460 turbo ???

S

SPEED FREAK

Founding Member

Aug 7, 2000

1,448

0

0

Regina, SK.

Apr 3, 2005

#21

• Apr 3, 2005

• #21

I think a 460 would be hella fun. cheap to buy requires little modification and best of all it fits . Maybe a little chunky but the 500 lbs ft of torque in a anear stock ap helps out with that .

 

Michael Yount

Mustang Master

Apr 10, 2002

9,039

6

79

Charlotte, NC

Apr 3, 2005

#22

• Apr 3, 2005

• #22

shttygtstng said "but y should i be concered about all that weight. " If we have to explain that to you, you need to go back to remedial physics. You have to accelerate it. You have to stop it. You have to turn it. Weight is ALWAYS the enemy.

Smock - you'll have to get over yourself on this one. The Stang is already a joke with regard to weight distribution - most of 'em come in right at 58%/42% - almost front wheel drive territory. The 460 block is bigger, the crank is bigger, the rods are bigger, the pistons are bigger, the intake is bigger, the headers are bigger --- everywhere you look there's more weight. Even with the stock 302 the car should have the engine set back about 6-8 inches, and about 100-150 additional pounds shifted to the rear to have a more reasonable front to rear weight.

The 460 is TOO HEAVY if you want a car with any kind of reasonable front to rear dist. and balance. No way around it. As for mileage - a smaller displacement/boosted motor can equal power output and be MUCH more fuel efficient when your foot is out of it. Any way you go - the small block wins. Just my opinion. And since the forums are public - I'll keep posting about it. You'll have to get over it.

 

Michael Yount

Mustang Master

Apr 10, 2002

9,039

6

79

Charlotte, NC

Apr 3, 2005

#23

• Apr 3, 2005

• #23

Oh - and by the way - you don't have to have put one in to understand the implications. You just need to know a little math. And as for this statement "Its bad enough we are all driving Mustangs because they are a dime a dozen." -- I'm doing my best not to contribute to that issue as my sig indicates.

 

poneypower89

Now everyone in the world will know I wanna bang t

Dec 6, 2004

0

3

28

Indianapolis, Indiana

Apr 3, 2005

#24

• Apr 3, 2005

• #24

Yeah, what Yount is is saying is true...

But look at this pic..

81 Ford Fairmont Futura
510 cubic Inch Big Block (stroked 460)
C4 Auto Tranny (built like a beast)

Yep, that cars font end is just waaaaaay to heavy. Maybe he should put in another normal 302. LOL. Im just mess'n with ya Yount. The matter of the fact is, the 460 is something different and cool. And not to mention more realiable than a 302 putting out 800 hp. Ya know?

 

Michael Yount

Mustang Master

Apr 10, 2002

9,039

6

79

Charlotte, NC

Apr 3, 2005

#25

• Apr 3, 2005

• #25

Yup - and even the Fairmont with the same HP/Torque and 150 lbs. less weight would be quicker. It's physics 101.

 

bluevenom867

I will have images of molesting stuffed animals in

Dec 15, 2003

1,704

1

0

St.Petersburg,FL

Apr 3, 2005

#26

• Apr 3, 2005

• #26

Michael Yount said:

Yup - and even the Fairmont with the same HP/Torque and 150 lbs. less weight would be quicker. It's physics 101.

Click to expand...

Hey Michael, don't be puttin' down the big block,many people like them.
As for a street car,if you could get the wieght balance right,the big block will usualy make more low rpm power,which would let you use numericaly lower gears so you can cruise at a lower rpm and have a higher top speed.Hes not talking about all-out racing power, but something that is streetable and can still idel around town and not eat up 114 octane or so.

 

S

SPEED FREAK

Founding Member

Aug 7, 2000

1,448

0

0

Regina, SK.

Apr 3, 2005

#27

• Apr 3, 2005

• #27

I could have sworn the the boss 429 could work the boss 302 fairly efficiently . If you could get 800 hp from a 302 (a HUUUUGGGEEEE expense by the way) it would certainly be faster BUT to get that power from a big block is peanuts. It's a super budget way to go with some huge numbers and all impressive ET's. Would I put it in a road race car??? HELL NO but for the drag strip the big block is still tough to beat.

 

S

SPEED FREAK

Founding Member

Aug 7, 2000

1,448

0

0

Regina, SK.

Apr 3, 2005

#28

• Apr 3, 2005

• #28

Well we are on the weight topic why not build a turbo 2.3 I have seen those with 1200 hp and they run well and are deffinetly a TON lighter than a 302. Perfect autocross motor IMO.

 

shttygtstang

New Member

Jun 2, 2004

978

0

0

Apr 3, 2005

#29

• Apr 3, 2005

• #29

Michael Yount said:

shttygtstng said "but y should i be concered about all that weight. " If we have to explain that to you, you need to go back to remedial physics. You have to accelerate it. You have to stop it. You have to turn it. Weight is ALWAYS the enemy.

Smock - you'll have to get over yourself on this one. The Stang is already a joke with regard to weight distribution - most of 'em come in right at 58%/42% - almost front wheel drive territory. The 460 block is bigger, the crank is bigger, the rods are bigger, the pistons are bigger, the intake is bigger, the headers are bigger --- everywhere you look there's more weight. Even with the stock 302 the car should have the engine set back about 6-8 inches, and about 100-150 additional pounds shifted to the rear to have a more reasonable front to rear weight.

The 460 is TOO HEAVY if you want a car with any kind of reasonable front to rear dist. and balance. No way around it. As for mileage - a smaller displacement/boosted motor can equal power output and be MUCH more fuel efficient when your foot is out of it. Any way you go - the small block wins. Just my opinion. And since the forums are public - I'll keep posting about it. You'll have to get over it.

Click to expand...

but mod fer mod the 460s gunna win. so if i have a 3600# vert with a modded 302 putting out 500hp (braking point) vs a 3900# vert putting out 800 hp + with much more room to grow . ide say the 460 wins

also rember this isnt a budget build but theres no way in hell im dunping all that cash fer a dart ect. i dont want a stroker right yet either ( gives me that room to grow)

smock what standard tranny u using

i just thought and still do the 460 would have more potenial than the 302 0r 351

 

bluevenom867

I will have images of molesting stuffed animals in

Dec 15, 2003

1,704

1

0

St.Petersburg,FL

Apr 3, 2005

#30

• Apr 3, 2005

• #30

SPEED FREAK said:

Well we are on the weight topic why not build a turbo 2.3 I have seen those with 1200 hp and they run well and are deffinetly a TON lighter than a 302. Perfect autocross motor IMO.

Click to expand...

I dout there reliablity.

 

S

SPEED FREAK

Founding Member

Aug 7, 2000

1,448

0

0

Regina, SK.

Apr 3, 2005

#31

• Apr 3, 2005

• #31

what 1200 hp drag motor is reliable?????

 

shttygtstang

New Member

Jun 2, 2004

978

0

0

Apr 3, 2005

#32

• Apr 3, 2005

• #32

bluevenom867 said:

I dout there reliablity.

Click to expand...

not to get off subject but i used to live in st pete ybore the place to party

 

85_SS_302_Coupe

it sucks (I know) to be on the receiving end

15 Year Member

Nov 11, 2003

6,945

1,598

223

Northern KY

Apr 3, 2005

#33

• Apr 3, 2005

• #33

Well, i can't say i for one have physically put a 460 into a Fox, but i have a friend who has both a Fox with a 460 and a '67 with a 460. You can take both cars and put one average strength guy at each rear corner and pick the entire back of the car up off the ground, tires and all. Now, if that's not poor weight distribution, then i don't know what is. Now granted, both cars have fuel cells in them which surely don't aid in the weight distribution problem, but it still shows that the big blocks make the cars nose heavy. And, before anyone asks, the '67 even has aluminum heads, and the Fox had to have a tubular K member installed, so both have a little weight taken off the nose.

 

S

SmockDoiley

New Member

Jun 14, 2003

1,591

2

0

San Diego, CA

Apr 3, 2005

#34

• Apr 3, 2005

• #34

Man you are starting to really piss me off. Yeah, I've gone to college, I understand math and science. But you all are making it sound like death incarnate to put a large motor in a car. You can make any power you want with any motor, but it'll cost you. To make 500 horses in a 302 you need beefy internals which cost money. And to get the power you can get with a 460, you need a $1500-2000 block and a forged rotating assy which will run you $1500 after the machine shop is done with you. Now we havent even gotten into the heads yet. So use the math you are talking about. As for weight distribution, raise your hand if your using your mustang for autocross!! I doubt anybody here is, and if you are, more power to you for running a smaller motor. Obviously the 460 wont do in that situation. Your bringing in weight to explain something he doesnt even care about. He wants a weekend warrior thats reliable enough to drive if he needs to. Did he say anything about autocross and lots of corners, no. I'm not stupid and I know the 460 isn't better than a small block when it comes to open racing, but who here does that? Besides, if like you say the mustang is so bad to begin with, than why do you care if he throws a LITTLE more weight on the front end. You make it sound like hes adding 500 lbs. Get over it, your right and wrong at the same time. Your points are somewhat right though exaggerated, but your points dont apply. I guess if your so right, we are all driving around in death traps and the only way to correct it is to go buy all aluminum 302s and shove em back 6 inches and lower the car. God, I should stop driving my stock 95 right now because its so dangerous and cant corner at all. Imagine all those poor 03 Cobra guys with steeda suspension upgrades, they could run off the road right now because that car cant corner at all with all that weight up front. Give me a break!!

 

S

SmockDoiley

New Member

Jun 14, 2003

1,591

2

0

San Diego, CA

Apr 3, 2005

#35

• Apr 3, 2005

• #35

I'm running a TKO600. If you wanted to really get into correct weight, I'm willing to bet $500 that a fox with a 460 with aluminum heads and intake, mini starter, relocated battery, no smog or A/C, tubular K, and manual rack would weigh less than a stock 302 mustang. And before you get your panties in a bunch about the options, realize that most people do strip the A/C and smog because it either doesnt work or they have aftermarket exhaust. You could even keep power steering but I figure most people dont for ease of install. And quite a few people on here run tubular Ks and relocate the battery so it isnt much of a stretch to do all of that. I'm doing everything except the K-member so when its running I'll let you know what the weight is.

 

poneypower89

Now everyone in the world will know I wanna bang t

Dec 6, 2004

0

3

28

Indianapolis, Indiana

Apr 3, 2005

#36

• Apr 3, 2005

• #36

Ok, after my trip home today I snapped some pics of the fairmont for you. I also talked with my father. The headers are at the stock angle, but they are a custom job. Each tube slips in one by one and then into a collector. They have to be put on the engine before its lowered into the car.

I was wrong about the compression (but not the dyno #'s) The car is set-up with slightly milled heads and flat-top piston bring the compression to 13:1. If it matters to you, the total weight of the car is 3,120 including a 240 lb driver. (of course this thing is weigh reduced to the balls) Gutted doors, no interior, small plastic fuel cell, etc. It does have a massive roll-cage though that adds weigh back.

I told my dad about the project you wanted to pursue and he said online he found a twin turbo 460 fairmont. I remember seeing it, but I always though it was a 351C... So, Ill try and find that for you and post the line. At least this means the turbo idea is not too far fetched. Dad also said, if you are really interested the car can be had for a price . Like I said before, he doesn't have much to play with it anymore.

Now, on with the pictures.

Picture of the car.

Engine in the car.

more engine pics.

headers.

more angles

more angles.

Just for fun ... the rear end set up!

 

bluevenom867

I will have images of molesting stuffed animals in

Dec 15, 2003

1,704

1

0

St.Petersburg,FL

Apr 3, 2005

#37

• Apr 3, 2005

• #37

ponypower89,I suppose that 6.10 dial-in is the N/A 1/8 mile time.What trans does it have,PG?

 

90NotchBack

New Member

Feb 15, 2004

306

2

0

Loxahatchee/Pembroke Pines, FL

Apr 3, 2005

#38

• Apr 3, 2005

• #38

Well if he is going post pics of his dad big block car. I want to too. LOL

 

poneypower89

Now everyone in the world will know I wanna bang t

Dec 6, 2004

0

3

28

Indianapolis, Indiana

Apr 3, 2005

#39

• Apr 3, 2005

• #39

lol, 90notch has been following me around with that II... Whats the power plant in that thing? (BTW, its not a fox body, so it doesnt help ****tystang visualize the fit...)

The fairmont has the 6.10 dial in after the the last track we went to. It was newly done and not broke in, so the 60 ft's were suffering and so were the E.T's cause the track just wasn't hooking. He usually dials in at 6.02 or so. Yeah, it's the 1/8. The car has a C4 auto in it.

BY THE WAY, here is the link to the twin turbo 460 fairmont I was talking about! http://www.undrprsr.com/fairmont/

 

90NotchBack

New Member

Feb 15, 2004

306

2

0

Loxahatchee/Pembroke Pines, FL

Apr 3, 2005

#40

• Apr 3, 2005

• #40

Here is the 503ci. It has a Scat crank, Oliver Rods. Aluminum Cobra Jet heads. 12:1 compression. Port 'O' Sonic intake. 1150 Dominator. Hooker Super Comp headers. The motor has Lunati cam. The lift is .647in .656ex. Duration @50 is 268in 278ex. Lobe separation 106. Also a powerglide trans and a Dana 60 rearend with 4.30 gears. It's only been down the track 6 times. Never made a full pass down the 1/4 yet but 1/8 times are 5.77@121.

Here are some of are buddies cars. Thats my Falcon in the back

540ci

509ci