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

Horse Power gain from Stock Headers to Shorty Headers

  • Thread starter Thread starter spirockp
  • Start date Start date Apr 19, 2010

spirockp

5 Year Member
Mar 26, 2004
465
12
39
NJ
Apr 19, 2010
#1
  • Apr 19, 2010
  • #1
I am currently running a stock 302 with stock headers and Magnaflow mufflers. I was thinking of upgrading to shorty headers. Can any one give me an expected horse power gain that I may expect. Current horse power with my stock 302 is estimated at 225.

Thanks.
 

hhead

Founding Member
Jul 13, 2002
280
0
17
so cal
Apr 19, 2010
#2
  • Apr 19, 2010
  • #2
I don't think it's going to give you the boost you'd like it to. I believe they don't make hp, just frees up what you got. And being stock, I don't think it'll free up 10hp. It might sound better. But if hp is what you're looking for, I think your money would be better spent elsewhere.
Looking back, I see you already have headers, not stock manifolds. I think your gain will be zero. They will however move your power band, if that.
 

spirockp

5 Year Member
Mar 26, 2004
465
12
39
NJ
Apr 19, 2010
#3
  • Apr 19, 2010
  • #3
On a side note I see that Stainless Steel headers are much cheaper than Ceramic Coated ones. Any reason why?
 

rbohm

Founding Member
Apr 12, 2002
6,698
550
204
tucson,az
Apr 19, 2010
#4
  • Apr 19, 2010
  • #4
spirockp said:
On a side note I see that Stainless Steel headers are much cheaper than Ceramic Coated ones. Any reason why?
Click to expand...

the higher cost indicates the amount of work needed to coat the headers, as opposed to stainless steel.
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Apr 19, 2010
#5
  • Apr 19, 2010
  • #5
spirockp said:
I am currently running a stock 302 with stock headers and Magnaflow mufflers. I was thinking of upgrading to shorty headers. Can any one give me an expected horse power gain that I may expect. Current horse power with my stock 302 is estimated at 225.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

What vehicle and what "stock headers" do you have ? I wasn't aware the late 80's Mustang stock headers would fit classic Mustangs. The only "stock headers" that'll fit a classic Stang are the 289 Hi-po manifolds (cast iron shorty headers) Going from these to steel tube shortys might net you a few ponies, but nothing you'll be able to feel in the seat of the pants meter.
 

spirockp

5 Year Member
Mar 26, 2004
465
12
39
NJ
Apr 23, 2010
#6
  • Apr 23, 2010
  • #6
D.Hearne said:
What vehicle and what "stock headers" do you have ? I wasn't aware the late 80's Mustang stock headers would fit classic Mustangs. The only "stock headers" that'll fit a classic Stang are the 289 Hi-po manifolds (cast iron shorty headers) Going from these to steel tube shortys might net you a few ponies, but nothing you'll be able to feel in the seat of the pants meter.
Click to expand...

I'm running a 1990 302 block and 66 original headers.
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
Apr 23, 2010
#7
  • Apr 23, 2010
  • #7
There were no headers (as such) for a 289 in 1966. The closest thing was the manifolds made for the 289 Hi-po.
 
G

grainboy

Member
Feb 2, 2006
140
0
17
Goodyear, AZ
May 6, 2010
#8
  • May 6, 2010
  • #8
Spiro, I think we can all assume you have the log style exhaust manifolds. With the swap to shorty headers, you may give up a touch of torque on the bottom end, but will expand the top end rpm, and add a few hp. You will experience more noise, burned plug wires, and leaks to the head. Is it worth it? Only you can answer that, after the swap is done. I rarely see rpm over 5000, and am quite happy with manifolds and flowmasters behind them.
 
2

2+2GT

10 Year Member
Apr 25, 2009
3,333
10
79
Southeastern Pennsylvania
May 6, 2010
#9
  • May 6, 2010
  • #9
D.Hearne said:
There were no headers (as such) for a 289 in 1966. The closest thing was the manifolds made for the 289 Hi-po.
Click to expand...

The 289HP manifolds will increase power a bit, and 'shorty' headers a bit more, but if you leave the heads untouched with the horrible stock exhaust ports, the improvement won't be worth the trouble of installing them.

You need to clean out the ports-and port-match them to whatever headers or manifolds you use.

This head had all of the excess flash, shown shaded, and the smog injector 'nose' removed, and afterward (using a C9OZ-C hydraulic cam) turned 321 hp on the dyno. With all that junk in the ports, no way could it have done that.

Don't even bother with headers or dual exhaust with crappy stock ports.

 

jonfor

New Member
Apr 20, 2009
59
0
0
Columbus, GA
May 6, 2010
#10
  • May 6, 2010
  • #10
i'm dealing with the same basic issue.... my engine is terminally weak and i have rusted, long tube headers dragging the ground (shelby drop) and the smallest diameter pipes going back i have ever seen on a V8. i want more ground clearance, more aggressive aesthetic diameter, and a better sound without an obnoxious drone.

2010 will be a beans & bologna year for me so i'm not looking to drop a lot of money. i was thinking HiPo manifolds and 2.5" pipes with cheapo turbos. i would love side exit, but?????
 
2

2+2GT

10 Year Member
Apr 25, 2009
3,333
10
79
Southeastern Pennsylvania
May 6, 2010
#11
  • May 6, 2010
  • #11
jonfor said:
2010 will be a beans & bologna year for me so i'm not looking to drop a lot of money. i was thinking HiPo manifolds and 2.5" pipes with cheapo turbos. i would love side exit, but?????
Click to expand...

I have the repro GT dual with the tailpipe resonators, resulting in no drone. 289HP with 289HP manifolds. I cleaned up the inside of the manifolds, and port matched the heads to them. Took out a lot of iron, since the manifolds are quite generous, but the heads were no better than the pitiful 2V heads. Runs like a scalded dog, now.

My exhaust is 2", and works great, the restriction on these engines is not the exhaust pipe, it's the lousy ports on the heads. Two and a half is excessive, anyway. Two and a quarter on a hard-core 289/302 is plenty, and it would take a lotta cam to need that.

I have driven side exhaust, and it's a lotta fun for the first half hour.
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
May 6, 2010
#12
  • May 6, 2010
  • #12
grainboy said:
You will experience more noise, burned plug wires, and leaks to the head. .
Click to expand...

Sounds like you did everything wrong. And nothing right. I have none of that with any of my headers.
 
G

grainboy

Member
Feb 2, 2006
140
0
17
Goodyear, AZ
May 7, 2010
#13
  • May 7, 2010
  • #13
you dont have windsor jr heads. And this isnt my first experience with headers, thank you.
 
D

D.Hearne

New Member
Sep 29, 2000
11,730
6
0
south louisiana
May 7, 2010
#14
  • May 7, 2010
  • #14
grainboy said:
you dont have windsor jr heads. And this isnt my first experience with headers, thank you.
Click to expand...

No, but I've had headers with many different heads, both aluminum and iron and, yes, if you use cheap header gaskets and don't tighten them occasionally, you will have leaks. But if you invest in a quality aluminum sandwich gasket(Percys), you eliminate all that, regardless of the heads. No more problems than iron manifolds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
First Car, what should I do for power??
  • tunedV6
  • Apr 13, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
7
Views
262
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- May 4, 2026
580HP*428Cj
5
C
SN95 Another Coyote swap list
  • catkiller
  • May 10, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
131
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 10, 2026
catkiller
C
G
Electrical Getting good ground in 1991 Fox Vert for amps - getting popping noise when I turn on the lights?
  • gvanginkel403
  • Apr 11, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
20
Views
463
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jul 21, 2026
gvanginkel403
G
9
Engine Donor '00 Mountaineer meet '91 Fox
  • 91firecracker
  • May 11, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2 3
Replies
41
Views
917
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech May 28, 2026
91firecracker
9
Fox Fuel Pump Issues After Replacement/Upgrade
  • Ryu
  • Jun 23, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
23
Views
577
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 5, 2026
Ryu
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?