300 crate engine coming
Thread Starter
|
Freshman User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 27
Likes: 2
From: Bend Oregon
wow, I finally posted a thread that got some action. let me say that I'm not too sure either about the claims by clifford about their max hp/tq numbers. I have been reading this forum intensly for about a year now, planning a build on a 300. My conclusions were that without my own dyno to run years of testing and a machine shop to fab or mod parts that are not existing, that there was only one best solution. That was to go to the only guys out there that focus all their energy on i6s. I am going with their 264 cam for the best low end. And even though the efi comes at a premium, it should run just about upside down, not to mention being tunable at the push of a button. I really dont think it could be done much better than this package. Am I willing to prove this on a dyno? Who knows. clifford is the one who has everything to prove. I am pretty sure that I will be pretty happy when ever I turn the key. I will sure let everyone know how it turns out. By the way do you all know that this system also converts the ignition to electronic. All I have to do is buy a dizzy for an '87 efi 4.9 from localparts store and no messing with advance springs. Sounds pretty cool to me.
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,556
Likes: 5
Originally Posted by dijera
wow, I finally posted a thread that got some action. let me say that I'm not too sure either about the claims by clifford about their max hp/tq numbers. I have been reading this forum intensly for about a year now, planning a build on a 300. My conclusions were that without my own dyno to run years of testing and a machine shop to fab or mod parts that are not existing, that there was only one best solution. That was to go to the only guys out there that focus all their energy on i6s. I am going with their 264 cam for the best low end. And even though the efi comes at a premium, it should run just about upside down, not to mention being tunable at the push of a button. I really dont think it could be done much better than this package. Am I willing to prove this on a dyno? Who knows. clifford is the one who has everything to prove. I am pretty sure that I will be pretty happy when ever I turn the key. I will sure let everyone know how it turns out. By the way do you all know that this system also converts the ignition to electronic. All I have to do is buy a dizzy for an '87 efi 4.9 from localparts store and no messing with advance springs. Sounds pretty cool to me.
Are you referring to cliffords efi setup, if so, I can save you about $1000+, go ponder over the megasquirt efi controller. Then think about how you can combine, current OE efi parts with a carb intake to make one helluva fully programable efi setup.
Is the clifford efi sequential or batch fire?
Actually, it would probably be a whole lot cheaper just to find an efi 4.9 complete with ecm, do the mods you wish, then just dyno the truck and work with a company to burn you a chip for the stock ecm, there are companies out there willing to work with you, last I checked it was $200 and they would reprogram the chip for free until it was right. Endless tuning sounds good but in reality, you should only have to set it and forget it. Just my useless two cents.
Last edited by Motorhead351; Sep 10, 2005 at 08:08 AM.
Postmaster
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 3
From: Broken Arrow, OK
Originally Posted by optikal illushun
weiand mad/kes an intake for the 300?
Postmaster
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 3
From: Broken Arrow, OK
There's really no need for a dyno sheet to determine if this is possible or not. On an average street engine you need about 1.5 cfm of airflow for each hp you make. The 300 should be less than that because it doesn't suffer as badly from parasitic losses as most engines. At 3000 rpm and 100% volumetric efficiency (a number that won't be approached by any 300 at any level of modification) a 300 is capable of moving 260 cfm, enough to support about 175 hp at that rpm. 175 hp at 3000 rpm gives you just over 300 ft-lbs. In order for it to make 450 ft-lbs at that rpm it would have to be efficient enough to require only 1 cfm/hp AND it would have to run at 100% VE. Those two events are mutually exclusive in the world we live in. If the VE was dropped to about 92% and the airflow requirement was about 1.1 cfm/hp (both realistic, but difficult to achieve) you could conceivably get 400 ft-lbs at 3000 rpm. It is also true that a dyno operator can make the dyno tell you anything he wants it to. Not all dyno numbers are created equal.
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,556
Likes: 5
Originally Posted by Silver Streak
The 300 should be less than that because it doesn't suffer as badly from parasitic losses as most engines.
The valve train functions like any v-8 configuration.
More mains = more drag, no?
Last edited by Motorhead351; Sep 12, 2005 at 10:40 AM.
Postmaster
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 3
From: Broken Arrow, OK
There's more than one type of drag. It does have 2 more mains, but it also has 2 fewer rods, so there are the same number of total bearings as anything else. The 300 bearings are also fairly small, so the total bearing area is probably less as well. There are two fewer set of rings to drag up and down the bores, and there's not nearly as many pieces inside the engine consuming power. Timing gears are more efficient than a chain, etc. At higher rpms the 300 loses efficiency, but at lower speeds it should be significantly better than average.
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
Top 10 Fords at 2026 Carlisle Ford Nationals
Joe Kucinski
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,556
Likes: 5
Originally Posted by Silver Streak
There's more than one type of drag. It does have 2 more mains, but it also has 2 fewer rods, so there are the same number of total bearings as anything else. The 300 bearings are also fairly small, so the total bearing area is probably less as well. There are two fewer set of rings to drag up and down the bores, and there's not nearly as many pieces inside the engine consuming power. Timing gears are more efficient than a chain, etc. At higher rpms the 300 loses efficiency, but at lower speeds it should be significantly better than average.
The rings still make contact over enough area in a 4" bore to feed 300ci, the # cylinders makes no difference.
You may have a point with the bearings comment, is the contact area less than that of a v-8, given less bearings used?
Last edited by Motorhead351; Sep 12, 2005 at 10:54 AM.
Postmaster
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 3,241
Likes: 3
From: Broken Arrow, OK
It doesn't make any difference how much area they move over because they are always moving. It takes less force to pull 6 sets of rings than it does 8 sets.
Think of it like this: Let's say it takes 10 lbs of force to pull a piston and ring assembly in a bore. A 302 has 8 of them, so it would take 80 lbs of force to move them all. A 300 only has 6, so it would take 60 lbs. Both engines move their pistons and rings through a collective 24" (2ft) of movement. The work required to move them through that movement in a 302 would be 160 ft-lbs, for a 300 it would be 120 ft-lbs. 40 ft-lbs less work is a huge amount and you probably see half or more of that 40 ft-lbs at the crankshaft.
The valvetrain functions the same, but there are still fewer parts moving which means there is less weight flying around and less friction.
Think of it like this: Let's say it takes 10 lbs of force to pull a piston and ring assembly in a bore. A 302 has 8 of them, so it would take 80 lbs of force to move them all. A 300 only has 6, so it would take 60 lbs. Both engines move their pistons and rings through a collective 24" (2ft) of movement. The work required to move them through that movement in a 302 would be 160 ft-lbs, for a 300 it would be 120 ft-lbs. 40 ft-lbs less work is a huge amount and you probably see half or more of that 40 ft-lbs at the crankshaft.
The valvetrain functions the same, but there are still fewer parts moving which means there is less weight flying around and less friction.
Last edited by Silver Streak; Sep 12, 2005 at 11:45 AM.
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,556
Likes: 5
I see it more as time/distance spent.
I see it as a single cylinder 4" bore, it takes X time/distance to draw in 300ci, now you can spread it out over 6 or 8 cylinders but in the end, its gonna take X amount of time/distance to move 300ci.
Hmm...something to think over.
I see it as a single cylinder 4" bore, it takes X time/distance to draw in 300ci, now you can spread it out over 6 or 8 cylinders but in the end, its gonna take X amount of time/distance to move 300ci.
Hmm...something to think over.
Posting Guru
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,556
Likes: 5
Ok, I got it now.. 
From the dyno sheets I have seen, seems a warmed over 300 generating 400TQ is common, and this is either with a cam that peaks higher than stock or generic rv cam, would like to see a custom or a more current cam grind put to use...
then again, I'd like to see a stroked 300 numbers as well.
From the dyno sheets I have seen, seems a warmed over 300 generating 400TQ is common, and this is either with a cam that peaks higher than stock or generic rv cam, would like to see a custom or a more current cam grind put to use...
then again, I'd like to see a stroked 300 numbers as well.
Last edited by Motorhead351; Sep 12, 2005 at 03:11 PM.
