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

Wtf is wrong with this combo?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 68stang351
  • Start date Start date Aug 28, 2011

68stang351

Founding Member
May 16, 2002
850
9
39
Savoy TX
Aug 28, 2011
#1
  • Aug 28, 2011
  • #1
I kind of don't really want to post this, but I'm up for some suggestions. The new dyno day thread on another forum I'm on got me thinking about my results from the last one. This is a mild setup but I thought it would make more than it did.

My 68 Coupe:
69 351w
TFS TW 170 heads, 1.6 RR
Comp XE284 cam 284/296 adv, 242/246 @.050, with .541/.543 lift
Performer RPM intake with Holley 780 carb.
T5 with 3.25 gears. Makes no power past 5500.

Last time it put out 288 rwhp, 342 rwtq. I was told on the last dyno day that the vacuum secondaries were only opening a little more than halfway, and I have put a lighter secondary spring in since then. One of the guys was watching the linkage for the secondaries, and showed me how far it was opening. It runs noticeably better now, but I still feel like it should run better.

It does have low compression pistons (not sure how many cc's the dish is, but they are huge dishes, I'm thinking mid 8.?:1), so I know that hurts it.

I don't know, just looking for advice. I have most of a wet kit. Maybe I should spray the **** out of it? I know it needs gears too, lol!


I'm about to try something different for my 351w fox, some 11:1 pistons, Roush 200 heads, bigger cam, see how that works. I may end up with a similar combo for my 68 depending on how it works. I would like to maximize what I have for now in this car. Should I expect much more the 300/350 to the wheels? It runs okay in my sub 3000 pound car, but I still can't hang with a lot of cars from way out here in the sticks
 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Aug 28, 2011
#2
  • Aug 28, 2011
  • #2
Huh, I would have expected a 302 with the same parts to put down the same, if not more than 288rwhp. The heads and intake are fairly conservative , but it sounds like maybe the carb is still not completely sorted out(and a bit large). That's partly why I like mechanical secondaries with stick trans cars.

What rpm does the power/torque peak at?
 
2

2+2GT

10 Year Member
Apr 25, 2009
3,333
10
79
Southeastern Pennsylvania
Aug 28, 2011
#3
  • Aug 28, 2011
  • #3
Have you ever had the distributor advance curves professionally set?
 

rbohm

Founding Member
Apr 12, 2002
6,698
550
204
tucson,az
Aug 28, 2011
#4
  • Aug 28, 2011
  • #4
68stang351 said:
My 68 Coupe:
69 351w
TFS TW 170 heads, 1.6 RR
Comp XE284 cam 284/296 adv, 242/246 @.050, with .541/.543 lift
Performer RPM intake with Holley 780 carb.
T5 with 3.25 gears. Makes no power past 5500.

Last time it put out 288 rwhp, 342 rwtq. I was told on the last dyno day that the vacuum secondaries were only opening a little more than halfway, and I have put a lighter secondary spring in since then. One of the guys was watching the linkage for the secondaries, and showed me how far it was opening. It runs noticeably better now, but I still feel like it should run better.

It does have low compression pistons (not sure how many cc's the dish is, but they are huge dishes, I'm thinking mid 8.?:1), so I know that hurts it.
Click to expand...

first off the heads are a bit small for the displacement and the cam you are using. you need an intake runner more along the line of 185-200cc, the 170cc runner is choking down the engine.

second, you need to calculate the actual compression ratio, there are a number of good compression calculators on the net. for good power you should be around 9-9.5:1. if you have the stock dish pistons and the 64cc chambers, you are going to be about 7.9-8.2:1 and that is just too low for good power production.

third, what fuel ratios are you running? holley jets their carbs to be a 5-10% rich to give you room to tune the fuel curve.

fourth, as asked, have you had the distributor curved? and what initial timing are you running? your initial timing should be 10 degrees, with a total timing of 36-38 degrees, and it should be all in by 2500-3000 rpm. by the way, total timing only takes mechanical advance into account.

with proper heads, and proper tuning, you combination should be making about 350-375rwhp.
 
H

htwheelz67

Member
May 18, 2007
444
0
16
mission viejo ca.
Aug 28, 2011
#5
  • Aug 28, 2011
  • #5
The heads are fine, TW heads flow about the same as an AFR 185 dont let the numbers fool you as the intake is closer to the chamber.

I would agree with checking the advance curve and also fuel pressure.
 

Couped Up

Member
Feb 3, 2010
92
4
8
Monroe, Washington
Aug 28, 2011
#6
  • Aug 28, 2011
  • #6
(1) What size are the chambers on your heads?

(2) How much Vacuum do you have at the intake?

(3) What flywheel did you use for your conversion?

 
R

rebel65

Member
Feb 1, 2004
363
0
17
SF Bay Area
Aug 28, 2011
#7
  • Aug 28, 2011
  • #7
I think you're biggest problem is just low compression.

you're running on 87, make it so you can only run on premium

A super charger will fix that ; )
 

PoppyMod

Member
Jun 27, 2010
617
6
19
Severna Park, MD
Aug 29, 2011
#8
  • Aug 29, 2011
  • #8
+1 for increasing your CR. I would shoot for minimum of 10.0. As well as, what was mentioned, regarding the AFR and dizzy curve. Don't throw money at it, fine tune what you have.
Good luck!
 

Hack

15 Year Member
Mar 23, 2004
1,945
13
69
Minneapolis
Aug 29, 2011
#9
  • Aug 29, 2011
  • #9
I disagree with the above post that mechanical secondaries are preferred over vacuum. The great thing about vacuum secondaries is they open the correct amount to supply what the engine needs. If you think the carb is restricting the engine you can check vacuum at the intake during a dyno pull. If the carb is a significant restriction the vacuum reading will tell you.

Just because the secondaries are only opening a certain amount doesn't tell you anything. You want to know A/F ratio and vacuum across the carb. Probably it makes sense to have an expert tune the car on the dyno. Adjustments should be based on measurements, not guesses. You aren't going to get better power just blindly changing parts. Figure out what is going on now through measurements and adjust to get the results you want.

I would also want to know CR as the others posted above, but it's not necessarily the problem. With the right quench height and cam you should be able to run well over 10:1 on pump premium. Your problem might also be partially that the hydraulic lifter cam just might not pull much over 5500. Usually hydraulic lifters start having a little trouble around there and don't make a lot of additional power at higher RPMs.

You want to figure out dynamic compression to determine what CR is safe to run on pump gas with your cam of choice.
 

PoppyMod

Member
Jun 27, 2010
617
6
19
Severna Park, MD
Aug 29, 2011
#10
  • Aug 29, 2011
  • #10
+1 Hack. Some good basic advice. Especially, when it comes to your AFR an CR comments.
 

bikefreak600

Member
Dec 10, 2005
156
2
19
rochelle IL
Aug 29, 2011
#11
  • Aug 29, 2011
  • #11
way too low compression, the low rpm might be combo of dual plane intake and small headers ? ( you never mention what headers your running) ?
hyd lifters are good to 67-6800 as long as there is not too much spring pressure.
check your compression and have it tuned on the dyno

the carb is just fine. actually spinning at 5500 its a little big. general rule to measure carb cfm size, take c.i. (351) x rpm (5500) / 3456 = 558 cfm . on your motor a 780 cfm carb is sufficient to 7500 +

what headers/manifolds do you have?
 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Aug 29, 2011
#12
  • Aug 29, 2011
  • #12
Hack said:
I disagree with the above post that mechanical secondaries are preferred over vacuum.
Click to expand...

I didn't say mechanicals were preferred over vacuum; I said I prefer mechanical over vacuum.
 

Hack

15 Year Member
Mar 23, 2004
1,945
13
69
Minneapolis
Aug 30, 2011
#13
  • Aug 30, 2011
  • #13
65ShelbyClone said:
I didn't say mechanicals were preferred over vacuum; I said I prefer mechanical over vacuum.
Click to expand...

Gotcha! Yeah mechanical secondaries can be great if you really know what you're doing. I'm not much of a carb guy. I think Holley continues to decrease the number of applications they recommend mechanical secondaries for - possibly due to customer feedback.

You have to have a really light, race only, manual trans, big cubes and 4.11+ geared car before Holley will recommend mechanical secondaries, IIRC. The resulting performance isn't necessarily going to be better either - unless the tuning is really spot on.

Edit: Remember mechanical secondaries are opened by the throttle linkage, so the carb secondaries will open as much as the linkage is set for at full throttle. This will overcarb the engine at low rpm or undercarb the engine at high rpm, since the amount of air and fuel that the engine needs changes based on engine rpm. There's no way to tune a mech secondary carb to work correctly at a range of engine rpm. It can only be tuned for one particular engine rpm. That's the good thing about vacuum secondaries, the carb actually opens as much as the engine needs, rather than being incorrect most of the time.
 

Slobin3d

Active Member
Aug 29, 2011
246
17
38
Aug 30, 2011
#14
  • Aug 30, 2011
  • #14
bikefreak600 said:
way too low compression, the low rpm might be combo of dual plane intake and small headers ? ( you never mention what headers your running) ?
hyd lifters are good to 67-6800 as long as there is not too much spring pressure.
check your compression and have it tuned on the dyno

the carb is just fine. actually spinning at 5500 its a little big. general rule to measure carb cfm size, take c.i. (351) x rpm (5500) / 3456 = 558 cfm . on your motor a 780 cfm carb is sufficient to 7500 +

what headers/manifolds do you have?
Click to expand...
That is good to know, how would you adjust this for altitude?
 
W

Westmus

Member
Feb 6, 2004
32
0
6
Denmark
Aug 30, 2011
#15
  • Aug 30, 2011
  • #15
Slobin3d said:
That is good to know, how would you adjust this for altitude?
Click to expand...
According to CompCams spec that cam should pull to 6500 rpm. Something goes wrong above 5500, afr or maybe floating valves? Do the springs match to the cam?

I would also think a cam that size need a minimum of 9,5-10:1 in static compression to work correct.

Trickflow says those heads make max power with 34-36 degrees. The tw170 are good heads, switching to Roush 200 would be big a step down. In some old article dyno compairing a lot of heads on a 331" with a XE274 roller cam, the Roush 200 made about 50hp lesser than the tw170!
 

65ShelbyClone

Founding Member
Sep 9, 2000
4,675
38
119
Antelope Valley, SoCal
Aug 30, 2011
#16
  • Aug 30, 2011
  • #16
Slobin3d said:
That is good to know, how would you adjust this for altitude?
Click to expand...

You don't because the equation doesn't address air mass. The engine is treated as a positive displacement pump so the cylinder swept volume remains constant regardless of altitude. The only thing that changes then is the density.
 

bikefreak600

Member
Dec 10, 2005
156
2
19
rochelle IL
Aug 30, 2011
#17
  • Aug 30, 2011
  • #17
Westmus said:
According to CompCams spec that cam should pull to 6500 rpm. Something goes wrong above 5500, afr or maybe floating valves? Do the springs match to the cam?

I would also think a cam that size need a minimum of 9,5-10:1 in static compression to work correct.

Trickflow says those heads make max power with 34-36 degrees. The tw170 are good heads, switching to Roush 200 would be big a step down. In some old article dyno compairing a lot of heads on a 331" with a XE274 roller cam, the Roush 200 made about 50hp lesser than the tw170!
Click to expand...

+1 on the heads, DO NOT get roush heads ! that cam needs more compression, a carb spacer would help ($25)

what exhaust are you using? your motor could be choked
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Engine Suggestions on an engine rebuild. Stock cam/GT40Ps or aftermarket on both for a fun weekend driver?
  • MadSquirrelTech
  • Apr 28, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
23
Views
591
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech May 7, 2026
MadSquirrelTech
1999 Mustang GT - No Start- Need help understanding the fuel pump circuit and how it works
  • 99gtGuy
  • Nov 4, 2025
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
1
Views
470
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Nov 7, 2025
04newedge-
0
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
3
Views
669
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Feb 28, 2026
Noobz347
J
'96 Cobra: A/C gets weak and engine misfires under load when warm
  • jruhnke
  • Oct 22, 2025
  • SVT Tech Forum
Replies
2
Views
269
SVT Tech Forum Nov 20, 2025
nickyb
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
9K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 6, 2026
from6to8
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?