Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin'

Posted by cgrey8 from dialup-4.154.6.193.Dial1.Atlanta1.Level3.net (4.154.6.193) on Wednesday, November 03, 2004 at 1:47AM :

In Reply to: Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. posted by Jimmie from ? (154.11.37.175) on Tuesday, November 02, 2004 at 11:09PM :

Registered Ranger

It's funny you mention the 331 and 347 strokers. I was just looking at them tonight.

I was originally looking at getting the 302 long rod package (KB pistons, with Chevy 400 5.565" connecting rods) since the longer arms get a better performance with pump gas due to improved dwell times. Because the arm angles are lessened due to the length, the engine inherently produces more torque (generally speaking).

http://www.speedomotive.com/ford_302_long_arm.htm

But then I started looking around at the stroker packages for about the same price and got to thinking...why not? Since I don't know why not, if you know more, I'm all ears...

I will enjoy setting all this up in my '89 Ranger, but I want to make sure the plant I install can do 250hp+. I'll be sorely disappointed with something that's only slightly better than the 4.0L I have in my '97 Ranger. It's got some tow-torque, but it sux when it comes to trying to pass someone. Terrible performance and fuel economy, I'm 0 for 2 on it. LOL

Malcolm answered a number of my "And More questions..." via email today.

http://www.v8-ranger.com/messages/1651.html

I'll be posting his responses to the board tomorrow. However one thing he mentioned is that his truck's T5 1st gear is almost useless because it's so low. It revs, and before your moving good, you need to go to 2nd. He also indicated that 5th doesn't lower the RPMs that low either. He has 3.73:1 RE, so I'm thinking a 3.23:1 limited slip...I'll get a more useful 1st gear and a lower 5th which SHOULD improve the fuel economy at cruising speeds. The catch is the engine's gonna have to be built torquey enough to handle that...

Chris

Automated Logic Follow Ups: Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - Jimmie 2:56AM 11/04/2004 (5) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - cgrey8 2:31PM 11/04/2004 (0) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - cgrey8 9:03AM 11/04/2004 (3) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - dave 10:13PM 11/05/2004 (1) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - Jimmie 4:13AM 11/06/2004 (0) Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' - Jimmie 2:24AM 11/05/2004 (0) Post a Followup Name: E-Mail: ( default ) Subject: Message: : It's funny you mention the 331 and 347 strokers. I was just looking at them tonight. : I was originally looking at getting the 302 long rod package (KB pistons, with Chevy 400 5.565" connecting rods) since the longer arms get a better performance with pump gas due to improved dwell times. Because the arm angles are lessened due to the length, the engine inherently produces more torque (generally speaking). : http://www.speedomotive.com/ford_302_long_arm.htm : But then I started looking around at the stroker packages for about the same price and got to thinking...why not? Since I don't know why not, if you know more, I'm all ears... : I will enjoy setting all this up in my '89 Ranger, but I want to make sure the plant I install can do 250hp+. I'll be sorely disappointed with something that's only slightly better than the 4.0L I have in my '97 Ranger. It's got some tow-torque, but it sux when it comes to trying to pass someone. Terrible performance and fuel economy, I'm 0 for 2 on it. LOL : Malcolm answered a number of my "And More questions..." via email today. : http://www.v8-ranger.com/messages/1651.html : I'll be posting his responses to the board tomorrow. However one thing he mentioned is that his truck's T5 1st gear is almost useless because it's so low. It revs, and before your moving good, you need to go to 2nd. He also indicated that 5th doesn't lower the RPMs that low either. He has 3.73:1 RE, so I'm thinking a 3.23:1 limited slip...I'll get a more useful 1st gear and a lower 5th which SHOULD improve the fuel economy at cruising speeds. The catch is the engine's gonna have to be built torquey enough to handle that... : Chris Optional Link ( default ) URL: Title: Optional Image Link ( default ) URL: