1982 Ford EXP 9.200 @ 144.000 423ci/400 Stroker

I found this on another forum. Not bad for a smog motor!

http://www.dragtimes.com/Ford-EXP-Timeslip-8574.html

Here's what he said in an email.

"I had thought for years that this would make a good combo but had been talked out of it. I finally built one anyway. The first combo used 4v closed chamber heads with some filling of the intake ports and internal porting of the exhaust(along with plates to fill the bottom of the port). With a tunnel ram, (2)stage3 barry grant 660s, an engle flat tappet cam, flat top pistons and stock rods and crank, it ran a best of 6.05 @ 112mph shifting at 7000 rpm, in the 1/8th at sea level. That ET would equate to an approx. 9.5 sec 1/4 mile et. The flat top pistons with the closed chamber heads gave approx 12.2 to 1 compression.
I ran that combination for about 5 years then decided to pump it up a little.

13.7 to 1 compression
aluminum rods (6.967&quot[img]/forums/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]
stroke stock crank 4.125"
.040" overbore
roller cam 286, 296, @ .50 with .750 lift w/110 cl
spayed 4 bolt main caps (showed evidence of cap walk with 2 bolt)
self made hi-port plates for exhaust side of the heads.
same intake and carbs.

The et posted on dragtimes was the first time out with the new motor , 900 feet elevation and we were dialing in a new four-link setup. I feel certain that it would have run 5.70s if I could have made another pass after making adjustments. I was also shortshifting at 7000. The cam mfg recommended a 76-7700 rpm shift point with this combo.
Since then I've gotten myself into an upcoming match race situation with my brother (53 willys w/blown 427 alky) and in preparation, have changed mine over to a dual Ron's Toilet alky injection system. I haven't made a pass with it yet, but if the change in it's sound is any indicator, it's going to be interesting!!
The biggest aggravation in using 400m and 4v head combo is the intake manifold situation. I used modified weiand spacers for a while but finally made my own and had them welded to the manifold.
The extra cubic inches is just what the 4v heads need to make them work and really turns the 400m into a mid-range torque monster when properly built. I'd love to see more people use them so maybe some aftermarket intakes might become available.
I ported the heads myself but have never had them flowed.
I wouldn't overbore more that .040 at this compression without filling the block.
As far as max rpm,,, the crank is the limiting factor. With the lightweight pistons and aluminum rods, I don't plan to spin it beyond 75-7600. Good crank prep is very important especially when using a cast crank."

Openning of a new frontier? Slowly...the people are coming around to the idea of "not" following the well worn path ...just because it is easy.

There are very few restriction on using the 400/351m as the base for a potent combination. Especially if your money is tight, but you want an engine that starts out with the kind of head cfm flow that only aftermarket heads will give you with a windsor or FE. Remember, I am an FE faithful...it's just hard to fight against the overwhelming, escalating costs of "Home manufacturing" an FE. I am coining the term "Home Manufacturing" for FE's because little by little there is very little need for or easy to find old factory parts. Just about everything for an FE can be replaced with new parts today.

With big blocks for even street respectable rides on the street. Most small blocks are going on steroids, moving from 300 ci range to the new range of 350 - 360 or bigger.

If we, you can get the 400 together at a decent cost, using junkyard parts and a few pay checks of savings - then you have bought a ticket to the "street super bowl", without having to pay scalper prices.

Then you have to find headers...? [img]/forums/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2007-02-08 06:13, Beoweolf wrote:
Then you have to find headers...? [img]/forums/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

Why? I'm using my 351C headers. Some apps may require some minor floorpan tweeking but the 400 only moved my headers up and out by 3/4" on each side. That was no problem in my Falcon.

Wow, just think how fast that car would have gone if he had started with a 460! [img]/forums/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img][img]/forums/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img][img]/forums/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img][img]/forums/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img][img]/forums/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img][img]/forums/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img][img]/forums/images/smiles/icon_eek.gif[/img]

Even if it ran 6 second quarters and made 2000HP there will always be someone who won't give the 400 the credit it deserves. With factory heads, block, and iron crank it spins well past 7K rpm and lasted 5 years.

Would you trust a 351C block @ .040 over? Would a 429, 427MR or 428CJ make more power using factory parts? Would they cost less to build, be any more durable, or weigh any less?

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2007-02-08 15:50, BrianS wrote:
factory heads, block, and iron crank it spins well past 7K rpm and lasted 5 years.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
I'd have to seen it with my own eyes before I beleive it.

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2007-02-08 16:15, 1 Bad 88 GT wrote:
I'd have to seen it with my own eyes before I beleive it.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
E-mail the guy. He's provided a timeslip. As for duribility, the aftermarket rods and pistons would be a lot lighter than the factory pieces so I'm sure he pulled a lot of weight out of that crank to balance the assembly. If that's the case, he could spin that crank to 7K-7500rpm. The bearings aren't a problem as it is not uncommon to see a 351W stroker get spun that high at the track. If it were a 429 would you be skeptical?

I didn't comment on the claimed times. I said I don't beleive that it lasted for 5yrs. A combo like that, pushed that hard won't hold together that long unless it's not used very much.

"The bearings aren't a problem as it is not uncommon to see a 351W stroker get spun that high at the track."

The 400 also has a 0.8" taller deck, 0.5" longer rods and therefor a better rod to stroke ratio. I'm not saying that will make any more power but having less severe rod angles will reduce stress on the block and crank.

Not sure where the 9.20 @ 144 came from, the time slip noted is for an 1/8 mile run.

Sounds like somebody's been extrapolating again.

Greg
[addsig]