Author Topic: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?  (Read 6446 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

410bruce

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #30 on: November 11, 2019, 12:25:48 PM »
Well, for better or worse, I just bought these.  https://www.ebay.com/itm/312766377214

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3918
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #31 on: November 11, 2019, 01:20:55 PM »
Well, for better or worse, I just bought these.  https://www.ebay.com/itm/312766377214

I think those are 1.674 compression height and I'd guess a 10 cc dish, maybe Barry knows.  I think that's a good piston at 1/2 the price of a custom

10cc with a 72cc chamber and a cut to 10.160 would be 10.11:1 and .047 quench with a 1020 Felpro
10cc with a 72cc chamber and a cut to 10.160 would be 9.85:1 and .059 quench with an 8554 Felpro

Either would work well with the Edelbrock 2106 I mentioned, with the 1020 Felpro or a little more cut on the block being better.  However, if you are going custom, just get your numbers to Brent, he'll fix you up and it'll likely be much better than the Edelbrock (although as old school as it is, I have always liked that cam in a mild FE)



---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch

410bruce

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #32 on: November 11, 2019, 02:15:07 PM »
Well, for better or worse, I just bought these.  https://www.ebay.com/itm/312766377214

I think those are 1.674 compression height and I'd guess a 10 cc dish, maybe Barry knows.  I think that's a good piston at 1/2 the price of a custom

10cc with a 72cc chamber and a cut to 10.160 would be 10.11:1 and .047 quench with a 1020 Felpro
10cc with a 72cc chamber and a cut to 10.160 would be 9.85:1 and .059 quench with an 8554 Felpro

Either would work well with the Edelbrock 2106 I mentioned, with the 1020 Felpro or a little more cut on the block being better.  However, if you are going custom, just get your numbers to Brent, he'll fix you up and it'll likely be much better than the Edelbrock (although as old school as it is, I have always liked that cam in a mild FE)

Excellent! I'm happy you think it's a good piston. I often shoot myself in the foot being somewhat impatient and thinking I got a deal on something--when in reality I didn't. Glad this isn't one of those times.  :)

410bruce

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2019, 09:08:36 AM »
Hey guys, I need your input here. I have a chance to pick up a complete 1995 351w -5.8 - roller cam engine from the same place I purchased the T5. When I say complete, I mean the complete engine plus all the front dress--brackets etc.
This would make a V-8 swap/5-speed swap much easier. I could save the 410 for something more appropriate and deserving of it later down the road.
It would be cheaper for me in the long run as there would be no fab work, which I would have to farm out, and would be pretty much a bolt-in swap.

I'm kinda leaning toward this....

What do you think?

« Last Edit: November 13, 2019, 09:35:55 AM by 410bruce »

chris401

  • Guest
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #34 on: November 13, 2019, 09:27:27 AM »
Hey guys, I need your input here. I have a chance to pick up a complete 1995 351w (5.8) roller cam engine from the same place I purchased the T5. When I say complete, I mean the complete engine plus all the front dress--brackets etc.
This would make a V-8 swap/5-speed swap much easier. I could save the 410 for something more appropriate and deserving of it later down the road.
It would be cheaper for me in the long run as there would be no fab work, which I would have to farm out, and would be pretty much a bolt-in swap.

I'm kinda leaning toward this....

What do you think?
Mine stock with 2° advanced timing was typically a 15-16 mpg engine. (November 95)1996 F-250 351 5 speed 3.55:1 gears. It was no power house compared to my 7.3 but it was dead dependable. 116,XXX miles when I bought it in September 2000. 318,XXX in April 2012 when I sold it. Opened the engine once at 186,XXX miles to replace a broken exhaust valve spring. Still had 163 to 175 psi static compression when I sold it. Happened into the old truck at a wrecking yard 5 months after selling it.

410bruce

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 349
    • View Profile
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2019, 09:37:19 AM »
Hey guys, I need your input here. I have a chance to pick up a complete 1995 351w (5.8) roller cam engine from the same place I purchased the T5. When I say complete, I mean the complete engine plus all the front dress--brackets etc.
This would make a V-8 swap/5-speed swap much easier. I could save the 410 for something more appropriate and deserving of it later down the road.
It would be cheaper for me in the long run as there would be no fab work, which I would have to farm out, and would be pretty much a bolt-in swap.

I'm kinda leaning toward this....

What do you think?
Mine stock with 2° advanced timing was typically a 15-16 mpg engine. (November 95)1996 F-250 351 5 speed 3.55:1 gears. It was no power house compared to my 7.3 but it was dead dependable. 116,XXX miles when I bought it in September 2000. 318,XXX in April 2012 when I sold it. Opened the engine once at 186,XXX miles to replace a broken exhaust valve spring. Still had 163 to 175 psi static compression when I sold it. Happened into the old truck at a wrecking yard 5 months after selling it.
Thanks Chris.

chris401

  • Guest
Re: Torque and Fuel Efficiency--Possible?
« Reply #36 on: November 13, 2019, 09:21:02 PM »

Thanks Chris.
[/quote]Noticable difference in low end torque between the 390 and 410. I ran one for a couple of months in stock form.