Base Engine for 09
5/4/06, 05:42 PM
#61
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ManEHawke @ May 3, 2006, 9:01 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
Personally I wouldn't go with big bore short stroke beacuse of the rpm range. Those Indy car's are impressive, I think they are like ~200% volumetric efficient N/A, or some carzy # like that.
Strokers won't be efficient at high rpms due to all the friction & sideloading, but for a car that won't see past 6K a huge bore with short stroke would be weak.
[/b][/quote]
For almost 30 years the 289 / 302 / 5.0 engines did rather well with their large 4.0" bore and rather short 2.87 / 3.0" strokes.
I imagine there isn't a die hard Ford fan on planet Earth that woudn't give their left nut if they could magically increase the V8 Mod motor's bore from its puny 3.55" to 4.0" like the old Ford small blocks had.
Personally I wouldn't go with big bore short stroke beacuse of the rpm range. Those Indy car's are impressive, I think they are like ~200% volumetric efficient N/A, or some carzy # like that.
Strokers won't be efficient at high rpms due to all the friction & sideloading, but for a car that won't see past 6K a huge bore with short stroke would be weak.
[/b][/quote]
For almost 30 years the 289 / 302 / 5.0 engines did rather well with their large 4.0" bore and rather short 2.87 / 3.0" strokes.
I imagine there isn't a die hard Ford fan on planet Earth that woudn't give their left nut if they could magically increase the V8 Mod motor's bore from its puny 3.55" to 4.0" like the old Ford small blocks had.
5/5/06, 02:27 AM
#63
Mach 1 Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I love the Stang but I love my nuts more. That said, I would like to larger bores on the mod motor. I loved the old 5.0 and there's still several magazines with 5.0 in the title.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post