Test Results - mrarley (dyno)

Moderator: Mod Squad

User avatar
mraley
Registered User
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Arlington, Texas

Test Results - mrarley (dyno)

Post #1 by mraley » Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:27 pm

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
1966 Ford Mustang
200 CID Custom Built
T-5 Tranny
Dual Flowmasters-New Classic Inline Aluminum Head and Intake, Ported, Polished, Stainless Steel Oversized Valves, 264H Cam 110 Lobe Center from FSPP
Autolite 4100 Spreadbore 4-barrel
Custom K&N Air Intake
DUI Ignition System

BEST DYNO- MAY 15TH 2008
211 at Rear Wheels with 227.5 # Torque
Go Pony Carbs!!!!

Guest

Post #2 by Guest » Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:05 pm

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.... :?

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! :wink:

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

User avatar
mraley
Registered User
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2004 8:59 pm
Location: Arlington, Texas

Post #3 by mraley » Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:24 am

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!!
1966 Ford Mustang

200 CID Custom Built

T-5 Tranny

Dual Flowmasters-New Classic Inline Aluminum Head and Intake, Ported, Polished, Stainless Steel Oversized Valves, 264H Cam 110 Lobe Center from FSPP

Autolite 4100 Spreadbore 4-barrel

Custom K&N Air Intake

DUI Ignition System



BEST DYNO- MAY 15TH 2008

211 at Rear Wheels with 227.5 # Torque

Go Pony Carbs!!!!

Does10s
FSP Moderator
Posts: 943
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2003 4:13 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Post #4 by Does10s » Tue Jun 12, 2007 10:05 am

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
Image
'86 Mustang, Turbocharged, Best ET: 10.70@132.
'69 Mustang Sportsroof, 351w, auto
'63 Falcon, Turbocharged 250, C4, 9", Best ET: 10.64@127mph 11/21/14

User avatar
Stubby
VIP Member
Posts: 911
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Carthage, Texas
Contact:

Post #5 by Stubby » Mon Jul 23, 2007 6:45 pm

I got to ride in Mraley's Mustang!!! WOW! :shock: 8)

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
Never squat with yer spurs on.

User avatar
LaGrasta
VIP Member
Posts: 2821
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Mission Viejo, CA

Post #6 by LaGrasta » Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:05 pm

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?
1963 1/2 Falcon 170/C4/8" (alt, a/c, Petronix/42v coil/8mm wires, 16" electric fan, electric fuel pump, Holley 1940, K&N Harley air filter, power dual m/c, 11" disc, 3" drop, Shelby drop, white tuck/roll, Moon steering wheel, '59 Caddy tail lights, fishtail exhaust tip, shaved trim, handles, cowl, fuel, dash, 4" radius trunk/door corners, power windows, 600w iPod system)

66 Fastback
Registered User
Posts: 814
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2004 1:05 am
Location: OKC

Post #7 by 66 Fastback » Tue Jul 24, 2007 12:40 pm

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
Registered User
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Purgatory, MD

Post #8 by fb71 » Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:40 pm

LaGrasta wrote: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...
Jim DeAngelis

User avatar
LaGrasta
VIP Member
Posts: 2821
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Mission Viejo, CA

Post #9 by LaGrasta » Tue Jul 24, 2007 2:43 pm

66 Fastback wrote: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.
1963 1/2 Falcon 170/C4/8" (alt, a/c, Petronix/42v coil/8mm wires, 16" electric fan, electric fuel pump, Holley 1940, K&N Harley air filter, power dual m/c, 11" disc, 3" drop, Shelby drop, white tuck/roll, Moon steering wheel, '59 Caddy tail lights, fishtail exhaust tip, shaved trim, handles, cowl, fuel, dash, 4" radius trunk/door corners, power windows, 600w iPod system)

User avatar
wallaka
VIP Member
Posts: 2503
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 1:28 pm
Location: Ole Alabamy Towne

Post #10 by wallaka » Tue Jul 24, 2007 3:28 pm

From 94 hp to 164 with only a head change and distributor is pretty good in my book...
Down to 29 cylinders!
2006 Porsche Cayman H6, 1968 Mercury Monterey big block (390), 1967 F-100 240, 1965 Mercury Comet 404 (200), 2009 Triumph Street Triple

User avatar
LaGrasta
VIP Member
Posts: 2821
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Mission Viejo, CA

Post #11 by LaGrasta » Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:25 pm

wallaka wrote: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.
1963 1/2 Falcon 170/C4/8" (alt, a/c, Petronix/42v coil/8mm wires, 16" electric fan, electric fuel pump, Holley 1940, K&N Harley air filter, power dual m/c, 11" disc, 3" drop, Shelby drop, white tuck/roll, Moon steering wheel, '59 Caddy tail lights, fishtail exhaust tip, shaved trim, handles, cowl, fuel, dash, 4" radius trunk/door corners, power windows, 600w iPod system)

User avatar
Stubby
VIP Member
Posts: 911
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Carthage, Texas
Contact:

Post #12 by Stubby » Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:48 pm

LaGrasta wrote:
wallaka wrote: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. 8)


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. 8)
Never squat with yer spurs on.

Guest

Post #13 by Guest » Tue Jul 24, 2007 5:58 pm

LaGrasta wrote:
66 Fastback wrote: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) :wink: 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

User avatar
LaGrasta
VIP Member
Posts: 2821
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Mission Viejo, CA

Post #14 by LaGrasta » Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:41 am

"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?
1963 1/2 Falcon 170/C4/8" (alt, a/c, Petronix/42v coil/8mm wires, 16" electric fan, electric fuel pump, Holley 1940, K&N Harley air filter, power dual m/c, 11" disc, 3" drop, Shelby drop, white tuck/roll, Moon steering wheel, '59 Caddy tail lights, fishtail exhaust tip, shaved trim, handles, cowl, fuel, dash, 4" radius trunk/door corners, power windows, 600w iPod system)

fb71
Registered User
Posts: 373
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:48 pm
Location: Purgatory, MD

Post #15 by fb71 » Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:54 am

200 vs 302/289 is roughly 100lbs lighter
Jim DeAngelis

MustangSix
Assistant Admin
Posts: 3766
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:15 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Post #16 by MustangSix » Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:53 pm

Mustang_Geezer wrote:
LaGrasta wrote:
66 Fastback wrote: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) :wink: 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!
Jack Collins

User avatar
LaGrasta
VIP Member
Posts: 2821
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Mission Viejo, CA

Post #17 by LaGrasta » Wed Jul 25, 2007 4:00 pm

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. 8)
1963 1/2 Falcon 170/C4/8" (alt, a/c, Petronix/42v coil/8mm wires, 16" electric fan, electric fuel pump, Holley 1940, K&N Harley air filter, power dual m/c, 11" disc, 3" drop, Shelby drop, white tuck/roll, Moon steering wheel, '59 Caddy tail lights, fishtail exhaust tip, shaved trim, handles, cowl, fuel, dash, 4" radius trunk/door corners, power windows, 600w iPod system)

wcol
Registered User
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 2:52 pm
Location: Saint Charles Missouri

Post #18 by wcol » Wed Jul 25, 2007 5:48 pm

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 ....

User avatar
82F100
Global Moderator
Posts: 993
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 11:00 pm
Location: Phoenix , AZ

Post #19 by 82F100 » Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:25 am

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
300's make good truck motors....not race motors

User avatar
AzCoupe
Administrator
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat Nov 09, 2002 10:26 am
Location: Mesa, AZ

Post #20 by AzCoupe » Thu Jul 26, 2007 1:29 am

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. :wink:
Last edited by AzCoupe on Thu Aug 23, 2007 8:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Looking for Performance Parts, see Classic Inlines
Mike

Image

Click here for larger image & info

Guest

Post #21 by Guest » Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:39 am

LaGrasta wrote: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. 8)


Somthing else to figure into your calculations.... :wink:

160 hp is measured at the Wheels
350 hp is measued at the Flywheel

Just to put that in some perspective! :D :D

Later,

Doug

MustangSix
Assistant Admin
Posts: 3766
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2002 11:15 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Post #22 by MustangSix » Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:14 am

When I put the 200/crossflow hybrid together I weighed all the parts. I suspect a 200 AZ head engine would weigh about the same. My total was 335 lbs. That's almost 200 lbs less than an iron headed 302/5.0.

The hp/$ comparison is a whole 'nother can 'o worms. If that were an overriding criteria, then Ferrari and Porsche powerplants make no sense either. Neither do Flathead Ford V8's. But they appeal to us because of their exotic nature, not their bang-for-the-buck. An alloy head 200 reaches into the realm of the exotic. Why else would people still drive and race things like flatheads, VW's, inlines, and all other manner of "different" engines?
Jack Collins

User avatar
LaGrasta
VIP Member
Posts: 2821
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Mission Viejo, CA

Post #23 by LaGrasta » Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:10 pm

I've made this same argument, but in reverse a few months back on the HAMB. I basically stated, we have a guy running in the 10s with a six. They jumped all over me with V8 this and V8 that.

"The hp/$ comparison is a whole 'nother can 'o worms. If that were an overriding criteria, then Ferrari and Porsche powerplants make no sense either. Neither do Flathead Ford V8's. But they appeal to us because of their exotic nature, not their bang-for-the-buck. An alloy head 200 reaches into the realm of the exotic. Why else would people still drive and race things like flatheads, VW's, inlines, and all other manner of "different" engines?"

Well stated. I understand that clearly.

As for me and my daily driver, I have no plans on swapping anything. This six isn't going to die any time soon. I'm sure I will continue to bolt on this and that increasing it's performance incrementally through it's life. I think a decent goal for my situation is about 130hp at the wheels. I'm going to need that AL head! :wink:
1963 1/2 Falcon 170/C4/8" (alt, a/c, Petronix/42v coil/8mm wires, 16" electric fan, electric fuel pump, Holley 1940, K&N Harley air filter, power dual m/c, 11" disc, 3" drop, Shelby drop, white tuck/roll, Moon steering wheel, '59 Caddy tail lights, fishtail exhaust tip, shaved trim, handles, cowl, fuel, dash, 4" radius trunk/door corners, power windows, 600w iPod system)

wcol
Registered User
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu May 26, 2005 2:52 pm
Location: Saint Charles Missouri

Post #24 by wcol » Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:21 pm

I am too.

Guest

Post #25 by Guest » Fri Jul 27, 2007 2:57 pm

130whp aint hard y not shoot higher

User avatar
LaGrasta
VIP Member
Posts: 2821
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Mission Viejo, CA

Post #26 by LaGrasta » Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:25 pm

300ci turbo wrote:130whp aint hard y not shoot higher


Isn't hard? 130 rwhp? WHat do you have at your rear wheels?
1963 1/2 Falcon 170/C4/8" (alt, a/c, Petronix/42v coil/8mm wires, 16" electric fan, electric fuel pump, Holley 1940, K&N Harley air filter, power dual m/c, 11" disc, 3" drop, Shelby drop, white tuck/roll, Moon steering wheel, '59 Caddy tail lights, fishtail exhaust tip, shaved trim, handles, cowl, fuel, dash, 4" radius trunk/door corners, power windows, 600w iPod system)

User avatar
Stubby
VIP Member
Posts: 911
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 1:11 pm
Location: Carthage, Texas
Contact:

Post #27 by Stubby » Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:31 pm

Guys, I hate to break up the party, but how does this relate to the original topic? This was a post about MRaley's Mustang, and the improvements.
It turned into a what appeared to be an attempt to sell V8s and now it is turning again. :lol:

I think we should keep this post focused on facts and we can bench race and speculate elsewhere. :D
Never squat with yer spurs on.

User avatar
LaGrasta
VIP Member
Posts: 2821
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 3:08 pm
Location: Mission Viejo, CA

Post #28 by LaGrasta » Mon Jul 30, 2007 5:23 pm

you're right. sorry (again).
1963 1/2 Falcon 170/C4/8" (alt, a/c, Petronix/42v coil/8mm wires, 16" electric fan, electric fuel pump, Holley 1940, K&N Harley air filter, power dual m/c, 11" disc, 3" drop, Shelby drop, white tuck/roll, Moon steering wheel, '59 Caddy tail lights, fishtail exhaust tip, shaved trim, handles, cowl, fuel, dash, 4" radius trunk/door corners, power windows, 600w iPod system)

User avatar
michael_cini
Registered User
Posts: 497
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:45 pm
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA

Post #29 by michael_cini » Tue Jul 31, 2007 11:48 pm

You rabble rouser LaGrasta!! :wink:
63 futura convertible sport coupe,
250 I6/C4, OZ head (milled, oversized valves), Holley 350cfm carb, 264/274-110 cam, 6 into 1 header, 2.5 exhaust with dynomax super turbo muffler, granada disc brakes, 5 bolt 8" rear.

BTW, it's pronounced Chee-knee.

User avatar
super4ord
Registered User
Posts: 302
Joined: Thu Dec 18, 2003 8:06 pm
Location: Oklahoma City

Post #30 by super4ord » Tue May 13, 2008 10:38 pm

I'd like to know who can build a 350hp 302 for $2500. I say they are full of it. You can't even make a 300 hp 302 with stock Ford Windsor heads. You have to go aftermarket to do that, whether it's Motorsport heads or any number of other companies heads. I've built a number of 302's and you can make 350 hp with a 302, even 400 hp without stroking it, but it won't be very streetable, and you sure won't do it for $2500. You might get away with $2500 in just the heads, if you're lucky. I've got between $6K & $7K in the current one I have to make 400hp and I bet it's only making 385 hp in reality. The power band is 2500-6500 rpm, so it's kind of streetable. The manual trans makes it that way. You can really feel it pull from 2500 rpm up. It started out as an XB3 345 hp crate motor with X-303 heads, a B303 cam and standard bore. The heads have been fully ported, including port matching to an old Shelby style high rise dual plane intake. Rockers were changed to 1.7's. I know I could make more power by going to a more radical cam, and a single plane intake, but it would make it even less streetable. It has a Demon 650 carb and aeromotive fuel system feeding it. The short block was disassembled. The pistons were weight matched, rods balanced and aftermarker ARP bolts were used. The crank was microplished and oil holes chamfered. The whole reciprocating assembly was balanced. It has a DSS main girdle, crank scraper and ARP main studs. There were other things done that I will not reveal, but anyone that races SBF's know the standard old tricks. Just like others have said previously, it's still just another cookie cutter SBF. It has been done to death, and I have done it too. That's what excites me a bout them darn INLINE 6 CYLINDERS! They are different and it's something exciting because it's different. My $.02

Darrell

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest