OK! It's done.....DYNO RESULTS!!!!! Aussie 2V

[Mustangaroo]

Well many have asked for it and today, I did do a dyno run with my 68 Mustangaroo To start with I took a stock 200 engine about 3,000 miles since rebuild and added, a stock Aussie 2V head, a Holly 5200 2V carb, Clifford Dual outlet headers, Dual exhaust 2" , and Pertronix Dizzy setup! The HP loss to the rear wheels runs about 17% for Manual Trans and 25% for Automatic Trans, I have a auto C4 so my gross HP is about 130 HP to 140 Hp allowing for accessories ALT, Power Steering, water pump, A/C..etc..etc...

Rear Wheel HP 105 hp
Torque @ 158 ft.lbs.
Keep in mind a stock 200 would have about 70 hp to the rear wheels!
For complete information go to my web site and click on the DYNO RESULTS link!

http://WWW.MUSTANGAROO.COM

 

[CobraSix]

Nice results. I can't wait to see what my Offy does...may be interesting.

Slade

 

[Anlushac11]

8) Hey Mustangaroo!!

What compression are you running?

What cam?



I have a Aussie 2v head that will be going on my 200 soon as I get it rebuilt. Your videos, informations, website , and pics are of great interest to me

 

[Mustangaroo]

Anlushac11, as the post reads.......STOCK!!!!! CR is between 9.5:1 and 9.8:1 I didn't cc my pistons!
These numbers may not look good but you can really feel the difference over a stock six!

 

[MandarinaRacing]

How would an engine like that perform in Jack's new project car????? How much is it going to weigh again????

BTW Ben are planning on keeping it stock????

Alex

 

[Anonymous]

Those numbers put a nice smile on my face.

I am rebuilding the Aussie 2v I got last week.

I will post pictures tomorrow night.


Cannot wait!!!!!!!

 

[Anlushac11]

8)

Excellent!!!

Sorry missed the stock part. I have been to your website and thought you had some mods.

Mine is going to rebuilt, looks like in the spring because weather isnt cooperating.

Mine will be a 80 200 I6. 9.5:1CR, Crane Powermax cam, Tubular header, ported Aussie 2v head, Holley 390cfm carb. I am trying to get as close to 200hp as possible.

My idea is to have the same power to weight ratio as a 85 Mustang GT.

85 GT is 3000lbs and 200hp and 285 lbs ft of torque
My 80 with 200 should be 2600lbs and 175hp and 250lbs ft torque

85 GT also had a 5 speed manual and 3.08 gears
80 I6 will have 3 speed automatic and 3.45 gear

I think it will be a fun car. Your videos show yours to be fun to drive too!

 

[addo]

Interesting figures, Ben. The 2v came with a stock cam here, and it seems that the 170HP rating (it was a 250) may not have been such a furphy after all.

(everybody) Have you noticed the gradual shift towards acceptance of dual pattern cams, on the Forum? Reminds me of the Crow grind I love. With or without high lift, these profiles will often help.

Now, imagine if you had 21 more cubic inches with no weight gain... Oh, and a better rod ratio.

Cheers, Adam.

 

[Anonymous]

Thats still a 50% perf boost.

The torque dissappoints me though, but I guess you lose a bit with the massive intake and intake ports.

What rpms did the figures come at?

 

[Anonymous]

Now, imagine if you had 21 more cubic inches with no weight gain... Oh, and a better rod ratio.

Cheers, Adam.

Imagine if Ford US kept improving the six.

 

[MustangSix]

That's a significant jump in power considering that it still has a stock cam with very short duration and low lift. A 252 or 260 with that setup may have added as much as 25-35 more horses.

I'm predicting 17.0 @ 80 mph. Sounds low, but that's probably over 3 seconds quicker than the stocker......

 

[82F100]

Ben, did they/you do any tuning while she was on the dyno?Or did you just leave it alone? just curious rich.

 

[ASMART]

What rpm were those readings taken?

 

[Anonymous]

Cool!!!

That's quite a boost with basically "bolt on" (head, carb, header) parts.

Did you have a chance to cc the combustion chambers??

Just curious
Later,

Doug

 

[Mustangaroo]

Yes Doug I did, it cc'd at 46cc and I did have dished pistons assuming 7cc I should be at 9.8:1 but the piston cc's could be bigger than that so I think my CR is 9.5:1 up to 9.8:1 I used a very thin Headgasket I found about .035 must thinner that the newer stock ones that I have. Whats nice about these numbers is someone can take a stock six and not pulling the engine, they could bolt on around 40 HP. My son is about to rebuild his 65 Mustang also a 200 cid, hes doing the same things except installing a 256 Isky cam, and plans to run 10.0:1 CR, and either a Holly 5200 or a Holly 500 cfm 2V that I have tucked away for a rainy day in the garage! I will dyno his engine after it's rebuilt and see how much more HP the cam adds!

 

[Anonymous]

From your country road video it's hard to believe that car is only making 100 ponies. At the same time you bolted on a carb, head and did nothing else and gained 40 ponies. Very Nice.

A couple of things don't add up for me. First, the original 200 was rated at 120 bhp. So if it only produces 70 ponies at the rear wheels thats a diff of 50 ponies. So I got to think that if you got 105 rear wheel ponies that power at the crank would be more like 160. Does that make sense?

Now that brings up another issue. If your losing 40 - 50 horses through the tranny and rear end it would pay to swap out the tranny and get more of those ponies to the ground. Upgrade the cam, lifter, rockers, ignition system and you could get close to 200 at the rear wheels. If you are infact losing that man ponies through the tranny.

I was quite impressed that the 03 stang rated at 390 dynoed at 380+ at the rear wheels. Now that is an efficient tranny. Would be nice to get something that efficient on one of our stangs.

 

[Anonymous]

What rpms did the figures come at?

so

 

[MustangSix]

That published 120 hp figure was inflated Gross HP. When the manufacturers went from gross to net ratings in the 70's you saw ratings drop like a rock, even when the engines were essentially the same. The published figure for a 70's 200 using net hp was less than 100 hp.

If you run a 200 without any pumps, filters, belts, parasitic drag, no exhaust, no intake restrictions, cold air, etc., you might see 120 hp. But the real world SAE net rating would have been closer to 90-95 at the flywheel with maybe 70-75 of that reaching the rear wheels. Mustangaroo is probably making 130-135 at the flywheel which is not bad at all.

The 90-100hp net figure is also borne out by the drag tests of the day. Road tests of six cylinder Mustangs, Falcons, and Mavericks all turned in 1/4 mile times of about 20 seconds and less than 70 mph. In a 2800 lb car, that equates to about 70 rwhp or maybe 90 hp at the flywheel.

 

[ASMART]

What rpm were those readings taken?

 

[Anonymous]

Ok thanks for the info MustangSix.