KISSArmy, this is for you to be encouraged in delving in a little deeper. Others have taken the stock 67 hp at the rear wheels of a fresh 200 Mustang, and added just bolt ons, and gotten 125 rear wheel hp. So your 120 Gross hp six can make well over 160 hp rated as a modern engine is. Just don't ever think that a 250 was ever a 155 hp engine. That is pure SAE Gross tubing exhaust fantasy. What any Ford six is though is a fantastic engine to modify to make that torque work for you. You can also make real power with just carbs and a camshaft. I've liked my 165 hp net 250 six, but I liked my 91 hp 3.3 six a lot more, because the Americans made the engine smooth, and it had a truckload of foot pounds to get by on, from 650 rpm to about 3600 rpm. On the street, it was as much fun as my much more toquey 250. The whole package was really sweet and not rough. The 250 is a truck motor in comparison. Take advice, and if it floats your boat, you can still find 250's around if you know where to look.
David, live for ever, but know this...the SAE Net J1349 rating was, and is, still an engine flywheel rating, not rear wheel roller hp at all. SAE Gross in specification J245 and J1995 was engine flywheel too. There' s no excuse for a 50% loss in Gross to Net horspower, unless Ford was cheating and cooking the books. It did so because J245 ALLOWED them to do so. The 1968 Tunnel Port G code engine was a case in point, the 69-70 G code Boss 302 another. Just taking the horspower reading at just 4600 rpm instead of its peak power rpm got the issurance indusrty so incensed that Ford was stuck in making its permnace cars more than 10 pounds per horspower under the old scheme. The free market rapidly grew sick of anual increases in size, to the point that the only fresh MPG option was buying a Celica or Mercury Capri or Datsun 260Z. Those Gross hp ratings have a heck of a lot to answer for.
J245 allowed Ford to cook the books on the 250 by playing with settings, and getting away with it. That cannot happen with Certified J1349. There is honesty in it, right down the line. Its the best horsepower fist thumper ever. Its picked up some pretty amazing aberations on transmission loss, and continues to show that its possiable to lose 50% or more from the engine dyno to the chassis dyno.
I am with you. I drive a Isuzu truck with an 475 cubic inch 7.8 liter I6 ( The 6HK1 SOHC 24V turbocharged engine with 240 HP and 690 lb·ft of torque).
I'm with you, but the point is that there isn't even a 10% power increase with a 250, and its not as nice as a 200 can be.
Even a softened 1966 306 hp GT350 proves that a 1969 290 hp Boss 302 isn't half the car. And an 86 Mustang GT with its timing bumped can run away from each, and a 305 hp 3.7 2013 Mustang V6 can run from them all. How does 0-60 mph in 5.3 seconds, quarter mile in 13.9 seconds at 100.1 mph grab you? And 45 mpg at 45 mph.
They are because it is the Australian tall deck 200 with 9.38" deck and 6.275". The US 250 checks off a minimum of another 25 pounds before the axle, trans and steering needs revision to suit the added torque. If you want 6 turns lock to lock, a 7.25" axle, and can make a C4 suit the motorway without loosing out on a lot of offline pep, I'd be supprised. The 250 is the most latent engine ever, even with the higher lift, higher duration cam.
Stock US 200 is 365 to 385 pounds, the Aussie 200 and 250 are near to the same 410 weight (the 250 Oz crank is a few pounds heavier than the Oz 200 crank, but overall, the 3/8" shorter conrods are a few pounds lighter). So there is no editiorial bias, there was a high and standard compression version with 135 or the shown 130 hp as a 200. The reason the Aussie 200 made more power were the longer rods due to the engine being breathing restricted by the intake. Improving rod ratio on a restricted breathing engine can make a lot of extra peak power. In this instance, there were three things going on to check and balance the 200 to 250 comparions.
1. On a dyno simulation it gets another 5 net hp from those rods instead of a 4.715" rods and 7.803" deck.
2. On the debit side, the US 250 has a 103 thou piston deck shortfull and 9.469" tall deck with the same conrods as the Aussie 250,
3. but it has a wilder camshaft than the Aussie 250, 259 degrees instead of 256.
4. On a dyno simultion, that makes the Aussie 250 engine 3 to 4 hp net more powerfull, the US 250 engine is 3 to 4 hp less, yet both US and Aussie 250's were rated at the same 155 hp gross.
I know for a fact that that 155 hp SAE Gross rating is simply not true, because the T code 200 did 18.7 second quarter miles, the L code 250, 18.2. Somewhere, the 250 lost one heack of a lot of horspower for a 3000 pound car.
Due to SAE Gross being so ropey, in the US and Australia, the 155 hp was just a paper reading, but the 1972 to 1980 US readings were measured the same way as the 1971 Australian net ratings. They actually put the 250 in at 93 hp instead of 98 in some 1972 US versions.
The L code 250.... It TECHNICALLY out rated the V code 240 Big Six on paper...it was rated at a 250 like 155 in the F100 truck, but in some publications, 145 in the LTD and Galaxie. The 130 PS DIN net the TUV gave it in West Germany was 128 HP SAE net. The 200 was rated at 105 ps DIN net, or 103.5 hp SAE net, more than the Australian 250's SAE net rating of 102 hp. The issue was the termperature correction...on the early engine tests, the TUV imputed the PS value by a method that has some issues.
The ISO Certified SAE J1349 method still provides the best approach between the experimental and calculated acceleration times, since the United States has been burned by the pre 1972 Gross horsepower advertising more than any other nation.
The great thing is scientists and engineers refuse to do piddling competitions like the rest of us, and analyse the facts.
http://scielo.br/pdf/jbsmse/v25n3/a10v25n3.pdf
The German TUV found all this out, and the game was up by 1966, and every year from 72 to date, I rejoyce in proper SAE Net engine ratings.
The information above in the flier was put together by Bill Santacecione, who did the 2V head work as well as the dyno cell work on all the Aussie market US made import 351 4v HO Windsor and Cleveland engines as well. He was the guy who discovered the rod ratio, piston deck and devoloped the better breathing 2V head.
There was a reason Ford went to net readings in the US...the numbers game was up, it rapidly caved in when US cars had to be DIN net rated in Germany to even get registered. Suddenly the gross horspower ratings got reported as net figures, and everone should know
Incidently, the 170 HP 2V M code engines weight 410 pounds and did 16.9 second quarter miles. The 302 Cleveland engines which weighed 569 pounds, and the 230 hp with single exhaust, 240 with dual exhaust did 16.9 second quarter miles as well. Why would a car with 60 to 70 more horspower be no faster or quicker than the 2V six? And why did the 2V six and 302C 2v engine have the same jetting as each other.
The answer is that the 3037 pound Falcon250 2V 170 Horsepower engine had 149 net horspower, and the 3196 pound 302 C 2V had with 60 to 70 more advertised horsepower was no quicker, weighed 159 pounds more and actually only made 10 hp more. 168 hp net.
And when Ford was getting away with reporting Gross HP ( such as its laughable 240 hp at 4600 rpm G code tunnel port twin 4-bbl 1968 G code 302's which actually made 290 hp Net at 5400 rpm), Germany required a DIN net engine dyno test for a T5 Mustang to be registered in Germany. It just so happens the DIN net ratings were the assigned to the US SAE Gross ratings, making the 200 Gross 2V and 225 Gross 4V 289's respectively 172.6 and 187.4 hp net. ( 1 PS = 0.986 Net HP). Now, if Ford wasn't taking the rating at another point on the rpm curve like it did all the time in the late 50's and early 70's, the Net hp reading would have been 16.6% uniformly lower. As that is the difference on all other SAE Gross to DIN Net conversions.
SAE HP Net vs DIN Net is just a correction for engine bay ancillaries and temprature
See how the factory ratings of 289's, 390's and 410's fell. http://www.at.ford.com/SiteCollectio...brochure_2.jpg
German TUVBHP DIN Net VIN Code Year CID SAE Gross BHPBore StrokeCarb Comp Ratio
105 PS 104 bhpDIN net T 65 199.5 120 @ 4400 3.680 x 3.126 1V 9.2:1
130 PS 128 bhpDIN net V 65 239.4 155 @ 4400 4.000 x 3.175 1V 9.2:1
175 PS 173 bhpDIN net C 65-67 288.5 200 @ 4400 4.000 x 2.870 2V 9:01
190 PS 187 bhpDIN net A 66-67 288.5 225 @ 4800 4.000 x 2.870 4V 10:01
230 PS 227 bhpDIN net X 67-69 389.6 280 @ 4400 4.050 x 3.780 2V 10.5:1
265 PS 261 bhpDIN net Z 66-68 389.6 315 @ 4600 4.050 x 3.780 4V 10.5:1
280 PS 276 bhpDIN net M 66-67 410.2 330 @ 4600 4.050 x 3.980 4V 10.5:1
295 PS 291 bhpDIN net MEL 66-68 461.7 340 @ 4600 4.380 x 3.830 4V 9.2:1
And therein lies the lesson.... readings in the pictures above.
CZLN6":2lz03lh0 said:
David, live for ever, but know this...the SAE Net J1349 rating was, and is, still an engine flywheel rating, not rear wheel roller hp at all. SAE Gross in specification J245 and J1995 was engine flywheel too. There' s no excuse for a 50% loss in Gross to Net horspower, unless Ford was cheating and cooking the books. It did so because J245 ALLOWED them to do so. The 1968 Tunnel Port G code engine was a case in point, the 69-70 G code Boss 302 another. Just taking the horspower reading at just 4600 rpm instead of its peak power rpm got the issurance indusrty so incensed that Ford was stuck in making its permnace cars more than 10 pounds per horspower under the old scheme. The free market rapidly grew sick of anual increases in size, to the point that the only fresh MPG option was buying a Celica or Mercury Capri or Datsun 260Z. Those Gross hp ratings have a heck of a lot to answer for.
J245 allowed Ford to cook the books on the 250 by playing with settings, and getting away with it. That cannot happen with Certified J1349. There is honesty in it, right down the line. Its the best horsepower fist thumper ever. Its picked up some pretty amazing aberations on transmission loss, and continues to show that its possiable to lose 50% or more from the engine dyno to the chassis dyno.
BCOWANWHEELS":2lz03lh0 said:
I am with you. I drive a Isuzu truck with an 475 cubic inch 7.8 liter I6 ( The 6HK1 SOHC 24V turbocharged engine with 240 HP and 690 lb·ft of torque).
I'm with you, but the point is that there isn't even a 10% power increase with a 250, and its not as nice as a 200 can be.
Even a softened 1966 306 hp GT350 proves that a 1969 290 hp Boss 302 isn't half the car. And an 86 Mustang GT with its timing bumped can run away from each, and a 305 hp 3.7 2013 Mustang V6 can run from them all. How does 0-60 mph in 5.3 seconds, quarter mile in 13.9 seconds at 100.1 mph grab you? And 45 mpg at 45 mph.
Econoline":2lz03lh0 said:
They are because it is the Australian tall deck 200 with 9.38" deck and 6.275". The US 250 checks off a minimum of another 25 pounds before the axle, trans and steering needs revision to suit the added torque. If you want 6 turns lock to lock, a 7.25" axle, and can make a C4 suit the motorway without loosing out on a lot of offline pep, I'd be supprised. The 250 is the most latent engine ever, even with the higher lift, higher duration cam.
Stock US 200 is 365 to 385 pounds, the Aussie 200 and 250 are near to the same 410 weight (the 250 Oz crank is a few pounds heavier than the Oz 200 crank, but overall, the 3/8" shorter conrods are a few pounds lighter). So there is no editiorial bias, there was a high and standard compression version with 135 or the shown 130 hp as a 200. The reason the Aussie 200 made more power were the longer rods due to the engine being breathing restricted by the intake. Improving rod ratio on a restricted breathing engine can make a lot of extra peak power. In this instance, there were three things going on to check and balance the 200 to 250 comparions.
1. On a dyno simulation it gets another 5 net hp from those rods instead of a 4.715" rods and 7.803" deck.
2. On the debit side, the US 250 has a 103 thou piston deck shortfull and 9.469" tall deck with the same conrods as the Aussie 250,
3. but it has a wilder camshaft than the Aussie 250, 259 degrees instead of 256.
4. On a dyno simultion, that makes the Aussie 250 engine 3 to 4 hp net more powerfull, the US 250 engine is 3 to 4 hp less, yet both US and Aussie 250's were rated at the same 155 hp gross.
I know for a fact that that 155 hp SAE Gross rating is simply not true, because the T code 200 did 18.7 second quarter miles, the L code 250, 18.2. Somewhere, the 250 lost one heack of a lot of horspower for a 3000 pound car.
Due to SAE Gross being so ropey, in the US and Australia, the 155 hp was just a paper reading, but the 1972 to 1980 US readings were measured the same way as the 1971 Australian net ratings. They actually put the 250 in at 93 hp instead of 98 in some 1972 US versions.
The L code 250.... It TECHNICALLY out rated the V code 240 Big Six on paper...it was rated at a 250 like 155 in the F100 truck, but in some publications, 145 in the LTD and Galaxie. The 130 PS DIN net the TUV gave it in West Germany was 128 HP SAE net. The 200 was rated at 105 ps DIN net, or 103.5 hp SAE net, more than the Australian 250's SAE net rating of 102 hp. The issue was the termperature correction...on the early engine tests, the TUV imputed the PS value by a method that has some issues.
The ISO Certified SAE J1349 method still provides the best approach between the experimental and calculated acceleration times, since the United States has been burned by the pre 1972 Gross horsepower advertising more than any other nation.
The great thing is scientists and engineers refuse to do piddling competitions like the rest of us, and analyse the facts.
http://scielo.br/pdf/jbsmse/v25n3/a10v25n3.pdf
The German TUV found all this out, and the game was up by 1966, and every year from 72 to date, I rejoyce in proper SAE Net engine ratings.
The information above in the flier was put together by Bill Santacecione, who did the 2V head work as well as the dyno cell work on all the Aussie market US made import 351 4v HO Windsor and Cleveland engines as well. He was the guy who discovered the rod ratio, piston deck and devoloped the better breathing 2V head.
There was a reason Ford went to net readings in the US...the numbers game was up, it rapidly caved in when US cars had to be DIN net rated in Germany to even get registered. Suddenly the gross horspower ratings got reported as net figures, and everone should know
Incidently, the 170 HP 2V M code engines weight 410 pounds and did 16.9 second quarter miles. The 302 Cleveland engines which weighed 569 pounds, and the 230 hp with single exhaust, 240 with dual exhaust did 16.9 second quarter miles as well. Why would a car with 60 to 70 more horspower be no faster or quicker than the 2V six? And why did the 2V six and 302C 2v engine have the same jetting as each other.
The answer is that the 3037 pound Falcon250 2V 170 Horsepower engine had 149 net horspower, and the 3196 pound 302 C 2V had with 60 to 70 more advertised horsepower was no quicker, weighed 159 pounds more and actually only made 10 hp more. 168 hp net.
And when Ford was getting away with reporting Gross HP ( such as its laughable 240 hp at 4600 rpm G code tunnel port twin 4-bbl 1968 G code 302's which actually made 290 hp Net at 5400 rpm), Germany required a DIN net engine dyno test for a T5 Mustang to be registered in Germany. It just so happens the DIN net ratings were the assigned to the US SAE Gross ratings, making the 200 Gross 2V and 225 Gross 4V 289's respectively 172.6 and 187.4 hp net. ( 1 PS = 0.986 Net HP). Now, if Ford wasn't taking the rating at another point on the rpm curve like it did all the time in the late 50's and early 70's, the Net hp reading would have been 16.6% uniformly lower. As that is the difference on all other SAE Gross to DIN Net conversions.
SAE HP Net vs DIN Net is just a correction for engine bay ancillaries and temprature
See how the factory ratings of 289's, 390's and 410's fell. http://www.at.ford.com/SiteCollectio...brochure_2.jpg
German TUVBHP DIN Net VIN Code Year CID SAE Gross BHPBore StrokeCarb Comp Ratio
105 PS 104 bhpDIN net T 65 199.5 120 @ 4400 3.680 x 3.126 1V 9.2:1
130 PS 128 bhpDIN net V 65 239.4 155 @ 4400 4.000 x 3.175 1V 9.2:1
175 PS 173 bhpDIN net C 65-67 288.5 200 @ 4400 4.000 x 2.870 2V 9:01
190 PS 187 bhpDIN net A 66-67 288.5 225 @ 4800 4.000 x 2.870 4V 10:01
230 PS 227 bhpDIN net X 67-69 389.6 280 @ 4400 4.050 x 3.780 2V 10.5:1
265 PS 261 bhpDIN net Z 66-68 389.6 315 @ 4600 4.050 x 3.780 4V 10.5:1
280 PS 276 bhpDIN net M 66-67 410.2 330 @ 4600 4.050 x 3.980 4V 10.5:1
295 PS 291 bhpDIN net MEL 66-68 461.7 340 @ 4600 4.380 x 3.830 4V 9.2:1
And therein lies the lesson.... readings in the pictures above.
Good on you gb500. It wasn't supposed to be a 250 or exhaust thing, honest, others asked, I had the info so sorry bout that. Went crazy like an X maniac. 
). 
