Boat

289 - 351 cid Small Block Performance

Re: Boat

Postby Comechero65 » Fri Oct 14, 2016 12:27 pm

Ford changed the firing order to reduce the load on the front rod journal.
Ron
Comechero65
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:37 pm
Location: Santa Clara, Ca

Re: Boat

Postby popscomet » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:40 pm

Comechero65 wrote:Ford changed the firing order to reduce the load on the front rod journal.
Ron

.........10-4............ :D
Image
pop/glenda
popscomet
 
Posts: 7802
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: Jacksonville, Arkansas

Re: Boat

Postby poboyjo65 » Fri Oct 14, 2016 1:48 pm

popscomet wrote:
poboyjo65 wrote:
Lip Ripper wrote:Firing order depends on the cam. A lot of performance cam's for 289/302's use the 351W firing order.


The thumper cam from comp that I'm using has a 351w firing order.

do you know why??

it fits a 351w but can be used in a 302 also. Is that what you meant Pop?
Image
347, 4sp, 9''......
JOHNO
poboyjo65
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:40 pm
Location: Camden, Tenn.

Re: Boat

Postby popscomet » Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:48 pm

yes and no.......it was mainly to lighten the load on the crank,,,,,,
Image
pop/glenda
popscomet
 
Posts: 7802
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: Jacksonville, Arkansas

Re: Boat

Postby popscomet » Fri Oct 14, 2016 4:49 pm

popscomet wrote:yes and no.......it was mainly to lighten the load on the crank,,,,,,

let me resay that ,,the W CAM CAN BE PUT IN A 302 OR A 289
Image
pop/glenda
popscomet
 
Posts: 7802
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: Jacksonville, Arkansas

Re: Boat

Postby poboyjo65 » Fri Oct 14, 2016 5:48 pm

I've heard all that about the crank flex but what I'm saying is in my case it was so that comp cam could save money by selling same cam for both engines. :wink:
Image
347, 4sp, 9''......
JOHNO
poboyjo65
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:40 pm
Location: Camden, Tenn.

Re: Boat

Postby popscomet » Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:00 pm

poboyjo65 wrote:I've heard all that about the crank flex but what I'm saying is in my case it was so that comp cam could save money by selling same cam for both engines. :wink:

THE WAY I SEE IT ,IF it wasn't for lighten the load on the throw,the CAM MAKERS could have left them alone...besides I read many yrs ago why ford did it.......it might be a money thing but I really don't know......think of the load when 1 and 5 fire almost together
Image
pop/glenda
popscomet
 
Posts: 7802
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: Jacksonville, Arkansas

Re: Boat

Postby Comechero65 » Fri Oct 14, 2016 6:37 pm

What I read was cyl 1 & 5 were firing so close together it was speeding up failures on that journal or accelerated wear was why they changed it. That's all I know.
Ron
Comechero65
 
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:37 pm
Location: Santa Clara, Ca

Re: Boat

Postby CALIFORNIA CALIENTE » Fri Oct 14, 2016 7:14 pm

I have been racing SBFs for way too long,NEVER had a crank or bearing failure with 15426378 FO!! When I built my first 351W,used a COMPCAMS cam that was ground to the early FO,365,000 miles later,never had a crank or bearing issue.My 418" Windsor has a Crane Cam ground with the early FO,NO issues!! I heard FoMoCo did it for smog reasons,NO proof though!!I do have cams in the wagon and the Cougar that are ground with late FO,they all seem to run fine!!! JMO , ROY.
Real Racecars have 3 pedals
Image
CALIFORNIA CALIENTE
 
Posts: 5933
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 11:57 pm
Location: Camarillo,California

Re: Boat

Postby popscomet » Fri Oct 14, 2016 7:44 pm

THAT ALSO GOES FOR POP,all my stuff runs plenty good always have ,,fo has never been in play,,it is what it is ...of course POP don't have extra high hp ,but they all run good and mostly have for several yrs
Image
pop/glenda
popscomet
 
Posts: 7802
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 10:19 pm
Location: Jacksonville, Arkansas

Previous

Return to Small Block V-8 Performance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest