P
PNewitt
Guest
I was wondering just how a stock 302 (or 289), built into a 347 would work in a stock configuration in a GT/CS.
That is, when it's rebuild time, you choose to go the 347 route, but you retain the stock heads, intake, and 2 or 4bbl intake, depending if it's a "C" or "J" code engine.
From the outside, it would look totally restored, but inside it's 347. This would give an edge to accelleration and speed, giving GT/CSs an edge on the street/road. I want to see how we might make "sleepers" out of stock-looking engines when you open the hood. There are a LOT of the C-code GT/CSs out there--about 85% made were the C or J code. I think we need to make them "hotter", but retain the concours, stock look.
How would a 2bbl, stock intake,heads and even air cleaner--347 run? Would you get a noticable difference to make it worth the effort? Maybe port the 2bbl heads and intake, and/or switch to stock 4bbl heads? I'm thinking of how one might do this effectively, and yet look convincingly stock.
I know that a 4bbl would be preferred, but sometimes lower CFM can give great results. Is this a feasible idea?
thanks--Paul N.
That is, when it's rebuild time, you choose to go the 347 route, but you retain the stock heads, intake, and 2 or 4bbl intake, depending if it's a "C" or "J" code engine.
From the outside, it would look totally restored, but inside it's 347. This would give an edge to accelleration and speed, giving GT/CSs an edge on the street/road. I want to see how we might make "sleepers" out of stock-looking engines when you open the hood. There are a LOT of the C-code GT/CSs out there--about 85% made were the C or J code. I think we need to make them "hotter", but retain the concours, stock look.
How would a 2bbl, stock intake,heads and even air cleaner--347 run? Would you get a noticable difference to make it worth the effort? Maybe port the 2bbl heads and intake, and/or switch to stock 4bbl heads? I'm thinking of how one might do this effectively, and yet look convincingly stock.
I know that a 4bbl would be preferred, but sometimes lower CFM can give great results. Is this a feasible idea?
thanks--Paul N.