Hey Dan, thanks for the responce to my question. I know your car is mainly for show but what mods have you made to your car and how much horse power do you have aprox?
or if you're really wanting power with a stock bottom end, a turbocharger can add 200-300 HP if you want to go that far. Just don't plan on it lasting long with those weenie 302 blocks.
Like Hawko said, Exploders came with GT40's or GT40p's depending on the year. Keep in mind that you will have to mill them to get a decent compression ratio as their chamber is larger than the Cobra versions chamber. At any rate, I see GT40 heads all the time for around $400. They are dang affordable and can make some serious power, especially with port work. A set of GT40 heads, a decent cam, intake, carb, and an open exhaust will make a huge difference in power. Even better if you can get a late model roller block and take advantage of the aggresive roller cam grinds available. AC Hey MAVMAN, do you have some pics of your turbo setup?
1968 302 + .030, Edelbrock Carb with Performer RPM intake, E5TE heads with 1.90/1.62 valves, stock late model rockers, Comp Cams XE .509/.512 lift, Hooker 6901 Headers, 2 1/4 dual exhaust with H-pipe. No idea how much HP but have no problem spinning the wheels through first and second with a 3.25:1 posi rear ... Since I went for the stock look I am using points ignition with standard plug wires and also using the factory air cleaner. I'm sure I could tweak some additional HP out of it but I am happy with what it has now.
Here is a little exert taken from one of my favorite high performance Ford books, it is referenced at the bottom of the page. I think this is great support for my opinions on rod ratio...... Rod Ratio Theory- “We’re discussing the issue of rad ratio, a subject that has about as many opinions as there are engine builders. The current thinking is that longer rods are always better, but it’s not that simple. Any engine combination is a compromise, and component selection depends on what kind of use the engine is being built for. In the mix of heads, cam, headers, and displacement, there are other components that are higher on the ladder of performance importance that rod ratio. Here’s two opinions on the subject from Coast High Performance and Probe Industries. First, what is a rod ratio? The ratio results when the connecting rod length is divided by the stroke. Rod length is measured from the center of the big end to the center of the small end. A longer connecting rod, the theory goes (and tests support), allows the piston longer dwell time (in crank degrees) at TDC, so the expanding gases have a longer period (in crank degrees) to push on the piston. The higher the ratio numerically, the better it is considered. The better the ratio, the more power the engine is theoretically capable of . Unfortunately, engine reality gets a little muddy, particularly if you pursue rod length to the exclusion of all other engine facets. The chart nearby lists the rod ratios for Ford engines and CHP stroker kits. Displacement Length Stroke Rod Ratio 221 flathead stock 7.00 3.75 1.86 292 Y-block, stock 6.324 3.30 1.91 312 Y-block, stock 6.252 3.44 1.81 221 stock 5.115 2.87 1.78 289 stock 5.115 2.87 1.78 302 stock 5.090 3.00 1.69 302 CHP long rod 5.70 3.00 1.90 317 CHP stroker 5.40 3.10 1.74 347 CHP stroker 5.40 3.40 1.58 355 CHP stroker 5.50 3.48 1.58 377 CHP stroker 6.125 3.60 1.70 351W/5.8L stock 5.956 3.50 1.70 351W CHP long rod 6.125 3.50 1.75 408 CHP stroker 6.125 4.00 1.53 426 CHP stroker 6.125 4.17 1.46 435 CHP stroker 6.25 4.20 1.48 351C stock 5.78 3.50 1.65 428 FE stock 6.48 3.98 1.63 4.6L Modular 5.933 3.54 1.67 5.4L Modular 6.657 4.165 1.59 Notice that a long rod with a stock stroke, like the CHP 302 long rod, smartly increases the rod ratio. But also observe that when stroke as well as the rod length increase, ratio declines numerically. Muddiness about rod ratio influence occurs from several points. Consider the 221 Flathead and the 221 Windsor. The flathead has a terrific rod ratio compared to the Windsor. Yet the flathead was factory rated at 85 horsepower (at 3800 rpm) whereas the original 221 was rated at 145 horses (at 4400 rpm). Obviously, there are many reasons why the 221 windsor makes more power, such as more efficient breathing due to its valve-in-heads and lower frictional horsepower loss because of its short stroke. The 292 and 312 Y-Blocks have excellent rod ratios, yet they were never highly regarded as performance engines in their day. Also note that a 428 FE has a so-so ratio, but no one would accuse the 428 of being short on power and torque. Likewise, 426 or 435 Chp strokers have the worst ratios, yet they make serious horsepower. Look at the world class Modular engine rod ratio. Considering the billion or two that Ford spent developing the Modular engine, it’s a poor ratio numerically. But that doesn’t keep a 4.6L four-valve from delivering 600 horsepower with the right parts. The fact is , engines with supposedly poor rod ratios can make excellent power with the right parts combination. According to CHP, displacement is always a trump card. If you compare a long rod 302 (5.700" center-to-center length) with a 347 (5.400" center-to-center length) with displacement being the only difference, the 347 will make more power. As CHP explains, when a customer mashes the pedal on a 347, he fells the power compared to a 302 long rod engine. If CHP wanted to, they could increase their 347 rod length from 5.400" to 5.800" to improve the rod ratio from 1.58 to 1.70. But doing that would compromise piston stability in the cylinder due to the piston’s very short skirt and tight ring pack. These conditions would result from pushing the piston pin further into the piston to accommodate extra rod length. Ultimately, the question may be posed: how much more power should an engine with a good ratio make compared to one with a so-so rod ratio?? Compare a 302 with stock rods (5.090" center-to-center) with a long rod 302 (5.700" center-to-center) and the long rod will have a broader torque curve. But according to CHP, the change in rod length accounts for only about a 2 percent increase in torque. That means 98 percent of the engine’s power is the result of other components and engine dynamics. A second take on ratios is offered by Probe Industries, makers of Windsor performance pistons and engine components. Instead of focusing strictly on the issue of piston dwell, their theory relates to cylinder head airflow. The bigger the head ports are, the shorter the rod should be. One example would be a 351C with four barrel heads. They continue explaining that if you have a 327 cubic inch displacement, with a head that flows, say, an extremely good 320 cfm, they believe that a shorter rod gets air flowing through the port sooner, enhancing cylinder fill in the lower rpm range. Going up in displacement, if you have 400 cubic inches and heads that flow 200 cfm, work on a long rod. This will delay air movement in the port and flatten your torque curve. Along these lines, CHP also observes that long rod engines are especially to racing classes where induction is limited to stock heads, intake manifold or two-barrel carbs. If your engine runs in an extremely high rpm range, increase the rod length. One stellar example is the rarefied engine building atmosphere of Winston Cup racing, where every part and part relationship, including rod ratio, is a critical consideration. But don’t forget that in any given race class with a displacement limit, the engine builders build their engines as close as possible to the limit. Probe also lists additional points influencing rod ratio considerations. The include cam grind, track characteristics, car weight and traction characteristics, etc. Not that most of these are race related. Ultimately, for street use, rod ratio us way down on the list of engine things to be concerned about, particularly if you have just started building engines or racing. There are more critical areas to focus on. This would include assembling a well matched induction system, exhaust and cam to produce maximum power. With an EFI application, fuel and ignition mapping would be more productive to producing power gains. When studying engine dyno sheets for torque numbers, Volumetric Efficiency, Brake Specific Fuel Consumption numbers and exhaust gas temperatures are areas to investigate for improvement before ever worrying about rod ratio. Probe closes its comments with this observation. Talk to professional engine builders and parts manufacturers. They build, dyno and race engines constantly, so they’re always testing and comparing combinations. If they can fine tune a particularly potent rod ratio, you can bet they’ll let their customers know. Summed up, the saying “You can’t beat cubic inches” is unlikely to ever be replaced by “You can’t beat a numerically high rod ratio.”“ HP Books, Ford Windsor Small Block Performance, The Berkley Publishing Group, Isaac Martin
Geez, you typed all that? I share the same opinion, rod ratio is way down on the list of important considerations. As far as the longevity of my 347 due to side loading the cylinder walls...does that mean it might wear out in "only 100,000 miles instead of lasting 125,000? I don't think I'm gonna care, 'specially 'cause I only put about 3,000 miles a year on the car. I was more concerned that I got a stroker kit that didn't have the piston pin intersecting the oil ring. NOBODY wants to drive a car that has a smoking engine. I'm building the motor for low rpm torque that I can use on the street, torque-type cam, ported iron heads, long tube headers, etc. I calculate that it will run out of breath at just over 5,000 rpm, but that's ok. In normal driving (99.9% of the time) it will rarely see over 3,500 rpm. My DeskTop Dyno is estimating a peak torque of 387 lb ft at 3,500 rpm, with a very flat curve from idle to 4,000 rpm. It doesn't make a very good race engine, especially for drag racing, but it should be a lot of fun on the street.
I got a little fuzzy eyed reading all that, so I might be wrong, but I didn't see a word about rod angularity in there. It was all from an HP viewpoint, not longevity. Longevity was the only angle I was looking at in my post. Dave
heads why are those E7TE heads the desired stock heads. whats so special about them. whats their cost for a slightly used pair under 5000 miles since rebuilt.:confused:
I believe E7TE are fairly well flowing late model heads in their stock factory setup. If you are having a set of heads built with bigger valves and such I'm not sure if it matters what head you start with ....
E7TEs are 5.0 HO heads. They can be had for free most of the time. I wouldnt pay more than $50 bux for a used set. Maybe $150 for a set with all new machine work and wear items replaced. As far as bigger valves, I have never seen flow numbers to back this up, but I have heard from quite a few people that the benefit of bigger valves in most of these stock heads is negated by the increased shrouding that they produce. Anyone have any flow bench data to prove/disprove this? AC
Maybe check on a mild windsor the cubes are already there with not many mods. As far as turning it, it'll turn 8000 with a stock crank turned 10/10. Just had to cut the shock towers, more cubes will fit in the future....
I didn't look to see if it proves/disproves anything, but here is a link to flow data. http://www.jason.fletcher.net/tech/flowdata/castiron.htm
Maverick73, I think at this point, I'm going to go the route of either decking my stock block and building it like mavaholic or some of the other guys did, or get that free cobra block and build it the same way. .030 or .040 over, stock crank, cast stock rods with arp rod bolts, some nice light pistons, a good camshaft, e7te's and a set of hooker headers.
