Anyone here running an MMR 950 stroker with a 2.8 H , and if so what boost are you running / mods do you have and what kind of #'s are you putting down . Thinking of getting a 2.8 for my stroker .
MMR stroker and 2.8
- Thread starter buster1
- Start date
2.8H and VT
So what are your HP & TQ #'s
So what are your HP & TQ #'s
Check his sig. 704hp 662tq. Madness!
Stroker & 2.8H numbers
Oops my bad ? Pretty similar to mine with a 2.4K.B , at about 20lbs boost 680whp and 640wtq
Oops my bad ? Pretty similar to mine with a 2.4K.B , at about 20lbs boost 680whp and 640wtq
Could be worth 40-60rwhp when you are in the 15-20psi range. Considering its only $400 more for a stroker kit I think its a good idea.
Please show me we have made comparison pulls on our dyno and not seen it.
GodStang, just PM'd you for more specifics on your setup. Engine died last week and I'm thinking about MMR's 950 Longblock (Stroker 5.0 & Stage III heads). Have a 2.8 on the car. Can you post a few pics of your engine bay...
mmr strocker
i have the mmr strocker with the 2.2 .18.5 pounds of boost 585 rwhp ,540 ftlb torque on 93 octane.torque is lower since i have prted heads.stock lower pulley.stock exhaust manifolds.i was told by the guy that tuned the car.one of the best in the midwest.with a 2 pound lower and headers ,could see upward of 640 rwhp and 600 ftlb torque with my 2.2.so i imagine 2.8 a lot more.
i have the mmr strocker with the 2.2 .18.5 pounds of boost 585 rwhp ,540 ftlb torque on 93 octane.torque is lower since i have prted heads.stock lower pulley.stock exhaust manifolds.i was told by the guy that tuned the car.one of the best in the midwest.with a 2 pound lower and headers ,could see upward of 640 rwhp and 600 ftlb torque with my 2.2.so i imagine 2.8 a lot more.
Last edited:
It would depend on the entire combination that you are using. Going with a stroker on an n/a engine will yield gains. Usually 15-20rwhp is what guys are seeing with with the old B headed 4.6. I'm going by what some people are posting in the SN95 Cobra section. Thats on a n/a engine, now add 15# boost which is essentially doubling the atmospheric pressure(ATM is 14.7#) and in theory you will double your n/a horsepower=30-40rwhp. There are many factors that can and will make that number fluctuate. However, adding displacement can deffinately increase your horsepower and we all know that to be true.
What was run in the cars that you did comparison pulls with? The problem may not have been the stoker, it could have been the cams, the tune etc.
2 3.4's same cams at 25psi stock block made just as power.
530 ish RWHP with stock longblock. . . Modmax stroker, no other changes (other than a tune) 605 RWHP. .. (KB 2.2 @ 20 psi, 93 octane, 18 degrees). .
worth it in my mind. I've built windsors, BBF's (385 series), FE's, and mods and it is a fact that has been proven over and over again: displacement increase, equals torque and/or power increase. . . .
many variables can affect this though..
worth it in my mind. I've built windsors, BBF's (385 series), FE's, and mods and it is a fact that has been proven over and over again: displacement increase, equals torque and/or power increase. . . .
many variables can affect this though..
Last edited:
:shrug: Were they dynoed on the same day, same dyno? Stock cams or aftermarket? Strange that an increase in displacement wouldn't produce any gains.
Wow a 75rwhp gain and all you did was add a stroker crank? Did the stoker see more boost than before? I would expect even a stock long block 03-04 to make more than 530 with a 2.2 @ 20psi.
I have a 302 stroker, ported heads and custom cams with a KB 2.8.
With a stock lower and 3.4" upper on 93+ torco she made 698rwhp swapped to a 2.93 upper and 110 and she put down 744.
I'm not sure what boost that was, but it was stock lower both times.
With a stock lower and 3.4" upper on 93+ torco she made 698rwhp swapped to a 2.93 upper and 110 and she put down 744.
I'm not sure what boost that was, but it was stock lower both times.
I'm about to slap a 2.8H on my MMR 900. When I get some numbers I'll post em up
Users who are viewing this thread
