posted                          

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.

---

posted                             

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 ]

--------------------
Dont sweat the petty things and dont pet the sweaty things. "RIP George Carlin"

posted                             

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?

---

posted                             

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

---

posted                             

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.

--------------------
Dont sweat the petty things and dont pet the sweaty things. "RIP George Carlin"

posted                             

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 ]

--------------------
Dont sweat the petty things and dont pet the sweaty things. "RIP George Carlin"

posted                             

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 ]

--------------------
Dont sweat the petty things and dont pet the sweaty things. "RIP George Carlin"

posted                             

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

---

posted                          

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

--------------------
www.advancedenginedevelopment.com
SCT dealer
Dynotuning

(916)715-7569

posted                             

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.

---

posted                                

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.

---

--------------------
AED

1994 GT Bucket that will likely never run
1999 SLOLEEN Twin Turbo Coyote
2008 F250 580 RWHP 1129 RWTQ