I think that's more accurate. You don't have to pull out the radiator and all that to do the heads. Plus you don't have to mess up the oil pan gasket.
Kurt
Max power with stock GT cam?
- Thread starter krtw
- Start date
I think that's more accurate. You don't have to pull out the radiator and all that to do the heads. Plus you don't have to mess up the oil pan gasket.
Kurt
"and expect to be making more towards 320-330 easy with the modifications I made to the set-up I had that day. "
really? what is "towards"? is it 320? 330? or less than 320? I this the safe answer?
"the internet never lies"
really?
I am confused guys.
really? what is "towards"? is it 320? 330? or less than 320? I this the safe answer?
"the internet never lies"
really?
I am confused guys.
Well 
I said to cam it ........
It was only a tiny bit more work
but
I never said it would only take 10 mins more
But considering the total amount of work involved
I stand by my original statement
With the intent of what I was trying to get across ........
Just a bit more work to go ahead and do a cam
Grady
I said to cam it ........
It was only a tiny bit more work
but
I never said it would only take 10 mins more
But considering the total amount of work involved
I stand by my original statement
With the intent of what I was trying to get across ........
Just a bit more work to go ahead and do a cam
Grady
This is my thinking too. I want to do a stock cam setup with aluminum heads but there isn't much love for these kind of setups out there
I dug up an old PM conversation I had with Schlodes, he does very well with his stock shortblock, stock cam, afr 165s and performer intake. I asked him if he regrets not changing the cam, as I was thinking of a similar setup:
Tmoss also reminded me that the stock cam is much better than many give it credit for
Anyone else have experience with stock cam setups?
I am not calling this guy out here
What I am wanting to say here is this
ET to me is not as meaningful as dyno charts because driver ability
makes things so inconsistent
A good driver can shave off 1/2 to 3/4 of a sec on the same car driven
by a fellow who is not all that great at going down the 1320
Having said all that ..........
When on the street at a cruise and you mash the go pedal
That is where power ... NOT ET ABILITY ... makes the difference :Word:
Now ... If your idea of a great Stang Combo is track focused
Just flush my thoughts here
btw ... I looked though all my old files and found no h/i combos
Grady
I am not calling this guy out here
What I am wanting to say here is this
ET to me is not as meaningful as dyno charts because driver ability
makes things so inconsistent
A good driver can shave off 1/2 to 3/4 of a sec on the same car driven
by a fellow who is not all that great at going down the 1320
Having said all that ..........
When on the street at a cruise and you mash the go pedal
That is where power ... NOT ET ABILITY ... makes the difference :Word:
Now ... If your idea of a great Stang Combo is track focused
Just flush my thoughts here
btw ... I looked though all my old files and found no h/i combos
Grady
I have never been more confused on a thread lol. Now all of you guys I have respect for. Grady, are you saying you agree with the guy or calling him out? GTA_V6_Mustang, are you saying you can get 330rwhp out of your 302 ....easy.. or 320.. or almost 320..not sure? And then another one of you says the internet never lies. lol. Is anyone else lost?
Well Keith Some of the time ... I just can't make my finger tips say what my brain
wants to get across on the flat screen
Simply Put ... In my opinion, which is based upon my current Stang which
is a Street Car Application
Using et results to measure success or failure is not valid to me
When I am cruising around town
and
I wanna be pushed back in the seat
Power is what is gonna give me that feeling
Not the ability to cut a low et ..........
which is heavily dependent upon the ability to produce a good sixty foot
Grady
GTA_V6_Mustang
Active Member
im saying I am pretty sure the car puts down 320-330 now. But im not anywhere near stock so it wasnt easy. Only thing stock is in fact the shortblock and pistons. You took it in the most literal sense, I meant compared to that day i made 302RWHP I should easily be between 320-330. It had nothing to do with the conversation I was just putting it out there that 300+ is doable N/A because someone said it wasnt, But the stock cam I think its not. If you dont like it too bad.
Cutting a low et does not define a good street setup, as said there are too many factors that come into play here (note a light race weight), I was merely putting forth some information I had regarding how effective stock cam setups are. While on the topic of streetability... retaining a good low end power curve with the manners of a stock cam doesn't seem too shabby now does it?
Another draw back I see about using the OEM cam is it isn't designed
to pull very high before it starts to peter out
Better heads and intake would certainly help but I just don't see how
it is gonna pull very high thus you won't gain the advantage of an
extended power band
It goes without saying my focus here is NA
Grady
to pull very high before it starts to peter out
Better heads and intake would certainly help but I just don't see how
it is gonna pull very high thus you won't gain the advantage of an
extended power band
It goes without saying my focus here is NA
Grady
BlackVert
15 Year Member
Can I call you Yoda? Who doesn't like what ... that you don't have a stock cam?
Noone was saying that 300 rwhp out of a 302 is not doable N/A. On the contrary, 300 at the wheels is pretty easy with a HCI package that is well matched.
But most people who know about this stuff agree that, with a stock cam, it is probably not going to get much higher than 280 or so naturally aspirated.
What you can get out of a stock cam is the topic of the thread, as evidenced by the title.
By the way, Grady, I'm with you. To me, the HP and TQ numbers and ET aren't what is important, it is how it pushes me back in my seat when I open the throttle that matters. I don't have a clue what kind of numbers my setup makes, and I'm sure that with the typhoon intake and the AOD, it is lower than alot of people would be happy with, but I am happy with how it drives and the power it has, and the rest doesn't matter.
An aftermarket or custom grind cam will obviously make more power and extend the power band, but at the cost of low end torque and street manners. Grady's GT is an excellent example of what a meticulous tune and well matched custom cam can do to help streetability and power go hand in hand, but I do recall a thread awhile back where he considered the combo still a little too much to deal with on a daily or semi-daily basis.
Now I apologize if this isn't the tangent the OP is looking for, but I think it's interesting to see what kind of performance one can pull out of heads/intake/bolt ons. For someone looking for a fun, torquey, well behaving street car, perhaps the stock cam has it's place it seems once a cam comes into play, tuning is essential, either in the form of a dyno tune or a tweecer/quarterhorse/pms, wideband, software combo.
Any thoughts???
Now I apologize if this isn't the tangent the OP is looking for, but I think it's interesting to see what kind of performance one can pull out of heads/intake/bolt ons. For someone looking for a fun, torquey, well behaving street car, perhaps the stock cam has it's place
it seems once a cam comes into play, tuning is essential, either in the form of a dyno tune or a tweecer/quarterhorse/pms, wideband, software combo.Any thoughts???
Dino Dino Bambino
15 Year Member
One thing I know for sure is that I gained 76rwhp over stock with full external bolt-ons (C&L 76mm CAI/MAF kit, Summit Racing 75mm TB, ASP crank pulley, MAC LT headers, custom O/R midpipe, custom exhaust) plus ported/milled stock heads, Performer intake, 1.7 RR's, and smog pump delete. I still have the stock cam and don't intend to change it.
The same mods on a 5.0 with a T5 behind it should yield about 270rwhp so surely a pair of AFR 165's would send it over the 300rwhp mark.
The same mods on a 5.0 with a T5 behind it should yield about 270rwhp so surely a pair of AFR 165's would send it over the 300rwhp mark.
- Jul 21, 2005
- 2,169
- 145
- 155
I think this is almost the EXACT answer you have been looking for.
And to settle the debate of how long it will take to add the cam while already in there? I HAVE done it and can tell you it adds MAYBE 2 hours. How many times have I done it? ONCE. If you do it at a later date you are looking at removing the rad (think new fluid), changing the oil again (twice), and purchasing the lifters from 50 resto ($50) therefore negating any savings over purchasing a $150 aftermarket cam. I went with an Ed Curtis and I have to say mine is VERY well manored for how incredibly aggressive it is (.550 lift).
It will more than double the time to change a cam at a later date so I too suggest doing it all at once IF, AND ONLY IF, you plan on changing it later. If your intentions are for the absolute best and stock drive ability I suggest sticking with the stock cam as well. The cam is really the heart of the engine telling it how and when to breath, choke it or strain it in any direction and you lose comfort to some degree.
Whereabouts in Oregon are you located?
Black95GTS
Active Member
Whatever dudes, until someone shows me video or at least pictures of stock cam setup that puts down 300rwhp, I don't believe it.
I could foresee this maybe happening if you used something like AFR 185s / TFS Fast as Cast heads, retarded the stock cam 4 - 8 degrees, Holly Systemax II intake, and all the supporting mods, MAYBE you could hit 300 rwhp.
I also disagree with the post that you have to lose mid-range power to get to 300rwhp. I'll bet you my next pay check that if you told a custom cam grinder that you were adding aluminum heads and a new intake, and want a cam to improve power all through the power band AND have a higher peak he could do it for you. Peak horsepower doesn't move the car, average horse power does, this is why custom cam'd cars go faster, they have more average horsepower. Also why long tube headers are bomb for the street, they add little to nothing over shorties peak but the average horsepower increase is noteable.
Adam
I could foresee this maybe happening if you used something like AFR 185s / TFS Fast as Cast heads, retarded the stock cam 4 - 8 degrees, Holly Systemax II intake, and all the supporting mods, MAYBE you could hit 300 rwhp.
I also disagree with the post that you have to lose mid-range power to get to 300rwhp. I'll bet you my next pay check that if you told a custom cam grinder that you were adding aluminum heads and a new intake, and want a cam to improve power all through the power band AND have a higher peak he could do it for you. Peak horsepower doesn't move the car, average horse power does, this is why custom cam'd cars go faster, they have more average horsepower. Also why long tube headers are bomb for the street, they add little to nothing over shorties peak but the average horsepower increase is noteable.
Adam
GTA_V6_Mustang
Active Member
Yeah lol. When I wrote that I knew it didnt make sense but I was tired and said w/e. But what I meant was that I didnt think it would be feasible to make 300RWHP on the stock cam. However with the right HCI setup 300+ is very doable. However 280ish with the stock cam, and its manners is still a very impressive number.
cantbuytime
Member
- Jan 26, 2010
- 48
- 0
- 6
Come on.. Half those mag articles fudge the numbers..
back in 2001 I built a mexican block 302 for a friend, stock crank and rods, 9.3 flat tops,Trickflow heads and intake along with a stock cam and 1.7 rockers.. It laid down 303hp and 288tq in a 91 fox with a T5.. about 3 months later we went back with 1.6 rockers and an X303 cam.. He actually lost alot of hp about 43hp and i cant remember the tq loss but it was because his tune.. He had to get a piggy to get it back up to 311hp and 291tq. it just never seemed to run as strong as it before the cam swap..
If you calculate the 8% power loss through a manual or a 14% power loss through an auto. he had about 350hp at the fly..
Just cause you build one engine identical to another doesnt mean they will have the same results. Always keep that in mind
back in 2001 I built a mexican block 302 for a friend, stock crank and rods, 9.3 flat tops,Trickflow heads and intake along with a stock cam and 1.7 rockers.. It laid down 303hp and 288tq in a 91 fox with a T5.. about 3 months later we went back with 1.6 rockers and an X303 cam.. He actually lost alot of hp about 43hp and i cant remember the tq loss but it was because his tune.. He had to get a piggy to get it back up to 311hp and 291tq. it just never seemed to run as strong as it before the cam swap..
If you calculate the 8% power loss through a manual or a 14% power loss through an auto. he had about 350hp at the fly..
Just cause you build one engine identical to another doesnt mean they will have the same results. Always keep that in mind
GTA_V6_Mustang
Active Member
the metal used in 302 blocks produced in mexico had a higher nickel content I believe so they made the mains wider i believe? Thus its a stronger block then the regular 302.
It was kind of like in this order of stronger blocks. The stock 302, mexican block, and dart block. Dart block still being the much better block but the mexican was still better then our 302's
That was so funny. No I do not know what he meant either but I like the stock cam idea with 280rwhp. But I am not sure how one would even acheive that..like Grady said..it has to rev. 
xr8d302
I bought a 27" monitor to compensate for my lack o
Some of the time ... I just can't make my finger tips say what my brain
wants to get across on the flat screen
Simply Put ... In my opinion, which is based upon my current Stang which
is a Street Car Application
Using et results to measure success or failure is not valid to me
When I am cruising around town
and
I wanna be pushed back in the seat
Power is what is gonna give me that feeling
Not the ability to cut a low et ..........
which is heavily dependent upon the ability to produce a good sixty foot
Grady
Wait what? I call absolute BS!
Grady, you do NOT have a flat screen?
Similar threads
