blueovalz

I had a great deal of success with one that I built in '85. I used the 2 barrel Cleveland heads, with the iron exhaust manifolds, and the B&A intake manifold specifically made for this set-up (I don't think they make this manifold any more). Periodically I see these intakes on Ebay, but they go for $300-$500 dollars when they do turn up. Anyway, the 302 ran very well and strong with this set-up.

Nice link. Tough to say based on what I saw. It appears this size tube was used on nearly every engine combination shown (except two).

Only an opinion, but I believe you'll need a little more flow or rpm to make full use of the 1.75" tubes. I run mine occationally to 8000, and the 1.75" tubes I have are most likely too large for my 289 as it sits. I plan on the same header tubes for the 351w in the future.

I believe they also benefit upper rpm power as well.

My understanding is that ITBs require larger openings due the lack of a plenum to draw from during the intake charge. This may explain why increasing the plenum size on a typical V8 intake helps. How this relates to lengthy runners prior to that plenum is another question. On to another question: At 12 lb boost this would be 1.8 atmospheres. Would this then require a 2.7" TB in order to pass the same amount of air than the 2" TB (this has 1.8 times as much area) passes at 1 atmosphere? Would the argument about carb size be applicable here? A 600 cfm would work, but an 800 cfm may work better because it will restrict airflow less than the 600. Perhaps at a specific pressure difference (vacuum), the 600 would be enough, but at a lower pressure difference less air will be allowed to flow past the carb restriction, and thus at these lower pressure differences, wouldn't the larger carb allow the additional amount of air into the engine because it is less restrictive? Grumpy sent a link on this a while back, and it was quite interesting.

The power steering is a nice feature with: Fat tires Added caster Shorter Steering arms (quick steering arms) Smaller steering wheel Tight slalom racing The more of these you have, the nicer power steering gets!

I'll take a stab here. Check the comments I've added to the photo. Also, notice the red vertical reference lines and how they are referenced to the middle of the curve for the splitter. These lines are not the same distance from the headlight bezels due to the appearance that the bottom of the dam (splitter) has been pulled toward the driver's side of the car (the double white lines on either side that run parallel to the dam's grill openings reinforce that thought as well as the orange vertical lines on the outside edges of the dam). The parking light position referenced the red lines is also mismatched. The combination of all of these things attributes to a slight "wappyjawed" appearance, which should be easy to remedy.

I know that there are rubber plugs over the mustache mount bolts, but not with these. If you have a welder, you may be able to drill a hole (perhaps 1" or bigger) from the top of this subframe (from the interior of the car) and weld the captured nut back to the subframe. At this point, even if you get careless with the welder (and weld the bolt onto the captured nut), you could then drill out the bolt and clean up the threads to be back in business.

Nice ignition!

That there is what life should be all about!

Yes, I will stay N/A at this point in time. The potential (power verses cost) for these strokers is so inviting that I'm not considering any power adders.

A 351W (and I am making reference to the Windsor) can be built, using the readily available stroker kits, to anywhere between 383 to 427 CID. These values would allow 500 hp on a N/A motor without the turbo. The stock configuration (stroke/bore) 351W with a fairly mild 10 PSI boost should push you past 500 HP as well. I'm going with the 383 as it has the best RL/Stroke ratio (6.25" rods). To me it will be a good compromise of torque, power, cost and longevity.

Looking forward to seeing your progress.

My ideas for the car did not come out of a vacuum, and neither will yours or anybody elses. Do what you like and don't be concerned about a "copy" as I certainly will not. Wheels and tires are 17 X 11 with 315/35ZR17 tires. A bit big, but usable with the custom body because I was able to raise the wheel arches to make them look normal in respect to the body.

:oops: Enough! I'm only a small nail in the house of hybridz. Thanks DavyZ

I fabricated it out of fiberglass. It was my "summer" project 2 years ago.

Thanks for that enlightening post. :2thumbs: Too bad you don't make yourself more usefull on this site BTW, the stroker has a little more SCR, and a little more cam (in spite of the larger displacement), so it appears I'm headed in the right direction. Thanks again for the great post!

I'm kind of neutral on this. It's not offensive in my eye, BUT I don't see any connection with the theme of this site. I suppose I categorize this as Non Tech "entertainment".

I considered this at one time. I would consider moving the parting line down from the top of the arch because the portion of the fender remaining solidly attached to the body would have a very sharp edge just about where you would lean up against it for maintenance.

To the best of my recollection, the LeMans cam was a mid .500 lift, 238 I/232 E at 050" cam (funny that it had more duration on the intake). The heads I'm running are the old Alan Root J302 heads (has the Cleveland style exhaust bolt pattern). They were one of the very first aluminum SBF heads (came out in the late '80s), and back then, they did not advertise intake port volume. All I remember about them when I bought them was that they were the best at the time, but a lot of improvements have been made since, so I would say they are mid pack heads now days. These heads are coupled to a Victor Jr intake, 1 3/4 equal length headers, and a 780 DP. It pulls hard to 7500, so I think I pushed the peak of the curve too high (plus the mixture was too rich that day, WAY too rich). Anyway, these same parts on a larger motor will help lower the peaks a bit. Static CR is 10.2 My objectives: Well, I was hoping for closer to 340+ at the rear wheels. I'm taking a little different approach (away from the high winder) and looking for more usuable torque in the stroker.

My T-5 behind the SBF is within 1/2" of the original shifter's location and the surrounding shifter body is below the surrounding tunnel sheet metal

Just goes to show what we are ALL capable of doing. In a hurry, I've done worse (leaving all the lifters out of the block after installing the intake manifold and dropping the the pushrods into the block. My excuse was a neighbor asking a bunch of questions while I was assembling the motor.

My understanding is that only the rear end (differential itself) was moved rearward (not the arms). This modification straightened out the geometry of the half-shafts. I've looked, cut, and inspected several control arms and found that differences were in material thickness and support for the inner pivot tube, but basic shape and strut placement are identical. This issue of the wheel placement being forward of an ideal location is not new to many members. There was a string on this issue not long ago showing photographs submitted by many member's showing the wheel forward in the wheel well. I don't know if any real solution or cause was ever found other than adjustable control arms. I think there was some discussion about factory alignment tolerance in drilling the spindle pin holes in the strut boss that would cause excessive toe-in, but I don't think this could account for moving the wheel forward as much as some of the photos indicated. the 45's will give you roughly 1/2" less sidewall, and depending upon the tire, less bulge at the section width, which is where I assume the rubbing located?

The best cam I ever ran for all around great performance was the original Ford "LeMans" cam (produced in the late '60s). I ran it for over 30 years in over a dozen cars and aways ended up putting it back in after trying other cams. The last one that I tried (and am currently using) is an Ultradyne cam, and was the only one that made me give up the LeMans cam.