Also having looked at this, the 347 ci used to have the oiling problem,
because the 3rd ring was too close to the bottom of the piston. This
has been solved by a number of manufacturers. Look in one of the Ford
mags, like 5.0 Mustang, and you will ssee a number of engines.
Larry
RMEbstein@aol.com wrote:
>Hi Kent,
>
>I've mentioned a few times on the List that I'm considering buying a Roush
>or Ford crate engine. The Roush engines are complete, but appear to use the
>standard Ford block. The newer and cheaper HP Ford crate engines use the
>Sportsman block. I want the Sportsman block, since it has 10 extra pounds in
>all
>the right places. I would guess that Roush would do it if you want to pay a
>little extra. The R engines are the forged engines (pistons and crank) and
>sell
>for $9,500 without the full polish treatment, which I don't want. I spoke with
>a Roush vendor in Southern California who implicitly trusts Roush and their
>engines. He says he has sold over a 100 and not had one returned. I have his
>name and number at my office if you want it.
>
>The one thing I've been told by a few people is that with the 342's or
>anyone's 347 (.030 overbore) engines that there will be regular oil loss due
>to
>the long rods and short pistons and cylinder walls. This is why I'm
>considering
>the 327R. One of my minor issues is that they will not divulge their
>proprietary camshaft spec info.
>
>Someone even makes a 382 cubic inch engine, but from a Dart built 302 block.
>The Dart blocks are by far the best. I have a 540ci engine in my '66
>Corvette and the Dart casting is virtually flawless, has blind holes and the
>oiling
>system was modified for better oiling.
>
>Rodney
|