• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

Behold And Be Amazed At This $ To Hp Ratio

  • Thread starter Thread starter jerry S
  • Start date Start date Nov 16, 2005
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 2 of 4 Next Last

LMan

Founding Member
Aug 10, 2002
1,246
0
0
Mom's basement
Nov 16, 2005
#21
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #21
jerry S said:
Nothing. I have a guy who has offered to port the heads and intake. What kinds of gains in terms of HP and torque might one expect for such work?
Click to expand...

What heads are these? Stock? :o
 

jerry S

New Member
Sep 3, 2003
1,365
1
0
52.22N 5.12E
Nov 16, 2005
#22
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #22
LMan said:
What heads are these? Stock? :o
Click to expand...

Edelbrock RPM Performers and an RPM Air Gap manifold

Here is what he proposed to me:

This is what I could do for you:

Intake (Upper/Lower)

-Port match upper/lower polish the runners and port match to the head.

Heads

-Fully port, reshape runners, port match to intake/exhaust gasket, hand blend the short radi (where the hidden power is at), work and reshape into tear drop the valve guide bosses, polish the runners and polish the combustion chambers.
 

Edbert

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2002
3,548
32
109
Austin TX
Nov 16, 2005
#23
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #23
LMan said:
another victim of marketing hype. That's why its so important to talk with people who have *been there*, and not glossy incestuous magazine 'how-to' "articles" and ad campaigns.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more with this statement, but with those heads/intake and that cam he SHOULD be over 400 at the flywheel. Do you not agree?

Edit: Jerry are those the 2.02/1.60 heads?
 

jerry S

New Member
Sep 3, 2003
1,365
1
0
52.22N 5.12E
Nov 16, 2005
#24
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #24
Edbert said:
are those the 2.02/1.60 heads?
Click to expand...

Yes. Part no. Edl 60259

I will look into the timing and the A/F and post the graph tomorrow. What I can say is that my engine stops making power at 5800-5900 RPM. I was thinking I should be making power to 6100-6200.
 
N

no_3

Founding Member
Oct 21, 2002
73
0
0
Nov 16, 2005
#25
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #25
Perhaps you could get it dyno tuned and run the exhaust inside the car at the same time. Kill two birds with one stone!
 
5

57fairlane

New Member
Apr 2, 2005
560
0
0
Oakwood, GA
Nov 16, 2005
#26
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #26
I was talking with a few people today and figured theortically you should be around 430 at the flywheel. Also, we are in agreement on the victor jr. Don't waste your money porting the air-gap. Sell it and get a victor jr. Your motor would benfit in torque and horsepower across the entire RPM range. You could get the heads ported . . . but that isn't why the motor is acting up right now.
 

2bav8

Founding Member
Nov 30, 1998
2,511
1
47
Mesa, AZ
Nov 16, 2005
#27
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #27
Electric water pump: $350
Electric fuel pump: $110
new billet steel harmomic dampner: $270
- None of the above is really going to make power.
Sure they are nice to have, especially the harmonic balancer but that's more of a safety issue than a power maker.
Now paying $1000 in labor, well....
 
M

mustangdave

My rearend needs a stud and two nuts.
Founding Member
Feb 26, 2002
2,976
1
56
North Carolina
Nov 16, 2005
#28
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #28
I would check timing first: make sure you have around 34-36 dgrees of total timing all in by 3500 r.p.m. Once that is adjusted, work on carb. adjustments.
 
0

06cobra

Member
Feb 12, 2004
146
0
16
Nov 16, 2005
#29
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #29
The biggest draw back of ford engines are the weazy heads, and crappy exhaust systems. Until those are figured out. the MODs wouldn't show much. As you have learned from your wallet, unfortunately!

That being said, the 351s do have better heads then the 302/289s but for the extra cubes it sucked up rather easily.

I agree with everyone else, on getting an killer tune done, but again, I wouldn't be the person to tell you how much if any, that will give you in gains.

Mod'n cars sucks, you have to look the engine as an entire package not just bits and pieces.... and that gets expensive.
 
0

06cobra

Member
Feb 12, 2004
146
0
16
Nov 16, 2005
#30
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #30
2bav8 said:
Electric water pump: $350
Electric fuel pump: $110
new billet steel harmomic dampner: $270
- None of the above is really going to make power.
Sure they are nice to have, especially the harmonic balancer but that's more of a safety issue than a power maker.
Now paying $1000 in labor, well....
Click to expand...


At least try and make the guy feel better LOL :SNSign:
 
T

tylerrocks

New Member
Oct 13, 2005
514
0
0
Big Spring, TX
Nov 16, 2005
#31
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #31
2bav8 said:
Electric water pump: $350
Electric fuel pump: $110
new billet steel harmomic dampner: $270
- None of the above is really going to make power.
Sure they are nice to have, especially the harmonic balancer but that's more of a safety issue than a power maker.
Now paying $1000 in labor, well....
Click to expand...

Well....you shoulda done that yourself.

Tyler
 

Max Power

Active Member
Jul 31, 2003
1,774
1
36
St Paul
Nov 16, 2005
#32
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #32
Seriously, if you had done it yourself, you would have only spent $335 per horse!
 

Edbert

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2002
3,548
32
109
Austin TX
Nov 16, 2005
#33
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #33
Just another thought, is the fuel in the UK formulated for an 11:1 compression ratio?
 
1

10secgoal

Active Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,801
3
49
San Diego
Nov 16, 2005
#34
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #34
2BAV8 is correct, dead on even. There are parts that add hp, and those that free it up. I see one that "frees up" hp, but that is it my man. I have said it a few times in here, but don't pay attention to dyno #'s. Read sig below. the best way to see what you have is to take it to a track, those are really the only numbers that matter, and are going to be accurate. My car made a measly 275 to the rear with ARF 185's, and all the goodies. But it ran 12.14 in the 1/4 and was getting faster all that day, but only 3 passes. The MPH for the weight of the car showed it to make more than that anyways. There were guys there, including one of my friends who made 380 to the ground. But he was a full .7 slower in the 1/4 than me. Go figure. Moral of the story, dyno number don't mean ****.
 

jerry S

New Member
Sep 3, 2003
1,365
1
0
52.22N 5.12E
Nov 16, 2005
#35
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #35
2bav8 said:
Electric water pump: $350
Electric fuel pump: $110
new billet steel harmomic dampner: $270
- None of the above is really going to make power.
Sure they are nice to have, especially the harmonic balancer but that's more of a safety issue than a power maker.
Now paying $1000 in labor, well....
Click to expand...

I don't consider these parts power adders as much as "parts that free up power."

I was told by those HERE allegedly in the know that removing accessory drag was supposed to be good for something. I removed the power steering and AC as well as the water pump. What surprises me is that the before and after shows only a gain of 3 hp and ft lbs torque as a result of removing all accessory drag except for the alternator. As for the harmonic balancer, again, not a power adder, but was under the impression that with a relatively hot build, I was complementing the engine by providing the best possible dampening effects.

As for the labor costs, take what you pay for stuff in the US and double its price. I was paying over $6.00 a gal for gas long before you guys were paying $2. Then there is the 20% sales tax, 52% income tax, and 60% tax on cars. I can go on about the dog tax, TV tax, personal property tax........
 

brianj5600

Active Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,964
2
39
Middle TN
Nov 16, 2005
#36
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #36
jerry S said:
It is a crower Ultra Performance Compu-Pro/Performance level 4.
Click to expand...
That cam has 112 lsa, not good for a carb. I don.t know what that is costing you hp wise, but I'm sure the same cam with 108 lsa would help. I also think the C6 is holding you back. They are known for eating hp, Ive heard as much as 40hp more than a C4, but have no data. The weight of the internals also drags down the numbers since hp is figured by accelerating a drum. There must be something up though. I think I would find a better mechanic, those mods should show more gain than that.
 

jerry S

New Member
Sep 3, 2003
1,365
1
0
52.22N 5.12E
Nov 16, 2005
#37
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #37
brianj5600 said:
That cam has 112 lsa, not good for a carb. I don.t know what that is costing you hp wise, but I'm sure the same cam with 108 lsa would help. I also think the C6 is holding you back. They are known for eating hp, Ive heard as much as 40hp more than a C4, but have no data. The weight of the internals also drags down the numbers since hp is figured by accelerating a drum. There must be something up though. I think I would find a better mechanic, those mods should show more gain than that.
Click to expand...

it is actually a 108 centerline. The cam is a custom grind. I am thinking about a new tranny but was considering an AOD. I know that this is as much a power grabber as the C6 though.
 

69Rcode_Mach1

Active Member
Apr 20, 2004
1,473
1
37
Salt Lake City, Utah
Nov 16, 2005
#38
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #38
Jerry like some people have stated that C6 is a big contributing factor to the problem. All I could get out of my 351 before the build was 155rwhp. The C6 can eat up almost as much as 25% of your power, by the time it hits the wheels. Don't get down on yourself, I just realized my cam bearings may have gone bad when my old oil pump died. So I get to pull the engine again, I know the kind of letdown you are feeling. Also what is the elevation where you live, that and the C6 together could lead to a huge decrease in power.
 

brianj5600

Active Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,964
2
39
Middle TN
Nov 16, 2005
#39
  • Nov 16, 2005
  • #39
jerry S said:
it is actually a 108 centerline.
Click to expand...
Centerline and lobe seperation are different. Are you sure about the lsa number?
 

1320stang

Founding Member
Nov 13, 1998
4,329
23
89
Edmond, Oklahoma
Nov 17, 2005
#40
  • Nov 17, 2005
  • #40
Is the cam dial in or installed straight up?
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Next
First Prev 2 of 4 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

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
4
Views
934
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jun 20, 2026
gray owl
G
Progress Thread Progress Thread- From6to8's 1994 Cobra Supercharger install
  • from6to8
  • Sep 25, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 20 21 22
Replies
420
Views
10K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 6, 2026
from6to8
J
Engine LOSS OF POWER AT 4,000 RPM.
  • Jarhead67
  • Nov 17, 2024
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jan 25, 2025
Jarhead67
J
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
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
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific 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?