347 STROKER vs JUNKYARD 351W-SBF DYNO DUEL! 

Always just loved the way the old 5.0 sounds. The new one sound beautiful as well but it's different with the four valve I guess kind of like picking between a Stratocaster and a Les Paul guitar both sound good in their own way.

I’m a ford guy now too. Started with f-body’s then went fe390 ford then went corvette and now I own Honda and foxbody. They are fun as hell. A corvette is awesome too but 2 seats sucks. Never got into mopar because the hot rods cost a lot up front.

How did you feel about 4v Cleveland?

@@dennisrobinson8008 don’t know anything about it

@@vtecbanger3180 Basically in 1969 the Cleveland head was flowing 275cfm@.600" using canted valves which open towards the center of the bore. The valve sizes were 2.19" and 1.71". With a valve job they do 290cfm@.500" and 310@.600" and with porting and a valve job they do 310cfm@.500" and 335@.600". With extensive chamber and port rework they were able to get the heads to over 350cfm ( Glidden -- look him up ). Basically the head have similar potential to TFSR ported and a little below the Yates. The heads were banned from racing: In this link Drag boss garage discuss all the benefits of the Cleveland architecture. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_4l0Fe5anh4.html

It comes out to $11 per HP which is amazing value.

Good point

@@janofb 30 over means alot when pistons are flattops and other motor has soap dish pistons. Fresh bore gonna seal things up a bit better also

Yeah, I'm tellin ya that compression is the big factor here. Drop some flat top pistons with new rings into fresh cylinders and that 351w would stomp that 347. It's a fantastic comparison, but let's be real here.

@@paulwhite9020 💪

Plus the 351 has dished pistons. That has a considerable hinderance in power(lower compression)! Put flat tops in the 351 and send those 347 guys pouting.

100 lbs in the nose makes a huge difference

@@bjsteg79 Ran my 66 Stang around my usual corners one day without a hood and could notice a difference, Hood weighed 75 lbs, put on a glass hood with no hinges and battery in the trunk for some more help too pretty easy .

If my old memory serves, a 351 weighs about 60 lbs more than the 302. the one in this test would weigh less than a stock 221 (about 450) with iron heads and manifold.

With aluminum intake and heads the difference isn't at all noticeable.

We were turning 6800 with a stock block. Had an aftermarket rotating assembly, but stock stroke, rod length! Flat top pistons ,aftermarket but stock wrist pin location! Car ran 6.51, once and never over 6.60 1/8 mile, never on gas!! All motor! Build what you want, but a Windsor block will hang in there!!! The heavy crankshaft with those 3" mains scare people, but they hang in there for cheap!!

ZERO difference between the 347 & 351 IF the same parts are used in both. The 347 might even make slightly more HP because of it's 0.030" bigger bore & 0.010" shorter stroke & 100lbs lighter in a car! The difference in this test was new high performance parts in the 347 & a "junkyard" 351.

@@bradgriffith4231 ! The block and crank is the primary difference!! Then there is the rod stroke ratio!! We've ran both!! The rod/ stroke ratio alone is the deciding point!! The only argument is the 3" main bearings, and I can tell you a 351 can run 6900rpm all day long!! Noone believes that it's a 306!! The Windsor is a stronger platform! I recondise your constitutional right to be an idiot!! The 347 is a hand grenade!.A cheap 357 will hold up night after night shooting 125 on it! Ran both! The Windsor will hang in there!! No problem! And you don't have to scream them!

@@markmccarty9793 EVERY real motor builder says rod/stroke ratio is totally irrelevent & Engine Masters proved it when they took their mule & swapped only the rods & pistons. Our ALL MOTOR door slammer has gone 7.96/168 in Phoenix in JUNE with 4,000 ft altitude air density, on race gas with 1 Pro Systems carb. NO HUFFER, NO JUICE, & NO HAIR DRYERS!!! How quick & fast is your slug? You have the "right to be an idiot" MORON! I have a pic of the time slip but can't post pics here anymore! There is virtually ZERO difference between a 347 & a 351 other than deck height & weight when built with the same cam, heads & comp ratio!

True, but not everyone wants to build a 351. I've built a bunch of different Ford engines, 5.0 is more cost efficient. My friends all told me I was crazy for building a Ford 400M, but I had never done one of them, yet I had built probably twelve 351W by that time. I like to be the winning underdog.

Sounds Good 2 Me

True, but you'll get a weight penalty with the 351. If you're taking turns and need to stop quickly, less weight the better

The 351W is God's engine. It's what Jesus runs in his fox body.

@@mjcmustang Aluminum block

@@johngregory4801 can get an aluminum 302 as well 🤷‍♂️

$11 per HP is a great value.

Rod / Stroke "ratio" has zero to do with total HP produced. Engine Masters has already shown that, as well as showing fuel octane rating makes almost zero difference. Their mule made witin a couple HP on all pulls regardless of octane & required exactly the same 29* ignition timing from 87 all the way to 115 octane race gas.

Stroked Windsor will destroy a built 347. I know cause i have one.

@@maximusvonce1381 You can have all the cubes in the world and it wont help you if you cant feed it. It comes down to where you want to make your power and how mild the combo has to be when doing so. Realistically, they offer heads, cam, and induction that can easily support 600 naturally aspirated horsepowers with off-shelf parts whether your at 347 or 408+ cubes. I just don't see 5.7 liters of engine being the limiting factor when talking about small block fords. Look how fast people go on 300 cubes.

@@madmod Comes down to physics. A bigger motor just as heavily modified will always trumped a smaller one. I spin mine to 7200rpm like a swiss watch.

@@maximusvonce1381 "Physics" lol. When your limited in available headflow, cam timing, and induction on a given application, in this case a sbf, the same level of induction needed to feed "XXX" horsepower on a 351w stroker would likely support exactly the same power on a less cubes however it would take more rpms out of the smaller combo. Hence my saying, "it depends on where you want to make the power and how mild it should be when doing so". I dont care how much power your 4XX~ cube stroker makes. Theres guys with 300 cube small blocks averaging more horsepower and torque than you and they shift far past 7200rpms. Its a bit nonsensical to claim bigger is end all be all specifically when talking small block fords lol.

@@maximusvonce1381 I can list and link a handful of 310ci class cars that trap low 10s, high 9s na and shift at 9200rpms. Stock untouched 302 bottom ends have been mid-high tens na for well over a decade. Not trying to take anything from the go big displacement crowd but that isnt at all needed for most peoples power goals. I think it mostly comes down to people trying to make comparable power in a more mild combo. Neither is better than the other.

@@429thunderjet2 but what does better mean? Is it measurable? This is why love these videos so much. Richard shows facts straight from the dyno. No guess work, facts!

@@429thunderjet2 do you hear us @richardholdener

Correct without the timeing this is "look at this different shade of apples "

@@giles-df9yu yep, the only downfall is that heavy crankshaft and its wider. Build a 393? I like budget factor, and the durability of the stock crank/rods!

Don’t do it man!!! Do a 351 stroker. I drove around with a 302 based 331 with afr 185 heads for a year and it just wasn’t fast enough. A 383 or a 393 is just so much more everything. I ended up with a 388 and I love it.

@@ivancolesnic I'm just look'n for some motivation for an old crappy car on the 'cheap'. I'd def do a 351w based engine if i had one lay'n around.

@@genemounce8302 consider that a running 351w is cheaper to buy than a 347 rotating assembly. If you are looking for a budget build then stick to a 302 with gt40 heads.

@@ivancolesnic ...and a cam, can't forget the cam. LOL

@@genemounce8302 only the wrong cam though

THE WINDSOR IS A MORE HEAVY DUTY BLOCK CAN TAKE MORE POWER AND MATCHES THE Y BLOCKS SIZE AND YOU DON T NEED A STOKER KIT MORE TORQUE WITH LONGER RUNNERS

Spend the money, get an SHP Block and build a 363 for that T Bird. Power, reliability and longevity. Period.

MAKE THE 351 030 OVER

The difference would be miniscule.

If it was same bore and stroke between the two the tall deck would make more power, and it's not because of a better rod to stroke ratio. It would be because any turns in the intake manifolds runners are not as tight, therefore more free flowing compared to the short deck. Case in point is any of the 2 piece EFI intakes. Particularly cylinder 5 on the GT40 family of lower intakes.

Find a old Edelbrock SP-2P intake 4 barrel,those things make supersonic velocity to the point of supercharging effect. Perfect for trucks turning big tires and crawling. I've seen a 400 Ford turning over 500lb/ft or torque not far off idle running that intake.

"Except for boost"

@@DarkLinkAD but when you have more qubes with the boost all things equal the larger displacement makes more power. So really boost isnt really a replacement. If everything is equal larger displacement makes more power. Yea smaller displacement with boost can outdo larger displacement but if they both have equal boost larger displacement always comes out on top.

@@midnight347 Its a lot easier make 15psi boost, than to afford a 700cu in 11.4L engine. Far less drag too.

@@DarkLinkAD Yeah, then you "boost" the larger engine, and there goes your exception.

No replacement for cubic $$ MONEY $$!

performance heads use split duration cams too

@@richardholdener1727 It depends on the set up, (nitrous)and the Windsor head struggled with exhaust flow, compared to others. Subscribed.

it showed nothing in my test

yeah, I have one, it's a beast a 427" in a 95 Mustang

Theoretically. Holdener says dyno results don't show a noticeable difference between bearing sizes.

they all win

@@richardholdener1727 Does the 302 sound any different when stroked to a 347 while idling, revving, or at WOT? And also which is safer and more reliable a 500hp NA 302 or a 500hp NA 347?

He's basically done rod ratio tests. The power changes primarily with displacement.

With all else being equal the Bigger motor will always make more power & there's no reason why you'd need different rod lengths, since "compression height" can be changed with the wrist pin location in the piston. I'm running 6" rods in my 409" SBC & the wrist pin is still WELL below the oil ring!

@Skip R the goal was to make 500 horse with things I had or could get very cheap. I ridge reamed the block myself and dingle ball honed it. I have $570 into the whole rotating assembly. I couldn’t have done a 408 for that cheap. The biggest factor in that was likely reusing the stock rods, but for some reason the 302 pistons are much cheaper than the ones I was going to use for a stock stroke Windsor.

You gotta cut on that block too for the crank on the 408. I like the 393 myself, I'm putting one in an 86 f150 4x4 with a 5 speed and 393 gears.

@@northfloridacowboy8728 with stock rods you have to clearance the block near the oil pump and bottom of the bores so the rod bolts clear. Easy peasy

I would really Like to see what the 351 would do with a fresh set of flat top pistons & 30 over for a Fresh bore & a Rebuild to un-Do the diff between raggedy 351 from Junkyard & fresh brand new 30 over 347. My Bro put the Edlebrock top end ( heads & intake, etc ) on an already strong 350 Chevy in a 40 Ford Koop & I could not believe the Diffeerence it made. I believe the Cam is Part of the Head & Intake Kit. That 350 Chevy Sounds Righteous for Sure while it is Pushing You Hard back into the Custom Upholstery on each Shift. PLEASE DO Freshen Up the 351 with Flat Top Pistons & Let us See the Dyno Chart of the Fresh Better Compression 351 Windsor !!

Compression is not a major factor in HP. Hot Rod mag did a test years ago using a 440 Dodge motor because there is no "quench" area in the stock heads. They stacked head gaskets to alter the C/R 1 point at a time & the change made minimal difference & a lot of the difference can be made up by cam duration & valve timing. Low compression needs a little cam to increasse cranking pressure & big compression needs much more cam to relieve cranking pressure.

A slightly longer rod usually brings higher efficiency, but ran on a dyno there is little difference. This instance, where one rod is half an inch longer, the rod bearing is 3/16" bigger and the crank probably weighs 5lb more, the lighter rotating assembly is going to be worth some power when ran on the dyno at 300r/s.

yes on intake and rotating weight

@@timothybayliss6680 Rod length has zero effect on HP output. Engine Masters did a test & the shorter rods actually made slightly more tq/hp with all else being identical

NOT A CONCERN IN THIS RPM RANGE-VALVETRAIN IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT

IF you take 2 engines with the same displacement, say a 351 with 4" bore & 3.5" stroke, & the other with a 4.125" bore & a 3.25" stroke, the big bore / short stroke engine will make more TQ/HP throughout the entire RPM range. The short stroke reduces "piston speed" & the piston travel in the cylinder is where 95% of the parasitic drag is in a motor. The larger bore also unshrouds the intake valve promoting better airflow / cylinder filling, aside from the fact that one can run larger valves in the larger bore cylinder. EVERY well known engine builder uses the same basic formula. As Reher & Morrison has said, put in the largest piston the architecture will accomodate, then make the stroke whatever is needed to reach the desired displacement, & then use a connecting rod to connect the 2, as rod length has very little to do with total HP output.

The 387 combination!!

LOOK AT THE TFS TOP END OR AFR HEADS AND TFS OR HOLLEY SYSTEMAX INTAKE

OR EDEL PERF RPM II

th elate 351W is a touch over 9.5-the ls is a 9.240

It will fit i got a 89 with a 351 Windsor in it fit no problem i had to get a set of i believe it waz 2 inch drop motor mount to make 351 set same as 302.you van use stock motor mounts but I think hood might not shut

There is ONLY 0.100" difference in the stroke between a 347 & a 351, which is negligible. The pistons could be almost identical, but the 347 uses a relatively short rod & rod angularity is where "piston rock" could come into play but it would still be a miniscule difference. I run 6" rods in my 409" SBC & the wrist pin is still well below the oil ring & the deck height on ALL small block Chevies is the same, regardless of displacement.

The 5.96" connecting rod in the Windsor is the best reason to go with the 351w! That, and the fact that the runners are longer equals more low end torque. Besides, the 351 has the ability to take far more power that that the 302 block! The only reason to choose the 8.2 deck block is the 9.5" won't fit!! Ran both, the 9.5 is heads and shoulders above the 8.2"!! The rod stroke ratio on thev347 is horrible!! There's a reason we call them hand granades!! The only drawback to the Windsor is the 3" mains, but it never was a problem for us!!

that's an interesting point, because if memory serves, the original 347 strokers used a cut down 351C crankshaft. most modern kits i'm sure are using a specially cast crank. The ability to rev up to say, 6,000 rpm faster with a lighter reciprocating assembly, works on an engine making more power at a higher RPM--a stock 351W head that would fit both short blocks (for example) was designed more for torque at a lower RPM. but that could always be changed with porting and a swap to chevy valves which were larger in diameter. it's worth testing your theory on a dyno. i still think the difference in connecting rod length will cause a piston speed difference, perhaps enough to cause a difference in filling on the intake cycle and exhausting on the exhaust cycle. if so, a different engine family may be needed--or one 351W with super light components versus stock OEM parts.

Of course it would but they're about the same if you did put the tw185s on the 351w

🤦🏻‍♂️

The 347 would be waffle stomped. Especially if you are going to expect durability.

And also consider the costs involved. the junkyard 5.8 was...junkyard priced.

I have run a stock cam and stock heads on a 347 stroker

@@richardholdener1727 that would be a great comparison to add to the data comparison of these two.

@@richardholdener1727 What did it Run Like? Were The Stock Heads Atleast Decent? Thanks

The taller deck of the 351 means it has a longer runner length than the short deck 302 based 347. That is why the 351 has more torque all the way to 6000rpm. Shorter runners means higher RPM power, longer runners lower RPM power. The same effect is showing up in the 351 here. So you could use the same heads, cam, and everything else but the longer runners of the 351 will make more torque from idle to 6000. The whole reason the Pontiac engine makes low end grunt like it does is the port length and the shape of the port. They are designed to make all their torque between idle and 5000 rpm. Not that this video is about Pontiac engines, but you can do the displacement test with a 400, 428, and a 455. They can all have the same runner length, head, cam, etc and only the stroke needs to change because those three engines are within .030 of each other on bore and everything except the main journals and piston pin height is essentially the same. Doing that test will show you the difference displacement makes, coming from a 3.75", 4" and 4.21" crank with a 4.15" to 4.18" bore. 500ftlbs is super easy with any of those three engines and a mild cam, and they all can make it from 2500 to 6000rpm with enough airflow. Not so easy to do with a 400 sbc, but the mouse will carry its torque a bit higher in the RPM range due to the shorter ports with a somewhat larger CSA. I've wanted someone to build a 400 sbc with mostly stock parts and compare it to my Pontiac 400 with the same cam timing, compression, both using factory intakes, heads, etc. Nobody wants to do it though. I think it would be fun to find out which one is faster in the same car. Take a 454 and compare it to the 455, you will find less torque everywhere with the 454, but more horse power above 5252 rpm. The ports are larger and shorter, which makes for less velocity at lower RPM, but they can feed the cubes a little better at higher RPM if you can control the heavy valvetrain and actually rev it that high, all else being the same like cam timing single or dual plane etc. Compare the 454 and its 4" stroke to the 428 Pontiac which also has a 4" stroke and the same effect will happen and the Pontiac will make more torque everywhere, but the 428 will make more HP at higher RPM than the 455 will, because the smaller high velocity ports can feed 428 cubes at the higher rpm than they can 455. The 428 can carry the torque a bit higher because its not choked at 5800 by a factory head. Give the heads more airflow and you make more torque everywhere with the Pontiac, and it moves it up in the RPM range on the short runner chevy. A 402 bbc makes more torque everywhere than a 406 sbc. Runner length and cross section is the main difference there, along with valve angles. Engine Masters did that test and that is what they found, the bbc makes more torque everywhere than the sbc at the same displacement. Runner length matters, as does cross section like you said. Port velocity is something you can tune to a certain RPM range using the size and shape of the port, but increasing runner length will almost always result in more torque under 5000rpm.

Damn good reply

5/8 inch runner length difference is insignificant compared to every other parameter.

@@hotrodray6802 it ends up being 1.5"

300 hp with a good intake and cam

1 hp per inch