• Welcome Visitor! Please take a few seconds and Register for our forum. Even if you don't want to post, you can still 'Like' and react to posts.

A friends sleeper F-100


Must have been a mild 347..... with the right cam profile, rocker ratio, and carb a 347 will make over 500hp and 500 ft/lbs......

you could have gold plated S10 with a 572 and It still wouldn't be worth its weight in used toilet paper.

Me too......:icon_rofl:
 
347cid making 500ft#? Yeah, in a NASCAR engine. All you have to have is $60,000 and you can slap a 500ft# 358 in your sleeper.

An 8.1 GM has 150 more cubes and a lot better volumetric efficiency, computer controlled combustion and makes only 450ft# (that's installed, not bare engine on a dyno). I'm all for toking on the crack pipe, but be real. Torque is all about volumetric efficiency. It's about how much air and fuel a cylinder can injest in a single cycle. If you aren't running a motor 7,000rpm then you aren't seeing the ram effects that let an engine over-perform its displacement. For us people that take off from an idle, we'll be lucky to see one ft# per cubic inch. You need an engine you use at 9,500rpm to make 500ft# from it. That air in the intake runners has to be moving super fast when the intake opens to hammer in enough air to burn the fuel for 500ft# on a small motor.

Or you need a turbocharger. A diesel that size has no problem making the 500ft# because it has the turbocharger.

For street engines, you NEED displacement to make big torque where we drive. A 350ish motor can make 500hp with the 350ft# a GREAT set of heads (not cast iron factory shit) will give it--but it has to spin. And 3.50 gears would be pathetic because they don't let it spin.

There's a big difference between a race engine--which would be useless on the street because there is no opportunity to get it into the revs it needs to be in, and a street engine which has to operate from idle-6,000. A 358" NASCAR engine would not be impressive in that truck because to get it going it would idle at 2,000rpm because the low rpm characteristics are so horrible it won't run below that. These engines last 600 miles and never see less that 7,000rpm during operation.
 
347 stroker...weaksauce!

My old 95 S10 with an LT1 raped a Fox body that had a 347 stroker in it.

Not that the loose nut behind the wheel is any factor in the outcome of a race...

I raced my dad when I was a little kid on dirt bikes once, he beat me. So I said lets switch... he beat me again.
 
Last edited:
Must have been a mild 347..... with the right cam profile, rocker ratio, and carb a 347 will make over 500hp and 500 ft/lbs......


HEADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AND NO! NOT AFR,EDELBROCK,WORLD JUNK EITHER.


Stay out of the engine guessing business..
 
HEADS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!AND NO! NOT AFR,EDELBROCK,WORLD JUNK EITHER.


Stay out of the engine guessing business..

But, but, but...I thought all mustang owners lived by AFR's?:dunno:
 
dude, bring that damn thing over to raleigh, i will give it a spray paint job for free. lol
 
But, but, but...I thought all mustang owners lived by AFR's?:dunno:


LOL! Actually you're right cause they are just like this guy..Reading magazines.

What AFR doesn't immediately tell you is that their astrnomical flow numbers on a stock port placement head come from the fact that when they flow their heads they are flowing them on a 4.125 bore..

The majority of builds out there are only 4.060 at the most unless you have a aftermarket block with enough cylinder wall to go that big. That's why All other stock port placement style head manufacturers (Eddy, Brodix,World,Dart) Flow theirs on a 4.030 bore, They're being realistic. Also just cause AFR flows on a 4.125 bore doesn't mean that their head supports cubic inches either.. Basically what a bigger bore size does on a smaller head
is it basically overruns the head and makes it "look" bigger than it actually is..Numbers wise.

So in the end all the "Stangnet/Corral/Allfordmustangs"Melvins jump on there and build their AFR headed 331 junk with a "E" cam and then wonder why their combo gets killed or runs like total shit. then their last straw is to swap in a LS1 cause they are motor ignorant and credit card retarded.:thefinger:.
 
Last edited:
Its crazy how you can just post a pic of someones hard work and a pretty dang cool idea and some people pick it to death.

Jeeeeez...........
 
LOL! Actually you're right cause they are just like this guy..Reading magazines.

What AFR doesn't immediately tell you is that their astrnomical flow numbers on a stock port placement head come from the fact that when they flow their heads they are flowing them on a 4.125 bore..

The majority of builds out there are only 4.060 at the most unless you have a aftermarket block with enough cylinder wall to go that big. That's why All other stock port placement style head manufacturers (Eddy, Brodix,World,Dart) Flow theirs on a 4.030 bore, They're being realistic. Also just cause AFR flows on a 4.125 bore doesn't mean that their head supports cubic inches either.. Basically what a bigger bore size does on a smaller head
is it basically overruns the head and makes it "look" bigger than it actually is..Numbers wise.

So in the end all the "Stangnet/Corral/Allfordmustangs"Melvins jump on there and build their AFR headed 331 junk with a "E" cam and then wonder why their combo gets killed or runs like total shit. then their last straw is to swap in a LS1 cause they are motor ignorant and credit card retarded.:thefinger:.
What? You mean LSx Fox body's aren't the best?:icon_rofl::icon_thumby:
Its crazy how you can just post a pic of someones hard work and a pretty dang cool idea and some people pick it to death.

Jeeeeez...........
No, no, no. I was only pickin'. It's a sweet ride, i'd love to have it. How about a video so we can see it run and hear it? Has he ever ran it at the track?
 
i wouldnt mind stuffing a healthy 347 stroker in a ranger. or built 350 in mid 80s s10. id probley build a chevy motor just beacuse there a little cheaper then a ford motor. it would depend on my budget though
 
Its crazy how you can just post a pic of someones hard work and a pretty dang cool idea and some people pick it to death.

Jeeeeez...........



Only teeth I'm kicking in is the mouth that was about to start spewing misinformation....Strokers don't make "magic power"..

"Uncle Puddpuller" Worked real hard on his "Vette in turd's clothing":damnit1:.
 

Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad

TRS Events

Member & Vendor Upgrades

For a small yearly donation, you can support this forum and receive a 'Supporting Member' banner, or become a 'Supporting Vendor' and promote your products here. Click the banner to find out how.

Recently Featured

Want to see your truck here? Share your photos and details in the forum.

Ranger Adventure Video

TRS Merchandise

Follow TRS On Instagram

TRS Sponsors


Sponsored Ad


Sponsored Ad


Amazon Deals

Sponsored Ad

Back
Top