When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I read things dead on. I can't help it when you try to put down something then get called on it. Maybe you need to take more time to comprehend things you wrote. Are you that slow in this area, or did I miss something? My build? Which one ? Now, you want to contribute something relevent to this thread, you haven't yet.
Last edited by baddad457; Nov 5, 2007 at 09:29 PM.
BD457, the 80 to 100 lb-ft increase is there, you're not looking in the right place. Rather than looking at the peak torque in the Motor's manual, you need to dig up and read Mercury's testing from 1965. Look at the torque values at 1000 rpm, and at 1500, and 2000. Thats where you'll find the big fat torque increase, right where a pickup truck will feel it and love it. It isn't just about peak torque, but about area under the curve, and the shape of that curve. Stroking an FE gives you lots more of everything a truck needs. DinosaurFan, on work's cast off old 'puter
I read things dead on. I can't help it when you try to put down something then get called on it. Maybe you need to take more time to comprehend things you wrote. Are you that slow in this area, or did I miss something? My build? Which one ? Now, you want to contribute something relevent to this thread, you haven't yet.
There's NO SENSE in Trying to Match Wits With an Un-Armed Man !!!
My 390 never seemed to have enough torque on the hills. If I could get a decent run at them I'd do all right but otherwise I was downshifting. This is with a 3.73 in the rear, pulling a trailer that weighs around 4500lbs. Everyone is always ranting about the power their 390 has and I was just never that happy with mine.
Specs
1970 F250 4x4 Crewcab Weight~6800lbs
390, NV4500, Dana 24, Dana 44/60 (was np435)
Engine fully rebuilt 40,000miles ago
full machine package including balancing
KB 150 pistons
Crane 901cam (tried comp 268H first)
stock D2TE? heads with pocket porting
stock 4V intake
600 holley
pertronix conversion and coil
headers
dual exhaust
Are the KB150 pistons only available in one compression ratio? Its been a while but I don't seem to recall ever being able to increase my timing enough to detonate... I can measure it and figure out the CR when its apart right?
When I did the 5 speed it would barely pull 5th even empty. Maybe I'll change the gears back to 4.10s (or deeper?)
What about the intake? Heads?
The reason I'm thinking about the stroker is I had oil getting in my antifreeze?!So it needs to be torn down anyway...
I never said it didn't, I was simply pointing out the $2000 cost for that extra torque, when a 390 has plenty to start with.
No question the 390 is an excellent truck engine as-is, and most people are content with that. IF someone does want to increase it, such as the gentleman that started this thread, it would be difficult to get a better bang for your buck than a 4.25 stroker kit. Reliability under normal conditions is minimally effected, and the gains are all where a truck needs them.
You make an excellent point, stroking an FE is pricey, but if he was going to replace pistons and rings anyway, the real cost of the stroker is probably around $1200, compared to a normal rebuild. So it's not as bad as it seems.
-Scouder
Also, both of you guys need to back away from the brink for a minute, before somebody vaporlocks. We are all friends here.
You can back figure it. I ask this question earlier in the FE section. I requested a certain CR when I had my machine work done years a go, and was wondering if there was a way to check it. Compression / 14.7(sea level) = CR ball park. If you know what you atmospheric pressure is you can fine tune the 14.7. This is done with all plugs removed, and throttle wide open.
You can back figure it. I ask this question earlier in the FE section. I requested a certain CR when I had my machine work done years a go, and was wondering if there was a way to check it. Compression / 14.7(sea level) = CR ball park. If you know what you atmospheric pressure is you can fine tune the 14.7. This is done with all plugs removed, and throttle wide open.
This is not a flame. 25 years ago I came up with a similar formula to the one you just posted. It really does sound good on the surface, and I assumed it would work. Unfortunately it doesn't take into account the bleed down from different cam profiles. If you took my 12:1 engine and did the test you just mentioned it would give you a false low reading that would be huge. I'll bet it would show under 9:1. Intake valve closing and overlap figures will make the same engine with different cams show MAJOR differences in "calculated" CR. This is the basis for dynamic compression ratio calculators, and why the cam manufacturers suggest higher and higher static compression ratios as cam size increases. Bigger cam = lower cylinder pressures, so you increase static CR to compensate. Truthfully the ballpark static compression result on any given engine using your formula would probably not be in the ballpark!
Back figuring compression is one of those things we all experience that looks good on paper but falls short in practice.
Over lap kill the formula, well know. But on a stock cam it puts it in the ballpark. But you can start and run the engine on 7 cyl and get a number that is closer.
I don't - and can't get into a commercial p'ing contest on the forum here - - but I've seen that kit advertised....and wondered whether they've ever really built or balanced one of these at all. They ALL take at least two slugs of mallory to go neutral, meaning that they'll need to add $100-150 to the balancing cost, which is already noted as costing $200 extra down in the fine print. You end up paying nearly as much as it would cost to get real brand name stuff, instead of cheaper yet knockoffs of already inexpensive parts (Hawk sounds like Eagle, CAT sounds like Scat, etc ).
The steel cranks are the same ones I buy in bulk, and actually come from RPM. They seem to be OK forgings, but are dimensionally marginal. Its not that they are all bent, or all tapered, or all out of round. Its that they are all some misc combination of some or all of the above. Not consistant. Since I've run the Scat cast cranks at a well documented 750+HP I can see no reason to use anything else in a moderate application. I take the steel ones, invest in remachining them, and offer them as an upgrade for those applications where they make sense - road race & endurance.
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Slideshow: Called the Fortress, the 850-horsepower pickup combines Raptor underpinnings with military-inspired features, survival equipment, and a starting price of $285,000.