• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-

302 hp

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thomasruth
  • Start date Start date Aug 8, 2023
T

Thomasruth

New Member
Jul 31, 2023
17
0
3
Aug 8, 2023
#1
  • Aug 8, 2023
  • #1
New to the ford scene I’m building a 68 302 block with 30 over flat top pistons parts I will be using are Lunati bare bones cam world product Windsor jr heads ported rpm intake and a demon 650 cfm carb . Realistically, what do you guys think I will get horsepower out of this little thing.
 

Noobz347

Stangnet Facilities Maint Tech... Er... Janitor
Admin Dude
Jan 4, 1985
42,899
21,074
234
Box behind Walmart
Aug 9, 2023
#2
  • Aug 9, 2023
  • #2
What size Windsor Jr?

I would ditch the cam and convert to roller unless it's already assembled.

My Wild Ass Guess is in the neighborhood of 250 crank HP N/A with more potential.

Are you going to run Long Tubes? What car is this going in? I moved this to Fox section only because there's a lot of Windsor Gurus in here.
 

LILCBRA

I wish I didn't have all of these balls in the air
Mod Dude
Dec 6, 2005
6,316
5,287
194
Corn County USA
Aug 9, 2023
#3
  • Aug 9, 2023
  • #3
Not an apples to apples comparison, but the engine in my Cobra started life in a 68 Cougar. I rebuilt it with hypereutectic flat tops, added a Melling cam, Trick Flow heads, long tube headers, and topped it with an Edelbrock Performer RPM Air Gap knock off with a 650 double pumper. Here's a link to my dyno run and the first post.

So I did a thing today......

I took the Cobra to a Fox body show and meet and greet at a local speed shop. They were giving 3 pulls for $50 so I said what the hell! It's never been on a dyno, I've always just used the Desktop Dyno numbers that I did when I bought everything for the 302 15-20 years ago. Those estimates were...
stangnet.com

LILCBRA said:
I took the Cobra to a Fox body show and meet and greet at a local speed shop. They were giving 3 pulls for $50 so I said what the hell! It's never been on a dyno, I've always just used the Desktop Dyno numbers that I did when I bought everything for the 302 15-20 years ago. Those estimates were around 350 HP/370 ftlb iirc.

It's still running rich since I put the new manifold on it and took the carb back to stock jetting. I haven't taken the time to try and tune the carb yet at all and it showed! I asked about having them tune it and the price wasn't all that bad, so I may take it back to them at some point and have them go through it. I suspect my dyno numbers will increase once the A/F ratio is a lot closer.




Videos are currently uploading, I will share them when they're available on YouTube.
Click to expand...


Given what you've listed, I'd suspect something around the same as I have, maybe a little less if you use the stock rocker ratio. Here are the specs of what I have for a cam, they have VERY similar specs.....

LILCBRA said:
I had to search online for my cam specs, I couldn't remember which part number it was anymore. It's a Melling part number 24203, here are the specs. Posting here so I won't have to search for it anymore AND to confirm the LSA as I misspoke earlier.

Adv. Intake Duration288
Adv. Exhaust Duration300
Intake Duration @.050214
Exhaust Duration @.050224
Intake Valve Lift w/1.6 Rocker Ratio [w/1.72].473 [.508]
Exhaust Valve Lift w/1.6 Rocker Ratio [w/1.72].497 [.534]
Lobe Separation Angle112
Cam TypeHydraulic Flat Tappet
Basic Operating Range2800 RPM
Click to expand...

If you'd like to come closer to what I've produced, you'll want to swap the 1.6 rockers for 1.72 roller rockers. That will require you to check piston to valve clearance at a minimum. But it's a good running engine, I think you'll be happy with it.
 

Blackhawkxx

Advanced Member
Mar 3, 2023
451
450
73
Aug 13, 2023
#4
  • Aug 13, 2023
  • #4
LILCBRA said:
If you'd like to come closer to what I've produced, you'll want to swap the 1.6 rockers for 1.72 roller rockers.
Click to expand...
I had a 85 GT Fox and I switched from 1.6 stock rockers to 1.72 full roller rockers and I couldn't tell any difference. I also ran it at the track before and after, no difference. Duration seems to play a larger role than small amount of lift IMO. Underdrive pulleys seemed to make a larger power increase. Just my 2 cents.
 
Reactions: LILCBRA

LILCBRA

I wish I didn't have all of these balls in the air
Mod Dude
Dec 6, 2005
6,316
5,287
194
Corn County USA
Aug 14, 2023
#5
  • Aug 14, 2023
  • #5
Yeah, I suppose it depends on a multitude of factors - most importantly the head's flow characteristics.
 

revhead347

Apparently my ex-husband made that mistake.
20+ Year Stangneter
Jun 14, 2004
9,288
1,631
214
Acworth, GA
Aug 20, 2023
#6
  • Aug 20, 2023
  • #6
Thomasruth said:
New to the ford scene I’m building a 68 302 block with 30 over flat top pistons parts I will be using are Lunati bare bones cam world product Windsor jr heads ported rpm intake and a demon 650 cfm carb . Realistically, what do you guys think I will get horsepower out of this little thing.
Click to expand...

I had ported Windsor Jr. heads in the long long ago. Like 25 years ago. I never dynoed the car, but it didn't pick up much at the track. There's just very little data on different combinations on those heads.

Kurt
 
Reactions: Thomasruth

Noobz347

Stangnet Facilities Maint Tech... Er... Janitor
Admin Dude
Jan 4, 1985
42,899
21,074
234
Box behind Walmart
Aug 21, 2023
#7
  • Aug 21, 2023
  • #7
Blackhawkxx said:
I had a 85 GT Fox and I switched from 1.6 stock rockers to 1.72 full roller rockers and I couldn't tell any difference. I also ran it at the track before and after, no difference. Duration seems to play a larger role than small amount of lift IMO. Underdrive pulleys seemed to make a larger power increase. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

I mean... The OEM CAMs if 5oh HOs were not the weak link. If you take a set of heads that's already at capacity and add more lift well... You're [still] at capacity.

Open up the intake/inlet/heads (just move more air) and [then] add the rockers. That should be enough for a SOTP change and will show itself on a dyno.

The heads on these cars... That's the weakest link. The OEM non-Cobra intakes as well.
 

Blackhawkxx

Advanced Member
Mar 3, 2023
451
450
73
Aug 21, 2023
#8
  • Aug 21, 2023
  • #8
Noobz347 said:
I mean... The OEM CAMs if 5oh HOs were not the weak link. If you take a set of heads that's already at capacity and add more lift well... You're [still] at capacity.

Open up the intake/inlet/heads (just move more air) and [then] add the rockers. That should be enough for a SOTP change and will show itself on a dyno.

The heads on these cars... That's the weakest link. The OEM non-Cobra intakes as well.
Click to expand...
You do have a point and I agree about the heads as the restriction in air flow. Even with good heads, I wouldn't look for massive gains from that little bit of lift but all the little gains do add up.
 

limp

wrap a little cheese around it and its a done
5 Year Member
Oct 4, 2020
5,457
2,889
173
Florida
Aug 21, 2023
#9
  • Aug 21, 2023
  • #9
Blackhawkxx said:
You do have a point and I agree about the heads as the restriction in air flow. Even with good heads, I wouldn't look for massive gains from that little bit of lift but all the little gains do add up.
Click to expand...
Not according to this guy....
 

Bullitt347

I have been doing it wrong this whole time
15 Year Member
Mar 23, 2007
3,944
2,898
194
Middle of Maine
Aug 21, 2023
#10
  • Aug 21, 2023
  • #10
Way back in 1999 or so, I did some mods for 2 guys, each with a 93 Cobra.
Ported the stock GT40 heads, stock valves.
Ported the stock lower intake.
Had the upper Extrude Honed.
Stock T-body
Modified the stock MAF
All Bassani Exhaust with shorty "equal length" headers and Catalyst X-pipe
Steeda OTS camshaft.
Steeda CAI
Stock fuel inj.
Stock short block
Stock rocker arms
No "chip", no "custom tune"
RWHP was just over 310 on both cars.

With a "custom cam" I am sure those numbers would have been better.
 

AeroCoupe

lube between the nut and the face. I know my lubes
Founding Member
Oct 28, 2001
5,782
3,914
183
Claremore, OK
Aug 21, 2023
#11
  • Aug 21, 2023
  • #11
Not a bad combo! Everybody read the key word “combo”. Parts that work together make good power.

The E7 heads are dog turd logs with a small valve train. I cannot saying any more simple than that. They are the anchors that held the Fox Mustang back but those were the times.
 

Blackhawkxx

Advanced Member
Mar 3, 2023
451
450
73
Aug 21, 2023
#12
  • Aug 21, 2023
  • #12
limp said:
Not according to this guy....
Click to expand...
Man that was an annoying video. I gave up when talked about 4,800 lbs of valve spring pressure like all the springs are open at the same time.
 

mikestang63

SN Certified Technician
Aug 27, 2012
11,606
8,859
214
In the garage
Aug 22, 2023
#13
  • Aug 22, 2023
  • #13
why wouldn't you start with a roller block? better revving and internal choices over a 50 year old non roller block
 
Reactions: Noobz347

Noobz347

Stangnet Facilities Maint Tech... Er... Janitor
Admin Dude
Jan 4, 1985
42,899
21,074
234
Box behind Walmart
Aug 22, 2023
#14
  • Aug 22, 2023
  • #14
...or convert to roller. I have not not done this on a Windsor but I hear it is as simple as a special set of rockers for non-roller blocks.
 

Noobz347

Stangnet Facilities Maint Tech... Er... Janitor
Admin Dude
Jan 4, 1985
42,899
21,074
234
Box behind Walmart
Aug 22, 2023
#15
  • Aug 22, 2023
  • #15
I posted that so somebody will light it up if it's wrong.
 

Blackhawkxx

Advanced Member
Mar 3, 2023
451
450
73
Aug 22, 2023
#16
  • Aug 22, 2023
  • #16
Noobz347 said:
...or convert to roller. I have not not done this on a Windsor but I hear it is as simple as a special set of rockers for non-roller blocks.
Click to expand...
Money is one reason some don't convert. Cam and lifters cost way more plus you would also need new pushrods. While I'm not sure about this in Windsors, roller lifters are taller and some require removing the heads to install so If you are building a new motor, it's not a thing but just changing cams is. Like said, in the long run a roller block would be the best way to go.
 
R

Rcdgl

5 Year Member
Feb 19, 2018
313
168
63
Aug 23, 2023
#17
  • Aug 23, 2023
  • #17
Thomasruth said:
New to the ford scene I’m building a 68 302 block with 30 over flat top pistons parts I will be using are Lunati bare bones cam world product Windsor jr heads ported rpm intake and a demon 650 cfm carb . Realistically, what do you guys think I will get horsepower out of this little thing.
Click to expand...
I used a 68 302 block, 78 stock crank, and 94 Iron GT 40 heads in my 82 for years. Best et was high 7s in the eighth mile. Iirc that came out to 278 hp to the wheels. Ran great, revved to 6 k anytime with an old Rhodes Lifters VVt274 cam and lifters and stock bolt down rockers. Took AFRs to get into the lower 7s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
First post 289 rebuild question!
  • Ddyer2868
  • Nov 24, 2025
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Replies
3
Views
230
Classic Mustang Specific Tech Dec 5, 2025
rednotch
6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
3
Views
670
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Feb 28, 2026
Noobz347
9
Milton Questions, 351 swap newedge
  • 996stang
  • Jul 20, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
1
Views
189
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 25, 2026
Killer351w
K
SN95 Desktop 363 Engine Combination - Looking for input
  • WhiteCobra95
  • Sep 8, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
11
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 6, 2025
Habu135
T
Fox Possible Hp 302
  • Thomasruth
  • Dec 11, 2023
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
2
Views
949
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Dec 11, 2023
Thomasruth
T
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?