Brought to you in part by:

.

Shop Eastwood for your Auto Restoration Needs!


  Mustangsandmore Forums
  Ford Racing
  Dyno might

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Dyno might
TomP
Gearhead

Posts: 4812
From: Delta BC Canada
Registered: Dec 99

posted 04-24-2002 03:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for TomP   Click Here to Email TomP     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
i just got back from a friends testing a 302... figured this might interest some of ya...

the engine is a 5.0L roller block .030" over and higher compression than stock (dunno exact specs here, gotta ask), the heads are TFS Twisted Wedge with 2.02" intakes, the headers are 1 5/8" and two sets were tested, a regular long tube set and the quite short ones needed to fit the Triumph the engine goes in (about 22" primary length)and the cam is a fairly big hydraulic roller, 236 duration and .564" lift on exhaust, smaller intake (??didn't write this stuff down)

The two intakes tested were a Weiand 2P180 dual plane, flat looking thing needed to fit under the cars hood ... and a Weiand XCelerator single plane... the engine made 377hp with the dual plane, max at 6000rpm and falling off beyond that... the single plane (which i figured would put it well over 400hp) made 381, just 4 hp more, tho 20lbs ft more torque around 5000 . It too fell off at the same RPM level.

The combo was tested a few times with minor carb changes then the dual plane was stuck back on and 377 again.

Go figure?

IP: Logged

the last dive
Gearhead

Posts: 147
From: sydney australia
Registered: Dec 2001

posted 04-24-2002 04:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for the last dive     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
a 302 with 381hp good work! where did i go wrong with my 347??

IP: Logged

Rustang
Gearhead

Posts: 471
From: Clarion PA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 04-24-2002 05:44 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rustang   Click Here to Email Rustang     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
377hp @6000rpm sounds pretty damn good for a no-frills 302. I wouldn't of guessed it would have signed off at 6000, though.

That little triumph should be a rocket-ship! It reminds me of one night we street raced a small block powered triumph in my buddy's '67 camaro. We were gaining on the guy at around 110 when he decided to slow down. He didn't have brake lights, and the little triumph could stop on a dime. We shot out into the other lane of traffic and somehow made it around the triumph. All I remember is seeing oncoming cars headlights, a barn, a bank, trees. We actually went around the oncoming car on the opposite shoulder of the road!... all in about a second! I don't know how I survived those years.

IP: Logged

bluestreek
Gearhead

Posts: 1289
From: Athens,GA
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 04-24-2002 09:37 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for bluestreek   Click Here to Email bluestreek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That's a lot of HP for a 302 @ only 6000 rpms !! I can't wait to get my 331 TFS headed project finished.

IP: Logged

TomP
Gearhead

Posts: 4812
From: Delta BC Canada
Registered: Dec 99

posted 04-24-2002 04:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for TomP   Click Here to Email TomP     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
actually we were expecting the single plane intake to make well over 400hp . Surprising such a bad looking intake didn't harm power. It looks similar to a F4B or Cobra intake but lower and has the runners "backwards" (lower plane is #2,3,5 and 8)

[This message has been edited by TomP (edited 04-24-2002).]

IP: Logged

bluestreek
Gearhead

Posts: 1289
From: Athens,GA
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 04-24-2002 05:49 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for bluestreek   Click Here to Email bluestreek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Xcellerator is not a very good single plane intake to be using on good aftermarket heads. They just don't flow enough cfm for my taste. A Victor Jr. pulls way better under a load. Even a RPM Air-Gap is better in my book.

IP: Logged

TomP
Gearhead

Posts: 4812
From: Delta BC Canada
Registered: Dec 99

posted 04-24-2002 08:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for TomP   Click Here to Email TomP     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You are right, the Air Gap picked up ET over the Xcelerator when my buddy switched it on his car. I would think the regular Perf RPM isn't much different?

IP: Logged

Rustang
Gearhead

Posts: 471
From: Clarion PA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 04-24-2002 09:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rustang   Click Here to Email Rustang     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Take a peak at the June 5.0 Mustang Magazine. There's a dyno comparison between the victor, RPM, and the Air Gap. Although it's the 351 version, results should be similar. In a nutshell:
Victor: [email protected]/[email protected]
RPM: [email protected]/[email protected]
Air Gap:[email protected]/[email protected]
Looks like the Air Gap's a good compromise between the victor jr and the rpm. Look at the torque improvement of the dual planes!

IP: Logged

chips67
Gearhead

Posts: 651
From: louisville, ky, usa
Registered: Jul 2001

posted 04-24-2002 10:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chips67   Click Here to Email chips67     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
why did the motor drop off so early? why didnt it go over 400hp? yes those are good numbers. i think the intakes tested are junk imo, i like nothing but edelbrock in that buisness. too bad it HAS to fit under the hood. results are interesting but not at all suprising. tell him to get a cowl hood and nitrous and go pick on some crotch rockets. hey if the gm's/mopars are woosies, go slay the bikes.

------------------
67 coupe, 650dp and rpm intake on 5.0 with afr 165 heads, 4 speed, 4.11's.....best so far is [email protected] in 1/8 mile with 1.79 60ft. time.

IP: Logged

TomP
Gearhead

Posts: 4812
From: Delta BC Canada
Registered: Dec 99

posted 04-25-2002 05:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for TomP   Click Here to Email TomP     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I poked a bit further, cam is a Crane # 449601 with 224 and 232 at .050" and.542" and .563" lift the thing is 10.5:1 compression. All hydraulic rollers they test seem to fall off at 6000, dunno why, this has good springs.

IP: Logged

TomP
Gearhead

Posts: 4812
From: Delta BC Canada
Registered: Dec 99

posted 04-25-2002 05:14 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for TomP   Click Here to Email TomP     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
also... it picked up only 30hp over a B303 cam and stock pistons (+.030" bore increase and a point and a half compression)

IP: Logged

Mpcoluv
Gearhead

Posts: 945
From: Charlotte NC usa
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 04-25-2002 07:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mpcoluv   Click Here to Email Mpcoluv     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
How did the shortie headers do compared to the long tubes?

IP: Logged

TomP
Gearhead

Posts: 4812
From: Delta BC Canada
Registered: Dec 99

posted 04-29-2002 02:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for TomP   Click Here to Email TomP     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
these shortie headers are still pretty long, the car has sidepipes and these headers are ones i built to fit. The car had ordinary shorties before, we figure they corked up a bunch of power but won't know until the car is back on the track.

IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Mustangsandmore Front Page

Copyright 2003, Steve LaRiviere. All Rights Reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47d

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

[Build a free Mustangsandmore.ws Home Page!]

[About M&M][Acronyms][Calendar][Chat][Classifieds] [Members' Pics] [M&M Mug Shots]

[ Mustangsandmore.com Bookstore] [Mustangsandmore.com T-Shirts][Tech Articles]