351W Long Rod setup
Scott Pickering
(This is from a previous server with posts. The discussion was Ford vs Chev
vs Japanese)
"Long Rod 351W"
Well here goes for you and anyone else interested why I boast about this
(351W) engine from Advanced Engines in the US. This is refering to the 351W
long rod engine: Power from advanced Combustion design and extended piston
dwell. Theory- If the piston can be parked at Top Dead Center on its firing
stroke for as long as possible, piston dwell time lengthens and
significantly increases in power can be made. This is achieved by rod
lengthening. Stock rod ratios of most street engines are typically in the
1.5 to 1.75 range, meaning the rods are 1.5 to 1.75 as long as the stroke.
The stock 351W rod ratio is 1.71. With the long rod 351 using the 400
engines rod- you get a ratio of 1.88. Between Ford, Chrysler and GM- the
best street V8 has been determined at 350 cubic inches- all of which these
3 companies have an engine in this displacement. The Ford 351W is the best
out of the 3 for the long rod setup because it has the tallest deck height
out of the 3 at 9.503 inches tall. This long rod helps boost power
dramtically without increasing the actual stroke of the engine. Good
emissions and fuel economy here are from a mild cam, dished pistons to
bring the flame into the piston and not the head, and good cylinder head
flow design. Next page are the parts and power figures/ etc. numbers on
this engine setup. Again I write this for anyone that is interested.
Here are the parts used to achieve this engines figures:
351W block computer balanced and blueprinted with Fluidampr Harmonic
balancer, true roller timing set, Roller Rockers at 1.6 ratio, aluminum
cylinder heads with 64cc compression chamber, 2.02 Intake valves, 1.6
Exhaust valves, 110 pound valve spring pressure at the seat and 300 total
pressure over the nose, Cylinder head flow of 237 intake and 168 Exh scfm
at .500" valve lift, Crane roller camshaft with 110 degree lobe seperation
(installed at 107 d.) with 212/ 220 degrees duration on cam,
hardened pushrods, (cont.ed next page) Dual plane Weiland 4 barrel
manifold with 650 cfm Holley (be better with fuel injection), JE custom
made forged aluminum pistons weighing 415 grams each (40% lighter than
stock)- using light tension oil rings with 3mm racing oil control ring,
small piston to wall clearance of .0015 inches (less power loss and blow
by), total 9.5 compression ratio, and Ford 400 cubic inch engine rods.
Next the numbers.
Horsepower: 133 at 2000 RPM Torque: 349 at 2000 RPM
(Gross on 166 at 2500 RPM lbs. 350 at 2500 RPM
Dyno) 231 at 3000 RPM 404 at 3000 RPM
278 at 3500 RPM 417 at 3500 RPM
326 at 4000 RPM 428 at 4000 RPM <--MAX
352 at 4500 RPM 410 at 4500 RPM
MAX ---> 380 at 5250 RPM 396 at 5000 RPM
\--> 380 at 5500 RPM 363 at 5500 RPM
376 at 5750 RPM 343 at 5750 RPM
Manifold vacuum at : 850 RPM- 17 inches/hg <--- Good for
power brakes
1050 RPM-21 inches/hg and
accessories.
1350 RPM-23 inches/hg
Fuel economy of this engine- 21 miles per gallon highway.
Emisions compared to a stock 302 in 1985.
Now the figures would be better if this were fuel injected and a higher
duration cam were used to raise the RPM torque and horsepower numbers. If
this doesn't convince you of the power of a 351W I don't know what will.
#: 9681 F18/Cars & Driving
10/01/94 10:58pm
To: anon. (Braxus)
Fm: anon. (Cadelle)
Sb: RE #9680 "Long Rod 351W"
As a rule of thumb, 1 cfm translates into 1.44 hp
That package sounds like a good one, but like any high performance built up
motor, doesn't sound like it comes cheap. On the other hand, it's hard to
beat on a $$$/HP ratio. ie: A&J did a Haltech sidedraft injection install
along with some other work, probably cost a $2000, on a 1.6l Civic and
ended up with a streetable 175hp. Aftermarket injection goes a long way to
fixing low end response where a carb wouldn't get a strong enough signal
b/c of low air velocity in a big port. Trick bottom ends are cool and all,
but power is made in the head. If I was going to build up a street normaly
aspirated Mustang, I'd use a stock 302 bottom end, Extrudehoned stock
intake manifold (200cfm per runner) and aluminum heads also extrusion
ported. Electromotive TEC II computer which includes knock sensing and
direct crank fired ignition w/ multiple coils. Electromotive is also true
sequential, only firing the injector when the intake valve is open. It
would probably be compareable to the 351 in cost and performance,
instead of getting trick pistons and stuff which don't really give you
bang for the $, go for top end parts. At the Bondurant school they
use Mustangs for their school cars with 400 normaly aspirated HP.
Must be a great learning experience! :)
#: 9682 F18/Cars & Driving
10/01/94 11:03pm
To: anon. (Braxus)
Fm: anon. (Cadelle)
Sb: RE #9680 "Long Rod 351W"
Or you could take a stock motor and bolt on forced induction and end up
with the same HP for about the same cost.
#: 9683 F18/Cars & Driving
10/01/94 11:41pm
To: anon. (Cadelle)
Fm: anon. (Braxus)
Sb: RE #9682 "Long Rod 351W"
Nice, but been done too often- you still end up ripping out parts anyway so
I'll go normally aspirated to keep the motor lasting longer.
#: 9684 F18/Cars & Driving
10/01/94 11:45pm
To: anon. (Cadelle)
Fm: anon. (Braxus)
Sb: RE #9681 "Long Rod 351W"
Actually even building up a 302 wouldn't be much cheaper than this block-
you still need to buy the induction pieces which are the same ones for the
351- so the cost will be close. The 351 is so much better for torque and
power, and the milage is almost the same. So it makes me wonder why people
spend so much on the 302 to squeeze out power when the 351 does it easily
without much coaxing or modification. The blocks are almost the same other
than the heigth and width near the top. But you make some
good points anyway. Honing I find to be expensive and hard to find a good
shop that'll do it properly. So I'll go with bolt ons with the 351 block.
#: 9688 F18/Cars & Driving
10/02/94 07:43pm
To: anon. (Braxus)
Fm: anon. (Pure)
Sb: RE #9673 "Woo!"
Redneck alert!
#: 9689 F18/Cars & Driving
10/02/94 07:53pm
To: anon. (Pure)
Fm: anon. (Braxus)
Sb: RE #9688 "Woo!"
:) I knew you'd love that.
pcme...@boi.hp.com
Scott Pickering (bra...@uniserve.com) wrote:
: Well here goes for you and anyone else interested why I boast about this
: (351W) engine from Advanced Engines in the US. This is refering to the 351W
: long rod engine: Power from advanced Combustion design and extended piston
: dwell. Theory- If the piston can be parked at Top Dead Center on its firing
: stroke for as long as possible, piston dwell time lengthens and
: significantly increases in power can be made. This is achieved by rod
: lengthening.
I am continually amazed at these claims. I have heard this many times
and every time there is no explanation about how this happens. I submit
that "piston dwell" making more power is bull, that the reasons for
an increase in observed power have only an indirect relationship to
"piston dwell".
paul
--
Return addresss: pcme...@hpbs4922.boi.hp.com
The views expressed are the exclusive views of Paul Menten
and do not reflect the views of the provider of network access.
Schtoo
On 20 May 1998 20:08:51 GMT, pcme...@boi.hp.com () wrote:
>Scott Pickering (bra...@uniserve.com) wrote:
>
>: Well here goes for you and anyone else interested why I boast about this
>: (351W) engine from Advanced Engines in the US. This is refering to the 351W
>: long rod engine: Power from advanced Combustion design and extended piston
>: dwell. Theory- If the piston can be parked at Top Dead Center on its firing
>: stroke for as long as possible, piston dwell time lengthens and
>: significantly increases in power can be made. This is achieved by rod
>: lengthening.
>
>I am continually amazed at these claims. I have heard this many times
>and every time there is no explanation about how this happens. I submit
>that "piston dwell" making more power is bull, that the reasons for
>an increase in observed power have only an indirect relationship to
>"piston dwell".
>
>paul
I think the theory lies in the fact that the piston sits at TDC
longer, so has longer to burn the mixture before it pushes the piston
down. I don't claim to know the benefits or drawbacks of this, but the
theory is theoretically correct. But piston speed must increase too,
could be worn out bores/rings before the engine does any real work
huh?
......................................................
Cure all handling problems, with more ponies.
sch...@alphalink.com.au
My car isn't going yet, so I can't say anything
about it, can I?
Phillip Patterson
I've read several articles on using long rods. From what I have read and
heard, the gain is not that great. I remember an article in particular,
where Joe Sherman built a stout 400 small block Chevy, and used stock 5.565,
5.7 and 6 inch rods, everything else the same. From what I remember, all
combinations were within 5-6 HP. About the same for torque.
Another article I remember reading was a long rod SBC using Ford I-6 (300
CI) rods, I believe 6.2 inches. They got 400 hp, running 11:1 CR and pump
gas. They claimed you could run the higher compression because of the
longer rod and the longer dwell time created by the longer rod. That sounds
feasible (well, they backed it up). So, if there is a gain or advantage to
using a longer rod, I'd say that would be it. You could possibly run higher
compression, meaning more HP. But, if all else remains the same, I don't
think you are going to gain much by using a longer rod. You WILL spend more
money modifying everything to clear the longer rod, though! Just thinking
while online....
Phillip Patterson
'79 Malibu 454
***You cannot use the reply button. Remove *AS from my e-mail
address. This is done for Anti-Spamming reasons.***
Scott Pickering wrote in message <01bd83c0$59eb6340$LocalHost@default>...
>(This is from a previous server with posts. The discussion was Ford vs Chev
>vs Japanese)
> "Long Rod 351W"
>
>Well here goes for you and anyone else interested why I boast about this
>(351W) engine from Advanced Engines in the US. This is refering to the 351W
>long rod engine: Power from advanced Combustion design and extended piston
>dwell. Theory- If the piston can be parked at Top Dead Center on its firing
>stroke for as long as possible, piston dwell time lengthens and
>significantly increases in power can be made<snip>
yes, another Tom
I think the attraction here (as I understand the ideas and the published
results) is that the power gain from long rods is not the real point. It is
being able to get 11:1 CR on 87 octane pump gas by using long rods. The
higher compression makes more power and is more efficient. Being able to
get that kind of compression on pump gas means it is feasible to run it on
the street. The Hot Rod magazine articles on the Chevy 400 and Ford 351
show great promise for the concept. More power and more mileage without
blowers or NOS is worth persuing IMO.
--
To reply remove NOSPAM from address.
Phillip Patterson wrote in message <8qiSj7M...@newstoo.hiwaay.net>...
>I've read several articles on using long rods. From what I have read and
>heard, the gain is not that great. I remember an article in particular,
>where Joe Sherman built a stout 400 small block Chevy, and used stock
5.565,
>5.7 and 6 inch rods, everything else the same. From what I remember, all
>combinations were within 5-6 HP. About the same for torque.
>
>Another article I remember reading was a long rod SBC using Ford I-6 (300
>CI) rods, I believe 6.2 inches. They got 400 hp, running 11:1 CR and pump
>gas. They claimed you could run the higher compression because of the
>longer rod and the longer dwell time created by the longer rod. That
sounds
>feasible (well, they backed it up). So, if there is a gain or advantage to
>using a longer rod, I'd say that would be it. You could possibly run
higher
>compression, meaning more HP. But, if all else remains the same, I don't
>think you are going to gain much by using a longer rod. You WILL spend
more
>money modifying everything to clear the longer rod, though! Just thinking
>while online....
>
>Phillip Patterson
>'79 Malibu 454
>***You cannot use the reply button. Remove *AS from my e-mail
>address. This is done for Anti-Spamming reasons.***
>
>Scott Pickering wrote in message <01bd83c0$59eb6340$LocalHost@default>...
>>(This is from a previous server with posts. The discussion was Ford vs
Chev
>>vs Japanese)
>> "Long Rod 351W"
>>
>>Well here goes for you and anyone else interested why I boast about this
>>(351W) engine from Advanced Engines in the US. This is refering to the
351W
>>long rod engine: Power from advanced Combustion design and extended
piston
>>dwell. Theory- If the piston can be parked at Top Dead Center on its
firing
>>stroke for as long as possible, piston dwell time lengthens and
>>significantly increases in power can be made<snip>
>
>
pcme...@boi.hp.com
Phillip Patterson (ppatter*A...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
: I've read several articles on using long rods. From what I have read and
: heard, the gain is not that great. I remember an article in particular,
: where Joe Sherman built a stout 400 small block Chevy, and used stock 5.565,
: 5.7 and 6 inch rods, everything else the same. From what I remember, all
: combinations were within 5-6 HP. About the same for torque.
Phillip,
If that's the one I thinking of the 5.565" rod made more torque than the
5.7" rod. Not much, 5-6lbs/ft or so, but certainly more. But the problem
with that kind of comparison is that the engine 'breaths' differently
with different rod lengths so the cam should be ground differently. Then
you can't be sure what made the difference.
I'll post more on the subject later.
Scott Pickering
being able to get 11:1 CR on 87 octane pump gas by using long rods. The
> higher compression makes more power and is more efficient. Being able to
> get that kind of compression on pump gas means it is feasible to run it
on
> the street.
If so that would be a great benefit for me as I have a 351W waiting to be
put together and installed in a newer Stang than I've got. I'm thinking
about an 89 5.0L for the transplant. I hear the onboard computers don't
like compression much higher than 10.0 to 1 to run 100% and emissions
legal. I figured with the 64cc heads and Keith Black pistons I'll be at
10.3 to1. The less pinging the better as my last 351W did on 87 octane gas
on 10.0 to 1.
Phillip Patterson
I thought that was what I said, in a long and drawn out kinda' way?....
--
Phillip Patterson
'79 Malibu 454
***You cannot use the reply button. Remove *AS from my e-mail
address. This is done for Anti-Spamming reasons.***
yes, another Tom wrote in message <6k2knn$o...@examiner.concentric.net>...
>I think the attraction here (as I understand the ideas and the published
>results) is that the power gain from long rods is not the real point. It
is
>being able to get 11:1 CR on 87 octane pump gas by using long rods. The
>higher compression makes more power and is more efficient. Being able to
>get that kind of compression on pump gas means it is feasible to run it on
>the street. The Hot Rod magazine articles on the Chevy 400 and Ford 351
>show great promise for the concept. More power and more mileage without
>blowers or NOS is worth persuing IMO.
>
>--
>To reply remove NOSPAM from address.
>
>
>
>Phillip Patterson wrote in message <8qiSj7M...@newstoo.hiwaay.net>...
>>I've read several articles on using long rods. From what I have read and
>>heard, the gain is not that great. I remember an article in particular,
>>where Joe Sherman built a stout 400 small block Chevy, and used stock
>5.565,
>>5.7 and 6 inch rods, everything else the same. From what I remember, all
>>combinations were within 5-6 HP. About the same for torque.
>>
>>Another article I remember reading was a long rod SBC using Ford I-6 (300
>>CI) rods, I believe 6.2 inches. They got 400 hp, running 11:1 CR and pump
>>gas. They claimed you could run the higher compression because of the
>>longer rod and the longer dwell time created by the longer rod. That
>sounds
>>feasible (well, they backed it up). So, if there is a gain or advantage
to
>>using a longer rod, I'd say that would be it. You could possibly run
>higher
>>compression, meaning more HP. But, if all else remains the same, I don't
>>think you are going to gain much by using a longer rod. You WILL spend
>more
>>money modifying everything to clear the longer rod, though! Just thinking
>>while online....
>>
>>Phillip Patterson
>>'79 Malibu 454
>>***You cannot use the reply button. Remove *AS from my e-mail
>>address. This is done for Anti-Spamming reasons.***
>>
>>Scott Pickering wrote in message <01bd83c0$59eb6340$LocalHost@default>...
>>>(This is from a previous server with posts. The discussion was Ford vs
>Chev
>>>vs Japanese)
>>> "Long Rod 351W"
>>>
>>>Well here goes for you and anyone else interested why I boast about this
>>>(351W) engine from Advanced Engines in the US. This is refering to the
>351W
>>>long rod engine: Power from advanced Combustion design and extended
>piston
>>>dwell. Theory- If the piston can be parked at Top Dead Center on its
>firing
>>>stroke for as long as possible, piston dwell time lengthens and
>>>significantly increases in power can be made<snip>
>>
>>
>
>
yes, another Tom
Well, just consider it reverb! ;-)
--
To reply remove NOSPAM from address.
Phillip Patterson wrote in message ...
>>>>(This is from a previous server with posts. The discussion was Ford vs
>>Chev
>>>>vs Japanese)
>>>> "Long Rod 351W"
>>>>
>>>>Well here goes for you and anyone else interested why I boast about this
>>>>(351W) engine from Advanced Engines in the US. This is refering to the
>>351W
>>>>long rod engine: Power from advanced Combustion design and extended
>>piston
>>>>dwell. Theory- If the piston can be parked at Top Dead Center on its
>>firing
>>>>stroke for as long as possible, piston dwell time lengthens and
>>>>significantly increases in power can be made<snip>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>