Seems to me from what u have listed, you already have a pretty nice setup. But, I suppose, since you have the blocks -- why not! That XE 274 mostly suited for manual shift cars?
Nope, his car is an automatic. The XE274HR is probably the most popular off-the-shelf cam for 331/347 strokers with limited lift valve springs. Past that most would get a custom cam ground. I've had two 347s in my car in the past, broke both of them. Swore that if I ever wanted more displacement again I would just do a 351 or 408. But I do have those two blocks in the shed...
Possibly, I'm thinking the blocks didn't like the combination of added stroke and a 150 hp shot of nitrous. If I do another one I wouldn't use a power adder. Those days are past...
Had this built for me earlier this year...hope to get it in tomorrow, but you know what they say...Man plans, Henry Ford laughs. I found out the hard way the oil pan was 1/16" too wide, had 3/8" cut off each side, time to try again Block-Dart 9.5 SHP 427cid 4.125bore X 4.00stroke Crank- K1 4340 forged 4.00stroke Rods-K1 4340 forged H-beam 6.250 Pistons- SRP flat tops w/valve relief Cam-Crower custom grind 113°lobe separation duration @.05 Int. 240° Ext. 246° Lift .584 .560 Heads-AFR 195 with 72cc chamber Intake-Edelbrock Super Victor Carb-Quick Fuel Black Diamond Q-850
bmc, I told the builder(Doug Meyers of Automotive Machining Services) that I was not interested in a big lumpy idle. That being said he went into a long and in depth explanation concerning valve overlap, air speed, and LSA. He gave a "thumper" cam as an example 107° LSA....please do not think that my eyes did not glaze over during this...Anyway Doug does a lot R&D with Crower, his business is all word of mouth advertising, and he has been building fast Fords for 35+ years, so I let him spec the cam(he knows more than me). Motor produced 564 hp at 6000 and was 561 at 6500 on the dyno . I got the motor installed yesterday, hopefully I'll get the tranny in today. A couple more weeks an I should be able to go play
I was going to ask the exact same thing myself. His builders response to this question was the ONLY reasoning I could possibly imagine. I'm very confused as to how the peak torque is @ higher rpm than the peak horsepower. This doesn't compute and I can only assume some numbers or memory cells got swapped around. Not to mention peak torque at that high rpm isn't physically possible with that little cam either. I would have to guess that peak torque would be much closer to 4,500 rpm. In the end.. 564 horses with torque to spare over a narrower powerband vs 590 horsepower and slightly more torque spread over a wider rpm with plenty to spare is overkill for this light little car anyways. Sounds like it'll be a blast to drive. Hope he's got enough rear rubber meeting the road!
