This video from Richard Holdener is great, because it was asked for by viewers and because he starts off laughing and questioning why they asked for it. Well in typical Richard fashion, he’s going to give you all the data and all the info on both combinations that he ran on the dyno and then talks about why and how and all that. There is a lot going on with both of these engines, but there are some key differences that do impact the power potential and the power they are producing in this trim.
Ultimately, you can watch this video and use it to help you decide on which combination might be right in your project, and what power you really can make with these components. While I’m a huge GM engine fan, and I enjoy a good LS, there is no doubt that you can make real power with all kinds of engines. And the small block Ford is one of the most popular muscle car engines in history, with jillions of Fox body Mustangs running around for years with hopped up versions of the factory 302 or 351. In fact, the 347 stroker was born during the hayday of the Fox body and grew to be insanely popular with Mustang fans. There was a time when they were way more common in a Mustang than an LS engine is, and the truth is there are probably still way more Fox Mustangs with a Ford Small Block in them than any other combination.
Watch the vide. Let us know what you think. Comment, Like, Share.
I like this comparison – because one of my cars is a ’65 mustang that will not accommodate a 351 without some sheet metal surgery. So good info to know. One factor that I wish Holdener would include in all of his tests is more data on compression ratio. Not that I would expect him to attempt to try to hold this constant on all comparisons because he often uses used stock short blocks as a basis, but I think that this would be a good data point to have for the readers. I would suggest that he include not only the nominal compression ratios of each combo tested, but also the “dynamic” compression ratio of each with the corresponding camshafts in each engine. He obviously has the tools and ability to do this and I think it would elevate the level of analysis.
I like this comparison – because one of my cars is a \’65 mustang that will not accommodate a 351 without some sheet metal surgery. So good info to know. One factor that I wish Holdener would include in all of his tests is more data on compression ratio. Not that I would expect him to attempt to try to hold this constant on all comparisons because he often uses used stock short blocks as a basis, but I think that this would be a good data point to have for the readers. I would suggest that he include not only the nominal compression ratios of each combo tested, but also the \”dynamic\” compression ratio of each with the corresponding camshafts in each engine. He obviously has the tools and ability to do this and I think it would elevate the level of analysis.
Que motor es más confiable para uso diario de calle 347 o 351 además de la economía y rendimiento