Quote:
Originally Posted by Merv and Sharon
I also seem to recall that the 331 capacity is a nice one for a balance between torque and 'rev-ability'?
Thanks again,
Merv
|
Merv, You are correct. The 347 was all the rage then as it is now and it is a great engine. However, at that time some folks were having problems with the 347 with blocks cracking down the valley and some had
oil consumption problems caused by
oil ring intersecting the gudgeon. Not so much of a problem now with newer pistons and ring sets.
The block machinist suggested 331ci and claimed a higher horsepower with less torque but an engine more willing to rev and that's exactly how it performed.
It was however an engine which required low rear gears to allow the revs to build quickly.
At that time I lived at Newport Waterways on the peninsular and this mate used to announce his pending arrival by winding this mustang out on a few twisty bits entering the estate and not touching the brake until he pulled up outside.
The thing would make beautiful music as he worked up and down the gears. Lucky I had some rev heads as neighbours.