347 Stroker Dyno

   Data Plate Decoder
   Tech Articles
   Websites links

[A302]

At under 1 hp per cubic inch it's a poor performer what ever it was built for.

300 fwhp is mild 302 power

[Sandy]

Now as I am a bit of a newbie to all this dyno thing........honest opinions now please guys.

Are these dyno figures good or bad?

Look pretty good to me.

270hp rear wheel hp out of a 347 isn't to be sniffed at ... 

Forget all this rubbish about what it should be putting out. You now know what it is actually putting out and until others can post up their dyno figures

Also, bear in mind that most US dyno figures, from back in the day, and from today for any catalogue engine, are so way off the mark as to be laughable.

Everything is bigger in America .... in America.

[Blackstang66]

At under 1 hp per cubic inch it's a poor performer what ever it was built for.

300 fwhp is mild 302 power

Lucky you don't have to drive it then eh? 

[Cookie]

I'm with Sandy... 268rwhp is still pretty respectable, it's still more than a 2005 GT and with 303 lbs/ft of torque at the wheels more torque than one too...

[GT350]

I'm with Sandy... 268rwhp is still pretty respectable, it's still more than a 2005 GT and with 303 lbs/ft of torque at the wheels more torque than one too...

even with edelbrock performer alloy heads  and alloy intake ?

[RIPsnorter]

At under 1 hp per cubic inch it's a poor performer what ever it was built for.

300 fwhp is mild 302 power

I'd say that's amazing performance........

300 fwhp

.........considering it's rear wheel drive

[GT350]

as long as young master graham is happy with the performance if he wants more a simple cam change will givve it some

[Cookie]

300 fwhp

.........considering it's rear wheel drive

I think he must have been referring to FlyWheel HorsePower...

as long as young master graham is happy with the performance if he wants more a simple cam change will givve it some

Precisely...

[Garstang]

Javed with ref to Gary's engine, I know who built it and believe me it makes a lot less than you claim. But then again without a dyno talk is cheap.

Well Phil you seem know more than me.  I asked for engine build to be around same spec as previous engine 11.1:1 compression now 10.5:1 with comp cams xe268H-10, edlebrock rpm inlet stock heads with ports nicely opened up Holley 600cfm vac sec. Last dyno run was when engine was misfiring and it pulled 280rwhp at 3800rpm with graph line still climbing when I stopped run. Didn't even think to ask for read out, wasn't why I was on dyno.  I reckon engine is about 350<400fwhp.  I'll probably spend my money on the track. Dyno day can wait, but, I will post any figures regardless. Everthing else apart from hp figures is accurate and like Graham I'm happy with performance of engine Martin built

[Dag A]

The main thing here is that he's happy with it.
And a car with 300 rear wheel horsepower is a rather quick car!
Of course there is a much higher potential, Ford offer their 347 Boss as a 450 hp version.
http://www.fordracingpart...ils.asp?PartKeyField=9934
Desktop dyno is a great tool if you want to see what a different cam can do or maybe other heads.
The accuracy is questionable, but read the graphs as a guide to what you do.
Besides most people set the best alternatives when they set it up. Go for the options which is more to the real world, like exhaust and so, you will see that the hp drops a good deal!
When it comes to wheel horsepower and flywheel horsepower you can withdraw 20% with auto trans and 16-17% with manual. So only 34 hp loss from the exhaust/driveline is fantasy.
A stock 67 with a rebuilt 289 made 221 hp on an engine dyno and 156 hp on a chassis dyno.
My motor, a Ford racing 521, has a rating for 625 hp by Ford, which is very conservative, and i will be more than happy if i can dyno it to 500 rear wheel horsepower.
Have this in mind when rating the smallblocks at almost 500 hp!