam

They make 450 lb/ft of torque and 380 hp with 8-10 PSI bone stock. Bump the PSI up to about 12-14 with a good tune and free flowing exhaust, and you get closer to 500+ Lb/ft and 430+ horsepower.

GREAT numbers for a basically stock 331 with some boost and decent flowing heads, and the power curve on those beasts is 1500-6000, just what you want.

What I'm trying to say is you may be better off using torque to your advantage with those small heads and changing things to put the torque to the ground "as-is" instead of tweaking parts that may not be ideal for your application. When used to your benefit torque is a lot of fun and it wins races.

Unfortunately if you want a blower you're going to have torque. Boost builds torque plain and simple. So why try to get rid of it? ..Just a question, and I know you're concerned about breaking things, we all are.

I'm not a big fan of the E-cam, it's too radical for a boost setup in my personal opinion and in combination with a blower its just poopoo. Too much separation and duration. You're probably better off with a closer to stock cam or one that is meant for boost like a Crane Powermax or maybe one of the trick-flows. Shoot, a stock 5.0 cam and 1.7 rockers works damn good with a blower when building a "budget streeter" (been there, done that)

You need to set your motor up to make power under the circumstances the blower is intended or its just a waste of a blower. Otherwise the boost is just worthless.

By putting too large of a cam or retarding one that's meant to run "straight up" you will be bleeding off your boost at mid-range rpm and then hoping the cam takes over at the top. Unfortunately at the rpm you plan on shifting at the e-cam wont have a chance to be effective at all if it's retarded too much.

I'd say retarded 4 degrees the E-cam wont make good power until about 3300 rpm's or higher, and that makes for a short power curve when you're shifting at 58-6000.

Here's what I think will happen, your blower will make up a bit for the lost bottom end torque from the cam being too large and too far advanced, and then the car will fall on its face somewhere in the middle, and then you might get a little kick at about 5500 rpms from the cam, then it will be time to shift and your heads may not flow much above 6-6500 anyway. (just a guess)

You'd probably be better off with no blower and a better cam if that's the outcome and it very well may be.

I can see how retarding the cam might work as a band-aid for over-camming (sorta) but I'd seriously consider changing cams and get something more boost-friendly with a lower duration maybe a 112 LSA and higher lift.

This would allow for the most horsepower and torque from 1500 rpm all the way up to 6. Then you can focus on the fun stuff like tuning, suspension, and boost control, etc.

Good luck, hope this helps. Just tryin to steer ya in the right direction, not trying to be a know it all. Just a few things I've learned from experience.

BK

[ December 30, 2008, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: bwkelley76 ]
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bwkelley76:
First of all I want to say good choice on the 331, it's a great motor combo and it should last you a long time if you take care of it.

This may sound crazy but it sounds like for what you want you need to lose the blower or run less boost. Either way you definitely may want to reconsider your camshaft.

A little history on me if you're weary... My theory on things comes from my experience with both of my factory supercharged Lightning trucks as well as experience from joint efforts with few of my buddies I've built boosted race motors with.

Bare with me here and by no means am I trying to say anyone is wrong or crazy. This is just my take on things. Lets compare apples to apples here first of all.

If you look at a stock Ford Lightning truck @ 8-10psi, (fairly comparable to a 331 with a stock to mild cam and decent flowing heads and a blower) ..similar to your combo minus the cam

They make 450 lb/ft of torque and 380 hp with 8-10 PSI bone stock. Bump the PSI up to about 12-14 with a good tune and free flowing exhaust, and you get closer to 500+ Lb/ft and 430+ horsepower.

GREAT numbers for a basically stock 331 with some boost and decent flowing heads, and the power curve on those beasts is 1500-6000, just what you want.

What I'm trying to say is you may be better off using torque to your advantage with those small heads and changing things to put the torque to the ground "as-is" instead of tweaking parts that may not be ideal for your application. When used to your benefit torque is a lot of fun and it wins races.

Unfortunately if you want a blower you're going to have torque. Boost builds torque plain and simple. So why try to get rid of it? ..Just a question, and I know you're concerned about breaking things, we all are.

I'm not a big fan of the E-cam, it's too radical for a boost setup in my personal opinion and in combination with a blower its just poopoo. Too much separation and duration. You're probably better off with a closer to stock cam or one that is meant for boost like a Crane Powermax or maybe one of the trick-flows. Shoot, a stock 5.0 cam and 1.7 rockers works damn good with a blower when building a "budget streeter" (been there, done that)

You need to set your motor up to make power under the circumstances the blower is intended or its just a waste of a blower. Otherwise the boost is just worthless.

By putting too large of a cam or retarding one that's meant to run "straight up" you will be bleeding off your boost at mid-range rpm and then hoping the cam takes over at the top. Unfortunately at the rpm you plan on shifting at the e-cam wont have a chance to be effective at all if it's retarded too much.

I'd say retarded 4 degrees the E-cam wont make good power until about 3300 rpm's or higher, and that makes for a short power curve when you're shifting at 58-6000.

Here's what I think will happen, your blower will make up a bit for the lost bottom end torque from the cam being too large and too far advanced, and then the car will fall on its face somewhere in the middle, and then you might get a little kick at about 5500 rpms from the cam, then it will be time to shift and your heads may not flow much above 6-6500 anyway. (just a guess)

You'd probably be better off with no blower and a better cam if that's the outcome and it very well may be.

I can see how retarding the cam might work as a band-aid for over-camming (sorta) but I'd seriously consider changing cams and get something more boost-friendly with a lower duration maybe a 112 LSA and higher lift.

This would allow for the most horsepower and torque from 1500 rpm all the way up to 6. Then you can focus on the fun stuff like tuning, suspension, and boost control, etc.

Good luck, hope this helps. Just tryin to steer ya in the right direction, not trying to be a know it all. Just a few things I've learned from experience.

BK

---

Definately NOT an Apples to Apples comparison. Here's why:

Pushrod 331 = 4.03" bore x 3.25" stroke
Modular 330 = 3.552" bore x 4.16" stroke

What these translates to is Piston speed.
Piston speed is Stroke x RPM... EI, one revolution of the motor moves the piston in a 3.25" stroke 6.5 inches total, but the same 1 revolution on the Modular moves the piston 8.32 inches. The more piston speed you have, the more it'll pull airflow through the heads & therefore max them out faster. Which means low power at higher RPM's if your heads flow a maximum of 180-200cfm (like a 2V head).
Edelbrock performer heads flow significantly more air BTW.

HP is TQ at RPM

The big difference in these 2 setups is the blower. A Roots/twin screw blower makes boost NOW....peak boost at peak TQ. It's common to get within 2psi of peak boost at 2K RPM. They are also RPM limited. There comes an RPM point at which the motor will use MORE air than the blower can push. (An engine uses air exponentially as RPM incrases, a Roots blower pushes air linarly as RPM increases) Hence the reason for using a large blower (blower displacement 40-50% of the engine displacement is common).

A centrifical on the other hand makes boost with RPM. On a 10psi setup, you'd be lucky to make 2psi at 3K RPM. Which means as RPM Increases, so does boost, and therefore power. This is why a centrifical blower is a poor choice for a low RPM torque monster motor you'd find in a heavy truck.

The Performer heads/intake, E Cam & S-trim combo is an old tried & true setup. It will very easily max out the power potential of the block. These combo's are capable of 10's in the 1/4 mile on pump gas.
 

---

Posted by bwkelley76 (Member # 8792) on :
 
Ok not "exactly" apples to apples here but not really apples to oranges either. Good enough for an example of torque and numbers, etc.

I'm not all that experienced with the S-trim versus the Eaton, however I am experienced with what happens when you "over-cam" a motor in combination with a blower. Also retarding the E-cam too much could result in tapping the exhaust valve in to the piston, especially if 1.7 rockers are used.

Good to hear that the S-Trim and E-Cam work well together. Personally I'd rather use a better cam.

I can't argue with the numbers you mention assuming you're speaking from experience. I'm interested in more info on retarding an e-cam versus using a better cam out of the box and I think that's what this thread is about?
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
Yes, another camshaft CAN make significantly more power....been there, done that. Here's a rundown on what else is needed for an aggressive custom camshaft using Comp XE lobes:

Comp 917 or 953 valvesprings: $159
Comp TI retainers: $309
Ideally, Seemless chromoly pushrods (not just chromoly): $139
Custom cam: $325
Quality rocker arms, not cast aluminum 1.72 Crane/Cobra units. $259+

or

A $149 E303 that will work with stock Edelbrock springs, retainers, standard chromoly pushrods (even stock pushrods) & Cast 1.72 rockers.

Point is quite mute in this application..... You see, the stock 302 roller block has a limit of around 500RWHP (I twisted mine at 430RW with a stock camshaft). A STOCK camshaft with this combo can make enough power to split this block down the middle.

In most cases guys are simply looking to throw in a decently matched camshaft at a very reasonable price. Hence the E303 with 1.7's. A B303 with 1.7's will make more power & work with the current setup. An X303 with 1.6's is a great alternative as well, although the specs are very similar to a B303 with 1.7's. An F303 is a nice choice as well.....as is the Z303, a TFS1, Crane 2030 & 2031, etc, etc. All will make within 25HP of each other at the same boost/timing, work with the given combo and make enough power to split the block in half.

All these camshafts are so small, piston to valve is definately not an issue.

As far as OverCamming goes.... The smaller the parts, the larger the camshaft needed to get the air through the motor. Good flowing components don't *need* as big of a camshaft to make the same power. & I've yet to over cam any of these pushrod motors. Modulars on the other hand, yes, most definately. Totally different animal. Modular Fords are basically V8 Motorcycle engines...& therefore don't respond well to 'old school pushrod' style camshafts.

No offence, but the 2 engine platforms are far more different than most realize.
 

---

Posted by bwkelley76 (Member # 8792) on :
 
In mechanical theory YES pushrod motors are different from modular motors and you are right. However horsepower and torque have similar theories when it comes to boost versus camshaft profile, and of course we can't forget the other parts and how well things flow, etc.

For the sake of this thread and to answer his question, we both already answered it. A better cam will make better desired power rather than "band-aiding" and retarding the E-Cam a ton. I also wouldn't compare the modular motor to a motorcycle engine, now thats comparing apples to oranges. At least I was comparing a v8 to a v8. ..by the way I'm not trying to be a know it all or to undermine you at all, you obviously know what you're talking about and I hope the thread starter appreciated your theory as much as I do (wait, who was he again?..lol)

It's not about us man, its about giving him some good advice. Hopefully between the lot of us here we can send him in the right direction.

Happy Holidays and good luck.
 

---

Posted by Casey90GT (Member # 6175) on :
 
No worries bwkelley76 & 93PONY...I really appreciate all the different ideas and view points. I guess what I was really worried about here is making too much power down low to drive the car, and somebodies "Transmission Killer" comment a few posts earlier made me cringe a bit too.

I'm not really concerned with making more power, but do either of you care to weigh in on whether or not the stock cam may be more driveable than the E-cam, or is it going to raise my low rpm torque even more? For what it's worth, the tech guys at Paxton said that the Novi-1220 (which is what I have) is basically an S-trim, but it has a smaller impeller that makes less overall boost, but builds it way faster. They said that I should have peak boost by 3,500 rpms.
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
With the stock GT cam & 1.72 rockers in a 331 with my TT setup I made 430RWHP @ 4800RPM & 507RWTQ @ 3500RPM.

Thats all it took to twist the stock block. Also destroyed 2 clutches, but the Tremec 3550 survived.....till I gave it a little more boost. The 3550 ended up with no teeth on 3rd gear.

For transmission survival, you're going to want a clutch that does NOT hit hard. No SPEC clutches.... Pro-Motion using an extra springy (is that a word?) plate between the front & rear of the disk. This extra "give" when the clutch is engaged (hammer dropped) acts like a cushion for the drivetrain. Spec clutchs do not have this plate.
 

---

Posted by bwkelley76 (Member # 8792) on :
 
First off I'm a fan of the 331 as I'm sure you noticed from my earlier posts. What a lot of people don't realize is the 331 is a "buzz" motor and the bottom end has a great rod to stroke ratio and can handle well over 6000 rpm continuously. The larger cubes and the more desirable geometry ads torque as well so a lot of people wonder why anyone would want to raise the rpm. A 347 is another story, designed for torque only and not my favorite combo.

If I were in your position and I was "stuck" with using the E-Cam I would run it straight up. If I wanted more rpm and less torque I would think about 2-4 degrees retarded. It's not the worst advice but I'm a little sketchy. If I had another 180-250 bucks I'd invest in a cam that would perform better straight-up that has a better lobe profile. WIth a blower you're going to need a more aggressive exhaust profile to get rid of all that compressed air. If you're worried about the "smog-legal" aspect I'd look into the Crane powermax and compucams, etc. Retarding the E-Cam may cause issues with smog as the valve timing may activate too late resulting in High HC and CO.

Stock cam will add low-end "off-idle" torque, lots of it, starting at about 1500-1800 rpm and peaking at around 3000-3250. The E-Cam is good for torque starting at about 2500-3000 rpm peaking at about 4250 (If my memory serves me right). ..Once retarded the E-cam's torque curve should raise a bit and it may shave off some maximum torque, I'd have to guess closer to 3200-5000 would be your torque curve retarded 4 degrees. Without the blower that thing would be a DOG on the street with a retarded E-Cam.

The "off-Idle" torque is what kills transmissions and drivelines but it's also the "seat of your pants" feeling that everyone likes and also what wins races from light to light. Of course it depends on your combo as well. Gears can make a huge difference of torque to the wheels and how fast it gets there.

Also instead of retarding the E-cam have you ever thought about using a B-Cam or an F cam? I've heard of folks having good luck with those as well. If you research it they give you a little different torque curve than the E-Cam.

Personally I like the lopey idle you get from the E-Cam assuming the computer doesnt have issues with it causing surging at idle. -sometimes the stock PCM doesn't like the E-Cam though.

The E-Cam comes in HARD at about 2700 rpms from my experience and keeps pulling pretty hard up to 5500-6000.

I'd be interested to see how well the E-Cam and the S-trim work together, especially with the cam retarded. Honestly I'd still just run it straight-up and try that first with the blower. If it has too much torque for you then retard it later. It might just work retarded but I think you will be disappointed in the low-mid-range performance.

We can talk theory all we want but nothing speaks louder than reality testing. In my reality testing I've seen more driveable and usable torque come from some of the higher-dollar Crane, TFS, and Lunati cams especially when coupled with a blower.

Hope this helps and good luck.

[ January 03, 2009, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: bwkelley76 ]
 

---

Posted by Casey90GT (Member # 6175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 93PONY:
With the stock GT cam & 1.72 rockers in a 331 with my TT setup I made 430RWHP @ 4800RPM & 507RWTQ @ 3500RPM.

Thats all it took to twist the stock block.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Casey90GT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 93PONY:
With the stock GT cam & 1.72 rockers in a 331 with my TT setup I made 430RWHP @ 4800RPM & 507RWTQ @ 3500RPM.

Thats all it took to twist the stock block.

---

How much boost were you running and how conservative was the tune? Do you know what went wrong?

---

91 pump crap tune, 17 or 19 degrees total timing (can't remember).
What went wrong..... 7psi on a dynojet, 11psi at the track. It was tuned on the dyno by Byron when he was still tuning. Detonation HAMMERS main caps....which most definately contributed to the block twisting. That, plus who knows how much more power it made at the track with 4psi more boost. If 7psi on a stock headed 331 made 430/507 & probably 250/300RW at best on motor....180/200RW from 7psi, another 4psi *should* have netted a significant amount of additional power.

Hey, bwkelly76, you need to spend more time over here reading up: http://bbs.hardcore50.com/vbulletin/

That whole 331 vs 347 *rod to stroke ratio* crap is LONG out dated. Not to mention your theory on a 331 making more HP & spinning more RPM than a 347... Case in point: There's 2 all-motor 347 that make far more than any N/A 331 around here.....both TQ & HP. In fact, they make more HP than TQ....which means more RPM. (they peak at 6500RPM & make over 440RWHP on pump gas). And no, they don't run an 'E' cam.
Oh.....& try this one on for size. One of those 347's runs a 5.315" rod with a 3.4" stroke.
Ah hell.....here, read this, then do a search on Rod to stroke ratio's on that site.
http://bbs.hardcore50.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=46229&highlight=rod+ratio
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bwkelley76:
First off I'm a fan of the 331 as I'm sure you noticed from my earlier posts. What a lot of people don't realize is the 331 is a "buzz" motor and the bottom end has a great rod to stroke ratio and can handle well over 6000 rpm continuously. The larger cubes and the more desirable geometry ads torque as well so a lot of people wonder why anyone would want to raise the rpm. A 347 is another story, designed for torque only and not my favorite combo.

---

HP = (TQ x RPM)/5252

Horsepower is Torque at RPM. You can't make HP without Torque.....
Therefore, a 347 that makes more Torque will make more Horsepower.
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
Casey, also take into acount that the 4800RPM peak HP on my 331 was with stock GT40 Iron heads (mild portwork) and a stock Cobra intake (ported lower). Your E-bock heads & intake will add RPM capability as will the S-trim since it makes more boost as RPM increases. How much extra RPM is the question. (400 or 500 maybe???)
 

---

Posted by Casey90GT (Member # 6175) on :
 
Thanks for the info 93PONY. The more I think about it the more I think about just sticking the H/C/I and supercharger on the 302 that's in my car now. I'll be on the road even quicker, and it's probably way more power than I could ever use.
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Casey90GT:
Thanks for the info 93PONY. The more I think about it the more I think about just sticking the H/C/I and supercharger on the 302 that's in my car now. I'll be on the road even quicker, and it's probably way more power than I could ever use.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 93PONY:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bwkelley76:
First off I'm a fan of the 331 as I'm sure you noticed from my earlier posts. What a lot of people don't realize is the 331 is a "buzz" motor and the bottom end has a great rod to stroke ratio and can handle well over 6000 rpm continuously. The larger cubes and the more desirable geometry ads torque as well so a lot of people wonder why anyone would want to raise the rpm. A 347 is another story, designed for torque only and not my favorite combo.

---

HP = (TQ x RPM)/5252

Horsepower is Torque at RPM. You can't make HP without Torque.....
Therefore, a 347 that makes more Torque will make more Horsepower.

---

Splitting hairs, I love it.

I may have embellished a little in my wording to make a point but it's a point well made


Now don't get offended by what I'm about to say , it's my life and how I live it.

You're right, horsepower and torque are very related and they are supposed to work together to complete a task.

You really need to let go of the "math" behind the whole thing though, you're killin me here.

Gotta love "desktop dyno." Sorry man I gave up on it years ago. Ever notice how and where torque and horsepower cross over one another on the charts?

Torque and horsepower are related as you say, however "HOW WELL" they are related is more important. It goes far beyond what a calculator can do. Toss the calculator when it comes to estimating horsepower and torque, trust me on this. Use the calculator for what it's intended like the dimensions and geometry of the engine's internals.

A dyno is the only thing that can measure horsepower and torque under "real-life" conditions and those real-life conditions will change the outcome drastically.

All a calculator will ever be able to do is give you dimensions and maybe "guess" what the outcome will be based on the dimension. It can only use the software it's programmed with (pre-set conditions, not real-life conditions) for estimated outcome.

Torque and horsepower peak #'s, especially pre-fabbed guestimations based on calculations are worthelss.

Here's the problem. If peak torque and horsepower are only momentary and don't chase eachother down the rpm range, making them useful together, then they are just a number you'll possibly never use. I've seen motors that can make 500+ horsepower and 650 lb.ft of torque for nearly a millisecond but they feel and perform like they actually make about 300. ..Kindof a waste if you ask me and they aren't usable on the street by any means.

Its easy. As far as engine building goes we know there is no replacement for displacement and more cubes are going to make more power. That's the easy part.

All you can do is design the engine correctly by using the longest rod possible with the largest piston possible and the longest stroke possible. Once you start shrinking the rod it's time to stop. Then all you can do is add displacement with boost or get a taller block! Otherwise we'd be running around with piston attached directly to the crankshaft with a really long stroke and engines would make maximum torque at 200 rpm's and max horsepower at 500. (if that)

The rod is there for a reason, more than one actually. You lose driveability and longevity once you shrink the rod. That's the mistake made by the 347. They do make GREAT torque and horsepower don't get me wrong, but the torque is the only real benefit (the only thing you really feel) and it's a momentary jolt in comparison with a 331. That's why I refer to the 347 as "for torque only."

You can't get an airplane in the air if you can't have just enough jolt for take-off (torque), plus enough continuous power to keep it going down the runway, and then enough power left while up in the air (torque plus horsepower working together). It's a happy medium between the two that gets the job done. The longer the "power" lasts (torque and horsepower combined) the better.

331's accomplish this well. They give you a good initial jolt and they keep pulling. 347's give you an insane jolt and then fall on their face. ...(unless you really push the envelope and rev them higher, assuming you have the airflow to achieve it, but either way you're too far above your torque curve for the horsepower to be useful) ..hence the falling on its face comment.

In Peak #'s The 347 will make both impressive horsepower and torque I will not argue that point. However the 331 will also make impressive horsepower and torque for longer and in more usable parameters. It will have a more usable and flatter torque curve rather than the "peaky" torque curve of the 347.

A 347 gives you the "seat of the pants" feel for a moment but it wont hold you in the seat as long as the 331 will that I guarantee.

Peak numbers don't win races. Horsepower and torque that compliment eachother the entire way through the rpm band is what wins races.

..This is another reason I'd like to see that 331 with a good cam that makes good power from 1500-6500 instead of the E-cam that has a more peaky power band.

[ January 04, 2009, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: bwkelley76 ]
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
I have no use in reading such a long winded post with a bunch of garbage written to *look* intelligent.

Please, do us all a favor and register on www.hardcore50.com. Read up, post your threads, get schooled by the best in the buisness, then come back to CaFords with new found knowledge.

I'd also recommend these sites:
http://www.theturboforums.com/smf/index.php
http://www.veryuseful.com/mustang/tech/engine/
http://www.stangtuning.com/
 

---

Posted by Casey90GT (Member # 6175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bwkelley76:
Gotta love "desktop dyno." Sorry man I gave up on it years ago. Ever notice how and where torque and horsepower cross over one another on the charts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Casey90GT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bwkelley76:
Gotta love "desktop dyno." Sorry man I gave up on it years ago. Ever notice how and where torque and horsepower cross over one another on the charts?

---

I think Desktop Dyno can be an extremely valuable tool when used correctly. You have to enter exact values for things like cam profile, cylinder head air flow and supercharger pressure ratio; you can't guess!

You're right, the software doesn't take into consideration things like rod length, which is immensely important (I guess it figures that you have enough good sense not to run combos with super short rods). Still, when you enter all of your engine's parameters and then you play with a single variable, like cam profile, it can be a very useful tool.

Also, I've built one engine that I've had the luxury of dyno tuning after completion, and the Desktop Dyno numbers were withing 10% (after taking into consideration power loss through the drivetrain) and the overall shape of the torque and horsepower curves was damn near spot on. I've also replicated engine builds that I've found in various hot rod magazines and found that Desktop Dyno is pretty damned close more often than not.

Just my $0.02

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 93PONY:
I have no use in reading such a long winded post with a bunch of garbage written to *look* intelligent.

Please, do us all a favor and register on <a href="http://www.hardcore50.com." target="_blank" rel="nofollow">www.hardcore50.com.</a> Read up, post your threads, get schooled by the best in the buisness, then come back to CaFords with new found knowledge.

I'd also recommend these sites:
http://www.theturboforums.com/smf/index.php
http://www.veryuseful.com/mustang/tech/engine/
http://www.stangtuning.com/

---

I take it you disagree with my theroy? If so how? I would have to guess the rest of us are waiting to hear your "different" theory.

Relax man, as I said it's nothing personal so no need to attack. I speak from experience and I word things in a way that many people can understand and I use examples not just numbers. I tend to be a little redundant and I do it for a reason.

It may sound "foreign" to you or you may just not like reading it because it's different than your opinion or what you may have read on another website. If the post is just too long move on, no one says you have to read it but if you're going to reply lets hear why it's "garbage" to you.

I will try to make my posts a little shorter for you if need be, however I think most people understand what I'm trying to say.

I appreciate the advice and the links and I'm always up for "new-found" knowledge. I'll check it out when I have time and I'm sure there are some great opinions and theory.

It can not replace the experience I've had in my "Old-Found Knowledge" as you may call it but I'm sure it can help fine tune my experiences. SO once again thanks for your "tools to knowledge" I'll see if they work for me.

I can see your'e very frustrated here. However I'm not going to go "get schooled" as you request. You might want to watch your tone as some people can get offended by your frustration if you throw it around too much. No one is calling you an idiot or asking you to "get schooled" however I think that may be your intent toward me?

To each their own my friend, new school, old school, etc. Something can be learned from all of it and we all have a right to throw it on the table.

Didn't mean to "ruffle your feathers" either my friend and it's much more beneficial for this thread to keep your comments specific to it.

So please I'm eager to hear your arguement about what I have written. I have no shame and can easily see if I am wrong or if maybe I wrote something poorly.
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
bwkelly76,

I have no need to teach you my 'theories'..... I've spent FAR too long on here over the years preaching. I've 'been there, done that', proved it works on my own cars & now run a successful buisness building these setups. I used to post why it works till I was blue in the face. Do some research on my 'theories', I no longer post those things on the net. (buisness reasons)
(for some of my in-depth cam theories do a search on '93PONY' here: http://www.ls1tech.com/forums )

You do your thing, I'll do mine. If you want to see how my 'theories' work, all you've got to do is head out to the dragstrip. There's plenty of fast cars out there that run our setups.

The reason I got on you so hard is simple. You post as if your was is the only way..... And some of your posts are just plain....hogwash.....I'm trying to be nice here so...I'll just leave it at that. I don't want to 'school you' on this public forum. Feel free to stop by the shop if you have any questions.

Believe me, there are 1000+ different ways to build a Boosted 5.0. Sure, some ways work better than others, but it's up to the owner to decide what route they want to go.

Experience is the BEST way to figure out what 'works' and what doesn't. I applaud you for posting your experience, however I highly doubt you have much in the realm of Boosted 5.0's, or 331's vs 347's (boosted or not), rod to stroke ratio's, camshafts, etc, etc. At least not nearly as much as a LOT of folks around here & on these boards.

Check out the links when you have time. I'm sure you'll find them interesting.
 

---

Posted by bwkelley76 (Member # 8792) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 93PONY:
bwkelly76,

I have no need to teach you my 'theories'..... I've spent FAR too long on here over the years preaching. I've 'been there, done that', proved it works on my own cars & now run a successful buisness building these setups. I used to post why it works till I was blue in the face. Do some research on my 'theories', I no longer post those things on the net. (buisness reasons)
(for some of my in-depth cam theories do a search on '93PONY' here: http://www.ls1tech.com/forums )

You do your thing, I'll do mine. If you want to see how my 'theories' work, all you've got to do is head out to the dragstrip. There's plenty of fast cars out there that run our setups.

The reason I got on you so hard is simple. You post as if your was is the only way..... And some of your posts are just plain....hogwash.....I'm trying to be nice here so...I'll just leave it at that. I don't want to 'school you' on this public forum. Feel free to stop by the shop if you have any questions.

Believe me, there are 1000+ different ways to build a Boosted 5.0. Sure, some ways work better than others, but it's up to the owner to decide what route they want to go.

Experience is the BEST way to figure out what 'works' and what doesn't. I applaud you for posting your experience, however I highly doubt you have much in the realm of Boosted 5.0's, or 331's vs 347's (boosted or not), rod to stroke ratio's, camshafts, etc, etc. At least not nearly as much as a LOT of folks around here & on these boards.

Check out the links when you have time. I'm sure you'll find them interesting.

---

I'm sure you have no concept regarding the extent of my knowledge or my experience and I bet that intimidates you doesn't it? You like to boast about yours and assume about others, that I can see and it's a really bad idea.

Not the best way to be a successful icon in the industry I'll assure you that. There is much more to business than proving you're right all the time.

Let me get this straight, you're a professional and successful high performance shop owner that wastes his time on forums arguing with "hogwash"? Correct me if I'm wrong here. You should be above that entirely which clues me in that you are either arrogant or don't have that much shop owning experience. If my theories don't fit your "realm of knowledge" feel free to state why. I'm still waiting.

What we are talking about is basic theroy and although there is a thousand ways to build a motor it does not change the basics behind the build. There is no "Top-Secret" ideas behind basic thoeries.

I'm embarrassed for you in one sense and proud for you in another. It's great that you've "risen above preaching" since NOW have your own business as you say.

...Wait, it still sounds like you're preaching to me. I know man, it's a hard habbit to break isn't it?

I wonder if they have "preacher's annonymous" ..anyone know? I think this boy needs some help.

Being a "successful" business owner NOW as you say, you NOW have the opportunity to throw together your theories and test them out in the real world. That's awesome! Preaching days are over so let them go. Go for it and I'm rooting for ya.

On a professional note I will give you some friendly advice and I speak from experience. If you're promoting a business promote your business. Don't promote your "secret" ideas by putting others down, especially without supporting your arguement.

Relax. Don't push too hard initially. Get some years behind you and you'll find you don't need to preach as much. Your product will speak for you as word of mouth travels, assuming it's as good and cutting-edge as you say.

Just remember all it takes is ONE unhappy customer and one engine-build gone wrong, and you will go down in history with the rest of the failures that were great at being arrogant with nothing to back it. Don't let yourself be a statistic like many have.

Just because someone doesn't agree with you it's not the end of the world and it doesn't mean you're a dummy either. No one is calling you a dummy. ..although I feel your proving yourself to be less than professional at this moment.

So don't worry man I'm sure if your motors are all you say they are you will look back on this day as trivial at best. Good luck with your new business and leave the basics to the rest of us since you've risen above that now.

(Seriously, give a cocky man a business and they just get cockier.)

[ January 04, 2009, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: bwkelley76 ]
 

---

Posted by Casey90GT (Member # 6175) on :
 
I think we've gotten way off the topic of running an E-cam 4 degrees retarded. Maybe the Moderator could come lock this post now? No need to waste CA Fords bandwith with an internet pissing match.

93PONY & bwkelley76...I really appreciate all of the advice that both of you have shared. Thank you very much.
 

---

Posted by svfreerider87 (Member # 5748) on :
 
This was a good read. Made me LOL.
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
bwkelly76,

Prove your 'theory' on 331 vs 347.
Show me an all-motor 331 that makes more average power than this all-motor 347:
(that's over 400RWTQ from 4250 to 6000RPM)
Car runs 10's on 18" Drag Radials....& has been running this combo for 5 years.



Please note it's a local CaFords car...tuned at our shop, so I have first hand experience with the setup.
 

---

Posted by bwkelley76 (Member # 8792) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Casey90GT:
I think we've gotten way off the topic of running an E-cam 4 degrees retarded. Maybe the Moderator could come lock this post now? No need to waste CA Fords bandwith with an internet pissing match.

93PONY & bwkelley76...I really appreciate all of the advice that both of you have shared. Thank you very much.

---

You bet and I hope hearing from both sides of the fence helps ya a little with your decision, or if you just think we're both jerks that's cool too.

Sorry to let a spat ruin your thread, not the intention. I just get a little sidetracked when people say my words are "hog-wash", etc. ..That was uncalled for.

Good luck on your build and let me know how things go for sure and what cam you choose, etc! I'm eager to know the outcome.

Sometimes people forget it's your car and your project as well as your thread!

SO my sincere apologies!

Ultimately it's your decision and your business in the end what you do. Whatever you chose I'm sure you have your reasons and I hope for a great outcome.

You have a great platform with the 331 if you chose to go with it, and good luck with the blower and cam combo, etc.

You're welcome to shoot me a pm any time if you just want to chat or maybe rack my brain a bit on your build. I have plenty of experience with Fords and if I can't answer your questions I can lean on my colleagues a bit and get some solid info for ya. I'm no genius nor do I claim to be.

Hope your holidays were great and good luck in the new year! BK

[ January 05, 2009, 07:07 AM: Message edited by: bwkelley76 ]
 

---

Posted by Yellow94GT (Member # 431) on :
 
That dyno graph looks insane for a 91 octane 347! Oh wait, that's my dyno graph!

I'm sorry bwkelley76, but your 331 vs. 347 rants are just not correct. I don't really know what to say that hasn't been said.

Real world results speak for themselves. This isn't a combo from the east coast that hasn't been seen by any of us, or something along those lines. This is my car. Plain and simple. It runs with the best of them, on a national level and I'm SURE you will not find a 331 with the same build that will be within a few car lengths of me at the end of the 1/4, given the same vehicle weight, of course.

I'm afraid you have called out the wrong person in this post. 93Pony is a top notch mechanic and engine builder. He knows what he is talking about. Not from just being "in the game", but from being on the cutting edge of what makes fast cars FASTER.

You also will not find a more mild, yet potent setup then 93Pony's car. Which happens to trap 140 MPH in 1/4 and still have stock street manners. Think about it. 0 to 140 in 10.0 seconds, 15 psi, drives like stock. Pretty bad ass setup, by anyones standards.
 

---

Posted by bwkelley76 (Member # 8792) on :
 
Thank you 94 GT and you're a stand-up guy for defending your buddy. If you're looking for a reply on here from me regarding this subject you're not going to get it.

I've stated my theory on 331's as well as my theory on your buddy's attitude, as well as apologized to Casey on both of our behalfs for jacking his thread.

Please respect Casey's request and stop posting unless you have something to ad about the E-Cam retarded 4 degrees in a 331.

This thread is not about your 347. Subject closed.

[ January 08, 2009, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: bwkelley76 ]
 

---

Posted by Yellow94GT (Member # 431) on :
 
eh, Casey's question was answered along time ago. We can continue bsing here if we want.

At least we're talking tech in the "tech talk" forum!
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
& If you're thinking Drew's 347 is a 1 in a million freak (it may be ), but there's another 10 second N/A pump gas 347 in town. Here's a magazine writeup on her entire build: (BTW, it now puts down 442/395RW)

http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2005/10/BuildersNotebook/index.php

But, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe bwkelly76 is right. We should toss these 347's in the garbage & build 331's for they're superior power output due to rod to stroke ratio.

Slowhoe's N/A 331 ran the same heads/intake as Drew's 347. His setup put down good #'s for an N/A 331 at 360HP/370TQ....& ran high 11's at 116mph in the 1/4. That's 1 second & 10mph slower than our 347's.... Real world comparable setups, in real world conditions.

Next thing you're going to tell us these 347's burn a quart of oil every 500 miles...

Seroiusly, you obviously know a LOT about mustangs & motors, but there are some things you just can't learn in school. You've got to get your hands dirty & try a few different things (and sometimes fail just like the best of us.) Win or lose, if you pay attention & keep at it, you'll learn something valuable.

Nobody knows everything about everything. I learn something new every day. (Drew can atest to that. LOL) Motors we built 4-5 years ago, we'd build differently today. Does it mean they were bad setups? No, not at all, just that our setups would be slightly different if we were to do it again today. Simply because the more we do, the more we learn & refine our skills & technichs.

Stay in school, learn all you can, & keep your eyes & ears open out there in the working world. One day, you'll be a billy-bad ass just like Drew.
 

---

Posted by Casey90GT (Member # 6175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 93PONY:
& If you're thinking Drew's 347 is a 1 in a million freak (it may be ), but there's another 10 second N/A pump gas 347 in town. Here's a magazine writeup on her entire build: (BTW, it now puts down 442/395RW)

http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2005/10/BuildersNotebook/index.php

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Casey90GT:

quote:

---

Originally posted by 93PONY:
& If you're thinking Drew's 347 is a 1 in a million freak (it may be ), but there's another 10 second N/A pump gas 347 in town. Here's a magazine writeup on her entire build: (BTW, it now puts down 442/395RW)

http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2005/10/BuildersNotebook/index.php

---

A Victor 5.0 Intake and A/C lines...now those are two things you don't usually see in the same picture.

---

Blows cold too. Beleave it or not it idles in traffic with the A/C on at 700RPM....rough as hell, but it idles. LOL
 

---

Posted by 86- 50 (Member # 4723) on :
 
bwkelley76, if you know so much why are you building a 14 second motor as we speak, and trying to school a person who built countless amouts of 9 and 10 second motors and tuned a lot more. maybe you need to sit back and learn people and how this board works before you keep sounding like an ass.
 

---

Posted by 86- 50 (Member # 4723) on :
 
bwkelley76, if you know so much why are you building a 14 second motor as we speak, and trying to school a person who built countless amouts of 9 and 10 second motors and tuned a lot more. maybe you need to sit back and learn people and how this board works before you keep sounding like an ass.
 

---

Posted by 514 Mullet (Member # 7402) on :
 
Not everyone cares about going fast. He has a classic mustang. What is your excuse? This thread is proof that none of you are able to hold an intelligent conversation over the internet where you feel the need to make yourselves look better than the next person. When really, at best, you won an internet war on cafords.
 

---

Posted by 86- 50 (Member # 4723) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 514 Mullet:
Not everyone cares about going fast. He has a classic mustang. What is your excuse? This thread is proof that none of you are able to hold an intelligent conversation over the internet where you feel the need to make yourselves look better than the next person. When really, at best, you won an internet war on cafords.

---

Not like i need to tell you this but I'm running 12 flat all motor, And a 150 shot thats on but havn't been used yet. And I'm no engine builder by a long shot, and I'm not coming on here telling one how to build a motor.

[ January 09, 2009, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: 86- 50 ]
 

---

Posted by JohnB (Member # 969) on :
 
No need to get spun up fellas, it's all gravy.

Casey, hope you got the answer you were looking for. Personally, I'd dump the 331, the E cam, and throw a stroked 351w in it.
 

---

Posted by Yellow94GT (Member # 431) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnB:
No need to get spun up fellas, it's all gravy.

Casey, hope you got the answer you were looking for. Personally, I'd dump the 331, the E cam, and throw a stroked 351w in it.

---

 

---

Posted by bwkelley76 (Member # 8792) on :
 
Casey pretty much already got his answer but I'll allow him to speak for himself on that.

I think it's funny that everyone keeps plugging a dead thread. I really have no need to say anything nor do I care but I'm a little bored at the moment so here goes. I can rattle on about nonsense just as good as the next guy.

I like the stroked 351 Idea actually, depending on which combo you use, it's actually not a bad combo. Obviously too much motor for what Casey wants, as may even be the case with the 331.

The only reason any of this even started was because I stated that the 347 was not my choice of motor and "Superman 347-boy" decided to become the poster child and defend it, and then boast about his buddy's combo and called me out on the table and tried to prove me wrong about why "I" like the 331 better than the 347. How can someone prove me wrong about my own preference? LOL

It's my opinion, if you don't like it move on. I believe I stated my case quite well, especially with casey's needs in mind.

No one has told anyone how to build a motor here either.

As far as my education goes I appreciate that you folks are interested in what I'm doing in my project/fun class while I further my automotive knowledge and experience. My past experience can speak for itself and most of you will never know what I've done over the years as I feel no need to brag about it. My future experience has plenty more to come.

Just because I'm currently back in school don't be too quick to judge my abilities either. I hope you all enjoy my thread about the '65. More to come by the way. It's a work in progress and I actually saved it from an engine builder that thought bigger was better and just bolted on a bunch of parts and tried to kill it.

I didn't "chose" a 14-second setup for this car either as someone here proclaimed. If the thing runs 14's as-is I'll be quite happy. If you read up I'm building the car up with what it came with and I'm taking lemons and making lemonade. As one person has already said on my behalf, it's a classic 'stang with quite a few more focuses than the motor. I'm not the one that brought it to the thread. Actually thanks for doing so those of you that did, it shows I just might actually know something about cars. lol

If you wanted to compare apples to apples then I could reference my 331 project on my '90 LX from 6 years ago. It was unlike any 331 you have ever seen and the internals would shock the meager. But personally I haven't felt the need. I'm enjoying watching fools act like fools much better. I usually only talk about my competitive projects to my friends and those that seem interested, and NEVER use it to brag and prove someone wrong. That would just be let's say "cocky"?

That car in my build thread is by no means going to see the race track on a regular basis if at all. The car is a real POS. I bought it that way and once I get it back in good safe running condition, depending on how well it all goes, I may just donate it to my lady-friend or just drive it on some short cruises on the weekends. ..or just say the hell with it, tub it, cage it, and put a real motor in it. Who knows what the future may bring. All that matters to me is I"m capable if I want to make it a race car or whatever I wanted to. For now it's uncertain.

For now I have fun tinkering with my toys and telling smug people they are full of shit when they act like punks and interrupt what I'm trying to tell someone that has a question directed at my experience.

By the way, I haven't heard any stories of 331's that 93 has built in comparison to a 347. I've heard a lot of "so-called" comparisons but no engine is the same just due to bolt-on parts. Just because two engines have the same or comparable parts does not meant they are a match in their potentials. Combination is EVERYTHING and a 331 combo will be different than a 347.

What it boils down to is I guess some of us stick with what we are partial to and only put "extra love" into what we think is "cool". To each their own and that's cool for the average joe. Shop owners have a tendency to limit themselves if they don't like something, and seriously what's not to like about a 331? 347's have had their "lists" of problems and although they have come a long way they still have a tainted past. So from time to time you're going to hear bad opinions about the 347. That does not give anyone the right to jump all over them and brag about "the one near you". lol.

I must advise any shop owner to keep an open mind the next time a 331 comes into their shop because if that person knows they don't like 331's they will not be too interested in bringing it to them. The fastest way to kill a specialty business is to focus too much on one thing, put down people or even worse tried and true equipment with a blemish-free past time. I've NEVER until now been told a 331 was a POS by any shop owner especially. Now 347's, that's another story. It's like telling someone a chevy 327 is a POS, or hell even the 283. They lasted forever and won a lot of races in their day and if someone wants to use one today they can still brag about how well it will hold up next to "Joe Shmo's 383 stroker"...LOL.

Most of all what cracks me up about all of this is I have no reputation to uphold nor do I care what anyone thinks. That's my life, that's how I live it and hell I don't have a shop to run.

No disrespect to anyone either and to quote someone else it's all gravy here. I've made plenty of friends due to my "opposition" to said person's boastful info, and quite frankly I'm glad I didn't lie back and let "Mr. Wonderful" tell me how I should like my motors. I'm by no means the only one that thinks he's smug and promotes "bad business" either. Too bad for him, and well, it doesn't really matter to me.

Some people brag and some don't, and the ones that don't brag have more business and in the end more friends.

I've met many a genius successful engine builder and most of them are stand up individuals and know how to be professional and laugh at the thought of new business owners that run around forums trying to win arguments and try to prove their theories instead of working hard at pleasing their customers and learning a thing or two along the way. Some folks just know way too much to crack a book, too. I used to be that way, I know!

93 you have a long way to go and good luck in your future as a business owner. I must warn you however the "buzz" around the forum world is not the best and I hope it doesn't effect your business in the long run. I'm sure you're a heck of an engine tuner and a genius engine builder. Use it to better yourself, not to prove the guy wrong that very well may have used his retirement to have you build his hot-rod. If you piss him off he wont give a crap how much you know and he'll take his money to someone else.

Remember for every 1 person you piss off, there are 10 that would rather not do business with you. Another frame of mind I will always obtain is no one cares how much you know until they know how much you care. Think about it.

I have no reason to build engines and line my pockets to prove my theories like some folks do. I do what I do in my own leisure and for fun. I'd rather watch what the jackasses do and learn from their mistakes when their customers come to me to fix it. Especially since i"ll do it for fun and a 6-pack of beer on most occasions. That's mostly how I've learned what I know in this business.

Also just a foot-note from the wise to the cocky, any technician that claims they haven't had a comeback or failure has an asshole lined with gold or they screwed up so bad no one will bring it back to them...LOL There is rarely a middle ground. ...and a personal thanks from gents like me and my employers for the business in the past and the future for said screw-ups.

SO I have an idea if Casey is for it, we can change the name of this thread to "How many broken 331's are out there?" and once few or NONE reply we can change the name to "How many broken 347's are out there?" and really have some fun.

What do you say Casey?

[ January 11, 2009, 05:17 AM: Message edited by: bwkelley76 ]
 

---

Posted by 86- 50 (Member # 4723) on :
 
Not to keep the thread going, but i believe 93 pony has a 331 in his turbo car. You might still want to take my advice.

[ January 11, 2009, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: 86- 50 ]
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 86- 50:
Not to keep the thread going, but i believe 93 pony has a 331 in his turbo car. You might still want to take my advice.

---

It's a 333ci (.040" overbore) actually.

& it only runs 14mph faster in the 1/4 than my wife's 10 second pump gas N/A 347...

And it doesn't have an E cam either... LOL

BTW, we run 331 pistons in the wife's 347. 3.4" stroker 'kits' HAVE come a long way......but rod to stroke ratio is not the reason.



[ January 11, 2009, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: 93PONY ]
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
For bwkelly76:
I pulled this out of an old CHP catalog.

Read carefully. 12 years ago the 'problems' with 347 kits were solved. Keep up with the times....

So..... when you post up that 347's are a 'POS' motor & 331's are 'better' due to misc reasons based on pre 1996 347 stroker kits, don't be surprised if someone corrects you.



[ January 11, 2009, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: 93PONY ]
 

---

Posted by bwkelley76 (Member # 8792) on :
 
No one said the 347 was a POS, nice assumption but please don't put words in my mouth. It has a tainted past unlike a 331 and it's not my choice of rotating assemblies. That is all that was said.

The 347 was actually a great idea for an engine designed to stay under 5500 rpm that makes good horsepower and torque, however it has serious limitations in terms of longevity. You will not see it being used in any endurance races reliably. I'm sorry to say they took a step backwards shortening the rod instead of perfecting the oil-control problem the right way. It's a cost thing, trust me on that, and we'll see how well they hold up in the near future and I must say I'm a little nervous.

What many folks don't know is Ford professional racers made a similar motor when they were tinkering with the Boss engine back in the '70's. They perfected the oil control problem back then but it also failed as a good alternative for the same cost reasons.

331 pistons (the latest combo) in the 347 fixes the oil control quickly and cost-effectively, however it's not the best move for rod-to-stroke ratio at all, and I know from experience the stock 5.0 block doesn't like the extra side-loading. One good hick-up and that block will split open like a melon. I've seen it.

I'm aware of "the times" when it comes to the 347's and the leaps and bounds they have made over the years. Definitely better than the first gen in some aspects, (mostly customer satisfaction and cost) however still not my choice of rotating assemblies, especially not in a standard block.

I'll just throw something out there for ya. I really have nothing to prove and I'm sure some of the more intelligent folks on this site would appreciate this next combo.

It's a good "alternative" outlook on the idea behind the 347 versus the 331. By the way anyone familiar with the Shelby Super Car? Not Carol Shelby, the other Shelby. It has a low-cube twin-turbo setup and puts out over 1000 horsepower. Its engine is based similarly on a combo I've designed which may or may not be the one I'm about to share. you can investigate that if you wish.

Just a note...

It's nice to have a complete custom engine machine shop and an engineering crew at your disposal m-f 8-5. The facility I used in order come up with and test the following combo as well as a few others holds the only true CNC of it's kind in California so I'm sorry I can't divulge it's location or give too much info.

Some of the engineers there have purchased a few of my ideas so I also have to be sure not to give out too much info and spoil their plans for some new and upcoming Ford engine combos. I hope they make them to production. Also keep in mind this next combo was tested vigorously in "real-world" combos and on the racetrack. Rumor has it one of my engineering buddies has one in his SCCA race-car.

"Back in the day" since I'm such an old fella with "old-school" knowledge as some of you proclaim, I designed a 331 rotating assembly with an early 347 style piston with a custom made pin-button and pin for oil control, in combo with a 5.565 rod. (some of you may know what production motor that rod comes from, and NO this was not the ordinary piston button used on the original 347 kits you can still buy today). It was custom-made in our facility and it actually worked and solved the 347 oil-control problem.

On this combo rev-limits on the bottom-end increased to well over 7500 rpm reliably with a stock 5.0 block and made more power and torque than any 347 I have ever seen. (Don't ask to see dyno sheets, they were sold with the plans and I can't specify any numbers to ya)

The cubes of a 331 in combination with slower piston speeds from the long rod were perfect to use an AFR head (not disclosing which) to flow air at that rpm and beyond, giveing great high rpm horsepower and great low-end torque. ...Little head, lots of rpm potential, etc. Scarry thought?

Depending on your application street/strip or road-course, this combo is a perfect setup that is flexible enough to make awesome power in all 3 worlds naturally aspirated, giving the proper heads, cam, etc for the application.

One can also combine it with different supercharger and turbo combos to make different power bands and the motor design was versatile enough to accept them all. If someone really wanted to go nuts they could use a Boss block and heads and rev it up to over 9000 rpm. ..not necessary accept for Indy...LOL.

The more "common" setups everyone is tinkering with now are good platforms and they perform well in a fairly small window of performance. What the future holds is more versatile bottom-end combos that you can "choose" your horsepower by the parts you bolt onto it. Not the opposite where we are fighting to find the right head and cam choices that our bottom-end likes.

So for me on the street If I needed more cubes than 331 I'd much rather use a 351 based stroker. The 351 block is much stronger and the block-height allows for better options.

I think the fact that 93 is running a 331 rotating assemble should speak for itself. I'm sure he can whip a few more ponies out of it as time goes on also, and I'm sure he learned a little more from that 347 combo he worked with. Every tuning experience should allow a little education.

Have fun all and keep an open mind. Cheers.

[ January 12, 2009, 04:28 AM: Message edited by: bwkelley76 ]
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bwkelley76:

I've NEVER until now been told a 331 was a POS by any shop owner especially. Now 347's, that's another story.

---

BTW, you write too much.
Lets go to the track....I'll bring an all-motor POS 347 & you bring an all-motor POS 331.
After we have some fun, you can chat my ear off all you want over a few beers.
 

---

Posted by BCINGUU (Member # 2397) on :
 
Wow, what happened to this topic! Looks like it was HIJACKED! Well in that case here's my $0.02...

I :heart my 347 motors, all three of them!

I know, I know, there are differences of opinion on longevity and design, and I know they produce a lot of heat, but you know what they say - love is blind!


 

---

Posted by bwkelley76 (Member # 8792) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by 93PONY:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bwkelley76:

I've NEVER until now been told a 331 was a POS by any shop owner especially. Now 347's, that's another story.

---

BTW, you write too much.
Lets go to the track....I'll bring an all-motor POS 347 & you bring an all-motor POS 331.
After we have some fun, you can chat my ear off all you want over a few beers.

---

Still didn't say the 347 was a POS.

..I much prefer the idea of pin button as a "fix" for the 347 oil control problem, however they didn't hold up as well as expected and some would actually twist the oil control ring and score the cylinder. OUCH! The one we made at the facility worked flawlessly and is still running today and it gets beat on regularly.

So my question would be "if the button fixed the problem then why are the NEWEST 347 designs now using a 331 piston and shorter rod?" ...It didn't work because they didn't engineer them correctly, although it was a great idea. Sorry, it wasn't fixed "years ago" it was ditched for the newest "push the envelope with a 347" idea. Definitely a step backward for the 347.

93 trust me if I had the cash and time to waste and step up to your challenge I would love to. You have to wait in line. My ideas bring up plenty of controversy and I have a list of fellas like you that think they can beat everything I design. It's just the business and I haven't lost a challenge yet. One by one they have been proven wrong if not by me, by my colleagues. Maybe some day I can work something out with my engineer buddies and we can take one of my custom 331 designed short-blocks and throw it in a drag-car and play. I'll also see if I can't get access to some of the dyno sheets for ya but no guarantees. ..Assuming you're even interested. But like I said no guarantees. I would be taking a step backward in my engineering and racing experiences just to prove someone wrong over a pushrod motor putting out 5-600 horsepower. My interests lie more in the 1000+ hp range these days. 10-second 1/4 mile times really don't tun me on that much anymore.

Pushrod motors are not where it's at. ..Yet I get acused of not staying up with the times. I love it.

That 331 was an 8 year old project and I've since moved forward in my engineering tasks. Not to take all of the credit, and due credit given to the others that helped with the project, I was way ahead of my time in that 331 design and decided to pass it on to the engineers at the facility since they liked it so much. I was already moving on to modular motors at that point. ..Hence the 2 projects I took on that followed, 2001 and 2004 Lightnings I personally owned. (Thats another thread)

So have fun with your pushrod motors and you can preach all you want about what power they make and how you tuned them, etc. But I promise you everything has been done already and your numbers have been surpassed, and The 331 I built 8 years ago made your buddy's 347 look like a mouse.

I don't mean to ruffle feathers or compete with anyone's challenges in making the best power out of a combo. I commend you all and I'm glad you're having fun. Meanwhile I have my reasons for disliking certain combos and wont sit around and be ridiculed for my opinion.

You don't like to read apparently and I have plenty more I can write to make you look like a fool. It's up to you if you wish to continue but personally this is getting redundant and you're not going to give up until you make your point. Shall I just go against my knowledge and agree with you so you shut up?


That's a compromise I can make.

..oh and I'm always up for a beer or two, or hell 3. ...BTW this is all in fun and I hope no one has gotten their feelers hurt. Some of my best arguments have led to the best of friendships. ..And some folks just hold a grudge. Que Serah Serah.

....In reply the "I heart my motor" statement. I also had a motor I loved back in the day and everyone swore against it. It was a Chevy short-rod 383 stroker, one of the earlier ones that usually went "kaboom". Mine never blew up until after I sold it to an idiot that ran diesel fuel through it. LOL. (another story)

To each their own. After knowing what I know now I would never own another one of those and will still not run a 347. I like having peace of mind that my engine will last and it's design is not in question.

[ January 12, 2009, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: bwkelley76 ]
 

---

Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on :
 
Seriously?

All I see are words.....put up or shut up.

Prove it at the track like the rest of us. The internet is just that....nothing but words.

Our cars are at the local track on any given weekend getting driven to/from the track & beaten on regularly. Anyone can find these cars on the CaFords fastest list...(if they look)

I (like a lot of others) don't take 'words' at face value. I'll believe it when I see it with my own eyes. We've got multiple high powered pump-gas 347's that have run VERY strong for years...& all through that time we've not seen one 331 come close.

We HAVE seen a very nice small headed carburated 347 run door to door with us however! That was from another shop that works in conjunction with CDT (Custom Dyno Tuning) & I must give credit where credit is due. They built & tuned a very nice performing N/A 347!

There are literally thousands of STRONG running 347's that have lasted years and thousands upon thousands of miles.

I HIGHLY doubt an ARC student has more technical knowledge and experience than say....Mark O'Neil (one of the owners of CHP/Probe).

Oh...& I'll take you up on that Beer any time.
 

---

Posted by bwkelley76 (Member # 8792) on :
 
Oh no I'm being challenged. Boring man, really boring. Sounds like a clip from the movie American Graffiti, or better yet Fast and the Furious. I can't remember exactly what happened though, I think I fell asleep during that part.

This has turned into a battle of who's more compulsive even more-so than a battle of whits and it's become quite LAME. You win the compulsive award.

I shall move on.

Look my friend, (Sean I believe it is) I don't use engines that others have tuned and built to prove my point first off, nor do I claim they have been running at their present horsepower peak for their entire life when they only have been running those numbers for a short time. Third and foremost I don't run around forums trying to defend my title. You're right, leave it to the track, you obviously have better luck out there.

I know what you're up to and I see right through ya. You're not going to get my goat and convince me to a dual over a stupid engine combo that is obsolete these days anyhow. I've moved on with the times and I have no interests in polishing terds with you. I already made my point, I've already made more power out of a 331 than your buddy's 347, and you still push. Go cry yourself a river, I'm really not interested in playing your game any longer. If you're smart you'll take the info I gave you on one of my 331 combos and run with it. It's a much better terd to polish than any 347.

Have fun with the business. I'll keep you in mind at my next discussion at the facility and I'll see if we can't donate a real engine to you as I'm sure you will test it to it's "full potential" since you are such a top-notch tuner. The engine will come with a placard stating "To the World's Most Cocky and Compulsive Tuner". ..although I do have a friend back home that may still take the cake on that one. I should introduce you two, you could talk for hours about how your ass-holes don't stink.

Meanwhile keep your personal attacks to yourself and quit trying to size me up because my opinion wavers from yours. You have no idea what I know and you'll never get enough info out of me to be able to know.

My time at ARC is to obtain on paper what I've already been working with and earned over the last 16 years, as well as a few certifications I need to renew in the automotive field. Education is a constant thing and occasionally I have to go "back" to a community college to renew things if I'm not going back to teach there.

Don't be too quick to judge someone who is furthering their education, or in my case renewing my education, and especially don't attack the facility they choose. Apparently you've never accomplished formal schooling or you'd know community college isn't just for dummies. Its ok man I know plenty of drop-outs and under achievers and I don't judge. You're all my pals. But they sure do like to judge each-other and I laugh when they call the kettle black.

My time at ARC is my fun-time. In combination with my certification classes, I take a project class for fun while obtaining my Masters in Engineering at another college. But that's OK I don't mind being considered an "ARC student" or "ARC Teacher".

Just a word of advice that I learned years ago. Don't ever put down a designer or engineer for their struggles and achievement unless you've earned the degree yourself. Yes I'm aware there are many out there that have never turned a wrench and don't know what it's like to slave in a shop. Those fellas have short careers.

Unlike some I've done it the right way and paid my dues first, being a certified technician for 16 years first while doing engineering on the side. I'm apparently good enough at it that I have the opportunity to chose the high-road. So please don't ridicule. It's better pay, better conditions, a lot more fun, and I can still tinker and tune for fun any day of the week, and I'm recognized for my past experiences.

I'll see you in the next 10 years, or actually you'll see me and you'll remember, when I'm making over 6 figures stamping my name on your customers' parts, and you're still a struggling shop owner tuning push-rod motors and challenging everyone to a race and a beer that doesn't agree with you. I hope you last long enough.

Hang in there and good luck. It's good times. I've been in your shoes, I've owned my own Dyno shop. It's fun at times but hard as hell others. I wouldn't trade a minute of my experiences. Although I loved my business I got smart and sold out once there were 5 other dyno shops in a 10 mile radius. Every racer from here to there thought it was their turn to try and tune. I made a killing when times were good but I had better money coming in elsewhere anyway so I moved on and sold everything for more than I paid. Life's about change and I made more friends than anything, and I NEVER put anyone down or challenged their knowledge along the way. Instead I kept my mouth shut and learned. <----- you should try it sometime.

You never know when you may have to move to a new place where no one knows you or even cares what you know.

Toodles my new friend, I'm sure I'll see you around.

[ January 13, 2009, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: bwkelley76 ]
 

---