• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

motor was dynoed

  • Thread starter Thread starter fast shelby
  • Start date Start date Apr 9, 2005
F

fast shelby

Founding Member
Jun 10, 2002
71
0
7
Rutland, MA
Apr 9, 2005
#1
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #1
I am disappointed in the numbers it made. I am thinking of switching to a turbo set up. This motor is going into my 67 Shelby replica for use on the street and track. I was going to put it into my 92 but there is no way it would pass emmisions.

Run down on engine:
SVO W351 block
Bored and stroked to 427
SRP forged pistons
4340 rods and crank
Edelbrock Victor Glidden heads
Edelbrock Super Victor intake (ported by Chapman Racing)
750 Holley carb
dual stage plate set up by Speedtech
Spraying 200 and 100 shot on 100 octane.
740 lift custom roller cam with T&D rockers
 

Attachments

  • Pages from SFX14A8.pdf
    Pages from SFX14A8.pdf
    33.4 KB · Views: 238
M

Mattys5Oh

Founding Member
Sep 28, 2002
216
0
0
Western, Mass
Apr 9, 2005
#2
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #2
800hp!?!?
 
8

87'GTstang

New Member
Feb 16, 2004
1,025
0
0
Apr 9, 2005
#3
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #3
So if 838.56 hp / 798.64 ft/lbs torque dissappoint you, what numbers are/were you looking for?

Ever had the setup tuned?
I'm not a big carb man, but would anyone think that a 750 could possibly be a little undersized for a 427? Also, what kind of setup does the carb have one it? 2 or 4 barrel carb? Are the secondaries tuned to open up at the right throttle pressure? How big are the jets on it for the fuel delivery.

Also, what size are the valves on the cylinder heads?
 
F

fast shelby

Founding Member
Jun 10, 2002
71
0
7
Rutland, MA
Apr 9, 2005
#4
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #4
Sounds bad that 835 hp is not enough but I was looking for around 1000 hp.I am looking at changing the carb to a 850
 
F

fast shelby

Founding Member
Jun 10, 2002
71
0
7
Rutland, MA
Apr 9, 2005
#5
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #5
the valve sizes are 2.15 intake and 1.56 exhaust. They flow 365 on the intake.
 
M

Mattys5Oh

Founding Member
Sep 28, 2002
216
0
0
Western, Mass
Apr 9, 2005
#6
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #6
fast shelby said:
the valve sizes are 2.15 intake and 1.56 exhaust. They flow 365 on the intake.
Click to expand...


HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!! I was expecting 500hp max. Shows what I know about 351 based strokers! lol
 

I_AM_CANADIAN

Member
Mar 30, 2005
189
0
16
B.C.
Apr 9, 2005
#7
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #7
Ok someone explain me something, I thought all dyno graphs were supposed to have the torque and hp cross at at 5252? Why doesn't this one?
 
F

fast shelby

Founding Member
Jun 10, 2002
71
0
7
Rutland, MA
Apr 9, 2005
#8
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #8
I_AM_CANADIAN said:
Ok someone explain me something, I thought all dyno graphs were supposed to have the torque and hp cross at at 5252? Why doesn't this one?
Click to expand...
I never noticed that. It may because we turned on both stages at 4600 rpm??? Iwill have to ask my engine builder.
 
S

Scorcher2005

Member
Apr 17, 2004
883
0
16
South Carolina
Apr 9, 2005
#9
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #9
Mattys5Oh said:
HOLY CRAP!!!!!!!! I was expecting 500hp max. Shows what I know about 351 based strokers! lol
Click to expand...

maybe all ~500-600 hp all motor...but that 838hp was w/ 200 shot of nitrous
 

pricha

Founding Member
Jun 6, 2000
466
0
16
St.Catharines,Ontario,Canada
Apr 9, 2005
#10
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #10
Yeah those numbers seem a little low for the combo. My friends car makes around 1000hp at the wheels with 400 CI, Victors, Super Victor(ported), Dominator and 300hp shot of spray. Car runs 8.2 at 165 mph at 2950lbs. The only real difference I see is the carb. Maybe a restriction? What size exhaust on that motor?

Pat.
 

whitehorseupnorth

SSoM President
Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
1,772
0
36
Maine
Apr 9, 2005
#11
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #11
I_AM_CANADIAN said:
Ok someone explain me something, I thought all dyno graphs were supposed to have the torque and hp cross at at 5252? Why doesn't this one?
Click to expand...

Your right.. They have to. Thats how the formula works. Something must be wrong with the dyno or the software. HP & TQ willalways meet at 5252..

Torque * RPM
-------------- = HP
5252
 
S

Scorcher2005

Member
Apr 17, 2004
883
0
16
South Carolina
Apr 9, 2005
#12
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #12
whitehorseupnorth said:
Your right.. They have to. Thats how the formula works. Something must be wrong with the dyno or the software. HP & TQ willalways meet at 5252..

Torque * RPM
-------------- = HP
5252
Click to expand...


and maybe thats why your numbers are low?
 
F

fast shelby

Founding Member
Jun 10, 2002
71
0
7
Rutland, MA
Apr 9, 2005
#13
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #13
the primarys were 2" to a 4" collector. I am definatly going to a bigger carb. once it goes into the car. I hope it will smooth the hit of nitrous a little
 
8

87'GTstang

New Member
Feb 16, 2004
1,025
0
0
Apr 9, 2005
#14
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #14
fast shelby said:
the valve sizes are 2.15 intake and 1.56 exhaust. They flow 365 on the intake.
Click to expand...
1.56 on the exhaust - how the hell does that flow well?
2.15 sounds like a pretty good valve size but come on, why only 1.56?

This whole thing really sounds like an intake problem - undersized carb and smallish exhaust valves (forget getting a better exhaust, you have to flow something first ). An 850 sounds like a pretty good size, just make sure you pick some good-sized jets to feed all that power.

Any idea as to what your air/fuel ratio is or if your exhaust is more rich or lean (especially at WOT)?
 
S

shootme5150

New Member
Jul 12, 2003
84
0
0
Denver
Apr 9, 2005
#15
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #15
Scorcher2005 said:
and maybe thats why your numbers are low?
Click to expand...
if the software is dividing by 5400, that's going to give you a big knockdown, yes.
 
F

fast shelby

Founding Member
Jun 10, 2002
71
0
7
Rutland, MA
Apr 9, 2005
#16
  • Apr 9, 2005
  • #16
87'GTstang said:
1.56 on the exhaust - how the hell does that flow well?
2.15 sounds like a pretty good valve size but come on, why only 1.56?

This whole thing really sounds like an intake problem - undersized carb and smallish exhaust valves (forget getting a better exhaust, you have to flow something first ). An 850 sounds like a pretty good size, just make sure you pick some good-sized jets to feed all that power.

Any idea as to what your air/fuel ratio is or if your exhaust is more rich or lean (especially at WOT)?
Click to expand...
the heads have a 1.56 exhaust due to the fact the raised the exhaust port .630 for a straight out exhaust flow. As for the fuel ratio I did not get that paperwork but they have it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SOLD SOLD!!!! 1993 Notchback Roadracer For Sale. She's a beast!
  • Boydster
  • Apr 25, 2025
  • Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
Replies
0
Views
1K
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93) Apr 25, 2025
Boydster
W
Advancing Timing for 100 octane fuel
  • Wellzy55
  • Oct 29, 2020
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 29, 2020
Wellzy55
W
Progress Thread Akumu No Dara Ra's LSX swap and build Thread! Updated (2/10/22 @ 8:30PM CST)
  • Akumu No Dara Ra
  • Feb 4, 2022
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 6 7 8
Replies
140
Views
15K
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Jun 17, 2022
Akumu No Dara Ra
  • Locked
“Doing stuff the wrong way for the right reasons”: A related stupid story.
  • CarMichael Angelo
  • Apr 26, 2020
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
7
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 27, 2020
a91what
427w Engine Build
  • LuckyM95
  • Nov 12, 2016
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
35
Views
17K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Dec 11, 2016
LuckyM95
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang 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?