324 Questions, Engine Questions - TCCoA Forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-04-2007, 11:03 PM Thread Starter
Seasoned PostWhore
 
JoeyICU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Syskesville MD
Age: 33
Posts: 2,894
Garage
324 Questions, Engine Questions

so whats the negatives to this 324 big bore stroker kit. i havent looked very hard but from what ive seen everyone goes to 5.0 with the 302 stroker kit, or goes to 304 with the bore kit, and i havent even seen alot of those, but the ones i have seen seem to be really happy

but has there been any negatives with it?

what mark 8 motor is the best one to buy in factory form, for overall strength? or where they similar threw out the 93-98 years block wise?

1995 Ford Thunderbird 4.6 LX - SC wheels, enlarged rear sway bar, full sound system, cut mufflers, PST 1 1/8" rear bar, Eibachs, Mark 8 LCA's, Al housed 3.55 gearset, cut mufflers
2011 BMX X5 Xdrive50i - BMS Stage 1, Cut Muffler
2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee 5.7L-Her stock DD
1984 Ford F250 6.9 IDIT - head studs in progress
JoeyICU is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-05-2007, 07:35 AM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tinton Falls, NJ
Age: 36
Posts: 7,428
Garage
Send a message via AIM to MadMikeyL
The block was the same from 93-98. Starting in 99 the DOHC blocks were the WAP blocks instead of the teksid blocks, and the WAP blocks are about 5 lbs lighter, and not as strong.

As for which to go with, the stroker will make more torque, the big bore will make more torque and more hp. The big bore will like to rev more wheras the stroker won't want to rev as much. If you can afford to do both, go for it, and the result would be a motor that behaves like the stock 4.6 in terms of revs and power curves, just with more power across the board.

-91 Cougar LS, coming soon, complete overhaul with a 427" Windsor.
-90 XR7 5-speed black on black w/sunroof, MP2, coated rotors, double intercooler, 15%OD, ported heads, comp stage 1 cam, 85mm TB, 90MM LMAF, 80# injectors, and ported big valve heads
-98 Mark VIII LSC, Procharger P600b, TR3650 swap and 3.73s.
-90 SC Automatic rustbucket winter beater
-97 Tbird Sport 4.6 Nice weather daily driver
-"Your buddy Mike is INSANE!" -ClintD's dad
MadMikeyL is offline  
post #3 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-05-2007, 09:19 PM
Refrigerator Raider Hater
Moderator
 
GreenBird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Vermont
Age: 35
Posts: 11,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMikeyL View Post
The block was the same from 93-98. Starting in 99 the DOHC blocks were the WAP blocks instead of the teksid blocks, and the WAP blocks are about 5 lbs lighter, and not as strong.
Actually, 99-01 are a revised teksid and are the most desirable. 02+ are WAP, and strength is not a good decision factor since even the weakest block can handle over 1000hp.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMikeyL View Post
If you can afford to do both, go for it, and the result would be a motor that behaves like the stock 4.6 in terms of revs and power curves, just with more power across the board.
I wouldn't say that. You still need the whole package, cams, intake, heads, and exhaust. If the displacement goes above what the other components can support, you get a motor that makes good low end and poor top end. That's exactly what happens with stock heads and a stroker kit.

The biggest negative is the cost to build it right. To run a 324cid to it's full potential, your going to need the best heads and intake you can get. If you can't afford the whole package, you'll end up wasting a lot of money.




Matt "Looks Like Egon" Davis
96 Alpine Green V8
98 Audi A8 4.2Q in Racing Green Totalled
02 Audi A8L 4.2Q in Black

I buy my OEM Ford parts at 10% over dealer cost from Steve in White Bear Lake, MN.
You drive "like a man possessed"... by a woman!
GreenBird is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-06-2007, 11:41 AM
2nd Gear Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: West Chicago
Posts: 64
I have been thinking a mark VIII with a stroker kit would be the most desirable option. I've heard the nickname "torqeless wonder" thrown around when i hear about the mark VIII engine. With a stroker kit you'll have a higher torque to HP ratio curve like your 2V. If you decide to beef up the bottom end of your engine with the stroker kit you can always add a few pounds of boost with a supercharger to get the desired HP. Mark VIII engines already have fairly strong connecting rods, but i don't know much about the pistons. I've heard the 93-95 Mark VIII engines are the best of the series but i have no info to back that up.
StrmChkn4.6 is offline  
post #5 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-06-2007, 12:00 PM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Cullman, AL
Age: 56
Posts: 7,758
Send a message via AIM to 94 Daily Driven 4.6L
JoeyICU: Are you talking SOHC or DOHC and/or N/A or Boosted. I think those questions really apply when looking at that combination.

My "eventual" plans for my LSC is the 324 (big bore/stroker), P&P's "B" heads, Cobra intake, Vortech V2-SQ, and Kook's headers.

IMHO, that should be a good "bang for the buck". I know it won't be a "top dog", but it should have plenty of low end torque for street use, but still be decent on a drag strip (with slicks).

But that is just my plans. My goal is a car that can be driven to and from work day in and day out, but hang with the CTS-V's.

Just my .02.

97 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC (Chip'd, 3.73 T/L... so far... )
97 Ford Aspire (Slow, but getting 36 mpg (f'n Ethenol!! )
84 F250 Dually w/6.9L Diesel (7.3L IDI pending)
73 Mercury Cougar Convertible w/351C 4V (Partially Restored)
69 F100 LWB w/460 Engine
76 Glastron Carlson 23' Jet Boat w/460 CJ Engine
94 Daily Driven 4.6L is offline  
post #6 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-06-2007, 12:04 PM
PostWhore
 
BIG PETE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Marietta, GA
Age: 37
Posts: 1,244
The only negative is trying to feed 324 cubes through a SOHC head. Period.

A big bore on these engines does not increase the tendency to rev. Most modular big bores (DOHC or SOHC) keep the identical power band, but move the power up 40-60 across the band, depending on other mods. The stroker will make more torque than a 4.6 at lower RPMs; however, the big bore typically matches the stroker's added torque down low, maybe falling short by 20 ftlbs tops. But, the big bore goes on to make more power on the top end, typically 30-40 more than similar stroker. What would you rather have? 20 extra ftlbs below 3000 with a stroker over a big bore, or 40 more hp from 4500-6000 RPM from the big bore over the stroker? Seems like an easy descision to me.

Look carefully, and you will see that most modular stokers make less power at higher RPMs than the stock bore / stroke configuration did, and a good stroker might make a little bit more. The vast majority of strokers end up short to the big bore. A similar big bore will almost match the stroker down low then beat it up high.

The 324 option fixes this short coming of the stroker, allowing it to make even more torque down low than a standard stroker, while making more power up top than a normal stroker could dream of. The 3.7'' bore allows for a higher volumetric efficiency, making great use of the added cubic inches of the stroker.

If I were considering a 324, I would look into a DOHC head conversion or some sort of blower. With my N/A configuration, my Renegade heads are not allowing my big bore to make the most of what it's got. Swapping to a DOHC head, with no changes in compression or cam profiles, would yield about 80 more RWHP over my present setup.

Pete

-97 XR-7
-5.0 Big Bore ...
Ran @ Normal Operating Temps, No Race Tune, No Setup Changes from Daily Driven Configurations
9.0 @ 78 (1/8 Mile only in Abilene )
2.06 60' on Street Tires (BFG G-Force Super Sport 245/50/16)
3805 Lbs, Stock Exhaust Manifolds
Density Altitude = 4132'
That Run, Corrected for Standard Day
1/8 mile: 8.75 @ 82
BIG PETE is offline  
post #7 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-06-2007, 12:09 PM
PostWhore
 
BIG PETE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Marietta, GA
Age: 37
Posts: 1,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94 Daily Driven 4.6L View Post

My "eventual" plans for my LSC is the 324 (big bore/stroker), P&P's "B" heads, Cobra intake, Vortech V2-SQ, and Kook's headers.
...
But that is just my plans. My goal is a car that can be driven to and from work day in and day out, but hang with the CTS-V's.

Just my .02.
With those plans? Hang with CTS-V's? Dude, the CTS-V doesn't stand a chance...

Pete

-97 XR-7
-5.0 Big Bore ...
Ran @ Normal Operating Temps, No Race Tune, No Setup Changes from Daily Driven Configurations
9.0 @ 78 (1/8 Mile only in Abilene )
2.06 60' on Street Tires (BFG G-Force Super Sport 245/50/16)
3805 Lbs, Stock Exhaust Manifolds
Density Altitude = 4132'
That Run, Corrected for Standard Day
1/8 mile: 8.75 @ 82
BIG PETE is offline  
post #8 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-06-2007, 12:38 PM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Cullman, AL
Age: 56
Posts: 7,758
Send a message via AIM to 94 Daily Driven 4.6L
Quote:
Originally Posted by BIG PETE View Post
With those plans? Hang with CTS-V's? Dude, the CTS-V doesn't stand a chance...

Pete
You've never seen me drive at a drag strip....

97 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC (Chip'd, 3.73 T/L... so far... )
97 Ford Aspire (Slow, but getting 36 mpg (f'n Ethenol!! )
84 F250 Dually w/6.9L Diesel (7.3L IDI pending)
73 Mercury Cougar Convertible w/351C 4V (Partially Restored)
69 F100 LWB w/460 Engine
76 Glastron Carlson 23' Jet Boat w/460 CJ Engine
94 Daily Driven 4.6L is offline  
post #9 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-06-2007, 04:24 PM
2nd Gear Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: West Chicago
Posts: 64
Does anybody know the cost of the stroker kit vs. the big bore kit? Im assuming joey asked the question about the mark viii engine because that would be the easiest engine to drop in his 96.
StrmChkn4.6 is offline  
post #10 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-06-2007, 06:10 PM
The Parts Guy
 
racecougar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Imperial, Missouri (near St. L
Age: 36
Posts: 7,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrmChkn4.6 View Post
Mark VIII engines already have fairly strong connecting rods, but i don't know much about the pistons.
I don't know where you heard that, but the stock powdered metal 4.6L rods (be it SOHC or DOHC), except for the Manley rods offered in the '03+ Cobra, are very weak pieces.




As it has already been said, this all really depends on what heads you're planning on running, and whether or not you're going to go with forced induction. I'm very happy with my decision to run the stroker rotating assembly in my DOHC, but I've also done a few things to aid in filling the cylinders (twin-screw SC, cams, etc.).

-Rod

Rod @ AzzKicker Cars
[email protected]
90 XR7-The Meth Addict-KB SC'd 5.0L DOHC Stroker
2004 Mustang GT-The Driver-Intake/Exhaust/3.73's
1995 F150 4x4-The Mud Toy-5.0L/4R70W/33's/Warn 8274 Winch
94 LX w/Splitport 3.8L from 2000 Mustang - SOLD
2 - 90 35th Anny Ed SC's
And a TON of parts cars!
racecougar is offline  
post #11 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-06-2007, 10:06 PM
2nd Gear Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: West Chicago
Posts: 64
I heard the mark rods were stronger than stock 2v rods in his current engine, so I estimate 4 or 5 lbs of boost wouldn't be out of the question. Obviously if is has bigger intentions (like 425+HP) better rods should be on the shopping list. I just think a 4.6 DOHC stroker forcing a few pounds of boost would definately scratch his itch.
StrmChkn4.6 is offline  
post #12 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-06-2007, 10:44 PM
TGJ
Baddest N/A NPI in Canada
 
TGJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Regina, Sask., Canada
Age: 43
Posts: 2,116
If I was to ever consider a stroker, the 324CI would be the only way I would do it. That said, it really depends on what you want. If you do it N/A, you should really go 4V or at the very least ported 2V heads. If you are looking at FI, 2V will serve you well.

R.I.P. Johnny Langton (1975 - 2011)

1996 Thunderbird 5.0L 2V-4R70W
12.64 @ 107 MPH -> DA 3315 Ft above Sea level
12.49 @ 109 -> DA 2967 Ft above Sea level
2005 Mustang GT 4.6L 3V-TR3650 - SOLD
13.39 @ 102 MPH -> DA 3617 Ft above Sea level
2011 Mustang GT 5.0L 4V-6R80 - Bolt-ons
12.32 @ 115 MPH -> DA 2980 Ft above Sea level
TGJ is offline  
post #13 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-06-2007, 11:54 PM
PostWhore
 
BIG PETE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Marietta, GA
Age: 37
Posts: 1,244
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrmChkn4.6 View Post
Does anybody know the cost of the stroker kit vs. the big bore kit? Im assuming joey asked the question about the mark viii engine because that would be the easiest engine to drop in his 96.
This should help with the cost estimatesL

http://modularperformance.net/short.html

Pete

-97 XR-7
-5.0 Big Bore ...
Ran @ Normal Operating Temps, No Race Tune, No Setup Changes from Daily Driven Configurations
9.0 @ 78 (1/8 Mile only in Abilene )
2.06 60' on Street Tires (BFG G-Force Super Sport 245/50/16)
3805 Lbs, Stock Exhaust Manifolds
Density Altitude = 4132'
That Run, Corrected for Standard Day
1/8 mile: 8.75 @ 82
BIG PETE is offline  
post #14 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-07-2007, 06:10 AM
The Parts Guy
 
racecougar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Imperial, Missouri (near St. L
Age: 36
Posts: 7,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by StrmChkn4.6 View Post
I heard the mark rods were stronger than stock 2v rods in his current engine, so I estimate 4 or 5 lbs of boost wouldn't be out of the question. Obviously if is has bigger intentions (like 425+HP) better rods should be on the shopping list. I just think a 4.6 DOHC stroker forcing a few pounds of boost would definately scratch his itch.
The Mark 8 rods are exactly the same as the 2V rods. All Ford modular engines except the '03+ Cobra (and the GT500 and Ford GT) came with powdered-metal, cracked-cap rods from the factory. I wouldn't run much more than 400 fwhp with them, and you would replace them anyway when running a 3.75" stroke crank (length).

5 psi on a 5.0L stroker DOHC is good for 12's.

-Rod

Rod @ AzzKicker Cars
[email protected]
90 XR7-The Meth Addict-KB SC'd 5.0L DOHC Stroker
2004 Mustang GT-The Driver-Intake/Exhaust/3.73's
1995 F150 4x4-The Mud Toy-5.0L/4R70W/33's/Warn 8274 Winch
94 LX w/Splitport 3.8L from 2000 Mustang - SOLD
2 - 90 35th Anny Ed SC's
And a TON of parts cars!
racecougar is offline  
post #15 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-07-2007, 06:12 AM
The Parts Guy
 
racecougar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Imperial, Missouri (near St. L
Age: 36
Posts: 7,265
Also, for a stroker rotating assembly, I highly recommend the setup that Livernois offers.

-Rod

Rod @ AzzKicker Cars
[email protected]
90 XR7-The Meth Addict-KB SC'd 5.0L DOHC Stroker
2004 Mustang GT-The Driver-Intake/Exhaust/3.73's
1995 F150 4x4-The Mud Toy-5.0L/4R70W/33's/Warn 8274 Winch
94 LX w/Splitport 3.8L from 2000 Mustang - SOLD
2 - 90 35th Anny Ed SC's
And a TON of parts cars!
racecougar is offline  
post #16 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-07-2007, 07:40 AM
High-Mileage 4.6L Thrasher
Moderator
 
Johnny Langton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by racecougar View Post
The Mark 8 rods are exactly the same as the 2V rods.

-Rod
Horse****.
Mark VIII and Cobra rods used from '93-'98 are a different rod than the 2V. In '99 Ford's bean counters determind that the large percentage of the 2V rods would handle the rpms of a stock 4V,and decided to save a bit of $$$ and swapped to the same rod on all 4.6L's-except of course the SC'd '03-up Cobras.
JL

1997 Thunderbird-4.6L/[email protected]
'05 F250 Crewcab 2WD-6.8L V10/5R110/4.10
2010 Lincoln MKT-3.5L EcoBoost V6/[email protected] stock
Fuelly
Johnny Langton is offline  
post #17 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-07-2007, 10:15 PM
The Parts Guy
 
racecougar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Imperial, Missouri (near St. L
Age: 36
Posts: 7,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Langton View Post
Horse****.
Mark VIII and Cobra rods used from '93-'98 are a different rod than the 2V. In '99 Ford's bean counters determind that the large percentage of the 2V rods would handle the rpms of a stock 4V,and decided to save a bit of $$$ and swapped to the same rod on all 4.6L's-except of course the SC'd '03-up Cobras.
JL
Real nice.

My apologies...it was six o'clock in the morning.

So you'd run stock Mark 8 rods in a performance build then, right?

When considering the total cost involved in building up a modular engine, a nice set of Manley H-beams are cheap insurance. That is my entire point.

-Rod

Rod @ AzzKicker Cars
[email protected]
90 XR7-The Meth Addict-KB SC'd 5.0L DOHC Stroker
2004 Mustang GT-The Driver-Intake/Exhaust/3.73's
1995 F150 4x4-The Mud Toy-5.0L/4R70W/33's/Warn 8274 Winch
94 LX w/Splitport 3.8L from 2000 Mustang - SOLD
2 - 90 35th Anny Ed SC's
And a TON of parts cars!
racecougar is offline  
post #18 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-08-2007, 06:48 AM
High-Mileage 4.6L Thrasher
Moderator
 
Johnny Langton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by racecougar View Post
Real nice.

My apologies...it was six o'clock in the morning.

So you'd run stock Mark 8 rods in a performance build then, right?

When considering the total cost involved in building up a modular engine, a nice set of Manley H-beams are cheap insurance. That is my entire point.

-Rod
Rod,don't play games. You made a blanket statement.."The Mark 8 rods are exactly the same as the 2V rods."
It doesn't get any more plain than that. If you meant to say they're no better than a 2V rod for a performance app-then you needed to say so. IMO-they're perfectly fine for a N/A application-they're lighter than aftermarket rods by a substantial amount, and will handle 7K rpms regularly without failure. For a power adder,no I wouldn't.
JL

1997 Thunderbird-4.6L/[email protected]
'05 F250 Crewcab 2WD-6.8L V10/5R110/4.10
2010 Lincoln MKT-3.5L EcoBoost V6/[email protected] stock
Fuelly
Johnny Langton is offline  
post #19 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-08-2007, 05:42 PM
The Parts Guy
 
racecougar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Imperial, Missouri (near St. L
Age: 36
Posts: 7,265
JL,

I made a mistake, I apologized for making said mistake, and I'm "playing games"? I don't know what I've done to bother you so much, but you're really coming across as pretty rude.

I've stated my point, and I'm out. The thread starter hasn't even replied to the thread anyway.

-Rod

Rod @ AzzKicker Cars
[email protected]
90 XR7-The Meth Addict-KB SC'd 5.0L DOHC Stroker
2004 Mustang GT-The Driver-Intake/Exhaust/3.73's
1995 F150 4x4-The Mud Toy-5.0L/4R70W/33's/Warn 8274 Winch
94 LX w/Splitport 3.8L from 2000 Mustang - SOLD
2 - 90 35th Anny Ed SC's
And a TON of parts cars!
racecougar is offline  
post #20 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-08-2007, 07:50 PM
PostWhore
 
awdRocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cancun Mexico
Age: 46
Posts: 1,522
So whats the NEW verdict on the whole rod angle talked about before?

I was going to build a 324 but ended up going 304. When I did my build there was a lot of talk about the rod angle on the stroker. Well, some time has passed, and there is a lot of strokers out there that seem to be holding up very well.

So now leaping two years forward from when I did my build.... I'm about to endeavor a new level of power which will require Billet rods. I'm back to wanting a 324 again.

BIGPETE... You said that the 324 is pretty useless on a SOHC... BUT with power added its another story.... right?

Trying to get an insight from the true knowledge gurus on your NEW thoughts almost two years later about 324's, or better stated, strokers.

Don't bring up cost, mods needed to make it worth while, which has more power or more torque etc etc etc. Just the specifics on the whole stroking a 4.6 concern.

Even see that great company's like MP are now doing 324's, when before they would not touch them.

To the thread starter.... This is not intended to high jack your thread... I was going to start my own, but figured this will bring some good info to your topic.

Alex

2002 EXPLORER: 400+whp 2v/M90 434tq / 401rwhp @ 9psi.. suv, 20's, IRS, slush box
COMING SOON: Modular Performance 324ci, Trick Flow Heads w/custom grind cams, Tork Tech TVS SC

Last edited by awdRocks; 11-08-2007 at 08:13 PM.
awdRocks is offline  
post #21 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-08-2007, 09:29 PM
The Parts Guy
 
racecougar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Imperial, Missouri (near St. L
Age: 36
Posts: 7,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by awdRocks View Post
So whats the NEW verdict on the whole rod angle talked about before?
In MY opinion: The rod angle worries that some have expressed about the stroker setups are unwarranted. I'm running this rotating assembly:

http://www.livernoismotorsports.com/...t.phtml?p=1553

I had everything balanced and coated. It is surprisingly quiet on cold startup for a forged engine, especially when you consider the rod angle. I built the engine around a 7K rpm limit, and that rotating assembly has no trouble handling that. I certainly don't mind the extra torque, either (which was clearly evident on the dyno).

To be perfectly clear, I'm not claiming that a stroker setup will outperform a big bore. In my case, my block only had 3,401 miles on it, and needed no more than a honing of the cylinders. However, the stock rotating assembly was trashed. Since the stroker rotating assembly was only $100 more than the stock stroke assembly, it just made since to take the step up in displacement. Also, with 4V heads and a twin-screw SC, cylinder filling isn't nearly as much of an issue as it would be on a NA 2V.

Before the subject of "strokers pulling the pistons out of the bottom of the cylinders at BDC" comes up, here is a picture of the stock rotating assembly at BDC:



And here is the stroker rotating assembly at BDC:



Hope all of that helps.

-Rod

Rod @ AzzKicker Cars
[email protected]
90 XR7-The Meth Addict-KB SC'd 5.0L DOHC Stroker
2004 Mustang GT-The Driver-Intake/Exhaust/3.73's
1995 F150 4x4-The Mud Toy-5.0L/4R70W/33's/Warn 8274 Winch
94 LX w/Splitport 3.8L from 2000 Mustang - SOLD
2 - 90 35th Anny Ed SC's
And a TON of parts cars!
racecougar is offline  
post #22 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-08-2007, 10:30 PM
PostWhore
 
awdRocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cancun Mexico
Age: 46
Posts: 1,522
Yeah that's what im trying to get at.

Ok so the rods come down further etc etc... BUT, in the last couple years, is there any real life proof that the rod dropping further or the angle difference has been the culprit to engine failure?

2002 EXPLORER: 400+whp 2v/M90 434tq / 401rwhp @ 9psi.. suv, 20's, IRS, slush box
COMING SOON: Modular Performance 324ci, Trick Flow Heads w/custom grind cams, Tork Tech TVS SC
awdRocks is offline  
post #23 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-08-2007, 10:34 PM
TGJ
Baddest N/A NPI in Canada
 
TGJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Regina, Sask., Canada
Age: 43
Posts: 2,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by awdRocks View Post
BIGPETE... You said that the 324 is pretty useless on a SOHC... BUT with power added its another story.... right?

Trying to get an insight from the true knowledge gurus on your NEW thoughts almost two years later about 324's, or better stated, strokers.

Don't bring up cost, mods needed to make it worth while, which has more power or more torque etc etc etc. Just the specifics on the whole stroking a 4.6 concern.

Even see that great company's like MP are now doing 324's, when before they would not touch them.
The 324 will work well with certain forms of FI and 2V. I am not sure I would want to run a large turbo or centrifugal SC with a stroker, even the 324. Roots or Twin Screw SC, it would do ok. Personally though, I would stick with just the BB, but that is me.

MP was willing to do 324's for quite some time, that was the only way they would do a stroker in the past. I know that this was the case when I started researching doing a Big-Bore in 2003 or 2004 as MP was adverstising that then, I can't remember what year I started looking into it.

R.I.P. Johnny Langton (1975 - 2011)

1996 Thunderbird 5.0L 2V-4R70W
12.64 @ 107 MPH -> DA 3315 Ft above Sea level
12.49 @ 109 -> DA 2967 Ft above Sea level
2005 Mustang GT 4.6L 3V-TR3650 - SOLD
13.39 @ 102 MPH -> DA 3617 Ft above Sea level
2011 Mustang GT 5.0L 4V-6R80 - Bolt-ons
12.32 @ 115 MPH -> DA 2980 Ft above Sea level
TGJ is offline  
post #24 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-08-2007, 10:37 PM
The Parts Guy
 
racecougar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Imperial, Missouri (near St. L
Age: 36
Posts: 7,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by awdRocks View Post
Yeah that's what im trying to get at.

Ok so the rods come down further etc etc... BUT, in the last couple years, is there any real life proof that the rod dropping further or the angle difference has been the culprit to engine failure?
Earlier this year when I was researching strokers before making my final decision on the rotating assembly, I wasn't able to find any real life proof of any engine failure directly associated to running a 3.75" stroke. Everyone that has a stroker seems to be very happy with it.

-Rod

Rod @ AzzKicker Cars
[email protected]
90 XR7-The Meth Addict-KB SC'd 5.0L DOHC Stroker
2004 Mustang GT-The Driver-Intake/Exhaust/3.73's
1995 F150 4x4-The Mud Toy-5.0L/4R70W/33's/Warn 8274 Winch
94 LX w/Splitport 3.8L from 2000 Mustang - SOLD
2 - 90 35th Anny Ed SC's
And a TON of parts cars!
racecougar is offline  
post #25 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-08-2007, 11:22 PM
PostWhore
 
BIG PETE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Marietta, GA
Age: 37
Posts: 1,244
I haven't heard of a stroker being less reliable. However, the crazy rod angles increase piston drag, which is one of the reasons why I think they don't make as much power.

The 324 was an option when I ordered my big bore in 2004, but I did not want it.

I think the 324 can still make good power as a 2V, but with a blower, the inability of the heads to flow is offset by boost. T 4V head fixes that issue as well.

Pete

-97 XR-7
-5.0 Big Bore ...
Ran @ Normal Operating Temps, No Race Tune, No Setup Changes from Daily Driven Configurations
9.0 @ 78 (1/8 Mile only in Abilene )
2.06 60' on Street Tires (BFG G-Force Super Sport 245/50/16)
3805 Lbs, Stock Exhaust Manifolds
Density Altitude = 4132'
That Run, Corrected for Standard Day
1/8 mile: 8.75 @ 82
BIG PETE is offline  
post #26 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-09-2007, 07:08 AM
High-Mileage 4.6L Thrasher
Moderator
 
Johnny Langton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,232
All of the coments about stroker reliability,yet in 2-3 years...how many of those engines are daily driven and have more than 30K miles on them? That's the big question. For a long-life, reliable engine-there's too little piston in the bore at BDC for proper support in keeping the piston square in the bore. It WILL wear faster than a stock stroke because of this with a higher wear load on the piston skirts. If you don't mind jerking the engine every 70-90K miles,then have at it-the stroker will be perfect for you.
JL

1997 Thunderbird-4.6L/[email protected]
'05 F250 Crewcab 2WD-6.8L V10/5R110/4.10
2010 Lincoln MKT-3.5L EcoBoost V6/[email protected] stock
Fuelly
Johnny Langton is offline  
post #27 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-09-2007, 07:36 AM
Seasoned PostWhore
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Cullman, AL
Age: 56
Posts: 7,758
Send a message via AIM to 94 Daily Driven 4.6L
So your's saying that an extra 0.207" in stroke is going to make a modular engine lose 100K miles in durability? (Stock stroke is 3.543 and the stroker cranks are 3.75, correct)

97 Lincoln Mark VIII LSC (Chip'd, 3.73 T/L... so far... )
97 Ford Aspire (Slow, but getting 36 mpg (f'n Ethenol!! )
84 F250 Dually w/6.9L Diesel (7.3L IDI pending)
73 Mercury Cougar Convertible w/351C 4V (Partially Restored)
69 F100 LWB w/460 Engine
76 Glastron Carlson 23' Jet Boat w/460 CJ Engine
94 Daily Driven 4.6L is offline  
post #28 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-09-2007, 08:52 AM
PostWhore
 
BIG PETE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Marietta, GA
Age: 37
Posts: 1,244
I don't have the spreadsheet anymore, but at one time, I plotted out the piston speeds and lateral piston loading of a 4.6 and a 5.4L. The 5.4 was significantly higher. I think it was roughly twice the stress of a 4.6 if I remember right, but it's been a few years since graphed out those relative speeds and forces.

Pete

-97 XR-7
-5.0 Big Bore ...
Ran @ Normal Operating Temps, No Race Tune, No Setup Changes from Daily Driven Configurations
9.0 @ 78 (1/8 Mile only in Abilene )
2.06 60' on Street Tires (BFG G-Force Super Sport 245/50/16)
3805 Lbs, Stock Exhaust Manifolds
Density Altitude = 4132'
That Run, Corrected for Standard Day
1/8 mile: 8.75 @ 82
BIG PETE is offline  
post #29 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-09-2007, 09:05 AM
PostWhore
 
BIG PETE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Marietta, GA
Age: 37
Posts: 1,244
I don't have the spreadsheet anymore, but at one time, I plotted out the piston speeds and lateral piston loading of a 4.6 and a 5.4L. The 5.4 was significantly higher. I think it was roughly twice the stress of a 4.6 if I remember right, but it's been a few years since graphed out those relative speeds and forces.

Pete

-97 XR-7
-5.0 Big Bore ...
Ran @ Normal Operating Temps, No Race Tune, No Setup Changes from Daily Driven Configurations
9.0 @ 78 (1/8 Mile only in Abilene )
2.06 60' on Street Tires (BFG G-Force Super Sport 245/50/16)
3805 Lbs, Stock Exhaust Manifolds
Density Altitude = 4132'
That Run, Corrected for Standard Day
1/8 mile: 8.75 @ 82
BIG PETE is offline  
post #30 of 38 (permalink) Old 11-09-2007, 09:16 AM
High-Mileage 4.6L Thrasher
Moderator
 
Johnny Langton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by 94 Daily Driven 4.6L View Post
So your's saying that an extra 0.207" in stroke is going to make a modular engine lose 100K miles in durability? (Stock stroke is 3.543 and the stroker cranks are 3.75, correct)
In the world of machining tolerances and stress loading .207" may as well be 10 feet.
The important thing is the location of the piston pin relative to the bottom of the cylinder bore. The lower the pin,the more lateral stress therefore,more wear and less reliability.
JL

1997 Thunderbird-4.6L/[email protected]
'05 F250 Crewcab 2WD-6.8L V10/5R110/4.10
2010 Lincoln MKT-3.5L EcoBoost V6/[email protected] stock
Fuelly
Johnny Langton is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TCCoA Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome