Test Results - mrarley (dyno)

mraley

Well-known member
Max Power 164.4 - Max Torque 180.6

This is about a 20 HP increase over my last dyno with the Aussie Head.

The weather today was in the 90's with lots of humidity. I think if it was a cooler day the results would have been in the 175 range.

We also CC'd the chambers. The Aussie head was 55 cc's and the Aluminum Head was 54 cc's. We did not use the head gasket that Mike provided, but went with a Felpro instead. It was about .022 thinner. The intake ports were very mismatched on #3 and #4 using the OZ250-2V intake. Pushrod holes should be moved .125 closer to guide rod and .125 closer to each other on each pair. As far as spark plugs we used Autolite AP 5224.

Any thoughts? Michael
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
COOL!! :D :D :D

Glad to see an increasce! Thats what I seen also on the pushrod holes. They need to be moved inboard a smidge.

What size jets you running? I'm running #72's and my plugs are still too white IMO after running it for over a week they should be showing tan and I'm only seeing a slight hint of tan on the porcelin.

When I go back to the track, I'm going to baseline it then switch to some #74 or 75 jets and see what the timeslips say. Somthing I had to do.....

It had a strange idle like it was hunting for a certain idle speed and couldnt find it. Plus it was loading up and the plugs were black with soot. No vacuum leaks and after a pass at the track or a trip around the block the plugs would be clean again. Plus my idle adjustment screws werent doing much unless you cranked them both in all the way...then it would stall.

Hows yours idleing??

Had to drill out the holes in the throttle plates from 7/64" (IIRC) to 1/8". Now it idles better and the adjustment screws are working. It had a lot of that idle slot exposed and was running rich at idle.

All fixed now but kinda wierd.... :unsure:

Just an FYI.....

I have a Edelbrock 10" airfilter I'm running and the head flows so much air that just by removing the filter and top I picked up almost 3/10's and 2 mph in the qtr mile.

What are you using for an airfilter?
Did you have it dynoed with or without an airfilter?? Just curious....Lots of re-thinking to do about our beloved 6 cylinders now! ;)

In referance to what Mike & Jack said, I'm going to run a 600 Holley on it! Allready priced a new one locally for around $255.00 so as soon as the 4 Bbls intakes become available,

What did the guys dynoing it have to say?? The track officials were freaking out all night long at mine. Kept coming over and gawking at it and shaking there heads! :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

Glad to hear that you got your running now!! :D :D

Later,

Doug
 

mraley

Well-known member
Hey Mustang Geezer...

1. Here's what I know about the Carb...Stock the 4412 carb has a .034 idle restrictor, you now have a .033 in yours & I just sent you the latest which is a .0292 idle screw in restrictor, you will probably have to open your idle mixture screws to a richer position cause of the less fuel available to the idle circuit.

Your metering block has the latest revision which is the idle restriction drilled out from its old location by the power valve to a location higher & more to the outer area of the block where the idle mixture is routed to the idle mixture screws. I drilled & tapped the outlet to accept the same type of screw in restrictors that the ones under the power valve use but of course a much smaller restriction.

This is the latest high tech to get a better quality idle & to make the transition mixture more consistant.

I previously installed a screw in idle air bleed in the venturi area, I believe it is a .067 restrictor which is the same as mine.

When you get it on the dyno you want a 12.7-12.9 A/F ratio for maxium full throttle power, going from the .055 to the .052 under the power valve should put you in the ballpark.

2. The idle is great. We only made minor adjustments from the original build that Bill did for me last year.

3. I dyno'd without the air filter and intake tubing. Straight carb.. Otherwise I'm using a K&N style cone filter

4. The guys at the Dyno shop have really kept up with the changes the car has gone thru since they dyno'd it last. They couldn't believe the increases since the first run about 2 1/2 years ago. I can't remember if I posted the very first dyno I had pulled, but it was 94 Horses on a log head with a Holley Webber 2BL.

I think if we can dial the carb in a little better we might see the 180's on a good day!!
 

Does10s

Famous Member
VIP
Ya the mismatch #3 & #4 ports is a problem with the Oz intake. Some welding on the intake and grinding on head ports will solve it. Obviously the new intakes will solve this. I haven't done any porting or port matching on ours yet. Just waiting for the new intake! :roll:

We haven't had a problem with the pushrod holes. But I haven't pulled the VC off in a long time to have a looksee. I'll check it this weekend.

20hp over an Oz head is pretty good! That kinda matches up with Geezer's approx. 33hp increase over the log.
Both are about a 30% increase in power; correct? That might be a little high. Maybe more like 20%

I'm sure with a new port matched intake that those numbers will increase by another 5-10hp.
Later,
Will
 

Stubby

Famous Member
VIP
I got to ride in Mraley's Mustang!!! WOW! :shock: :cool:

This thing is awesome. I have a stock (fresh) 200 / T5 in a 65 mustang. There is no comparing the two. The entire combination Michael has is awesome. Even with the AC on, this thing screams. We could only do a limited amount of acceleration in traffic, we were looking at the jetting. What little we were able to do, was impressive to say the least.

Gary Stubbs
 

LaGrasta

2K+
VIP
Don't hate me for saying this.

In earlier threads, it seems the new head would add about 70hp. Now I hear 20-30hp! Although it was speculation, I really thought we'd hear about sixes pulling 300hp with the new heads. Not even reaching 200hp sounds so dissappointing. I know adding turbo will make an big difference too.

Granted seat-of-the-pants may be an entirely different expierience. Just as Stubby states, it's an incredible ride. Maybe ignoring the hp numbers would be best, but I can't help but think about the crate motors I see on ebay, 350hp 302s for $2500.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/FORD-302 ... enameZWDVW

Sorry guys, am I missing something?
 

66 Fastback

Famous Member
But Isn't 160hp more than 70 hp over a stock engine? The stock 200 was rated at 120 gross and I think about 90 hp net at the crank. Didn't some articles talk about rear wheel HP of about 67 hp on the stock motor?

So for rear wheel HP, his engine is pushing 100 hp more than stock.
Doug
 

fb71

Well-known member
LaGrasta":2ntv89h6 said:
Don't hate me for saying this.

In earlier threads, it seems the new head would add about 70hp. Now I hear 20-30hp! Although it was speculation, I really thought we'd hear about sixes pulling 300hp with the new heads. Not even reaching 200hp sounds so dissappointing. I know adding turbo will make an big difference too.

Granted seat-of-the-pants may be an entirely different expierience. Just as Stubby states, it's an incredible ride. Maybe ignoring the hp numbers would be best, but I can't help but think about the crate motors I see on ebay, 350hp 302s for $2500.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/FORD-302 ... enameZWDVW

Sorry guys, am I missing something?

60-70 over a log head. The first post here was 20hp over an Aussie head, with a mis-matched intake... The numbers will come, just be patient...
 

LaGrasta

2K+
VIP
66 Fastback":2xweuq2u said:
But Isn't 160hp more than 70 hp over a stock engine? The stock 200 was rated at 120 gross and I think about 90 hp net at the crank. Didn't some articles talk about rear wheel HP of about 67 hp on the stock motor?

So for rear wheel HP, his engine is pushing 100 hp more than stock.
Doug

You are correct. I had read on the board awhile back just bolting the AL head on a stock engine should land near 70hp increase. In reality, it's more like 30hp. Granted, that's nothing to shake a stick at, any one item that adds 30hp is significant.
 

LaGrasta

2K+
VIP
wallaka":1amc56c2 said:
From 94 hp to 164 with only a head change and distributor is pretty good in my book...

In my book too. But no one has done that. MRaley's car is NOT stock by any means. It's a top notch custom build with all the goodies.
 

Stubby

Famous Member
VIP
LaGrasta":2d91ev4k said:
wallaka":2d91ev4k said:
From 94 hp to 164 with only a head change and distributor is pretty good in my book...

In my book too. But no one has done that. MRaley's car is NOT stock by any means. It's a top notch custom build with all the goodies.

Exactly!!! Now consider this. He didn't change anything to maximize it for the new flow capabilities.
It still hasn't been jetted any different. We hooked up the LM1, but I was getting fluctuations and didn't feel comfortable changing the jets. If it was reading correct, it is going rich as the RPMs go up. I am testing the LM1 on our Mustang now, to see if the exhaust probe was causing the fluctuations. If so, there is more HP to be had.
My experience has shone that aluminum heads need about one point more compression to be equal do to heat dissipation. These two things alone have the potential to add up to another 20 HP easily. Don't mistakenly think that any of these combos have been absolutely maxed out. :cool:


Also, if you are going to compare a six to an eight, you need to compare HP per Pound. You should also keep this in mind, MPG is in the twenties. :cool:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
LaGrasta":28xo16bs said:
66 Fastback":28xo16bs said:
But Isn't 160hp more than 70 hp over a stock engine? The stock 200 was rated at 120 gross and I think about 90 hp net at the crank. Didn't some articles talk about rear wheel HP of about 67 hp on the stock motor?

So for rear wheel HP, his engine is pushing 100 hp more than stock.
Doug

You are correct. I had read on the board awhile back just bolting the AL head on a stock engine should land near 70hp increase. In reality, it's more like 30hp. Granted, that's nothing to shake a stick at, any one item that adds 30hp is significant.

I believe that if someone does the math (I have no time) ;) it will be a 70 to 80 hp increasce over a stock head. Mine was a tricked out log head and it was converted to a direct mount Holley 4 Bbl and look how much faster mine went...

Later,

Doug
 

LaGrasta

2K+
VIP
"Also, if you are going to compare a six to an eight, you need to compare HP per Pound."

I really understand power-to-weight ratio being a motorcycle fan. Today's $10,000 stock bikes are pushing 150hp with a 350lb bike. It's insane power-to-weight!

As for our cars, what is the difference in weight? There's definately a great advantage swapping to the AL head. But a 6 compared to an 8 in stock form, anyone know?
 

MustangSix

2K+
VIP
Mustang_Geezer":2fw1xsdj said:
LaGrasta":2fw1xsdj said:
66 Fastback":2fw1xsdj said:
But Isn't 160hp more than 70 hp over a stock engine? The stock 200 was rated at 120 gross and I think about 90 hp net at the crank. Didn't some articles talk about rear wheel HP of about 67 hp on the stock motor?

So for rear wheel HP, his engine is pushing 100 hp more than stock.
Doug

You are correct. I had read on the board awhile back just bolting the AL head on a stock engine should land near 70hp increase. In reality, it's more like 30hp. Granted, that's nothing to shake a stick at, any one item that adds 30hp is significant.

I believe that if someone does the math (I have no time) ;) it will be a 70 to 80 hp increasce over a stock head. Mine was a tricked out log head and it was converted to a direct mount Holley 4 Bbl and look how much faster mine went...

Later,

Doug

The stock 200 puts less than 70hp to the rear wheels. That was documented in a 70's article on a Maverick hop up and is substantiated by the 19+ second 1/4 mile times for a stock Mustang / Maverick. At 160+hp, you've achieved over a 100% increase in power over stock!
 

LaGrasta

2K+
VIP
200ci=160hp @ $5000
302ci=350hp @ $2500 but weighs 100lbs more

Sorry, didn't mean to high-jack the post guys. The above equations sums up the high-jacked portion.

My conclusion is reguardless what the hp and $ ends up, a six can be hopped up enough to have a bunch of fun, all comparisons aside. :cool:
 

wcol

Well-known member
2400 dollars for the head and all the goodies and lower end rebuild probally about 2000 dollars with labor. That is not counting the dui distributor. He is not far off on his quote of $5000 for a 200 cu at 160-180 hp vs v-8 alot cheaper alot more power but a 100 lbs. more. I got money and alot of time tied up in the six cylinder a little to much than to drop it and go with a v-8. So I will one way or another buy a cylinder head eventially from Mike. I am greatful that Mike has come out with this cylinder head for us that have an Inline six. It will me alot happier with this engine. But you can not deny what the man is trying to say about the 302 cu engine ....
 

82F100

Moderator
Staff member
don't forget that with a stock base HP twice that of a 200 for a 289/302 you're also giving up almost a 100 cu. in. with the six aswell
 

AzCoupe

1K+
Departed Member
Don't forget to figure the weight difference for the aluminum head. I haven't weighed just a head by itself, but the shipping weight in the box with packing is only 34lbs. I'm guessing the head (with valves) is right around 30lbs, so make that 150 less than a 302.

In your figures, you also need to include the cost of swaping out the suspension, etc when you drop in the 302. Then figure the extra gas you'll buy over the next 10 years running the 302, and where those dollars go?

Then go to a show where MikeR, Doug, Bill, or Will & Kelly (or others) go and see which engines get the most attention. A built inline or the cookie cutter 302? Then go ask the guy with the 350hp 302 where he was looking when he ran against Kelly. I garantee you, it wasn't in his rear view mirror. To beat Kelly, there going to need 600hp or better. ;)
 
Top