Ken, what do you think of that "affordable" and reputedly smog legal Coast 347
stroker that all the Mustang boys are hot over??? Great price, but I understand
that the longer rods mean less efficient piston rings and poor wear qualities as
the trade off for power. And isn't the thin wall late 302 pretty fragile
compared
to the earlier small blocks?
Al Johnson
KENMATTICE@aol.com wrote:
> I'm a fan of the short deck 302 strokers because they are cheap and reliable
> and there aren't any problems to solve with the chassis, firewall, headers,
> ect....and the payoff is real world street power via a big fat and flat torque
> curve. Mine made 386HP at 5,650 RPM and was making 354 ft # torque at 3,000
> rpm. don't know about numbers below that level, as all dyno tests started at
> 3,000 rpm. That's with 9.6 to 1 compression and very modest cam timing. 14#
> vacumn, so it's got exceptional throttle response throught the prm range.
> Lots of kits and parts out there...Pay attention to the treatment given the
> ring package, wrist pin and piston. The engine folks I regard don't get too
> carried away about the longer rods actually creating more torque, but they do
> seem to think that you can move the curves around a little bit...sorry....some
> risk at igniting controversy....seems an irrelevent nit to me.
> The flip side... that level of power in a 289/302 is also obtainable but the
> the result is not nearly as easy to live with on the street.
> Regards,
> Ken Mattice
|