Are Headers the Difference?

[Anonymous]

I would say the 1.22 hp/cu in would be very optimistic given the head and induction limitations on our inlines. With the '57 Chevy 283, GM made a big point about their 1.0 hp/ cu in horsepower rating. And that was gross H.P. back then. The Neon figure is already an SAE net that would translate into something on the order of 1.4 to 1.5 hp/cu in gross.

Even Ford's K-code 289 V-8 was only rated at 271 hp or .94 hp/cu in. The Shelby was a bit over 1.0 hp/cu in. I would think it would take quite a bit of work just to get up to .85 gross hp/cu in on these engines.

 

[mugsy]

My point exactly!!!! The way I look at it FoMoCo got only 90 HP out of 200 CI, there is definite room for improvement. Just keep a realistic goal so you keep yourself AND your wallet happy. To be honest, trying to raise the specific HP is one of my main reasons for keeping the six. It's a challenge!

 

[Anonymous]

David:

I took a look around to see if I could find the axle tag from the Mav rearend. I came across one that has the following code:

WBY-H
3.50 2LA 519

Can anyone decode it?

Looks as if it might be a 3.5:1 rear. By the way the orignal old 63 axle is a 3.20 based upon the VIN code from my car.

Thanks,
Jeff