302 RWHP and 322 ftlbs of torque :-)

FoxMustangLvr · Feb 19, 2013

If those heads aren't breathing much then they had to decrease the output in that Holley 750 carb so it's not running to potential either. You can lose a lot of HP if your carb isn't setup just right and you wouldn't really know it because your car will still drive on the road "ok". I've had it before and didn't know I was undersized in jetting and they were partially clogged. My car ran like a crack head runs from the cops after I had the carbs gone through.

Sounds like you have a fun weekend of tearing off the top end to at least inspect what you have or don't have.

Tramage · Feb 19, 2013

FoxMustangLvr said:
If those heads aren't breathing much then they had to decrease the output in that Holley 750 carb so it's not running to potential either. You can lose a lot of HP if your carb isn't setup just right and you wouldn't really know it because your car will still drive on the road "ok". I've had it before and didn't know I was undersized in jetting and they were partially clogged. My car ran like a crack head runs from the cops after I had the carbs gone through.

Sounds like you have a fun weekend of tearing off the top end to at least inspect what you have or don't have.

Yeah unfortunately I have little to no experiance with automotive carbs. I did purchase a jet kit but the dyno was to busy to mess with it on saturday. But I know there has to be a carb issue because under mild to hard braking the car wants to die. It sounds like maybe a vacuum leak but haven't messed with it yet, also when I take hard turns it likes to almost die

ratio411 · Feb 20, 2013

Bullitt347 said:
God how I wish that were true..................it would be so easy to run with the big boys in Top Fuel without needing over 8,000 HP!

Of course that is just a rule of thumb, and certainly has diminishing value as you get past the 12 second range.

ratio411 · Feb 20, 2013

Gearbanger 101 said:
Why? How many 351W with factory Ford iron heads (even ported) have you seen make over 300rwhp? I'd say his horsepower and torque figures are right on the money for the parts he's got.

Again, are you saying that in the 'old days' you could not get a 289 or 302 over 300 rwhp?
If so, then I disagree.

ratio411 · Feb 20, 2013

Tramage said:
I'm running the edelbrock performer intake and is there any casting marks or numbers or anything I can look for to try to find out what heads are on it?

Edelbrock Performer on a healthy 302 = Junk
Even worse when it's a stroker.

ratio411 · Feb 20, 2013

As far as tuning a carb, I have lots of tips, but I am NOT typing this all over again.
Let's see if Stangnet lets me give you the link... (Stangnet is weird, they don't let you link to other Mustang boards, but all the other boards let you link to Stangnet threads... )
http://please delete me!/forums/5-0l-tech/368375-carb-tunners-plz-help.html

Edit: There they go with that "please delete me" crap.
No wonder all the other boards have more members than Stangnet.
Don't get wrong, I like this board best, but it's true.
Not letting you cross link while the other boards do doesn't help.

I'm pretty sure no one here would prefer that I copy/paste that huge post over here...
I am just trying to help... and it would save Stangnet bandwidth if it could just be linked.

Incon · Feb 20, 2013

I have a clog in the drain combo and the OP's torque is way low for any stoker.

I am assuming it is a stick shift car and not a C-4.

Dino Dino Bambino · Feb 20, 2013

Gearbanger 101 said:
I'd say his horsepower and torque figures are right on the money for the parts he's got.

The OP's 322rwtq number just seems too low to me for a 349 that has some performance parts on it. If that was true, it would be producing less torque/ci with a manual tranny than my milder engine combo does with a power-sapping auto. That's why I suspect that the OP's engine might actually be a 308.

Incon · Feb 20, 2013

I built a 331 combo with pathetic heads and stocker efi intake. It made over 350 rwtq.

Gearbanger 101 · Feb 20, 2013

ratio411 said:
Again, are you saying that in the 'old days' you could not get a 289 or 302 over 300 rwhp?
If so, then I disagree.

A 300 gross horsepower rating…sure, but 300rwhp….not likely. At least not with anything that would be pleasurable to drive on the street anyway. Don’t’ be taken in by the old GHP ratings of the 60’s and 70’s. There’s a good 45% loss by the time that figure is converted to modern NET ratings, then transferred to the wheels. An engine making 300 rear wheel horsepower by today’s standards would have been rated somewhere in the 430-440hp range by the gross ratings of the 60’s. Why do you think there were so many 400-500hp cars only running 12’s back in the day.
The best flowing factory Windsor heads of that era were probably the late 60’s/early-70’s DOOE 351W heads and even they don’t move any more air than an off the shelf iron GT40 casting. We regularly see GT40 top ends struggling to produce 280hp on a 302, with the average falling in the 260-275hp range.
You’re gonna have to get really creative with a 289/302 to make 300rwhp with junk yard heads from the 60’s. As rare and as believable as rocking horse IMO.

Bullitt95 said:
The OP's 322rwtq number just seems too low to me for a 349 that has some performance parts on it. If that was true, it would be producing less torque/ci with a manual tranny than my milder engine combo does with a power-sapping auto. That's why I suspect that the OP's engine might actually be a 308.

He doesn't really have than many performance parts to be honest. Or at least none that are all that high performing. A carb too big for his combination, an entry level Edelbrock performer intake, stock compression, unknown ported 289 head castings and some basic exhaust work. It’s not hard at all to believe that’s all the power he’s putting out. Heck, the old 351W HO’s of the 80’s that came in the F150’s had parts nearly that good on them and they were only rated at 210hp/330lbs ft NET.

I know everyone here would like to believe a stroker rotating assembly will make up for the deficiencies of poor top end components, but they really won’t. You can have all the cubes in the world, but if you're trying to breath through a McDonalds straw, when you should be breating through a garden hose, you're gonna leave a pile on the table. We only need to look at the big blocks of the mid-70's to know how true that statement is.

ratio411 · Feb 20, 2013

Gearbanger 101 said:
A 300 gross horsepower rating…sure, but 300rwhp….not likely. At least not with anything that would be pleasurable to drive on the street anyway. Don’t’ be taken in by the old GHP ratings of the 60’s and 70’s. There’s a good 45% loss by the time that figure is converted to modern NET ratings, then transferred to the wheels. An engine making 300 rear wheel horsepower by today’s standards would have been rated somewhere in the 430-440hp range by the gross ratings of the 60’s. Why do you think there were so many 400-500hp cars only running 12’s back in the day.
The best flowing factory Windsor heads of that era were probably the late 60’s/early-70’s DOOE 351W heads and even they don’t move any more air than an off the shelf iron GT40 casting. We regularly see GT40 top ends struggling to produce 280hp on a 302, with the average falling in the 260-275hp range.
You’re gonna have to get really creative with a 289/302 to make 300rwhp with junk yard heads from the 60’s. As rare and as believable as rocking horse **** IMO.

Couple of points... (I agree with you for the most part, but again, you sound like you are saying there weren't any fast cars until the early 90s when 'exotic' parts started hitting the mainstream.)

The C9/D0 351w heads as stock don't flow any better than GT40 heads, true...
However, they had HUGE restrictions built in, and they actually flow better than many 'entry level' aftermarket heads when properly ported.

Next, I never suggested that such an engine would be comfortable to drive, but they sure are a BLAST to drive.

I had a stout little 302 around 1990 that we calculated through weight/time/trap speed to have between 300-330 rwhp.
I don't recall the details, it was long ago, but chassis dynos were even more rare back then than aluminum heads.
The engine had worked 289 heads, not 351s. It also had roller rockers, which were extremely rare on street cars at that time.

300 rwhp is only about 360ish at the flywheel when you are running a manual tranny.

And yes, the cam shook the car enough to make some folks sea-sick, it didn't make a lick of power until after 2500 rpm, it was loud as heck, and I had to run 93 octane, but it was fun to drive... It had a wide-ratio Toploader and 4.11 gears. It was everything a 302 was made for.... high revving.

Gearbanger 101 · Feb 20, 2013

I'm not at all saying there weren't any fast cars pre-90's, but keep in mind....a fast small block during the 80's ran 13's. One that got into the 12's was considered really quick. If you were running fast enough to get into the 11's it was because you were probably packing a small shot of juice, or an entry level centrifugal charger under the hood and were considered a god among men.

Feel free to disagree with me, but with just worked 289 heads, a lumpy cam (I'm assuming a better intake) and roller rockers, I doubt very highly you were anywhere close to 300rwhp, however I would buy power with that combo in the mid-250's horsepower range, which is good enough to crack the 12-second barrier. You'd be surprised how fast you can go with much less. I've seen good drivers with great track conditions make a car look like it had a lot more power than it did. I've also seen the opposite. With a 2,700lb coupe, you're capable of running low 12's/high-11's at 111-113 mph with 300rwhp. Is that what yours ran?

With out ever having in on a chassis dyno, it's really impossible to say what you were really making. I've seen fast cars, with a lot of parts that many people assumed made a pile of power, only to see the look of dismay on their face when their pride and joy only churned out low 200's to the wheels.

They don't call the dyno "the heartbreaker" for nothing.

clement · Feb 21, 2013

last summer a buddy and i put a set of 4 barrel cleveland heads he has had sitting around for over 20 years on a 358" windsor shortblock with 10:1 compression and a flat tappet cam and a holley 750. we figured it would be a mid 7 second turd on motor in the 1/8 mile. it ended up running 6.80s@98mph at 3000lbs on pump gas. however, a 4 barrel cleveland head is whole different animal from a production windsor head.

Tramage · Feb 22, 2013

Gearbanger 101 said:
I'm not at all saying there weren't any fast cars pre-90's, but keep in mind....a fast small block during the 80's ran 13's. One that got into the 12's was considered really quick. If you were running fast enough to get into the 11's it was because you were probably packing a small shot of juice, or an entry level centrifugal charger under the hood and were considered a god among men.

Feel free to disagree with me, but with just worked 289 heads, a lumpy cam (I'm assuming a better intake) and roller rockers, I doubt very highly you were anywhere close to 300rwhp, however I would buy power with that combo in the mid-250's horsepower range, which is good enough to crack the 12-second barrier. You'd be surprised how fast you can go with much less. I've seen good drivers with great track conditions make a car look like it had a lot more power than it did. I've also seen the opposite. With a 2,700lb coupe, you're capable of running low 12's/high-11's at 111-113 mph with 300rwhp. Is that what yours ran?

With out ever having in on a chassis dyno, it's really impossible to say what you were really making. I've seen fast cars, with a lot of parts that many people assumed made a pile of power, only to see the look of dismay on their face when their pride and joy only churned out low 200's to the wheels.

They don't call the dyno "the heartbreaker" for nothing.

So you say that my car should run low 12's to high elevens with a good driver? I was guessing more like mid to high 12's based on some cars i've raced. Won't be able to figure it out though til I can make to topeka when the track opens. Either way i traded a four wheeler for this car so I'm still pretty happy with the #'s . Gonna play with timing and jets and hopefully squeeze out some more Hp

Gearbanger 101 · Feb 22, 2013

Tramage said:
So you say that my car should run low 12's to high elevens with a good driver? I was guessing more like mid to high 12's based on some cars i've raced. Won't be able to figure it out though til I can make to topeka when the track opens. Either way i traded a four wheeler for this car so I'm still pretty happy with the #'s . Gonna play with timing and jets and hopefully squeeze out some more Hp

Hahah....it could run low-12's/high-11's. Doesn't mean it's going to though. That's under ideal conditions, driven within an inch of its life. Most drivers don't drive like that...which is why you end up with low-13's/high'12's. If this is your first time at the track with it, or at all, don't be disappointed if you don't do nearly as well as you think you will.

ratio411 · Feb 22, 2013

clement said:
last summer a buddy and i put a set of 4 barrel cleveland heads he has had sitting around for over 20 years on a 358" windsor shortblock with 10:1 compression and a flat tappet cam and a holley 750. we figured it would be a mid 7 second turd on motor in the 1/8 mile. it ended up running 6.80s@98mph at 3000lbs on pump gas. however, a 4 barrel cleveland head is whole different animal from a production windsor head.

And this is why Clevelands have a mythical status among old school Ford guys.
Back when you couldn't get any speed parts for Fords, the 351c was brutally quick compared to others.
I have seen relatively stock 351c cars run fast enough to get banned from the track. (Street cars, no hope for passing 11 second safety standards)

Tramage · Feb 22, 2013

Gearbanger 101 said:
Hahah....it could run low-12's/high-11's. Doesn't mean it's going to though. That's under ideal conditions, driven within an inch of its life. Most drivers don't drive like that...which is why you end up with low-13's/high'12's. If this is your first time at the track with it, or at all, don't be disappointed if you don't do nearly as well as you think you will.

I'm no john force but I've been down the track maybe 100 times or so and I'd be happy with mid 12's lol just ordered the Nitto 555r 275/60/15's and I'm gonna toss the bottle at it this summer and see how it likes it

RangerJoe · Feb 22, 2013

The nittos are great for the street and will do wonders for you at the track compared to all season type tires. However, don't expect to be launching it too aggressively, they don't hook as well as the more aggressive tires. I ran nittos last year, still on the car now, and cut .6 off my 1/8 mile time. But, I can't get better then 1.94 60ft. Launching above about 3200rpms results in tire spin. I am going to buy a set of Mickey Thompson ET Streets in the next few months.

Joe

Tramage · Feb 22, 2013

RangerJoe said:
The nittos are great for the street and will do wonders for you at the track compared to all season type tires. However, don't expect to be launching it too aggressively, they don't hook as well as the more aggressive tires. I ran nittos last year, still on the car now, and cut .6 off my 1/8 mile time. But, I can't get better then 1.94 60ft. Launching above about 3200rpms results in tire spin. I am going to buy a set of Mickey Thompson ET Streets in the next few months.

Joe

Yeah it's mostly gonna be street driven since they tore down the drag strip in kc last year and the next closest one is 2 hours away :-( And I have a set of MT ET Streets but they are just so damn tall lol But it'll be a fun(I hope lol) road trip to find out

ratio411 · Mar 5, 2013

Gearbanger 101 said:
I'm not at all saying there weren't any fast cars pre-90's, but keep in mind....a fast small block during the 80's ran 13's. One that got into the 12's was considered really quick. If you were running fast enough to get into the 11's it was because you were probably packing a small shot of juice, or an entry level centrifugal charger under the hood and were considered a god among men.

I can't link to a corral thread, but there is one there that reminded me of this discussion.
It was started by a member running 11.42@118.6mph / 7.28@94.5 1.59 60', on D0 heads!
Then magically, C9/D0 guys started coming out of the woodwork posting in the thread.
They don't normally reveal themselves because those heads are bashed as 'stock junk', and you get crucified on the boards if you suggest otherwise... They felt safe to come out when a guy runs 11s n/a with stock heads.

302 RWHP and 322 ftlbs of torque :-)

FoxMustangLvr

I love my Pimp

Tramage

Member

ratio411

ratio411

ratio411

ratio411

Incon

Member

Dino Dino Bambino

Incon

Member

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash

ratio411

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash

clement

Tramage

Member

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash

ratio411

Tramage

Member

RangerJoe

I leave the horn on while driving

Tramage

Member

ratio411

Similar threads

302 RWHP and 322 ftlbs of torque :-)

I love my Pimp

Member

Member

Member

Straight Outta Locash

Straight Outta Locash

Member

Straight Outta Locash

Member

I leave the horn on while driving

Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency