• Welcome to the CaliforniaSpecial.com forums! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all our site features, please take a moment to join our community! It's fast, simple and absolutely free.

    If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.

    Please Note: If you are an existing member and your password no longer works, click here to reset it.

347 "Wolf" in 302 "Sheep's" Clothing?

franklinair

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
4,740
I think the 289 HiPo manifold is a good choice -BUT- I think if you have Power Steering, you must add a bracket for the P/S actuator for clearance.
Neil
 

case12

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
1,450
Location
Crystal Lake, IL
I think the 289 HiPo manifold is a good choice -BUT- I think if you have Power Steering, you must add a bracket for the P/S actuator for clearance.
Neil
Can you elaborate? I am considering this option and PS.

BTW, the MCA 1st/2nd generation head judge told me that 3 major modifications can be made in the Occasional Driver Class. He considered intakes, 4V, headers as minor modifications and would be overlooked - basically bolt on parts can be used in Occasional Driver Class. But for stock look, the HiPo manifolds would look nice - but is there performance increase worth the price over stock manifolds?

Casey
 

Perkchiro

Well-known member
Joined
May 1, 2004
Messages
1,112
Location
Nixa, MO
No bracket is needed with the hipo manifolds. I have the hipo's on my car and there's no interference with the power steering slave cylinder. I think you need s drop down bracket for long tube headers. I don't know the exact power increase with the hipo's as compared to standard manifolds. If you look at them side by side, there is a significant difference in the size of the plenums and I think the obvious assumption is that the hipo's perform better than standard exhaust manifolds.
 

davidathans

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
703
Location
San Fernando Valley, California
No bracket is needed with the hipo manifolds. I have the hipo's on my car and there's no interference with the power steering slave cylinder. I think you need s drop down bracket for long tube headers. I don't know the exact power increase with the hipo's as compared to standard manifolds. If you look at them side by side, there is a significant difference in the size of the plenums and I think the obvious assumption is that the hipo's perform better than standard exhaust manifolds.

Yes you need the drop down power steering bracket for Hooker Super Competition Long Tube headers...this is what i have on my car
 

davidathans

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 25, 2004
Messages
703
Location
San Fernando Valley, California
I have the 347 in my cs. I kinda wish i would have went with the 331. I hear the 347 is good for about 20k miles.Then I guess you throw it away?

I have the arf heads on it.

I love the sleeper look

i know of a 347 stroker that lasted over 100k miles...so i guess it just depends on how well you can build your engine and your transmission and gears and probably alot of other factors...if it lasts only 20k miles...you didnt do something right...or your just a madman on the accelerator pedal

Also i wanted to clarify something...STEVE a 331 stroker does need a little notch for the rods....the rod angle on a 331 stroker is better than on a 347 stroker...this info and the 347 100k info is what i just learned from my mechanics
 

rvrtrash

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2003
Messages
3,649
Also i wanted to clarify something...STEVE a 331 stroker does need a little notch for the rods....the rod angle on a 331 stroker is better than on a 347 stroker...this info and the 347 100k info is what i just learned from my mechanics

Thanks David. Learn something new everyday.!

Steve
 
OP
OP
P

PNewitt

Guest
So, it looks like one could go with the 347, and the 331, if they can use a 4bbl intake, and figure out how to use either hipo or 351W exhaust manifolds.

I really like the crate motor idea, too. Those motors would need to use the HiPo/351W exhaust manifolds, too. Wouldn't you also need to use one of those retro-looking timing covers for the later 5.0 motors?? (available from Cal Pony Cars?)

The '68 Shelby GT-350 HP rating was 250 (torque- 310@3200
The GT-500 HP was 360 (torque--459 @ 3,200).

The 347 ratings aren't in front of me, but isn't it about 400hp? With lots of torque? That would make a GT/CS "as fast" if not more than a stock 1968 Shelby.

I would like someday, to hear folks say, "hey, there's one of those GT/California Specials....those are fast cars. As fast or faster than a '68 Shelby". That's a reputation that we can live with.

thanks everyone for your help. I hope that his will inspire others to look into doing this. I'll research the part numbers to actually do this--for the book.

Paul N.
 

case12

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
1,450
Location
Crystal Lake, IL
Isnt there a dip stick placement difference between 289 and 5.0 - in order to have the 5.0 appear to be a 289? Casey
 

robert campbell

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
4,321
Casey,
Newer 302 blocks have a hole just above the pan rail near the bottom of the block. An older 289 or 302 will not have this hole and either block will make a 347 stroker. A newer block allows the use of roller cams easier than the older blocks, and old or new can accept a roller cam, but the older one is a little more spendy in this area.

Whatever block you choose, a timing case cover from the older motors will bolt right on and give you the correct hole for a front dipstick. If you choose a newer block you will need to plug the pan rail dip stick hole. Would be very hard to see from the top. Also the old timing case cover works with the proper direction (stock 1968) water pump.

All and all any of the blocks will work for this 347 project. Your current 289 will work!! The deck heigth of a 289 and 302 are the same. And the cast numbers are correct! The best foundation for your sleeper. If you do this and go roller cam you will need a retro roller kit or Crane offers "short" lifters that will work.

This sounds so fun, and if you do the long tube headers you get the most bang. But then you need to drop the power steering ram mount at the frame. I don't like to do that, but have in the past. JBA shorty's (i have them on my car) work great and miss everything, have thick flanges, and are no trouble at all. Or work over some hipo castings. Whatever you do make sure you choose the exhaust first and build the motor to suit. I fully believe 400 and the crank would be no problem with a totally sleeper idle. And tons of torque!!! Hope you have posi!!! Tires and traction will be a problem!!!

This would be such a cool project! I envy you!!!

Rob
 

miller511

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2004
Messages
567
5.0 dip stick hole

Casey,

Yes. The newer 5.0 blocks have a casting "hole" on the side rear above where the pan bolts on. To use a '68 timing cover with the oil dip stick cast into it, you need to "fill in" (gently tap in with a hammer) the 5.0 block's cast hole with a metal dowel pin...and use some RTV on it to make sure it doesn't leak. You can see this in the attached pic above the farthest rear freeze plug.

-Jeff
 

Attachments

  • The 347 engine arrives 022a.jpg
    The 347 engine arrives 022a.jpg
    117.6 KB · Views: 36
Top