• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

302 RWHP and 322 ftlbs of torque :-)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tramage
  • Start date Start date Feb 18, 2013
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
First Prev 3 of 3

Dino Dino Bambino

15 Year Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,672
89
79
Cyprus
Mar 6, 2013
#41
  • Mar 6, 2013
  • #41
ratio411 said:
I can't link to a corral thread, but there is one there that reminded me of this discussion.
Click to expand...

Here it is:

http://forums.corral.net/forums/5-0-5-8-engine-tech/1410913-d0oe-351w-ported-heads-running-11s.html
 

ratio411

Founding Member
Apr 21, 2002
3,870
73
109
Pensacola FL
Mar 6, 2013
#42
  • Mar 6, 2013
  • #42
Bullitt95 said:
Here it is:

http://forums.corral.net/forums/5-0-5-8-engine-tech/1410913-d0oe-351w-ported-heads-running-11s.html
Click to expand...

How did you get it posted?
Everytime I try to link Stangnet to another board it blocks me.
 

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash
20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 10, 2002
9,457
1,377
234
Ontario, Canada
Mar 6, 2013
#43
  • Mar 6, 2013
  • #43
Yup, he's moving....but then those heads were mounted on a high compression 358W and not on a 289/302 like was your original point of contention? And with a flat tappet 241/249@.050 .554/.576 spec'd bump stick, C4 backed with a 3,800 stall converter and 4.30 gears....I wouldn't consider it very "nice" to drive around on the street either, which was my previous point.

Not trying to take anything away from the guy. It does prove that one can go fast on "junk" heads....but without the additional cubes, and wild drive train, the results wouldn't have been near as dramatic.
 

Dino Dino Bambino

15 Year Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,672
89
79
Cyprus
Mar 7, 2013
#44
  • Mar 7, 2013
  • #44
ratio411 said:
How did you get it posted?
Everytime I try to link Stangnet to another board it blocks me.
Click to expand...

I'm a magician.
 

ratio411

Founding Member
Apr 21, 2002
3,870
73
109
Pensacola FL
Mar 7, 2013
#45
  • Mar 7, 2013
  • #45
Gearbanger 101 said:
Yup, he's moving....but then those heads were mounted on a high compression 358W and not on a 289/302 like was your original point of contention? And with a flat tappet 241/249@.050 .554/.576 spec'd bump stick, C4 backed with a 3,800 stall converter and 4.30 gears....I wouldn't consider it very "nice" to drive around on the street either, which was my previous point.

Not trying to take anything away from the guy. It does prove that one can go fast on "junk" heads....but without the additional cubes, and wild drive train, the results wouldn't have been near as dramatic.
Click to expand...
My point on the heads being on a 351w is only bolstered because if they can support that engine, they can support a 302 even better.
Make sense? We are only talking 1.94/1.60 valves here, supporting 358 cubic inches, and you know it's screaming with those gears behind a C4.
They are more than enough head for a healthy, mild, street 302.
Sure you won't go 10s, but it will be FAST without high dollar heads.
 

Tramage

Member
Dec 12, 2012
38
3
18
Lees Summit, MO
Mar 14, 2013
#46
  • Mar 14, 2013
  • #46
finally snapped a pic of the dyno run
 

Attachments

  • 2013-03-05_20-14-48_220-1.webp
    55.2 KB · Views: 113
Reactions: ratio411

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Mar 14, 2013
#47
  • Mar 14, 2013
  • #47
The AFR looks good and it's stable, so at least the big carb is doing its job.

Bullitt95 said:
I'm a magician.
Click to expand...

 

Attachments

  • 29029862_zps110f0691.webp
    10.1 KB · Views: 99
  • 29029862_zps110f0691.webp
    10.1 KB · Views: 110
Reactions: Tramage

ratio411

Founding Member
Apr 21, 2002
3,870
73
109
Pensacola FL
Mar 16, 2013
#48
  • Mar 16, 2013
  • #48
65ShelbyClone said:
The AFR looks good and it's stable, so at least the big carb is doing its job.
Click to expand...
I does look really nice except for the initial tip in.
Looks like it needs a smaller squirter, and if the pump cam is not maxed out, more duration.
That high spot upon tip in is too much fuel from the squirter at that instant, then it runs down for a moment before the main circuit kicks in. Too much squirter, not enough duration. Duration is extended with a smaller squirter, which will lower the initial rich spot, and raise some of the lean spot. But I suspect more cam or pump volume is needed.

Edit:
I checked to see what carb he has, and with a DP, I wouldn't think you'd have to mess with the pump cams. They should be 330 cams, set in position 1, hole 1, and that should be plenty. I would focus on squirter size, mainly on the rear pump circuit, and I would also check the pump arm clearance in the rear circuit first. It might be a little loose. Since they stabbed the gas near 3k rpm, and it hit a bit rich, the front circuit may have had some residual fuel, meaning it's possible the front squirter could step up a bit in size, but until the rear circuit is tuned, that's just a guess. At 3k rpm, the front circuit should be spent, and the front main system should be all in, at least I would think....
 
Reactions: Tramage

Dino Dino Bambino

15 Year Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,672
89
79
Cyprus
Mar 16, 2013
#49
  • Mar 16, 2013
  • #49
Tramage said:
finally snapped a pic of the dyno run
Click to expand...

With peak HP at 5500rpm, peak TQ at 4300rpm, and the 302HP/322TQ numbers at STD correction (SAE would be 290/310), I suspect even more that your engine is actually a 308 with the stock crank and not a 349.
 
Reactions: ratio411

ratio411

Founding Member
Apr 21, 2002
3,870
73
109
Pensacola FL
Mar 16, 2013
#50
  • Mar 16, 2013
  • #50
I am surprised you still list the heads as having 2.02" valves in your sig.
2.02" valves don't fit stock 289 heads. 1.94" valves are a squeeze.
 

Tramage

Member
Dec 12, 2012
38
3
18
Lees Summit, MO
Mar 16, 2013
#51
  • Mar 16, 2013
  • #51
ratio411 said:
I am surprised you still list the heads as having 2.02" valves in your sig.
2.02" valves don't fit stock 289 heads. 1.94" valves are a squeeze.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the heads up, I thought I had changed it lol
 

Tramage

Member
Dec 12, 2012
38
3
18
Lees Summit, MO
Mar 24, 2013
#52
  • Mar 24, 2013
  • #52
ratio411 said:
I does look really nice except for the initial tip in.
Looks like it needs a smaller squirter, and if the pump cam is not maxed out, more duration.
That high spot upon tip in is too much fuel from the squirter at that instant, then it runs down for a moment before the main circuit kicks in. Too much squirter, not enough duration. Duration is extended with a smaller squirter, which will lower the initial rich spot, and raise some of the lean spot. But I suspect more cam or pump volume is needed.

Edit:
I checked to see what carb he has, and with a DP, I wouldn't think you'd have to mess with the pump cams. They should be 330 cams, set in position 1, hole 1, and that should be plenty. I would focus on squirter size, mainly on the rear pump circuit, and I would also check the pump arm clearance in the rear circuit first. It might be a little loose. Since they stabbed the gas near 3k rpm, and it hit a bit rich, the front circuit may have had some residual fuel, meaning it's possible the front squirter could step up a bit in size, but until the rear circuit is tuned, that's just a guess. At 3k rpm, the front circuit should be spent, and the front main system should be all in, at least I would think....
Click to expand...

Wow very informative, thank you very much for the insight and once the weather gets nicer i'll definitly start messing with carb
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
First Prev 3 of 3
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
'03 GT Fuel Pump/Pressure/Delivery Issue
  • Brodach
  • Oct 21, 2025
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
8
Views
926
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Oct 31, 2025
gkomo
S
Requesting Guidance for 306 motor swap - Fuel? - SD? MAF?
  • So_Flo
  • Jul 26, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
32
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 4, 2026
Mcmahst
Specific Cam Questions that Google can't seem to answer...
  • ChillPhatCat
  • Jun 20, 2024
  • 2.3L (N/A & Turbo) Tech
Replies
3
Views
804
2.3L (N/A & Turbo) Tech Jun 22, 2024
ChillPhatCat
J
Progress Thread Family member 1989 GT- Backstory and updates
  • JRC99
  • Apr 19, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
15
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 26, 2025
JRC99
J
S
what would you do? sell the project and buy completed or finish project?
  • STANG32
  • Feb 8, 2025
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
610
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Feb 16, 2025
rusty428cj
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
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?