Links

StangFix Shopping

+- Random Image from the Gallery

+- Latest Victims

Ausfox
0ur12
kvinkler
joorloop

Author Topic: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.  (Read 1053 times)

Offline Sluggo

  • How you like dat Jake?
  • Administrator
  • Shutup Already
  • ********
  • Posts: 6351
    • www.StangFix.com
351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« on: May, 03, 2010, 12:08:41 PM »
Alrighty then....

I'm going to have to refresh my stroker at the very least.
Here's what I know I'm going to do for sure.

Re-ring and bearings if conditions permit.
Another new cam (obviously)
New dizzy gear
Rebalance rotating assembly with new flywheel and balancer.

How is your 351 based stroker set up and what do you like/dislike about it.
What would you do different?


TwistedBossMach....Coined by Tarafied1
MCA 55330 | 69 Mach1 | 427 Stroker | 29 Model A Murray Town Car | 4 Banger

Offline camachinist

  • Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 161
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #1 on: May, 03, 2010, 03:41:44 PM »
Something I touched on in the other thread....I'd go through the oiling system, optimizing flow and balance. I don't have a stroked W, rather a stock stroke W, but it was built to run 7500rpm at HP levels similar to the strokers, so I had some of the same concerns. I spent a lot of time on lubrication management. In addition to the restrictors and that cute distro gear oiler, I built a windage tray from a sectioned Boss 302 tray, along with a few other tricks, and went to a rear sump oil pan.

If you're not running a SVO/FMS SFI  damper, now might be a good time to switch, if you're having everything balanced. This is the one I use, PN# M-6316-C351:



Good luck with the refresh...


Offline Sluggo

  • How you like dat Jake?
  • Administrator
  • Shutup Already
  • ********
  • Posts: 6351
    • www.StangFix.com
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #2 on: May, 03, 2010, 04:07:53 PM »
Currently all the rotating assembly is balanced with 50oz balancer and flywheel.

I'll need to go back with the same imbalance, correct?

Offline camachinist

  • Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 161
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #3 on: May, 03, 2010, 07:44:23 PM »
If purchasing a new damper, be sure to purchase one applicable to the 50 oz imbalance application. Mine is 28 oz so that part number may not be appropriate. Measure twice, cut once LOL...

The balance shop can advise you specifically...


Offline buening

  • Talks Too Much
  • *****
  • Posts: 1195
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #4 on: May, 04, 2010, 04:16:55 AM »
I'd recommend getting a new oil pump as well, just for insurance  :)   

Definitely need a 50oz balancer.  Fluidampr is a pretty good brand.
1970 Mach 1 - Grabber Blue 351w/T56

Custom Motor Mounts
T56 Conversion

Offline gotstang

  • Valued Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 687
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #5 on: May, 04, 2010, 05:13:14 AM »
Definitely need a 50oz balancer.  Fluidampr is a pretty good brand.

 :scar What? All 351Ws are 28oz and stroker cranks seem to always end up at 28oz anyway, unless you spend a blue fortune on Mallory metal.
Start a Coupe coup!

'66 Coupe 289 & 3 speed 5.0-AOD, here we come!
My Webpage & Tech pages

Offline buening

  • Talks Too Much
  • *****
  • Posts: 1195
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #6 on: May, 04, 2010, 05:46:56 AM »
That's what they are balance at for stock, but doesn't mean it can't be a 50oz.  Sluggo definitely make sure it is a 50oz balance.

Offline camachinist

  • Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 161
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #7 on: May, 04, 2010, 06:47:31 AM »
If the OP had the original engine dynamically balanced, the balance sheet/pick list will notate the parts used. The part numbers for the flexplate and damper differ between 28 and 50 oz imbalances.

In my case, as the crank was OEM and reciprocating weight fell due to parts changes, the 28oz imbalance was appropriate and, even then, there was substantial weight removal on the counterweights, flexplate, and damper. IDK the parameters for stroker engines; perhaps 50 oz is more appropriate. The parts list won't lie LOL...

Offline Sluggo

  • How you like dat Jake?
  • Administrator
  • Shutup Already
  • ********
  • Posts: 6351
    • www.StangFix.com
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #8 on: May, 04, 2010, 10:00:39 AM »
When the engine was originally built it was balanced with 50oz parts. There had to be a reason. that's what I'll go back with.

No choice on the oil pump. It's cratered.

Offline johnpro

  • Talks Too Much
  • *****
  • Posts: 1287
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #9 on: May, 04, 2010, 11:26:03 AM »
When the engine was originally built it was balanced with 50oz parts. There had to be a reason. that's what I'll go back with.

No choice on the oil pump. It's cratered.

Where did you or someone get a 50 oz. 351w crank?  That would REALLY limit your choices and make things much more expensive.  As pointed out before, ALL 351w engines where 28 oz. imbalance.

To answer your original question, my 408 stroker (28 oz. imbalance) is an '85 block (roller ready) and is built with a Probe crank, Probe forged pistons, and Probe forged rods.  It has AFR 185 heads.  It has a Ford Racing F303 cam, with 1.7 ratio Crane Gold rockers.  Topped off with a Weiand Stealth intake and a Holley 750 DP.  Ignition is all MSD.  It has 10.18:1 compression with the 58cc heads.

It dynoed at 354 hp at the rear wheels and has 416 ft. lbs. of torque (I've done several things since then that should have upped both numbers).  It idles at about 900 RPM, and has 3,000 ft. lbs. of torque by 1500 RPM.  The car is a beast. What would I do differently?  Not a thing.  It's got WAY more power than I need, and it is extremely easy easy to drive.

Offline Fast68back

  • Administrator
  • Shutup Already
  • ********
  • Posts: 7474
  • You want fries with that?
    • Cardomain
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #10 on: May, 04, 2010, 11:35:07 AM »
and has 3,000 ft. lbs. of torque by 1500 RPM. 

I'm callin BS.........
Rick 


There is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness"

Offline johnpro

  • Talks Too Much
  • *****
  • Posts: 1287
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #11 on: May, 04, 2010, 11:37:43 AM »
I'm callin BS.........

My bad.  It's 3k by 1800 RPM.  Read it and weep ...


Offline Fast68back

  • Administrator
  • Shutup Already
  • ********
  • Posts: 7474
  • You want fries with that?
    • Cardomain
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #12 on: May, 04, 2010, 11:46:55 AM »
My bad.  It's 3k by 1800 RPM.  Read it and weep ...



I still don't see 3k, 300 maybe...

Offline johnpro

  • Talks Too Much
  • *****
  • Posts: 1287
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #13 on: May, 04, 2010, 11:53:16 AM »
I still don't see 3k, 300 maybe...

OOPS!  I'm an idiot.   

:weas Yeah, 3,000 ft. lbs. of torque would be ridiculous.  You are correct ... 300 ft. lbs. by about 1700 RPM!  ROFLMAO!!!

Offline Fast68back

  • Administrator
  • Shutup Already
  • ********
  • Posts: 7474
  • You want fries with that?
    • Cardomain
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #14 on: May, 04, 2010, 11:55:45 AM »
Glad you finally saw it John... With the exception of Mark I'm always worried my odd sense of humor just pisses people off...... It does however explain my lack of friends..

Offline Sluggo

  • How you like dat Jake?
  • Administrator
  • Shutup Already
  • ********
  • Posts: 6351
    • www.StangFix.com
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #15 on: May, 04, 2010, 12:01:04 PM »
Where did you or someone get a 50 oz. 351w crank?  That would REALLY limit your choices and make things much more expensive.  As pointed out before, ALL 351w engines where 28 oz. imbalance.

Gonna have to pull the shrug card here. Engine was built by PAW over there in your neck of the woods.

For some reason they decided 50oz was the way to go. Using 5.0 parts on it.
« Last Edit: May, 04, 2010, 12:04:08 PM by Sluggo »

Offline Fast68back

  • Administrator
  • Shutup Already
  • ********
  • Posts: 7474
  • You want fries with that?
    • Cardomain
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #16 on: May, 04, 2010, 12:04:09 PM »
Its a pretty old build, no? I thought you told me it had sat for a while before you got it. Maybe it was one of the early stroker kits.

Offline Sluggo

  • How you like dat Jake?
  • Administrator
  • Shutup Already
  • ********
  • Posts: 6351
    • www.StangFix.com
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #17 on: May, 04, 2010, 12:05:36 PM »
Yes. Was built in 99/00 and went up on blocks shortly after. Got it back on the road in 08.

Offline Sluggo

  • How you like dat Jake?
  • Administrator
  • Shutup Already
  • ********
  • Posts: 6351
    • www.StangFix.com
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #18 on: May, 04, 2010, 12:09:44 PM »
From an article in mustangs and fords august 2000.

Quote
PAW begins its quest for cubic inches with a 351W block bored and honed .060-inch oversize. The cylinder skirts are notched to clear the Chrysler 360ci small-block connecting rods. The 351W gets stroked a half-inch by fitting the block with a 400M crankshaft (the 400M is a tall-deck Cleveland). Keep in mind the 351W has a 3.50-inch stroke while the 400M has 4 inches of stroke. PAW takes a 400M crankshaft and removes the ridge not present in a 351W crankshaft. This gets the timing set to line up properly between the 351W block and 400M crank. The 400M crank is also machined to accept a longer Woodruff key, which keeps the harmonic balancer where it belongs. To marry the Chrysler 360 rods to the 400M crank, PAW machines the rod journals down from 2.311 inches to 2.124 inches. But there's more: PAW offset grinds the journals .125-inch to add even more stroke for a whopping 4.125 inches.

Traditional 400M engines used a 28-ounce offset-balance harmonic balancer. Because we're changing the dynamics of the engine's rotating and reciprocating weight, PAW uses the late-model 50-ounce offset balancer to counterbalance the additional reciprocating weight.

Offline johnpro

  • Talks Too Much
  • *****
  • Posts: 1287
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #19 on: May, 04, 2010, 12:16:09 PM »
From an article in mustangs and fords august 2000.


Ok.  That makes a lot more sense.  Are you going to stay with the 400M crank, or go with a modern, stroker one?  Personally, I'd pony up the money for a modern SCAT or Probe crank/rods/pistons.  In fact, if that's how your engine was built, I, personllay, would pony up $250 for a core charge and start with an '85/later, roller ready block.

The PAW way of doing it was cool technology way back then.  There's just SOOOO many better ways to do it, these days.

Offline Sluggo

  • How you like dat Jake?
  • Administrator
  • Shutup Already
  • ********
  • Posts: 6351
    • www.StangFix.com
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #20 on: May, 04, 2010, 12:36:01 PM »
Ok.  That makes a lot more sense.  Are you going to stay with the 400M crank, or go with a modern, stroker one?  Personally, I'd pony up the money for a modern SCAT or Probe crank/rods/pistons.  In fact, if that's how your engine was built, I, personllay, would pony up $250 for a core charge and start with an '85/later, roller ready block.

The PAW way of doing it was cool technology way back then.  There's just SOOOO many better ways to do it, these days.

The block is an E9AE block which is an 89.

I'm eyeballing this baby, but it's a budget breaker  :sad
http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=11831

Offline Fast68back

  • Administrator
  • Shutup Already
  • ********
  • Posts: 7474
  • You want fries with that?
    • Cardomain
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #21 on: May, 04, 2010, 12:38:25 PM »
Buy us both one will ya!

Offline daveSanborn

  • I'm here just to laugh at Mark and Duane.
  • Founding Father
  • Shutup Already
  • ********
  • Posts: 4771
  • Not your average computer genius!
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #22 on: May, 04, 2010, 01:21:00 PM »
Quote
I'm going to have to refresh my stroker at the very least.
Here's what I know I'm going to do for sure.

Re-ring and bearings if conditions permit.
Another new cam (obviously)
New dizzy gear
Rebalance rotating assembly with new flywheel and balancer.


I'm missing something....

Why are you replacing the flywheel and balancer and having the rotating assembly rebalanced?

Wiping out the distributor/cam gear did not affect the flywheel/balancer.... and a re-ring/new bearings shouldn't neccessitate rebalancing the rotating assembly.




My local Mustang buddy loves to spend money he doesn't have on his Mustang and his race car.  If anyone listened to him while trying to fix the simplest of problems... they'd be ordering a new crate motor everytime.

Recently Joe had an exhaust valve spring snap on his F100's Chebby 402 #7 cylinder.  My mustang buddy got involved before I did.  Joe called me at work with prices for a new crate motor.  What happened to just replacing the one spring that snapped?  It's a $2 part? 

I found him a used exhaust valve spring at the local machine shop and his truck was/is back on the road running/driving fine for the price of a new set of valve cover gaskets.

Moral of the story:

Focus on fixing the problem and don't get too carried away with "well I might as well".


Offline camachinist

  • Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 161
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #23 on: May, 04, 2010, 01:34:55 PM »
Good point. What's the intended use? If it's a cruiser with an occasional deserted road blast, disassemble, clean, replace worn parts, assemble, cruise. A lot will depend on what is found upon disassembly; e.g. where the metal particles/fragments ended up.

I remember, back in the day, regularly breaking screw-in rocker studs. Drive home on seven, slammed a new one in, raced that night. Did that for a number of years with the same engine. Rolled the pushrod on a smooth surface to check for bend (never bent one), checked the rocker and valve tip for damage (none)   and moved on. I was young and didn't care. A good engine cost under 1K to build. If it blew up, there was another 50.00 core to replace it and I didn't have a mortgage to pay. Things are a bit different now.

OP, check your cylinder walls carefully for damage (scratches, etc). If they're OK, the rest is pretty straightforward. If it's not a racer (track car), I wouldn't change a lot of things. I only recommended the balancer because I've seen the OEM ones blow up. Ouch.

 

Offline johnpro

  • Talks Too Much
  • *****
  • Posts: 1287
Re: 351 based stroker owners, please advise.
« Reply #24 on: May, 04, 2010, 01:54:17 PM »
Personally, I'd be concerned about running a .060 over engine.  If it has to be bored at all, it's time for a new block, anyway, making it SOOOO much easier to spend $250 or so on a '95/later roller block and just do it right and forget about it.

Hell, it's only money, right?  And Sluggo's money at that!

 


StangFix Approved Vendors

Sam Auxier Jr. Drag Racing

Classic Recreations

Mustang Magazine

Modern Driveline

Opentracker Racing Products

Street or Track Performance Products

Muscle Car Research LLC

Midlife Harness Resotations

Cars by Chris

Powered by EzPortal