Welcome to the 21st. Only took 100 posts, seven pages and the very patient, generous time of a couple of the best engine minds on the forum. Narrowly avoided sub-atomic matter theories.
Please now build to your hearts desire Glen.%/

C21, eh? Thanks Chas. %/ 100? Hadn't noticed, but doesn't time fly when you're having fun? :D
Cheers,
Glen

I hear what Brent is saying and have to agree. By choosing not stroke the motor one is essentially leaving 'free' horsepower on the table.

That being said, I also agree with Glen ... for some people there is something special about the 289 or 302 motors, that goes beyond horsepower. May not make 'sense' but I understand where Glen is coming from and the 302 I had built for my 289 is not stroked, it even has the original iron heads. Mind you there was a lot of attention paid to the heads & internals of the motor ;)

That's one of the wonderful things about these cars & engines ... they are all unique!

- Tim

Next time, you may want to prequel your posts with, "I've already made my mind up, but...." That way we won't spend hours trying to steer you out of a train wreck. :LOL:

lol, but the experienced feedback was good for the rest of us bench-sitting lurkers to read, so temper that mild frustration knowing some of us were taking notes :3DSMILE:

I have a 347. Cam duration is I/E 236/242 @0.050" lift is 0.555/0.575" LSA is 106 or 108. All this is from memory. It has Edel performer RPM heads. Gasket match appears to have been done to the ports. It has Mass Flow EFI, which is a Edel Victor Jr single plane intake with injection bungs welded into it. According to desk top dyno programs it should be in the 400 to 450 hp range, but I feel it is more like 350-375. I need to chip the EFI and work on the tuning. I'm quite sure there is more in it.

By the seat of my pants, it pulls strong all the way to the rev limit of 6500. A 302 would have the same mean piston speed at 7400 rpm. I would say it is close enough to maximum torque that I cannot feel any difference by 2500 rpm. Again a 302 would be there by 2800.

The cam does not smooth out until about 1800 rpm. That would be about 2040 rpm in a 302. Now do to the tuning issues mentioned, at light load lower rpm it is pulling in too much timing. It may smooth out a little sooner if properly tuned.

I have a TKO-600 transmission with the 0.62 5th gear. I had a rear end ratio of 3.5:1 and just changed it to 3.89:1. I like the lower gear ratio much better, all the way around. However I would hate it with a 4 speed, as 60 mph is just under 3000 rpm.

I can be in 5th gear at 1500 rpm and can accelerate up the steepest hills I can find, with ease. So the low end torque is not bad.

So in short, my engine with a 3.0" stroke should be fairly close to what the OP is wanting. I think it would be workable.

I do think the gear ratio he mentioned is way too steep. I would shoot for about 2500 rpm at 60 mph, to keep the noise reasonable. Maybe a little less, but this is going to kill performance. I would strongly recommend a 5 speed. Gearing is going to make a big difference for this engine. If you gear it too steep, it is going to be a dog!

I have no hint of valve float at 6500 rpm, but I seriously doubt it would turn much more. It does have aluminum roller rockers. You will have to have good stuff to get to 8000 rpm.

If you go to a 4.125 bore aftermarket block, that should help the torque a bit, and it will improve breathing on any head by un-shrouding the valves. 321 cubes isn't all that far short of a 331. This should make you happy. When you see some of the 5.0 blocks that have split in two, a better block is a great idea for turning 8000 rpm.

some great advice when you are going all out for horsepower & rpm in a SBF engine, or just want to over-engineer the reliability factor in a mild build-up.

Z.

Ouch!
Brent, The original question I asked was flat tappet vs. roller tappet, and solid vs. hydraulic and you explained that nicely in the second post.
Since then, a variety of posters have been trying to persuade me into building a stroker when I plainly said a number of times that I want a standard stroke 302
Cheers,
Glen

Well, I didn't mean that to hurt your feelings. I said it tongue in cheek and tried to portray that by adding the :LOL:.

You were asking, however, about higher end powerbands, and I feel like you had your mind made up even though you were asking for thoughts and opinions. I was trying to be helpful and I hope you understand that. I've seen a lot of screwed up combinations over the years.

I'm a big boy; I'll get over it...with time :D

Sorry got to ask
 

xb-60 Glenn my understanding is that there where a couple of different 289 blocks forged. The standard block was just that. The 289/ 271 Hp motor was a higher nickle one. I remember this from years ago like some other special blocks. 302 have about 5-6 different blocks with different blends of metal for the blocks. I do know this from a 65 mustang used to race, the stock bottom end will not last long with out 4 bolt mains and a steel crank. If you want to be trick, put aluminum rods in this motor. There is your 7,500 rpm motor block. Control of valve train is going to be high rate springs, top of the line rockers and maybe a bridge support to help control harmonics. IMO solid rollers will make more power overall. flat tappets need wide lobes to do the same thing. output on this motor is still going to be in the high 400 possible 500HP range. Life on the motor is limited to 15-20k miles. Oil pressure at idle will be very important and doing oil upgrades to the block and crank/rod bearings. having oil feed lifters for out the bottom of the lifter to camshaft contact or pressure oiling to the rollers in this kind of lifter. Balance will need to be dead perfect with all componnets balanced togeather. The rule of there is no replacement for displacement works and is just simpler to do with less stress on the motor. good luck with the build Rick L.

Thanks Rick. Interesting stuff. I’ve never heard of using aluminium alloy conrods….how does the strength of the rod compare to a forged alloy steel rod? Their section dims would need to be bigger, surely, and then they lose some of their weight advantage, wouldn’t they?
Agreed, as near to perfect balance as possible is essential for high revs. And don’t forget, I don’t want or need big power. The original FIAs were winning with 380bhp, so 300 to 350 flywheel hp is easily enough (and OK if I find I need more a year down the track, I deal with that at the time). It would seem this thread is already past its use-by date, but what the heck …. so what’s wrong with chasing revs, but not chasing horsepower? Generalising here… what’s the hangup with big horsepower numbers. Is it a geographic thing? So, well and truly established that I’m not after the big horsepower numbers, does that make it easier to spec an engine with good enough manners from 1500rpm to 6500 or 7000? If I use were to use something like Dynatek FI, does that make it simpler?
Cheers,
Glen

not strictly an "auto" example, but vintage Triumph motorcycles, the 650cc & 500cc twins used aluminum connecting rods. So the practice is not unknown. Actually, the bottom cap was steel but the main part of the rod is aluminum.

I have no doubt you will be able to re-create the 289 FIA Cobra to be as original as you want (complete with a 289 engine if's that's your desire). And you will have a blast doing so.

My un-solicited advise is to get it as like the original as possible in every way. Drive it for a while. Then you will know first hand what you want, or need, to change.

Z.

Thanks Z. Good advice.
Cheers,
Glen

they are used extensively in drag racing circles and are life to the number of revolutions they do as they self destruct due to having high rpms, excessive combustion pressures for about 7 or 8 seconds, but the up side is a light rotating assembly accelerates faster, in the lower gear where quite often the limit to the rate of acceleration is the rotating mass in the engine, clutch/torque converter etc

You keep on saying that you won't stroke the 302, yet you want an FIA car:confused:? These aren't even connnected...


Let me be blunt, but it is not meant to be insulting. Look, if Z is right and you are wanting an originalized FIA car then the 302 is already stroked... the car came with a 289... and it was a five-bolt block. You can't have that with the 302:rolleyes:. You've already done what you say you won't do... it's stroked.


Think about what you are really wanting and saying here, because originality isn't happening the route you are going, and at that point you might as well consider all your options if you already have a stroked 289, i.e. a 302;).


I've been having a similar discussion with Brent about a 289 for my USRRC version. I'm looking at building a survivor type car that looks the part. I like what Z is saying here, as it is exactly the route I plan so far. But, I think I plan to go 331 as I want to grab the displacement while it is available (and yes it will be a 5-bolt with a '64 date code). I really like what Kurt did with his, as well as his results:D!



Good luck with whatever you choose!

I've never suggested big horsepower numbers to you....I've suggested USABLE numbers to you. There's a huge difference. I didn't suggest a 347 because I wanted you to chase horsepower, I suggested it because it would help add power down low so that you could possibly rev it a little higher.

If you are TRULY after those specs (1500-7000), then you need a modern EFI engine with variable valve timing. You will never have a pushrod 302 with good manners from 1500 to 7000.

If you aim for a 7000 power level, then you will not have any bottom end. Coupled with that 3.07 rear gear, you will not have any stoplight to stoplight racing because it will take you that long to get the thing going, get into a power curve and get through 1st gear.

Glen, have you ever driven a Honda S2000?

Aluminum rods in street motors
 

xb-60 Glen I know of 2 guys running them in street car. The clearance is important, good oil pressure and IMO warm up the motor before driving any where. Up side quicker spinning motor, down side less bottom end to start car from stop. It's a trade off. Flywheel weight is also important on which way you want to go. The lighter the flywheel the less stored power to move the car. heavy flywheel you can release the clutch pedal at idle and the car will move and not stall. I started with a 40 pound and the car had bottom end torque and can blow the tires off the rims. Now I have a bigger motor and lighter flywheel, still have the same problem of too much bottom end torque. I will advance the cam to kill some of the bottom end. Aluminum rods in a street motor will go 20-30K miles if everything is done correctly. This is a street motor making 250-400 flywheel hp not a top fuel or funny car making 9,000 hp on nitro. Another thought is Honda 1.88 rods. Prostock run them to 9,400 rpms. If money is no issue titanium is the final answer. You are looking for an rpm range, these are some ways to get there. Depend on weight of rods, pistons, bearings, rings, piston pins and oil you can lighten the crank shaft weight to. I will say that a 4 bolt main caps or a gridle for all the caps is needed period. As for 8 carbs or throttle bodies, with the right camshaft, 114 LSA, you will pick up 10-30 hp and about 15-20 ft of torque. With a small motor you shouldn't run out of air in the 7,000 rpm range unlike a 427 BB on 48mm webers where 6,800 is about the limit. Big tricket is getting air to bend into the throats of the carbs and not having a lean condition in the back ones. The air will get dirty the farther back it goes from passing over the other bodies. Pressurize air box helps stop this. Later Rick L.

Yes, I do want an FIA replica but if you check on post #8, when asked by Rick, I said I wanted a vintage appearance 302. And correct, that's technically a stroked 289. It may well be that I'm able to import an engine from US, but for certain reasons it's more likely that it will have to be a local Australian engine. Vintage 302s are hard enough to find here in Australia, 6 bolt 289s are near impossible, and 5 bolt is on the minus scale. So...a good friend coined a phrase 'period reminiscent' which will apply to the car I intent to build. Where possible it will be period correct; where impossible, it will be 'period reminiscent', and that includes the 302 in lieu of a 289. Please don't take this as a whine because it is not intended to be, but you guys, and gals, don't know how well off you are there with the stuff you have available, and the ease (and price) with which you can get it. :)

And I also wish you the best of luck with your USRRC replica.

Cheers,
Glen

Hi Brent. No, but yes to a Civic with one of those VTEC thingies that rev to the moon, and also considerable miles in a Mazda rotary that had nothing down low, but past that it felt like an electric motor winding up to speed. Could be addictive.
And a V8 with THAT rev range? I remember reading about DL's RCR GT40 from several years ago with - from memory here - a 9.2" deck SBF with an upper limit of around 8000 I think, as well as the ability to drive the kids to the corner shop? OK yes, would have been costly, but what I aspire to is a little less exotic. Brent, I think I have already said that you guys, experts I have absolutely no doubt, have built more engines than I've had hot dinners, but if there's something I think just possibly might be achievable, I shouldn't just rollover as say 'yair, whatever'. If Shelby had said that, we'd all be drivin' them Corvettes now! :eek:
Cheers, buddy.
Glen