Dr. Larry,
You are correct. When Ford added a little meat to the bottoms of the
cylinders for the extra .130" of stroke in the 302, it was to basically
keep those long skirt pistons from slapping when they were cold. A lot
of things have changed in the last 45 years since that happened. The
newer slipper-style pistons have less skirt so they are shorter. The
pistons for the stroker kits are even shorter. The differences between
the 289 and 302 block are not usually noticed, and in the case of a
3.400" stroke (347) using a 289 block means less material to notch for
rod clearance.
I have just completed my third stroker engine made from a 5-bolt 289
block. The previous one was built with a 3.250" stroke Scat forged crank
and SRP piston set and went into a friend's '65 GT350R clone. That
engine has seen two solid years of 7000 RPM abuse at various open track
days without a hint of bottom end issues. If you want your engine to
last, use the best components, pay a little extra for careful assembly
and good balancing, and make sure the sump keeps the oil around the
pickup no matter what g-forces you are seeing!
Bugz
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Mayfield
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 9:42 AM
To: tigers@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: [Tigers] tiger blocks
forgot to delete the trailer...
Now, a quick calculator manipulation shows me that the stroke difference
betwen a 289 and a 302 is a whopping 0.13 inches. Yup, just barely over
a 1/10 of an inch. I don't think there is a care in the world about
that.
Let's hear from some of the folk who have made strokers from their 289
motors and see what the real experience is vs supposing. Any takers?
mayph
_______________________________________________
Tigers@autox.team.net
Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
|