OK, now I have stroke, but how do I balance it? Harmonic balancer issues

This is going to be a big stumbling block for a few people

The stock balance for a 5.0 explorer engine is 50z in

A stroker engine will require a 28 oz in balance--

so a flexplate and harmonic balancer switch is needed.
The flexplates are out there, but the explorer Harmonic balancer-pulley-dis trigger is all one unique unit for explorers--
When I purchased my stroker kit from Coast High-they found me one I assure you. However, even with my receipt ( no part number) they have no idea what I am referring to--

My thoughts--can material be removed from the stock balancer ( by machine shop of course) to work with the new balance weight?
Also-for thought--the 96-98 mustang pulley looks awful close---

I might add, my balancer did come with SFI certification--this is another consideration--


http://www.sfifoundation.com/about.html

 

[Turdle]

"That is purdy," I'll think about the dark red for mine also, maybe black heads and oil pan, or powder coated pan(aluminum Jon).

Jon, have you had any feedback or heard whether clear powder coat will survive around an engine(for bare aluminum)?

hmm, missed this one also-

the clear powders should be fine-they are used all the time.

Edelbrock's "endurashine" is a mere clear coat--

 

[CDW6212R]

I just read this last post also. How well could car urethane hold up as engine paint? It isn't feasible to powder coat a block away from town. I'll have to change to tall valve covers with roller rockers so the finish might be something to think about. A plain aluminum finish isn't very special, but a decent match of dark red or the transparent chromes may be good.

FYI, for the engine tuning, brake down and invest the money into proper PCM programming. Get the flasher and the proper software, wideband O2, a laptop, and tune the engine correctly. Throw the FMU, and "Tweecer", in the Mustang bin when finished. Good luck,

 

[aldive]

I FYI, for the engine tuning, brake down and invest the money into proper PCM programming. Get the flasher and the proper software, wideband O2, a laptop, and tune the engine correctly.

I agree.

 

[Turdle]

Throw the FMU, and "Tweecer", in the Mustang bin when finished. Good luck,

Good point.

 

[CDW6212R]

It's funny, I have had a couple of "conversations" with "experienced" Mustang guys and Lightning(94/95) guys on other forums. They swear that they can program their EECIV vehicles to run as smooth as stock with any modifications. When I read that stuff I immediately quit suggesting a change to OBDII for another member. The vehicle was a 92 F150 with a 351W and he was planning for a stroker and a mild supercharger. All that I discovered was that Ford made a late 90's van with a 351W and the E4OD trans, which is a great strong transmission for performance.

 

[Spas]

Not to get this too far off subject, but since you're all in this thread already....

What size injectors are you 347 owners using? I'm thinking I need to run 30#'ers since I'm upgrading to 3/8 line, fuel pressure regulator and 255lph pump.

 

[Turdle]

I have 42's--

 

[Spas]

I have 42's--

Yeah, cuz you're crazy

 

[Turdle]

Yeah, cuz you're crazy

You gonna spray or blow?
if so, better get big ones--

 

[rocket 5979]

You gonna blow?

Jeeze Jon!!!! Must I keep you in check ALL the time??? The things us guys say to women!

 

[rocket 5979]

You gonna spray or blow?
if so, better get big ones--

Seriously though, if she is going to spray then I suggest wetshot, in that case the injectors will only have to be matched for the 347 as the nitrous will get its fuel elsewhere in the fuel system.

 

[Spas]

Jt's funny

Nope, I'm staying naturally aspirated albeit with a phenolic spacer and Systemax upper & lower intakes.

 

[Turdle]

30's, maybe 36's

That would be my suggestion--

 

[CDW6212R]

Stock is 19, so take 347 and divide by 302, and multiply that by 19, and any rpm range increase. That amounts to what, about 7/6, or 17%, or less than 24, so I suggest 24's. That's for nothing beyond a 347 and 5000rpm.

I ran stock 19's with Edelbrock heads and intake on a stock 302 in my Lincoln, shifting at 5600rpm(small cam). Bigger injectors are needed for major power increases, or huge size/rpm changes. If not then why do it, the really big injectors are harder to tune yes?

 

[rocket 5979]

Stock is 19, so take 347 and divide by 302, and multiply that by 19, and any rpm range increase. That amounts to what, about 7/6, or 17%, or less than 24, so I suggest 24's. That's for nothing beyond a 347 and 5000rpm.

I ran stock 19's with Edelbrock heads and intake on a stock 302 in my Lincoln, shifting at 5600rpm(small cam). Bigger injectors are needed for major power increases, or huge size/rpm changes. If not then why do it, the really big injectors are harder to tune yes?

Don, what your mathematical advice does not take into account is that you are trying to compare a stock 302 to fully modded 347. Big difference in fueling needs. Now if you were comparing just cubes for cubes and both were stock then your math would be fairly correct. I would recommend going larger than 24's for properly fueling a 347 combo with accompanying mods.

Bigger injectors are not really harder to tune. Even ones that are much too big can still run pretty well. The downfall when going with significantly oversized injectors is poor gas mileage due to less efficient fuel atomization.

 

[Turdle]

My math is like this-thinking from a different viewpoint,
the stock 19's will support a stock 225 max HP
Now, if you want 375+hp , in my head I figure 30's to 36's

 

[rocket 5979]

My math is like this-thinking from a different viewpoint,
the stock 19's will support a stock 225 max HP
Now, if you want 375+hp , in my head I figure 30's to 36's

Going by hp is usually the better "rule of thumb" way to estimate for injectors though it doesn't encompass everything. However, that is just for N/A applications. FI will not use the same rule of thumb as N/A does.

 

[CDW6212R]

Yes and Yes to you Robert and Jon, but Spas did hint at a Holley intake and spacer. Without mention of actual rpm limits or compression or balancing, etc, it's hard to approximate hp or efficiency. If nothing else is special going into the 347, the 24's would be a good start. If more changes were there, or future plans are known, then a different injector does make sense. I try to assume lesser realistic goals when people ask about parts.

Most people pay big money to local places to throw parts together, or they feel uncomfortable about the special things we might suggest, and choose milder factors. A lot of the members who have brainstormed about engine combinations do have the money to build nice pieces, but getting them to trust and try the path that we suggest is hard for them.

When this thread started I figured what kind of question is this, you have to balance the assembly with the actual balancer. You can balance any assembly with any balancer. That isn't true now that there are so many stroker cranks. I didn't know it until I spoke with a builder who does a lot of strokers. The stroker cranks coming from the aftermarket do not have the extra steel in them like Ford cranks, for balancing. These cranks are designed to be as light as possible, there isn't nuch room to balance with any balancer except the one it's made for. All of the 302 stroker cranks are made for Mustang 28oz balancers.

The aftermarket revolves around the Mustang enthusiasts. It helps us with an Explorer, but we have to have special knowledge to take advantage of some things.

 

[rocket 5979]

Yes and Yes to you Robert and Jon, but Spas did hint at a Holley intake and spacer. Without mention of actual rpm limits or compression or balancing, etc, it's hard to approximate hp or efficiency. If nothing else is special going into the 347, the 24's would be a good start. If more changes were there, or future plans are known, then a different injector does make sense. I try to assume lesser realistic goals when people ask about parts.

Most people pay big money to local places to throw parts together, or they feel uncomfortable about the special things we might suggest, and choose milder factors. A lot of the members who have brainstormed about engine combinations do have the money to build nice pieces, but getting them to trust and try the path that we suggest is hard for them.

When this thread started I figured what kind of question is this, you have to balance the assembly with the actual balancer. You can balance any assembly with any balancer. That isn't true now that there are so many stroker cranks. I didn't know it until I spoke with a builder who does a lot of strokers. The stroker cranks coming from the aftermarket do not have the extra steel in them like Ford cranks, for balancing. These cranks are designed to be as light as possible, there isn't nuch room to balance with any balancer except the one it's made for. All of the 302 stroker cranks are made for Mustang 28oz balancers.

The aftermarket revolves around the Mustang enthusiasts. It helps us with an Explorer, but we have to have special knowledge to take advantage of some things.

Usually people who have done a 347 in their X will bother to do the proper supporting mods (heads/cam, so on) so it is more safe to assume something "special" that will allow fairly high VE volumetric efficiency will be present. There is just too much left out of the equation when looking at displacement itself, VE plays a very very large role in fueling requirements also. VE is even more critical when N/A.

 

[reserved50]

I ddint get too far with the sampling tubes and FMU at all :roll: , runs richer than 10-1 WOT, it would of worked if i used the smallest injectors possible and overran them and matched the FMU disks (guesswork, maybe 24#), so i bought a Tweecer

TwEEcer works great