CPP Custom power and paint

Post general questions relating to Tigers
Tom_HRO260
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 5:25 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Tom_HRO260 » Fri Oct 31, 2014 1:33 am

Hi Brad
By way of information only - and I know it appears as though I am a closet American here - have a read through this article (one of many available). It's a bit dated but gets across some of the available combinations.
http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2002/04/331/
Cheers
Tom

Brad1380
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:38 pm

Post by Brad1380 » Fri Oct 31, 2014 10:11 am

Thanks Tom, i didn't know about the oil groove / pin issue, so a 331 looks a better bet at the moment.
1966 Sunbeam Tiger Mk1

Tom_HRO260
Posts: 91
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 5:25 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Post by Tom_HRO260 » Fri Oct 31, 2014 11:41 pm

Hi Brad
Again, prefacing this with the usual disclaimers (opinion only, etc etc) my personal is that you can build more than enough poke into a 302 with a standard 3" crank. The 347's (and no doubt 331's) will most certainly deliver plenty of HP, and of course cubes = torque, but it's 2200lbs you're shifting...
Cam profiles have changes significantly and the modern class of hydraulic rollers with their steeper lobe angles can deliver reliable, stout performance without the need to pull the covers and lash adjust. Crower are now doing a hyd roller with a 289 firing order so you can get that gorgeous lope at idle that was lost with the 351/later 302 FO. Might be worth looking into. BTW, I'm not running a 289 FO - the cam wasn't available when my engine was built. You can get some pretty tough power figures and generous power curve as my engine dyno results show (although as mentioned I'm running the 3" stroke std rod in a 4.125 bore hence the oddball displacement) - BigBob's will most likely have a flatter broader power curve (read more useable) with the huffer on it, and as mentioned, I'm not sure what Tomaselli's spec is but if it's a 347 based unit his opinion would be worthwhile.


Image

Image

Brad1380
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:38 pm

Post by Brad1380 » Sat Nov 01, 2014 7:07 pm

Thanks Tom, the 289 firing order wasn't something i'd thought about, seems it was changed for for 351's to prolong crank life, depending on who you read you lose 4 hp or 20 if you revert to this from the later firing order.

I've also read that Eldebrock carbs are less prone to flooding than Holleys, is there any truth in this?

Cheers
Brad
1966 Sunbeam Tiger Mk1

bigbob
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:31 am

Post by bigbob » Sun Nov 02, 2014 5:48 pm

Image
An old run from 2011. When injection system is up & running it should be a smoother graph & more power. Once its up to boost at 4000 revs it doesn't change a lot.

Brad1380
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:38 pm

Post by Brad1380 » Sun Nov 02, 2014 8:10 pm

Bob,
that's a lot of grunt! have you a diff torque arm?
1966 Sunbeam Tiger Mk1

bigbob
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:31 am

Post by bigbob » Mon Nov 03, 2014 4:57 pm


bigbob
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 11:31 am

Post by bigbob » Mon Nov 03, 2014 5:00 pm

No diff arm, but heavy right foot!
Torque has caused damage by twisting rear of body shell & boot floor now needs welding around perimeter. It could do with some strengthening, any one any ideas how?

Brad1380
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:38 pm

Post by Brad1380 » Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:34 pm

Thanks Bob,
but i think i'll go for a 331 due to the oil ring problem with a 347.

You may be better off with a Mumford link rather than a Panhard, i made one for the Sprite & it helped the handling a lot, mind so did ali axle spring to axle bushes rather than rubber which caused a bit of rear wheel steering when pushed hard.
The Mumford can also reduce the rear CofG which with a solid axle car is always the centre of the diff, not sure where the centre is at the front with a Tiger as the V8 is a bit of a lump.

Image

These are the ali rubber bushes along with a cup of cafe & a cake )

Image
1966 Sunbeam Tiger Mk1

Post Reply