I hear a lot of talk about stroking everything.(no pun intended)I was wondering about it's merit. I understand you get the cubic inch, but when you get so long on the bottom do you loose some of the characteristics that made the 427 such a beast and the 289 a giant killer. I had a 289 in my first Cougar, what a little $hitkicker. In the big town there was a guy that would every once in a while bring out his little Shelby and mop up the tchebby big blocks. While they were smokin tires and mashin gears, he was headed to the house. What a site to see for an impressionable young punk like me. And you wonder why I bleed blue. The rush of cops coming and lights flashing just burned it into my little brain that much more.
Since the 390 and 428 are already oversquare on the bottom, and known for being a little "not so quick". Does stroking them more, attribute more to that affect. I guess i have always thought that the geometry of an engine was reflective of it's performance. Thanks guys and I wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving.

but torque is king on the street and often on the strip, and actually neither the 390 or 428 are over square on the bottum 390= 4.05 X 3.78, 428= 4.13 X 3.98. Mike

it changes the time the piston hangs around at certain points and the pressure/vacuum developed therein as it goes through points of the cycles. Longer strokes are said to possibly leed to more suceptibility to detonation which obviously is especially not cool in a street car suffering with pump gas.

Sorry, You're right Mike, my bad. Poor choice of words. I meant longer than some. Thanks

Given the same heads, cam, induction and exhaust, a smaller engine will usually make more peak HP than a larger one, because of less internal friction. But the bigger engine will make more torque because of the extra cubic inches.

If you compare a stock bore and stroke 427 with a stroked 482" version, the difference in peak HP will not be too much, and of course the bigger engine will make its peak HP at a lower RPM. In terms of torque, the 482" engine will make LOTS more than the 427. The additional torque will result in more area under the HP curve. In the same car, with the gearing adjusted correctly for each engine, the bigger cube engine will be substantially faster down the quarter mile.

For FEs in particular, one thing I really like about the stroker kits out there is their use of BBC rod journals and bearings. IMO the stock FE rod bearing and journal is a weak point of the design. Going to the smaller diameter journal of the BBC reduces bearing speed, and more importantly the extra width of the BBC bearing has more load carrying capacity than the narrower stock FE bearing.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the bore and stroke ratios, or things like rod length or rod ratios. Power gains and losses from these parameters are second order effects, compared to cubic inches. If you want the most power, build the biggest engine you can.

Jay Brown
1968 Shelby GT 500 Convertible, 492" 667 HP FE
1969 R code Mach 1, 490" supercharged FE, 9.35 @ 151.20, 2007 Drag Week Runner Up, Power Adder Big Block
2005 Ford GT, 2006 Drag Week Winner, 12.0 Daily Driver
1969 Ford Galaxie XL, 460 (Ho Hum....)
1964 Ford Galaxie 500, 510" SOHC

n/m

When you're withing the modest boundaries of a street driven car (-7500RPM or so) it seems that all those bore/stroke ratios end up meaning darn near nothing. The Engine Masters Challenges have proven that out - with competitors winning and placing well despite drastic differences in bore/stroke.

My 2006 entry was a 434 inch per rules that had a 3.64 stroke and a 4.350 bore - I KNEW the big bore/short stroke was the way to go... It made 678 horsepower. My 2008 entry was 429 inches - 3.78 stroke and 4.250 bore and it made 675 HP while "handicapped" with a flat tappet cam and stock rod & main journal dimensions.

The punchline is that cylinder heads, intake and cam are the whole deal - maybe 80% of the package. Everything is torque time RPM and the big motor will make more torque from idle to "damn thats scary...."

Barry Rabotnick
Survivalmotorsports.com

I blew up a couple of 455 Olds back in the day and didn't think much of the stroke engine. Looking back though, this was a '66 Cutlass 4 speed with 4.11 gears. It was a waste to gear it that low. Ungodly torque, but wheezy at 5000. And the block sure wasn't an FE, the rods were junk.

Now its really nice to know you can play with the big boys some without an exotic block. The breathing is the most important thing. If it will feed 450 ci why not build it that way in the most elegant way you can? Hats off to you for being the first to bring this concept home economically and in bulk to a bunch of us dinosaurs who wailed blocks in two trying to keep up.

What would a wedge FE be capable of without power adders and no CI or compression limits?

Some of the NSS guys have been in the low/middle 900s.
I don't think anybody has hit a thousand - yet.
That hurdle will likely get passed within the next year....

Barry Rabotnick
Survivalmotorsports.com

Those mystery BT "Thunderbolt" heads would speed things along. Any word on them?

Actually, Mr. Meyer was correct. An oversquare engine is one that has a bore larger than the stroke. All 60's Ford passenger V8's are oversquare. The 455 Olds that Mr. Ballinger mentioned is an undersquare engine. The 400 Ford is square at 4.00 x 4.00.

Sorry for this interruption; just had to square things up on the terminology.

Don't think you snuck in here completely unnoticed.. LOL!