347

Topic: 347 (Read 4673 times) previous topic - next topic

347

May 02, 2005, 07:31:32 PM

i have a 5.0 and is putting a 347 in a t bird a good idea or is there something bad about it beccause i never hear about someone with a 347 in a t bird

Re: 347

Reply #1 – May 02, 2005, 07:40:27 PM

Oh dear.

Did you not see the occasional user with "347" in their name? Or perhaps in anyone's sig?

Of course, anyone who has a 347 already is the best person to talk to about it. However..

This next statement might annoy a 347 user or three, but it's not meant to: (and my apologies if it does) I personally would not use a 347. Why? Whether or not it's true, (and again, they would be the best to talk to about that since they use 'em) I don't like the rumors of increased oil use. If I ever built a 5.0 stroker, I would probably build a 331. If I wanted more displacement than that, I would use a 351W and stroke that out. But again, that's just me. I am sure plenty of people use 347s (they seem to be quite popular) and are delighted with them.. and more power to them. (literally!) :D In fact, I'm hoping some of the 347 users will chime in here and relate some good experiences.

Again, this is not a knock against anyone or their engine.

Re: 347

Reply #2 – May 02, 2005, 08:09:45 PM

347 makes no difference what its in, if youve been around here enough, youd know how similar these cars are to mustangs, and you see hundreds of mustangs with 347's

do you really understand what a 347 is?

Re: 347

Reply #3 – May 02, 2005, 08:19:03 PM

Quote from: Tbird232ci

do you really understand what a 347 is?

Uhh, is dat a 350 that got demoted..?

That was totally the Vicodin talking.. :wtf:

Re: 347

Reply #4 – May 02, 2005, 08:48:49 PM

its what im doing, actually mine is a 349 but who's counting. i guess oil usage was a concern in the past but not anymore with redesigned pistons. if you were going to build a 331 why not go all the way to 347? the cost is going to be the same for the most part.

Re: 347

Reply #5 – May 02, 2005, 08:55:37 PM

Personal preference.

Keep in mind, I'm not a racer. I don't even acknowledge people who rev their engines at stoplights. Hell, one time I almost missed the fact that a friend of mine was sitting in the lane next to me with my old car, because he revved it to get my attention and I just don't turn to look. So, by my logic, squeezing every last cube out of a small block just doesn't have much appeal. I'd tinker around with an engine to make it a little different than most.. maybe more efficient.. but I'm not consumed with the drive to get every last ounce of power out of it.

The statement is mostly hypothetical, anyway. I have no real reason to stroke out a 5.0.. or even the 351 I have sitting around, for that matter.. (unless I ever did the propane project, then I might consider strokin' it out) and the engine I want to tinker around with the most, an EFI 300 I6, is already a stroked 240 and can't really be stroked much more than it is. (like .02 I think) But, as I said.. if I DID stroke out a 5.0, I'd do a 331.

Re: 347

Reply #6 – May 03, 2005, 11:47:08 AM

Quote from: Bird351

I don't like the rumors of increased oil use. .

like said,, thats a thing of the past on previous kits. Your not actually getting a 347 displacement when you purchase the 347 kit because of the minor tweeks in the piston design with relation to the actual calculated cubic inch your left with. The previous kits did give you 347 but the newer ones do not. For numbers sake, the redesign gets your displacement close enough.

Re: 347

Reply #7 – May 03, 2005, 12:14:20 PM

Quote from: Bird351

Whether or not it's true

That part of the quote really clears things up.

Re: 347

Reply #8 – May 03, 2005, 01:28:09 PM

Quote from: im gay as hell

i have a 5.0 and is putting a 347 in a t bird a good idea or is there something bad about it beccause i never hear about someone with a 347 in a t bird

I bet you could "peel out better" with the 347...... :rollin:

Re: 347

Reply #9 – May 03, 2005, 01:34:44 PM

Quote from: Chuck W

I bet you could "peel out better" with the 347......

So could he peel out EVEN BETTER with the 514 and the 4.11s?

Re: 347

Reply #10 – May 03, 2005, 03:11:47 PM

Quote from: Bird351

So could he peel out EVEN BETTER with the 514 and the 4.11s?

but i cant remember if my 5.0 parts bolt up to a 514....shiznit....i need to start a thread

Re: 347

Reply #11 – May 03, 2005, 03:12:31 PM

Totally, dude.

Re: 347

Reply #12 – May 03, 2005, 04:59:36 PM

actually I think the 514 would do better at peeling out with 411 gears.

Re: 347

Reply #13 – May 03, 2005, 06:57:27 PM

Well alot of people like the 347 idea just because if u lift the hood u cant tell if its a 347 or not. There are alot of people that have 347s and when asked they say its just a 302 with a cam and a little head work.

351 on the other hand stangs out to a true gear head that knows his motors.
But i side with the idea of never putting money 302 when same money can go into a 351. Heck its like doing up a GM 305 when 350 is so much better right out of the box.

Re: 347

Reply #14 – May 03, 2005, 08:30:58 PM

Quote from: SirChirpAlot

But i side with the idea of never putting money 302 when same money can go into a 351.

for some reason,, not sure why yet ,, but i have to agree with you whole heartedly.