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

Posted by Jimmie from ? (154.11.37.175) on Friday, November 05, 2004 at 2:24AM :

In Reply to: Re: 302 vs. 302 H.O. and a lil on strokin' posted by cgrey8 from dialup-4.154.3.251.Dial1.Atlanta1.Level3.net (4.154.3.251) on Thursday, November 04, 2004 at 9:03AM :

Registered Ranger

Check this series of articles, talkes about heads mostly but there is also build up details if I remember correctly:
http://www.airflowresearch.com/articles.htm

A guy in town built the 392 stroker based on the article, it was pretty wild. I think it's just easier to buy a stroker crank package as they have different stroke length and the pistons are different too.

Jimmie

: Since this won't be my 1st engine build, I am looking at something other than stock for the engine including aluminum heads, EFI (which I haven't done), and an 8.8" limited slip. I was concerned about axle hop as well, and since you mention that it IS a real problem on your truck, I'll just assume I'll need to put traction bars on the leafs...

: I'm not looking for serious top-end power, I just want something with some strong torque but geared high for decent fuel economy at cruising that's why I was thinking T5 w/3.23:1 RE.

: The research I've been doing on the 302 long-arm is that they require SBC (Small Block Chevy) rods. This requires 5.565" rods from a 400 SBC. The catch is the 302 Ford crank's rod journals have to be cut down for the radius of SBC rods. Since SBC rods are wider, .011" has to be cut off the sides (.0055" per side) to narrow them up. What I haven't found is aftermarket rod bearings that fit this narrower rod. That's going to take some more research, or I could just get the rod, piston, ring, crank package for just under a grand from Speed-o-motive.

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

: Like I said, the big motivation here is to get stronger torque on 87 octane and no ping. Super Chevy has run articles where they did something similar with SBC 350s and long arms pushing 400+ horses on 87. I'm not looking for that much power, but if I build the foundation right, who knows what the future holds...

:
: As for those ratio formulas, send'em on. Right now, I'll take any/all information I can get to help me make decisions BEFORE I begin purchasing parts.

: I've got one more semester of college (Graduate end of Spring) before I'm out with a Masters in CS. Once I'm out, I'll have the time (and hopefully a raise for my efforts) to begin this project. Until then, I want to collect ideas, and get criticism/critique from others to help me make the best of my time and my efforts once I start. All of you guy's input so far has been very helpful. For that, I thank you and hope it keeps comin'.

: Chris

Follow Ups: Post a Followup Name: E-Mail: ( default ) Subject: Message: : Check this series of articles, talkes about heads mostly but there is also build up details if I remember correctly: : http://www.airflowresearch.com/articles.htm : A guy in town built the 392 stroker based on the article, it was pretty wild. I think it's just easier to buy a stroker crank package as they have different stroke length and the pistons are different too. : Jimmie : : Since this won't be my 1st engine build, I am looking at something other than stock for the engine including aluminum heads, EFI (which I haven't done), and an 8.8" limited slip. I was concerned about axle hop as well, and since you mention that it IS a real problem on your truck, I'll just assume I'll need to put traction bars on the leafs... : : I'm not looking for serious top-end power, I just want something with some strong torque but geared high for decent fuel economy at cruising that's why I was thinking T5 w/3.23:1 RE. : : The research I've been doing on the 302 long-arm is that they require SBC (Small Block Chevy) rods. This requires 5.565" rods from a 400 SBC. The catch is the 302 Ford crank's rod journals have to be cut down for the radius of SBC rods. Since SBC rods are wider, .011" has to be cut off the sides (.0055" per side) to narrow them up. What I haven't found is aftermarket rod bearings that fit this narrower rod. That's going to take some more research, or I could just get the rod, piston, ring, crank package for just under a grand from Speed-o-motive. : : : : http://www.speedomotive.com/ford_302_long_arm.htm : : Like I said, the big motivation here is to get stronger torque on 87 octane and no ping. Super Chevy has run articles where they did something similar with SBC 350s and long arms pushing 400+ horses on 87. I'm not looking for that much power, but if I build the foundation right, who knows what the future holds... : : : : As for those ratio formulas, send'em on. Right now, I'll take any/all information I can get to help me make decisions BEFORE I begin purchasing parts. : : I've got one more semester of college (Graduate end of Spring) before I'm out with a Masters in CS. Once I'm out, I'll have the time (and hopefully a raise for my efforts) to begin this project. Until then, I want to collect ideas, and get criticism/critique from others to help me make the best of my time and my efforts once I start. All of you guy's input so far has been very helpful. For that, I thank you and hope it keeps comin'. : : Chris Optional Link ( default ) URL: Title: Optional Image Link ( default ) URL: