NickHolt Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 It's this little thing called "polar moment of inetia" that's the problem with the weight distribution scenario you describe. If you have two 3000 pound cars, both with 58% left weight and both with 50% rear weight, the car that has more of its mass concentrated near the center of the vehicle will be able to turn better. That's the quick answer. For a more complete answer you might consider attending the upcoming suspension seminar (unabashed plug). Nick Holt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budman Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Nick, I have those Polar Moments of Inertia from time to time. The doctor tells me there's nothing I can take for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Ford Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Nick, so in your opinion, wouldn't it make sense to have the engine setback or "location" a little closer between makes than 1.75", 5", & 7"? I mean that's a huge difference. PAPA - Look! There's a chevy guy raising his hand..........look another.......and another! There ya go, bring out the 347! Let's go racin' oh yea, and about that engine "location". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Hopefully The set back would be the same as the Chevy if the OEM GM chassis is used. But what about the "Frame Crossover"? Doesnt the Fords(302) Have the oil sump in the front? OK, We have the 347 sitting in the GM frame(somewhere). The cage is there and its time to hang the Ford body on it.....Does the body have to be from a car that has a min of 108" or can the newer Mustang bodies be used? This would end the hunt for the older bodies which are hard to come by. Am I way off on this one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Ford Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Yes, the sump is in the front on the ford but allowing us to modify the front crossmember just a tad, we could get it to around 5". I am mainly talking about the USRA trucks, this is allowed in the sportsman class. Going back to the engine talk for just a sec, a Ford in the roadrunner class can run a 351W or Cleveland and a Dodge can run a 360. So it is allowed in the lower "entry level" classes but not in the truck series? We're forced to run a 302 & 318? It's just not right. I'm running out of time already, I have the schedule but not the means to make my truck "right" to race the schedule competetively if at all. I for one am tired of "stroking" & having to hope some guys will fall out so I can get a top 5. whew.....now that I got that rant out......heheh -- PAPA, I could see putting a 5.0 mustang body on a 108" GM chassis in the sportsman class. It would take some modification (of course) but it could work. ps. I can rant today...it's my birthday Don't worry Nick, I'll keep it clean. hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Ford Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 JMO on the USRA trucks & then I'll take it up with the "proper people"- Use the original truck rules, & get rid of the 350 crate which isn't even in the original rulebook. Let us run the 302, 305 & 318 and don't change rules 2 months before we start racing, this needs to be done 1/2 way through the previous season. The truck series had all 3 makes & over 20 trucks at each event & even some "B" mains when these original rules were in place. Another 2 years down the road we'll all be crate engine cookie cutter racing. Well, those who really want to will be anyhow. If the crate stays then ford & dodge guys deserve to have another engine choice as well plain and simple. Again, JMO. No offense meant towards any particular person, entity, organization, official, track, owner, promoter, manager, etc etc etc..... I know everybody works hard to give us a place to race & it is appreciated. [edited out by Nick Holt, 1/7/05] - My appologies Nick, I meant no disrespect. Honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RandyBorlace Posted January 8, 2006 Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Happy B-day Jr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 8, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2006 Happy Birthday Jr. Hope you are enjoying yourself today. I just got back from the show at Live Oak Civic Center. It was great! While I was there I stopped by the Noeth Park Motorsports booth and taked to Rex Sallee. He just happened to have a 302 and a 350 setting side by side. I dont think there is any reason for a set-back. The 302 is a lot shorter than the 350 and it weighs a lot less. He agrees with the 347 idea but says the GT-40P heads arent the way to go. He recomends the "Sportsman" heads. He also said the 347 should be as cheap to build as the 350. It all depends on who builds it. He also had a 351W (One of the new designs) block there as well and to me it looked smaller than the 350. But my eyes are getting old along with the rest of me. I really do believe this is going to work out. Now if we can just get some Mopar guys on here to come up with some ideas for them. Im going to try and talk with Wayne this Tuesday or Wednesday(They have an all day meeting on Mondays) about all this. I wish I could get some more Chevy guys to voice their opinion on this. It sure would be usefull info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Ford Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budman Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Lots of old Fords posted in the history section tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1-Crew Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Regarding set-back, I thing the issue isn't how short the block is, it is where the spark plug is located. In most set back rules the reference is the ball joint and the #1 spark plug. Depending on the head, that could put the actual center of mass for the block in a differnet location by manufacturer and head configuration. I don't know what location is "equivalent" but I'll bet it is different. BTW, the 302 was advertised as one of the lightest V8s available when it was first introduced due to "thinwall casting technology". That was in the early 1960s.. Advertised weight: Cheverolet 350 - 575 lbs (stock iron heads and manifolds) Ford 351W - 525 lbs (stock iron heads and manifolds) Ford 302 - 460 lbs (stock iron heads and manifolds) Ford 351C - 550 lbs (stock iron heads and manifolds) Dodge 360 - 455 lbs (aluminum heads and intake, headers) (only reference I could find) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 1-Crew Thanks for the info. Ill put that with my list. Whats your take on letting the 347 run? I would like to get everyones input on this. Thanks again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budman Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Papa, I realize there are lots of engine builders out there, but if you're talking about FORD'S347 crate, its a bit of a little brute at 450 horses. Don't think the Chevy guys would want to compete against that one. Check out .......... fordracingparts.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 9, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Heavens NO budman! Not the crate motor. That thing has alumn heads and a roller cam,etc. We are talking about using the production 302 block with a "Stroker Kit" and "Cast Iron" heads. The HP will be real real close tho the SB Chevy. The GT-40P head is Cast Iron. The Sportsman head is also cast iron. But yeah...I dont think the Chevy guys would like the Crate version Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budman Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Sorry if I created any confusion, but just wanted to clear that up .................. and, that's what this forum is for, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1-Crew Posted January 9, 2006 Report Share Posted January 9, 2006 Why the 347 over the standard 351W? Aside from the difference in deck height, they both share the same heads and 4.00" bore. The 347 was born by the need to get more displacement from the 5.0 block in a tight engine bay but that isn't really the concern in the application you are suggesting. Displacement isn't the problem, breathing is.. The only way for the Ford to be competetive is to allow the GT40, Dart or some other head combination that breaths as well as the Chevy heads.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 1-Crew Im learning more about Fords every day now. While I was talking with Rex he mentioned the "Sportsman" head. He said they have improved the flow quit a bit. Is it enough ?...I dont know, but I really dont think anyone is going to allow an aluminum head in this class. He also mentioned that the 302 blocks are easier to come across than the 351W. There is a non-production race block (351W) which weighs another 10lbs. Im still going to talk to Wayne about all this but it looks like a lot more research is needed. I really would like to know the cost of these two compared to the 350. I think all three can put out the HP thats needed to be competitive but at what cost. We're getting close. Thanks again 1-Crew for your input. I really wish others would throw something into the pot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budman Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Papa, There are kagillions of ford pick-ups out there with 351Ws in 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REBELRACER Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 but what chassis or body would you use to run the ford or dodge?...........there was several suggestions earlier, why not use one of those chassis and body combos with a chevy engine............tehehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Ford Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 no PAPA, I want Ford's crate murrhahahahaha nah, in all seriousness...... I'm talking about just a 302 block, stock production GT40-P heads, and a complete 347 stroker kit that costs somewhere around $900 ( they have them everywhere, including eBay ). That would make some power and keep the cost low. Honestly as a Ford racer, the 347 option is more readily available and actually more cost effective than the 351W. Most ford performance stuff is based on using a 302 block, and 302s seem to be easier to find around here these days. Of course, if they said, "sure ya'll can run a 351W" I'd be happy too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Budman Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Yeah Lonesome, That's kinda what I thought you were getting at all along! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PAPA Posted January 10, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Lonesome Ford As I read the rules you CAN run the 351W or the 351C. Another thing we need to ask about is the valve size. The rule book states 1.84/1.54 on the Windsor head. The Sportsman head is 2.02/1.60. And what about the cam lift? The Rule book states .333 for all motors. Im just throwing things out there. Does it really matter? Im learning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Ford Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 PAPA - hehe I'm still rambling on about the trucks.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickHolt Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Papa, There are kagillions of ford pick-ups out there with 351Ws in 'em. Actually, it's more like bazillions. Nick Holt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonesome Ford Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Guys! Of course there are bazillions of 351s in old Ford trucks out there. But there is a major problem..............most of them are still daily drivers and are being used for work everyday! FORD Found On Road Dead tired after outrunning a Chevy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.