289 vs 351W (383) engine weights

[blueovalz]

I finally got the 289 out of the Z and compared its weight with the 383 (351W stroker) that will replace it. These weights include everything a running motor needs (except for the T-5 transmission itself). This includes entire induction system (carbed), plugs wires, water pump, pulleys, damper, flywheel, pressure plate and disc, starter, and headers.

 

For information, the heads are aluminum on both engines, the intake is a Victor Jr on both engines, the headers are medium length 1 3/4" headers on both engines, the flywheel is aluminum in both engines.

 

What is different is the 383 has a heavier oil pan (9 quart baffled road pan verse the OEM 289 oil pan), and the 383 has the heavy (5/8" thick) Canton main girdle which the 289 did not have. Both of these added about 14 lbs over the comparable equipment on the 289.

 

Engine weight:

289 = 454 lbs complete.

351W (383) = 513 lbs complete.

 

 

My expectation was that the Windsor motor would add about 75 lbs to the car, but it looks like it will in reality will only add 60 lbs. 94 additional CID for a 60 lb penalty.

[WHP]

Great post! Rarely do we get real apples to apples comparisons. At work we used to say- In God we trust, all others bring accurate data.

[blueovalz]

Just a note that seems obvious, but I'll not assume everybody knows. The 289 is comparable in weight to the 302, and can for practicle purposes, be considered identical weights in terms of the long block.

[Kevin Shasteen]

Terry,

 

Thanks for the post.

 

Which cylinder heads did you decide to go w/for your stroker?

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[pparaska]

And at 1.2 to 1.3 hp/ci, your adding something like 120 hp, assuming the same performance / build philosophy for each engine.

 

That's 120 hp for 60 lbs. I doubt you were near 2hp/lb before the swap, so the hp/lb is now a significantly higher for the car.

 

Now all you have to do is find 60 lbs on the car (and/or driver! LoL) in the right locations and your 120hp stronger and still weigh the same.

[blueovalz]

Yeah Pete, weight (mass) is everything when it comes to performance. It killed me to put the heavier pan and girdle on the engine, but ya gotta do what ya gotta do. One thing I wrestled with was a comparison of added weight from a super or turbo charging system, its complications, etc verses the added weight of a N/A motor. Then there was the issue of how this added weight will effect the handling of what I consider is "very good." Who knows, but I'll find out before long.

 

Kevin, the heads I decided on was the AFR 205 model. I considered the 225, but I was concerned the 225s would be too big for my goals of nice torque on the lower side, the cam I had, and other parts. It appears that AFR has a nice head that promotes good flow and velocity with a seemingly smaller port volume. Well see if they were a good choice.

[rudypoochris]

Just a note that seems obvious, but I'll not assume everybody knows. The 289 is comparable in weight to the 302, and can for practicle purposes, be considered identical weights in terms of the long block.

 

 

That 289 was not built off of a 5.0L HO block though, correct? So there is some difference in weight between the newer 302 HO's and that setup? Or am I misguided?

[Kevin Shasteen]

Terry,

 

I believe you made the right choice on your heads and will be very pleased.

 

I know you like the high rpm rev'g engine - so more curiosity; what cam profile did you choose and which SCR did you decide on?

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[blueovalz]

That 289 was not built off of a 5.0L HO block though, correct? So there is some difference in weight between the newer 302 HO's and that setup? Or am I misguided?

 

There are some differences, but I consider them very minor (I believe perhaps .030 deck height difference, and the roller lifter difference) in regards to weight. I think the largest weight difference (It may be only a pound or two) is between the early and late 302 cranks (28 oz and the 50 oz). I believe the later cranks are a little lighter.

 

 

Terry,

 

I believe you made the right choice on your heads and will be very pleased.

 

I know you like the high rpm rev'g engine - so more curiosity; what cam profile did you choose and which SCR did you decide on?

 

It's a little conservative as well. It is a 246/256 at .050", 110º separation, and a .660" lift solid roller. The pistons were cut on a lathe for a 3" x .100" dish to reduce the SCR from 11.8 down to 10.3. I'm thinking (and I'm not much of a thinker sometimes) that this should pull well up to about 6800, maybe to 7000.

[Kevin Shasteen]

Terry,

 

I knew AFR were the best flowing heads on the market; but I was shocked when I checked out the cfm charts for AFR's. Those heads really flow well!

 

I'm betting your engine will put out a peak rpm 520-550 hp at the very least, and according to the rest of your engine package, that 520 is very conservative.

 

The flow numbers of those heads indicate @ 300 cfm after deducting .150" from your cam lobe lift. If the cfm to hp formula has any truth to it, then your engine should be in the 600hp range.

 

I'm thinking the 10.3:1 SCR may hurt the 600 hp potential...., but the 10.3 should be a lot more friendly to the pump gas factor.

 

1) Is the give or take 550 hp range close to what you were expecting?

2) Once you get it tuned properly are you going to have it dyno'd?

 

I cant wait to hear your comments once the engine-car is up and running.

 

I am sure I dont have to press you for a response after you have test driven it do I?

 

Kevin,

(Yea,Still an Inliner)

[blueovalz]

Kevin,

 

The HP/Tq range I'm expecting is based upon some HP calculators as well as 1st hand experience from the guy that sold me the camshaft. The camshaft was a back-up (duplicate) cam for the Jegs Engine Masters annual challenge (who place 2nd in his catagory). With the components listed, and based upon his performance during the competition, and based upon his 408 CID motor, the participant felt strongly that I should be able to stay above the floor of 500 lb/ft of torque from 2800-5800 RPM using my parts and components. He said the cam was not designed for peak torque, but instead designed for peak average torque.

 

It's kind of a different direction than I'm used to (small,lighter displacement using high RPMs), but after doing a lot of reading, and listening to a lot of folks, I think the torque route is going to be a better path. The guy that sold me the cam told me that I shouldn't have a problem with pulling all the way to 7000 if that was what I wanted to do, but said it would work better to shift before 6500 with what he knew about my configuration. In answer you your question, based upon expectrd torque and RPM, the it does appear the HP figures of mid 500s will be possible.