Max Power From a N/A Engine

Pokageek · Dec 6, 2008

This horse is done. We all agree and know what streetable means. 300rwhp +-10 period is the median definition. You can post all the links you want. I am not buying it. Aside from that, I have no quarrel with you and we prolly agree on 99 other things not to mention you are a stangnetter which prolly makes you pretty cool.

Some of us are even more picky though, like me! I don't want any annoying bucking in 5th gear under 2krpm! I don't want to drive a car thats going to rattle my brains at the stop lights and attract unwanted attention. I don't want a pushrod engine that is revving at 3k rpm on the bway! I don't want to have to wait until 3500rpm to get some power out of it either. But that is me! :SNSign:

final5-0 · Dec 6, 2008

Glad I included those words ... "near stock like drivability"

It was my intent to leave some fudge room for tune effeciency

I was SO suprised at

how tame you can make a fairly stout h/c/i combo
if you hose around enough with the little things in the pcm

My little GT drives like a stocker in EVERY way except for a bit of cam lope

Well .......

It is a bit quicker
and
Those 30's can really get thirsty

Grady

StinkinLincoln · Dec 7, 2008

we will soon find out how much power and how streetable my car is real soon.
wes will be doing the tuning and im gonna learn some more. yay!

Pokageek · Dec 7, 2008

StinkinLincoln said:
we will soon find out how much power and how streetable my car is real soon.
wes will be doing the tuning and im gonna learn some more. yay!

The 6 speed will help.

Grn92LX · Dec 7, 2008

StinkinLincoln said:
wrong. im very confident you could make 350rwhp and drive it in traffic every day.
its all in the combination, and the cam will make or break it.

Seen quite a few examples of this over the years. Not too hard.

a very large majority of people say i am crazy to put 4.30's in a street car.

Got 4.30s in my streeter too. No problems, doesn't rev too high.

Gearbanger 101 · Dec 7, 2008

Grn92LX said:
Seen quite a few examples of this over the years. Not too hard..

And were they also running big displacement stroker engines like you are?

Grn92LX said:
:Got 4.30s in my streeter too. No problems, doesn't rev too high.

...and again, you've also got a 347 stroker under the hood. Its much easier to make streetable power when you've got a lot more displacement to work with. For the record, the engine in the O/P's inquirey is a stock 302ci short block.

Killercanary · Dec 7, 2008

StinkinLincoln said:
we will soon find out how much power and how streetable my car is real soon.
wes will be doing the tuning and im gonna learn some more. yay!

Sweet! I can't wait to see the results!

Grn92LX · Dec 7, 2008

Gearbanger 101 said:
And were they also running big displacement stroker engines like you are?

..

302-306. Should have specified that

Gearbanger 101 · Dec 7, 2008

Grn92LX said:
302-306. Should have specified that

That’s fine and all.....and I’m not saying it isn’t doable, but the aforementioned drivability for a daily commuter after the fact is questionable.....at least as far as my own personal stipulations above go. Either way, I feel as though you guys that make it sound like it’s going to be a walk in the park are misleading him a little and more than likely setting him up for a disappointing outcome.

Shooting at, or above 350rwhp is going to diminish one of the desired results.....either in the horsepower, or the streetability department.....no question about it!

StinkinLincoln said:
we will soon find out how much power and how streetable my car is real soon.
wes will be doing the tuning and im gonna learn some more. yay!

Looking forward to hearing about it. Just keep in mind though....that 331ci high compression short block vs. a stock 302 is going to make it that much easier to reach your horsepower goal and keep streetability a factor in the equation. Those benefits alone probably contribute to a good 40-50 additional horsepower and like amounts of torque at all RPM over the stock short block. Just something for those thinking they can duplicate your results with just a top end swap like the O/P is planning to keep in mind.

Brian@PAR · Dec 7, 2008

There are plenty examples of 400+ HP totally streetable combo's out there but I guess links will not make a believer out of people. Which is understandable I guess.

So let me give you an explanation.

Most guys build a motor and use big intakes, big TB's or carbs and a big cam on "normal" heads. This kills the low end, makes the idle crappy, and causes bucking issues at low RPM's. The blame is always layed on the "too big" parts. Well that is partial true. What is too big (for streetability) is the cam but the heads are actually too small.

If you use "big" heads like the RHS200,Canfield 195, TW190 you are able to run a small cam. In fact you can run a cam so small that you get 17" of vacuum at 750 RPM's. This is a combo that does not load up, it does not buck, it does not overheat, and it does not rattle your brains at stop lights.

The only trade off for the guy chasing low ET is you do need some gear and a 5 speed is prefered no matter. This combo is very mild below 3K but as the tach passes that look out. Power in gobs to 6700, in a 306, and a redline of 7100 with a HR cam.

Could you run this with 355's? Sure. Are you going to make lowest ET possible? No. But 410's will get you there or pretty darn close.

By using a larger than normally excepted head it allows you to delay the intake opening event. A large inlet capacity does not need to rely on the scavaging of the exhaust. This improves vacuum and decreases the chance of reversion at low RPM's.

The large inlet capacity also allows you to close the intake sooner because you are not waiting on the charge to catch up. Closing the intake sooner provides an increased dynamic CR and more torque. Large cammed engines often use Static CR to accomplish this.

Same principles hold on the exhaust side where you can hold the pressure in the cylinder longer (later opening event) and do not require as much scavenging (close the exhaust earlier) so overlap is reduced.

Now can you go too big, absolutely. You get to a point of diminishing returns as too large of an inlet makes it hard to get the charge moving at low RPM's.

All this is best employed with a custom cam. To get the most out of this combo you need to have very fast ramp rates. So you spend 450 on a custom but you buy the cylinder heads once. You can move a 195 or 200cc head from your 306 to a 347 and even to a 383 or 408. By the time you get to the 408 you're back to the normal size head again but at that point I would imagine you're not doing a daily driver any more.

So for a guy starting out fresh with nothing the first purchase would be a "big" set of heads. You then move on to the intake, TB, MAF, or carb, exhaust, all the while keeping the stock cam. Will the combo be optimized no but will it run good and be streetable, heck yes. When all those parts are there you buy the cam and viola 400+ HP in a daily driver 306.

When you move on to the 347 you will need a new cam but everything else transfers over and you've got a streetable 485 HP motor.

Redsnk95 · Dec 7, 2008

Yea come on, my car only made 420rwhp on the chassis dyno but runs 10.50s @ 3200lbs, do the math. Chassis dyno should only be used to get a good baseline on your tune, the track is used for fine tuning.

5spd GT · Dec 8, 2008

Lots of twisted things going on in here.

You cannot compare RWHP to a track time, or vice versa. There are too many variables at the track. Driver weight, skill, suspension, temperatures, conditions, track level, transmission, etc. I maintain that a viable RWHP number is a better number to compare POTENTIAL.

Also, 94StinkinLincoln, you need to read between the lines a bit better. I did not visit the links, but I believe I know which car you are talking about. One may post a certain RWHP number acheived, but on race day, I assure you the RWHP is higher. Then, you need to consider the average RWHP, which I was quoted.

By the way, on the certain car you are quoting for the 302, here are just some of the things done to it for the numbers. You will see it is not as streetable as you make it out to be, atleast not my definition, but a nice track car for sure.

- Loose tolerances
- 0W/30 oil
- Modified clutch that he will not even say what he did, because it could "break."
- He did not shift with a clutch
- Alternater cut-off switch
- Doing a custom cam for HIMSELF and tried several different ones.
- His ideas of streetable are different than most
- Tried different lifter/pushrod combinations for most power/stud over pedestal
- Tried different clutches and modified it (took out the thrust bearing)
- Modified T5 tranny (2.95 first gear)
- Vacuum Pump (2 mph with air pump) and no PCV hook-ups
- 4.56 gears/Slicks
- 1.4 60 fts (which highlights lots of suspension work compared to average and a good tire)
- Shifted near 7,500 rpm
- Lots of track and tuning time
- Deleted accessories (3 mph with smog pump delete)
- Electric fan
- Removed some extra weight
- .227"/.252" duration at .050" and .563"/.547" (.352"/.342") - LSA 114* - 112.5 ICL
- New rings and bearings
- Holley lower intake with a Hurricane sheetmetal upper intake
- Locked out timing (38*)
- Valve job on the heads, milled, and some bowl reshaping with Ferrea valves
- Converted heads to stud-mounted
- 9.7" runner length
- 10.25 Air/Fuel Ratio
- Rev extender
- Trailered it on occasion
- 3160lb race weight
- Team Z upper and lower control arms and anti-roll bar
- Straight exhaust (not typical aftermarket H or X piping)
- Unknown compression

*Possibly used gas-ported pistons, windage trays.

And your typical underdrive and crank race pullies, electric fan, no thermostat, blah, blah, blah.

Also, these so called "street cars" are typically not daily driven. There is a big difference. Suddenly, after I bought a second car, my daily driven 5.0L needed to be "hopped up." I felt I wanted to do more to it, because I did not drive it all that much in every situation like before.

j_lutter31 · Dec 8, 2008

Great info guys......i was lookin on summit for heads and such, and I saw that Trick Flow and Holley make a top end engine kit. They both claim that they make 350-360 hp. Is this realistic? And if so is it a good set up for a daily driver or not?

Definitely not planning on buying anything till I get out of college so it'll be a bit....

Gearbanger 101 · Dec 8, 2008

j_lutter31 said:
Great info guys......i was lookin on summit for heads and such, and I saw that Trick Flow and Holley make a top end engine kit. They both claim that they make 350-360 hp. Is this realistic? And if so is it a good set up for a daily driver or not?

Definitely not planning on buying anything till I get out of college so it'll be a bit....

Realistic, yes....but don't count on those figures being at the wheels.

Grn92LX · Dec 8, 2008

j_lutter31 said:
Great info guys......i was lookin on summit for heads and such, and I saw that Trick Flow and Holley make a top end engine kit. They both claim that they make 350-360 hp. Is this realistic? And if so is it a good set up for a daily driver or not?

Definitely not planning on buying anything till I get out of college so it'll be a bit....

Thats they're crank hp rating, not rear wheel. I had that kit on my 302 and it was my only car/daily driver years ago. Made 303hp/339tq tuned myself. Much better stuff out there for similar prices but for the average enthuseist its fine.

final5-0 · Dec 8, 2008

j_lutter31 said:
Great info guys......i was lookin on summit for heads and such, and I saw that Trick Flow and Holley make a top end engine kit. They both claim that they make 350-360 hp. Is this realistic? And if so is it a good set up for a daily driver or not?

Definitely not planning on buying anything till I get out of college so it'll be a bit....

Yes ... that figure would be in the ball park

Like others have said ... that is flywheel or motor horse power

Most of the time ... peeps talk rear wheel horse power cause that is
what you get when you have your car dynoed

Going by the all around rule of thumb of a 15% loss of power from
flywheel to rear wheel ... 360 X .85 = 306

Grady

Black95GTS · Dec 9, 2008

5spd GT said:
Lots of twisted things going on in here.

You cannot compare RWHP to a track time, or vice versa. There are too many variables at the track. Driver weight, skill, suspension, temperatures, conditions, track level, transmission, etc. I maintain that a viable RWHP number is a better number to compare POTENTIAL.

Also, 94StinkinLincoln, you need to read between the lines a bit better. I did not visit the links, but I believe I know which car you are talking about. One may post a certain RWHP number acheived, but on race day, I assure you the RWHP is higher. Then, you need to consider the average RWHP, which I was quoted.

By the way, on the certain car you are quoting for the 302, here are just some of the things done to it for the numbers. You will see it is not as streetable as you make it out to be, atleast not my definition, but a nice track car for sure.

- Loose tolerances
- 0W/30 oil
- Modified clutch that he will not even say what he did, because it could "break."
- He did not shift with a clutch
- Alternater cut-off switch
- Doing a custom cam for HIMSELF and tried several different ones.
- His ideas of streetable are different than most
- Tried different lifter/pushrod combinations for most power/stud over pedestal
- Tried different clutches and modified it (took out the thrust bearing)
- Modified T5 tranny (2.95 first gear)
- Vacuum Pump (2 mph with air pump) and no PCV hook-ups
- 4.56 gears/Slicks
- 1.4 60 fts (which highlights lots of suspension work compared to average and a good tire)
- Shifted near 7,500 rpm
- Lots of track and tuning time
- Deleted accessories (3 mph with smog pump delete)
- Electric fan
- Removed some extra weight
- .227"/.252" duration at .050" and .563"/.547" (.352"/.342") - LSA 114* - 112.5 ICL
- New rings and bearings
- Holley lower intake with a Hurricane sheetmetal upper intake
- Locked out timing (38*)
- Valve job on the heads, milled, and some bowl reshaping with Ferrea valves
- Converted heads to stud-mounted
- 9.7" runner length
- 10.25 Air/Fuel Ratio
- Rev extender
- Trailered it on occasion
- 3160lb race weight
- Team Z upper and lower control arms and anti-roll bar
- Straight exhaust (not typical aftermarket H or X piping)
- Unknown compression

*Possibly used gas-ported pistons, windage trays.

And your typical underdrive and crank race pullies, electric fan, no thermostat, blah, blah, blah.

Also, these so called "street cars" are typically not daily driven. There is a big difference. Suddenly, after I bought a second car, my daily driven 5.0L needed to be "hopped up." I felt I wanted to do more to it, because I did not drive it all that much in every situation like before.

Totally agree David. We hear stories in this thread where some posters claim numerous examples yet when we ask for evidence get 1 or 2 hardcore racers, who design their own camshafts, with vehicles that would not be considered street legal in most states!

Adam

nmcgrawj · Dec 10, 2008

Killercanary said:
His combo with a 94-95 computer would be a bear to tune I think.

Not trying to get too far off track but this is interesting Paul. I know that stock for stock Fox Computers are better mod for mod than 94-95, but i thought once tuned it was fair game. The Fox's still have an advantage over us computer wise when both are tuned?

Killercanary · Dec 10, 2008

nmcgrawj said:
Not trying to get too far off track but this is interesting Paul. I know that stock for stock Fox Computers are better mod for mod than 94-95, but i thought once tuned it was fair game. The Fox's still have an advantage over us computer wise when both are tuned?

Nate, for a long time I have tried to figure out why, given equal mods, that a fox car will put down more RWHP than a 94-95. Hard parts are hard parts and the results should be almost the same between body styles, yet the 94-95's are consistently behind in RWHP numbers compared to their fox brethren. I can only attribute it to "soft" parts like the EEC. I like the 94-95 EEC as its faster and load based, however something is amiss. I don't know why given the same timing, AF ratio and hard parts these cars are down on power compared to a fox, but generally they are. Maybe its the inlet elbow in addition to the EEC... I don't know but this is an ugly fact that raises its ugly head time and time again.

I do know that is is laughable to say that 330+rwhp is doable and streetable in a 94-95 using the 94-95 eec/inlet elbow/and all accessories, if it was where have all of these cars been hiding? I've been messing with 94-95's for almost 12 years; I do a lot of research and I've yet to find them, but this thread will make you think that it is normal. All I can say is if you believe I'm wrong, prove it.

Pokageek · Dec 10, 2008

Two reasons for the disparity that I can think of Paul:

#1 What most QM tracker's call "streetable" is not the definition of streetable by the majority of us street guys. (see other thread)

#2 Might be a dumb question but if the wheel base or trajectory of the drive-shaft is different in the 94-95, there might be more drive-line loss. Has anyone looked into that?

Max Power From a N/A Engine

Active Member

Mustang Master

Member

Active Member

Fidanza Man!

Straight Outta Locash

The car that set the bar.

Fidanza Man!

Straight Outta Locash

New Member

"the 5.0 owns all"

Member

Straight Outta Locash

Fidanza Man!

Mustang Master

Active Member

Advanced Member

The car that set the bar.

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency