the edel heads get knocked a lot for their modest flow, but as some know, heads that flow the highest numbers do not make the most power. the edel heads have the modern chamber in their favor, and if not put into a situation beyond their capability, why wouldn't they make good power? i haven't read the article but it sounds like that bottom end is an a$$ backwards mess. while i don't think the rod should've gone shorter than stock, i think the long rod hype is BS. if it was "all that" Jon Kaase would've used a longer rod in his 335 EM entry. a long rod increases dwell time at TDC, reducing low lift flow. a short rod causes higher piston speeds on both sides of TDC, improving low lift flow and causes a different dynamic during overlap. the difference is said to be extremely minimal though, but long rod engines generally require less timing advance so i believe it does have measurable effect. i'd also like to see a non-chevy built Ford go up against that bi-polar build.

 

Had they used a common 351W, 4.25" stroker crank instead, it would have already been made for the SBC journals so the rods wouldn't need narrowing and the counterweights wouldn't have needed trimming, and the balancing would have been cheap/easy, and the 50 oz balancer and flexplate wouldn't have been needed, and all the pulleys wouldn't have needed spacing and the block wouldn't have to be decked .027 because the piston would have been .025 higher in the bore and they would have gained an extra 5 ci and a little extra power for their trouble. AAAaaaahhhh!!! Sometime you just want to smack these people.

What's the upside? The Edelbrock heads and intake took 83.5lbs out of the motor making it less than 500lbs. With proper quench, a better flowing intake and a smarter build I feel this combo was capable of making nearly 550HP and almost 600TQ, so... maybe these heads aren't really as bad as most people think?

Here's the quick fix. Take the motor apart and sell the crank, flexplate and balancer to some guy with a 351W block.
Buy an Eagle 4.25" stroker 351W crank, a Rollmaster timing set, Edelbrock Air-gap Cleveland intake, and Price Motorsport intake spacers. Rebalance and reassemble everything.

Now you have a 436 stroker with .045 quench distance, 11.3:1 compression, making the really impressive horsepower & torque I've already mentioned. Whaddya think?

 

Sounds like an interesting article; I'll have to check it out .. . . Speaking of articles, some of you may be interested in checking out the "How to build a low-buck 351M/400" article, in the May '06 issue of 4x4 Builder. 329hp/461tq with mild mods.

2¢

 

May '06 issue of 4x4 Builder. 329hp/461tq
http://www.compcams.com/Community/Ar...p?ID=447229289

Guess who, Ken Troutman again.

 

I have to get a copy of the Hot Rod magazine. I want to plug the numbers into the simulator and see what kind of Dynamic CR that they have, and what the low end torque looks like.

 

I have waited awhile to give a comment on this article, and reread it over a few times to try and understand the ways.

The is a need for both long and short "rod to stroke ratio". Our open class unrestricted engine will run a shorter "rod to stroke ratio". But then our 2-bdl restricted engines will run a longer "rod to stroke" ratio". The shorter ratio of this build is the reason for the extra torque, but the ratio is way to short for pratical longevity. If you talk to most piston builders, you really don't want to get below 1.5:1 ratio. This one is a ways below that.

Normally when you are building a performance engine, you try and keep it as "internally" balanced as possible. They took an engine that is normally 28oz ext balanced and made it a 50oz. Yet they still added mallory metal. I think if you are going to add metal, do it all then. They could have at least made it back to a 28oz balance, and use the correct balancer. Or gone a little furtherand made it all internally balanced.

302 balancers do not fit the "335" series crankshafts, so there was some extra machining of somthing, somwhere that they did not mention.

I tried to add up the price of his stroker kit, but there is a lot of machining that is needed to have to figure for????

Extremes??? aluminum heads, H-beam rods, roller cam and yet bone stock timing chain set, gasket set and head gaskets.

I am a little confused, but I would have no doubt the Edelbrock is behind it a little. After all They have 1 of the 2 available intakes for this engine yet their new heads have fallen a little short, and not gotten the attention the CHI heads have in the EM contests.

Hopefully a few, quick and hopfully unbias opinions.

 

anybody want to weigh in on that article in 4x4builder. I would be real happy with those results for my truck. Is it reasonable or backwards. I'm looking at several different builds and also contemplating a build discussed with tim at tmi. Thanks.

 

I read the 4x4builder article, and while it doesn't sound bad, I think I would rather stick with TMI. Tim definitely knows his Fords, is a sponsor for this site, and has an excellent reputation around here. Alot of guys have put their trust in him, and I have yet to hear anything bad. I think you could get similar power figures by using a set of TMI pistons, eliminating the decking of the block (which avoids geometry problems),and you could use a flat tappet cam, such as a CompCams XE series cam, and probably save yourself some money too. Tim also addresses the oiling problems, which I didn't see mention of in the article. It's only my opinion, but for my money, when I'm ready to do my build, I'll be going to TMI.

 

I do appreciate the feed back, I have been doing this for 22 years now. BUT I do not know everything!! I try to always keep an open mind and to always learn when possible.

I am tring to learn on trying to find that fine line of "over kill" and not enough and it breaks.

For example, I really insists on installing the 4-bolt steel caps on our stroker engines. I have seen a number of blocks with broken main caps whenyou starts breaking the 500# of torque mark. Now realize this is also when there is plenty of traction. So there are times where it may seem over kill, but yet I sure hate broken parts.

In the case of the Hot Rod article, I think the price difference may be closer than you think to our kit when it comes right down to it. Then when you add the quality of the parts, I think (in my bias opinion) our kit is more economical.

We have a forged crankshaft, H-beam rods and forged pistons. Our kit also includes a billet timing set, and the entire assembly can be internally balanced. Entire rotating assembly is considerably lighter also.

Here's the question, if we supplied a cast crankshaft, and I beam rods, would his be an assembly you would feel making over 500 HP and Torque??

I have been considering an assembly ike this, but really question the reliability.

 

Oh don't get me wrong, I've spoken to Tim and looked at his site and posts. I do not deny he knows his stuff, I have every intention of getting what i need from him. I just have not commited to what i want, or need. It is just a work truck, i like it and want it nice but at the end of the day I'm going to throw a cord of wood in it or a skid of block, or hook up a trailer and drag around my hot rod. So I sometimes lose sight of that and start thinking of big numbers, rather than get the job done. I might also mention I have a good friend who is a life long ford guy, with lots of old cars and trucks in his history. His exact quote was "dont waste your time on that 351m, it was Fords largest mistake. You can throw all the money in the world at it and still have a POS." Then i tell him well i really want to make it a 400. His reply" okay i misspoke the 400 was fords biggest mistake ever." So I'm also driven by a desire to show him that a 351m/400 is more than a match for a windsor and anything else he would like to compare. I would like to shove it up his a##. Which ultimately leads to my losing site of my desire to have a dead nuts reliable and capable work truck.

 

I'm just looking for reasonable builds to model mine after. 325 horse and 400+ ft lbs is probably right on the money. I'll have to look through the forum at some of the other guys engines and trucks.

 

should be no problem achieving both your goals. 3 1/4 horse from 400+" sounds like a stock 4bbl from back in the day, should be pretty easy to better that build without breaking the bank.

was the cam listed in the "May '06 issue of 4x4 Builder" build? i tried 3 times but it doesn't load completely on this temp box running dial up...PITAPOS

Tim, our wallets love to hear things like that but you know that it's foolish optimism to think a cast crank is going to live a long reusable life at that power level. i don't think i'd compromise my reputation to temporarily satisfy customers. let the others supply the grenade crank kits and the bad rap, then you'll get the calls to pick up the pieces. ~of course that's just my opinion, i could be wrong~

 

I like the 4x4 build, it's mostly a stock type build but with a roller cam. Should be almost as cheap as a stock rebuild. I like the cam specs, although I'd want slightly more LSA. It's like they took a flat-tappet cam profile and put it on a roller cam.

I suspect you could get over 250 hp and 400 ft/lbs torque with the stock 2bbl just by advancing the stock cam and tuning the distributor.

 

The 400 is my favorite Ford engine. Of course I drove a lot of cars with the 1971 version engine which was real popular because of it's torque. I also drove Boss 429s, 351C both 2V and 4V, 351W, boss 302s, regular 302s all of the ordinary FEs and I had a 500HP 390 at the time which was during that 1965-1971 period which was the height of the hotrod years. That said, in 1972 and after, everything about the 400 went to the dogs and that is the engine most people remember. Of course ALL the other engines went to the dogs also but people don't remember that. There was only one year of the 400 that was memorable and many years of other engines that were memorable so guess what, -most people don't remember the 400 as anything but a dog.

I have a few parts already for my 400 like Ertel pistons but they may just go on eBay. I have looked around KC over the years for a machine shop but finding anyone that knew fords was a problem. Most machine shops have an attitude like: "It's only an old POS Ford, slap it together, and who cares." Tim will be building my engine also and will be supplying about everything except the Scorpion rockers that I bought a long time ago.

 

I can't put my finger on it but there's something a little off in the HP area of that 4 x 4 build. The cam was a hydraulic roller, 216/220@.050, .538 lift, 110 LSA. Shouldn't peak power come in higher than 4200 rpm? Best power with only 34 deg advance? Not even 9:1 compression with open chamber heads. 329HP isn't bad but not really as much as I've come to expect with this kind of combo.