MS wrote:

Huskinhano wrote:

 The problem with starters and flywheels, they're listed wrong, that's the problem. There are two set ups, the 157 and 164 tooth. The 157 tooth starter is listed as the automatic and the 164 tooth is listed as the manual starter. But a 157 tooth flywheel can be either automatic or manual and the same with 164 tooth. The difference between the starters has nothing to do with tooth count on the starter drive but the depth of the starter drive. The ring gear on 157 tooth flywheels are offset by about 3/8" while the 164 tooth ring gear is flush. Starter should be listed by the size of the flywheel, not transmission type. Both the 157 and 164 tooth manual flywheels use the same size clutch. The 164 tooth flywheel weighs about 40 pounds while he 157 tooth weighs about 22 pounds. The flywheel size, bellhousing, block plate and starter are all matched. I'm using a PRW billet flywheel. It uses a bolt on weight. I can use it on a zero balance, 28 oz or 50 oz balance engine. The flywheel is also drilled for every type of SBF clutch set up. I can use any vintage or roller 5.0 with dowel clutch. The flywheel is also SFI rated, etched with a serial number as well as a info card with the serial number. PRW flywheels are used by almost every Engine Master series contestant too. It was about $230 to my door

Yes, 347's are 28 oz balance as the norm even if it's a roller 5.0 block.

Once again, misinformation about starters.  Yes, the engagement depth is different for manual and automatic starters up until around 1980.  It has nothing to do with tooth count.  For example, an early 289 manual transmission car will use 157 tooth flywheel and starter with depth for manual transmission.  But on a T5 manual transmission in a Fox Mustang, it still has 157 tooth flywheel, but the flywheel was revised (yes, ring gear position and nose depth  as Huskinhano stated.) But is uses a different engagement depth starter than previous manual transmissions with 157 tooth.  Ford finally saw the light and changed so that all small block starters had same engagement depth, whether manual trans or automatic.  The 5.0 with 157 tooth flywheel used the same starter as early cars used with automatic transmissions.  So, if you are converting an early automatic 289 to a later model 5.0 with five speed transmission, you use the early automatic starter.  But if you convert to a T5 on an early 289 and use the 289 early style flywheel, you use the early manual transmission starter.

The tooth count on the flexplate or flywheel has nothing to do with the starter!
 

If you read my post I said tooth count had nothing to do with it. I was using tooth count more to identify the type of flywheel. I know both styles of starters have the same tooth count on the drive and basically it's just the depth of the drive that is the big difference. The T5 flywheel looks almost exactly the same as the old 157 tooth flywheel. I was running a aftermarket T5 PMGR starter until it expired. I think if starters were listed by flywheel tooth count, you would know exactly what set up you have. It can't be worse then what we use now, manual or automatic?
 

Last edited by Huskinhano (6/19/2017 2:19 PM)

On the headers you could try heating and tweaking them.  The flanges are probably welded to the tubes at the wrong angle due to poor quality control. 

The two nipple fittings on the fuel pump scare the hell out of me.  Please, please make up a hard line from the pump to the carb.  The engine you don't set on fire could be your own. 

As mentioned above I had to change the frame mounts to use the Prothane motor mounts. Does this look correct? 





It is the only way I could make them work but wanted to be sure. One step closer!

Does anybody have a manual 157 tooth bellhousing for the toploader? The casting number is C5DA-6394-A.
I had the 164 tooth flywheel that I replaced with the Ford Racing 157 tooth flywheel so I am pretty sure I need to replace the bellhousing. I also think that is why the tri-y's are hitting the block plate.

Hey 6Sally, used  to converse with you on the "old" site, I'm in Greer(between Greenville & Spartanburg). If I remember you reside in Surfside, we used to live in Socastee back in the mid 90's.

On the headers I think the 157 tooth bellhousing will solve the header problem, I have one coming from the good folks at NE Performance Mustang along with a new block plate. Hope to finally get the motor in this weekend, will post my progress.

Joel S

Rode through there on the way to Greenwood the other week, that's country!

jshrop6004 wrote:

Does anybody have a manual 157 tooth bellhousing for the toploader? The casting number is C5DA-6394-A.
I had the 164 tooth flywheel that I replaced with the Ford Racing 157 tooth flywheel so I am pretty sure I need to replace the bellhousing. I also think that is why the tri-y's are hitting the block plate.

******************************************
I found one when cleaning out the attic today, but the pivot for the clutch lever is MIA. I bet the one from your old bell would fit. Do you still need it?


 

Back to the starter debate. I originally ordered one of the mini high torque starters then realized it was for an auto trans so I sent it back and got one for a manual. The only caveat was that it said it would only work on a 164 tooth flywheel.(I used a 157 tooth on this build). Since most here agreed the only difference was auto or manual I went ahead & got it. Went to put it on this AM and had enough sense to compare it to my old one(which worked fine with a 164 tooth manual flywheel & bellhousing). There is a huge difference in the length of the shaft (about a 1/4") and the orientation of the gear in the housing (the old one is centered and the new is offset to the left).
Pics:




I thought the mini would help with the headers but I sure don't want to do anything to damage the new to me aluminum bellhousing. Which one is the correct one for 157 tooth manual?

Thanks,

Joel S.

Hi jshrop 6004  ,  i read your very interesting post about 347 and i will be glad if you can clear my doubt .
I am restoring a 66 manual 4 fastback here in italy , and i thought many times about a crate.
My question js about cui . Why you choose 347  instead of 331 .
I take time to study this and from many parts come out that in last years 331 has nothing to blame to 347.
347 got a worst rod ratio and pistons suffer (in long time) against the cylinder wall.
Do you think 16 cui make that difference? 
Is correct that with 347 you have more torque at low and quite nothin at top end ?
The blueprint is your choice because is cheaper in front of others ?
Have you take into consideration other engine?  Which ones?  I know there are many ....
I am asking this because in future i would upgrade the engine .
But for what i read and find on the net i will go for 331.
Thanks for any suggestion or debate

TKOPerformance wrote:

The 347 is going to make a bit more low end torque.  Top end power is more determined by the cam, heads, intake, carb, etc. than the engine's size.  You can get a 347 and 331 to make the same peak power number (HP), but the 331 will do it at a higher RPM. 

The 347 does have a worse rod/stroke ratio, so in theory it accelerates slower than a 331.  It also as noted side loads the cylinder walls more, increasing cylinder wall wear and reducing time between rebuilds.  But, its like 50,000-75,000 miles between rebuilds vs. 75,000-100,000.  In a car that gets driven maybe 1,000-5,000 miles a year does it really make a difference? 

I have a 347 I'm building for my '67, simply because I got a really good deal on an unassembled engine from a source I trust.  I saved about $1,500 over trying to source everything myself.  I will say that I am curious about the real world differences though.  I have an '89 GT I'm currently building and at some point need to decide what to do for an engine.  My original plan was to build a 350HP 302, but my desire for more might get the best of me.  I'm intrigued by the idea of putting a 331, or the 347 in it (I can just build another engine for the '67).  It wouldn't be a fair test though because the '89 will have EFI and the '67 a carb, so wear, torque, etc. will not be directly comparable. 

 
Thanks as always for explanation Tko  !  There is also the piston pin lock that interfere with piston ring  and for what i Remember only few make it really safe .
The 331 does not suffer for this problem. ( If really it could be on 347) .
Yes i am really intrigued like you about a 331  .!
At the beginning i was warried about an italian engine shop this job ... But now i found 50 years shop that trust , so i can even think to realize it .
But for now are dreams ... My car is still at paint shop ...

Yes, most 347s need oil ring support because the piston pin is so far up on the piston that it runs into the oil ring groove.  A short rod isn't a hot ticket for acceleration though.  Typically you want a rod to stroke ratio of 1.6:1 or better for an engine that will easily rev.  Now a 347 is right there with a 5.4" rod, but by comparison a 289 is almost a 1.8:1.  A 331 by comparison with a shorter 3.25" stroke has a 1.66:1 ratio, so marginally better.

Ford's biggest problem is a lack of deck height.  Fords only have an 8.2" deck height.  A small Chevy has a 9.025" deck height.  That taller deck allows you to run a 5.7" rod easily, and a lot of guys use 6" rods in strokers; I always have.  My 383 in my Blazer has a 6" rod and the piston pin isn't in the oil ring groove.  This allows me a 1.6:1 rod/stroke ratio with a long armed 3.75" stroke and displacement getting close to big block territory.  This is where a 327 Ford stroker and a 327 Chey differ in bottom end design.  The Chevy has a longer rod and a better rod/stroke ratio, as well as less crank angularity, meaning less sideloading of the thrust side of the cylinder walls.  The Chevy isn't perfect.  The cam and crank centerlines are too close together, so guys had to run reduced base circle cams in 383s for years until aftermarket rods got cheap enough for the average build.  A stock rod with a nut and bolt would hit a standard base circle cam.  The reduced base circle cam was weak, and could fail with the big valvespring pressure needed to make 500HP or more.  Aftermarket rods clear no problem, and my 383 uses a standard base circle cam, but I'm also making 450HP with a hydraulic roller and can add another 150 via nitrous if I want.  Its a tractable torque monster that's tons of fun to drive on the street. 

There are definitely engine sizes that just make power though, and 302, 327, and 427 are about the three best.  These bore/stroke combinations just seem to make low end torque, but still rev and make great top end power.  Chevy built some 327s that made 385HP stock, only used in Corvettes I think with aluminum heads that were like high science back then.  That engine was one of the highest HP per cubic inch ever built at the time, and THE highest HP per cube for a small block engine. 

And yes, the 351 Windsor solves its smaller sibling's deck height issue, so for durability a 351 is going to outlast a 347 for sure.  But, drop in ease of installation is in the favor of the 347.  Like all decisions with our cars compromise is involved.  In the end, what's best is likely in the eye of the end user.  Some are more willing to compromise in one area than another, etc.  So what's "best" is often a matter of opinion. 

500HP is about the limit for a 5.0 block.  If trying to hit that mark with nitrous I would say its even less because the "hit" from the nitrous create such instantaneous torque that it puts a lot more stress on an engine.  You can add a girdle to the mains, and supports in the lifter valley, but in all honesty if you want 500HP reliably from a 5.0/302 block you need to step up to an aftermarket block. 

6sally6 you're close on the 377, but what you are looking for is a 400, which has a 4.125" bore and a 350 crank, which is a 3.48" stroke.  Toss in a 0.030" overbore and that's your 377, which was an old school circle track racers dream.  Big engine with good rod/stroke ratio and ability to wind.  Problem is that a big piston is not as desirable today as it once was.  The bigger piston provides a larger surface area where abnormal combustion (detonation) can start, so such an engine is more sensitive to a ragged edge tune up.  Modern performance engines are being built with smaller bores, many under 4" (though you really need 4 valves to take advantage of that breathing wise).  Old school wisdom is being turned on its head though, as a lot of engines have go back to a small bore/long stroke like engines built before the '60s.  We are also seeing combustion chambers go away in favor of dished pistons and an almost flat head (starting to look like Diesels inside).  Improvements in casting technology, airflow analysis, and metallurgy have made all of these things desirable and possible in a world where performance is a given, but emissions compliance and fuel economy standards are every harder marks to hit.  Consider the new Coyote 5.0 that actually exceeds 100% VE at some points in its power curve.  That's crazy, because without forced induction it used to be an impossibility in a street engine, and 20 years ago if you told someone you had a street engine that did that they would have called BS. 

Hot Rod I think it was built a 400M based engine years ago that used Edelbrock heads on a 400 block which used Chevy rods, Dodge 340 pistons, and a fair amount of custom machine work to allow the use of fairly cheap off the shelf parts that made an easy 500HP and a torque curve like a Diesel.  The 400M was basically an outgrowth of the Cleveland engine used in Ford trucks and maybe fullsize cars in the late '70s and early '80s.  Not a runner by any means in stock form, but it had a nice tall deck height and some potential for someone that wanted to do the research.  Think I still have that article somewhere.  I tend to keep cool stuff like that.