|
Author
|
Topic: 418W for a street truck
|
F-150Moneypit
Journeyman Posts: 34
From: Oregon
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 11-10-2003 11:02 PM
  
I am planning on building a new motor for the 'pit' (the truck in my sig)and decided on a 418 but have a few ?'s. Specs:
351W - 9.503 deck height
Scat forged 4.1" crank
Scat forged 6" I-beam rods (7/16" capscrew)
SRP Forged -28cc dish .030 pistons
AFR 205's
RPM Airgap - (street freindly)
Holley 750
MSD Pro billet / 6AL
9.87 SCR (pistons .010 in the hole) .049" quench
Hooker 1 3/4" headers with dual 3" pipes With a Comp XE274 the DCR comes out to 8.06, good for pump gas. Now the ?'s Will this be a good combo for a daily driver with power brakes? How will this cam respond on the street? What kind of vacuum can I expect? I plan on matching the torque converter to whatever cam I do get but don't want one that stalls too much higher than my cruise RPM with the AOD (about 1500), or am I worrying about nothing? All the cam info available is based on 351cid, not the 418cid I'm building so I'm a little lost there. This will be a street truck BUT....I will be going to the track a few times a year where there are hardly ANY Fords, so I want to make a good impression  Any help or criticism greatly appreciated! ------------------
'90 F150 Super Cab XLT Lariat
5.0/AOD/3.55 275/60/15 BFG's
Latest Mod - 204/214 cam
Next: Carbed 418W in the near future.
IP: Logged |
Butch Jennings
Gearhead Posts: 632
From: No. California
Registered: Apr 2000
|
posted 11-10-2003 11:40 PM
I think the 205's are wrong for your combo, I think you'd be better off with a set of 185's.------------------
Butch
460 powered 1967 Comet Cyclone
10.271 @ 130.231
Butcher's Home Page
"See Dick drink,
See Dick drive,
See Dick Die,
Don't be a Dick!"
IP: Logged |
N266fords
Gearhead Posts: 1652
From: Sierra Vista ,Az USA
Registered: Apr 2003
|
posted 11-10-2003 11:57 PM
I agree the 185 would be great for the truck as you want to keep the rpms low and the torque high. Bruce
It will be impressive if you can get it to hook ( now there is the key to success).
IP: Logged |
F-150Moneypit
Journeyman Posts: 34
From: Oregon
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 11-11-2003 01:43 PM
Thanks, 185's it is!How about the cam, anyone know how it will work on the street, or otherwise?(vacuum,idle etc.) ------------------
'90 F150 Super Cab XLT Lariat
5.0/AOD/3.55 275/60/15 BFG's
Latest Mod - 204/214 cam
Next: Carbed 418W in the near future.
IP: Logged |
mainer
Gearhead Posts: 157
From: Bryant Pond, Maine
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 11-11-2003 02:01 PM
Not an expert but shouldn't that be 6.2" rods for a 418? don ------------------
68 Mustang Coupe
IP: Logged |
F-150Moneypit
Journeyman Posts: 34
From: Oregon
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 11-11-2003 02:29 PM
Actually, the rods aren't used in the calculation for cid.bore x bore x stroke x .7854 x # of cylinders
(4.030 x 4.030 x 4.1 x .7854 x 8 = 418) But the piston DO call for 6.2 rod but I'm going to have it decked, so I could use just about any rod. ------------------
'90 F150 Super Cab XLT Lariat
5.0/AOD/3.55 275/60/15 BFG's
Latest Mod - 204/214 cam
Next: Carbed 418W in the near future. [This message has been edited by F-150Moneypit (edited 11-11-2003).]
IP: Logged |
V8 Thumper
Gearhead Posts: 4652
From: Phoenix, Arizona
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 11-11-2003 02:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by F-150Moneypit:
I could use just about any rod.
Maybe, but the longer the rod, the better the rod/stroke ratio, longer piston dwell at tdc/bdc, the less intake runner/port volume and less (to an extent) camshaft duration necessary to make the same power with a shorter rod. In your case, if a (slightly) shorter rod means keeping the wrist pin out of the oil ring land, then it could be a reasonable choice. I still vote for the longer rod. note: Boss 302's used a 5.155" rod (289 length) as opposed to 5.090 (standard 302) for improved rod/stroke ratio. My little stroker uses 5.400 rods. Just food for thought 
------------------
1965 GT coupe, 333ci aluminum headed/solid cammed stroker, four speed, 3.70:1 9"
All Blue Oval, no blue bottle
http://mustangsandmore.50megs.com/V8Thumper.html [This message has been edited by V8 Thumper (edited 11-11-2003).]
IP: Logged |
V8 Thumper
Gearhead Posts: 4652
From: Phoenix, Arizona
Registered: Dec 2001
|
posted 11-11-2003 02:36 PM
I also agree with 185cc intake port volumes in a truck application ------------------
1965 GT coupe, 333ci aluminum headed/solid cammed stroker, four speed, 3.70:1 9" All Blue Oval, no blue bottle
http://mustangsandmore.50megs.com/V8Thumper.html
IP: Logged |
F-150Moneypit
Journeyman Posts: 34
From: Oregon
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 11-11-2003 02:44 PM
185's it is. I took the R/S ratio into consideration. I figured the .05 decrease in ratio was worth the decrease in side load on the cylinders with that long stroke.  ------------------
'90 F150 Super Cab XLT Lariat
5.0/AOD/3.55 275/60/15 BFG's
Latest Mod - 204/214 cam
Next: Carbed 418W in the near future.
IP: Logged |
F-150Moneypit
Journeyman Posts: 34
From: Oregon
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 11-12-2003 12:44 AM
Anyone use this cam for the street or does my combo in general just blow?------------------
'90 F150 Super Cab XLT Lariat
5.0/AOD/3.55 275/60/15 BFG's
Latest Mod - 204/214 cam
Next: Carbed 418W in the near future.
IP: Logged |
F-150Moneypit
Journeyman Posts: 34
From: Oregon
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 11-13-2003 02:55 PM
I decided to go ahead and have the block zero decked (instead of .010 in the hole)for a better quench and a little more compression.So here's the new numbers; 10.06SCR and 8.20DCR with the XE274 (230/236 .519/.523 110LSA) With everything else the same as the original combo except AFR 185's, is this sounding good?
IP: Logged |
CHIPSBAD67
Gearhead Posts: 396
From: LOU,KY;USA
Registered: Sep 2003
|
posted 11-13-2003 07:03 PM
hey, good subject. my dad has a 76 f150 money pit that he wants to put a 347 in next year. i was regretting not having the 185's in my mustang and dad suggested he'd buy the 185's and we could put my 165's on his 347. here's the question, would the 185's be better for his 347 or would the 165's serve him better? im not concerned with my combo and im not trying to weasel a set of heads. whichever would be the best choice for the truck is my main concern. i think the switch to 185's in my case would only prove a marginal improvement anyway. i am curious about a 185/victor jr. setup but not so much that im willing to spend his money to find out.------------------
306, 4speed, 4.11's....best 1/8 mile 7.58 at 92mph with 1.72 60ft. PUMP GAS/NO ADDERS/STREET TIRES
IP: Logged |
Kellxr7
Gearhead Posts: 679
From: Canada
Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted 11-13-2003 07:20 PM
Not to open up another can of worms, but I have always been recommended that the 205s are right at home on a 392, dont them 185s seem a little small fora 418?
IP: Logged |
F-150Moneypit
Journeyman Posts: 34
From: Oregon
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 11-13-2003 07:35 PM
205's were my first thought as well but being a street truck I don't know. If it were going in a Mustang I wouldn't even question it. I thought the larger stroker wouldn't have a problem with torque....I'll leave that to the folks with stroker experience. That's really the only reason I'm here, to get good advise, unlike some other sites.
IP: Logged |
steve'66
Gearhead Posts: 9489
From: Sonoma,CA,USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 11-15-2003 03:56 PM
MP,I agree with the 185s for your truck application too. You're building a torque monster that'll work with a stock converter, right? It won't pull much over 5,000 rpm but it's power curve will be in the 1500-5,000 rpm range where you'll need it. For an engine like this you can use cheaper bottom end parts too. You won't be spinning it very high. Now if you were building it to rev 6500+, that's a different story. SteveW
IP: Logged |
Mustangsandmore Forums
