Brought to you in part by:

.


Shop Eastwood for all your Auto Restoration Needs!

  Mustangsandmore Forums
  Mercury Cougar
  my new engine

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:   my new engine
badazzcougar
Gearhead

Posts: 132
From: Seattle
Registered: Oct 2001

posted 10-30-2001 01:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for badazzcougar   Click Here to Email badazzcougar     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm rebuilding the engine in my 70 Q code cougar ( the 428's long gone sorry to say )and should have it in next week. Maybe some of you guys could give me an idea what sort of numbers were looking at HP and torque wise. Its a 71 vintage 4 bolt 351CJ bored .030 over. I'm using domed TRW's to give a finished compression ratio of 10.2:1 after a bit of massaging, unported 351 4V CJ open chamber heads ( its what I had ) with dual crane springs, big CJ valves , a lunati BMII cam with 224/234 @.050 duration and .536/.562" lift, roller sharp rockers, a Edelbrock F351 4 V Intake, MSD distributor and ignition box, headers, flowmasters , and a 650 mechanical secondary demon carb. I'm using a 2500 stall converter, C6 and a 4.10 geared nine inch lockered rear with P295/15 tires.

Thats about it. Any ideas on how fast this thing might run? The local track wont open up till late april and I'd like some idea of the performance potential of this thing if possible. I'm thinking low to mid 400 HP numbers and I dont have a clue on the torque. Any dyno gurus out there?


Thanks for any info and I wish I had found this forum earlier...

IP: Logged

steve'66
Gearhead

Posts: 7226
From: Sonoma,CA,USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 11-02-2001 10:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for steve'66   Click Here to Email steve'66     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You might hit 12's with some traction. It'll be tough with street tires, unfortunately. A little more cam and converter stall will help too. But SteveL's right there are a bunch of Cleveland racers on the racing forum that'll be more than willing to help you perfect your Cougar. Welcome to M&M!

SteveW

IP: Logged

kid vishus
Gearhead

Posts: 5248
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 11-03-2001 09:59 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kid vishus   Click Here to Email kid vishus     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
My guess, right around 400 hp, and probably the same for the torque. That intake is going to be a hinderance, as is the 650 carb. 4v clevelands like rpm to make power, and those two things wont let it do that.
Nothing wrong with the open chambered heads , except that your arent ported

I would guess low 13's, spinning the tires pretty hard. With some slicks or sticky street tires, high 12's shouldnt be a problem.

IP: Logged

badazzcougar
Gearhead

Posts: 132
From: Seattle
Registered: Oct 2001

posted 11-03-2001 11:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for badazzcougar   Click Here to Email badazzcougar     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The previous combinataion with a 218/230 @ .050 with .555/.585" hydraulic cam, 9:1 compression ( I didnt build that motor ! ), and a torker intake , edelbrock 750 carb and 125 HP nitrous with same gearing ran 12.44 on BFG goodrich radial 275/15 TA's. Had absolutely no wheel spin at all off the line even power braking it at 2500 rpm . Of course I had no lower end torque to speak of and all the pull was on the top end so If I have to sacrifice a lot of top end to gain a lot of bottom end I'll do it. This is my daily driver after all and the new motor combination with 4.10 gears should be a torque monster. Im even building up a set of 2 BBl heads to put on this motor for daily driving. when racing season comes around I'll swap heads, manifold and carb and go.
Its been my experience that a lot of guys will build a motor up like they see in magazines with way too big a cam, ports and intake and then they are miserable driving it on the street and sell it off for a song. Thats how I got my cougar and that why I'm making the motor streetable. It probably wont be as fast as before but i wont be getting 6 MPG either ( thats not an exageration ) like it was until last week and I wont have the thrill of stepping on the gas and having NOTHING happen until I get to 60 MPH and I wont have the joy of 6000 RPM valve float like I was having. Sure I'll lose top end power but the combination I'm building will have great power to 6000 RPM and since thats where I drive....

[This message has been edited by badazzcougar (edited 11-03-2001).]

IP: Logged

kid vishus
Gearhead

Posts: 5248
From: middle of NC
Registered: Oct 2000

posted 11-03-2001 06:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kid vishus   Click Here to Email kid vishus     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
But the main problem with 4v cleveland heads is that they dont start making good power till 6000 rpm. That is why they are "doggy" on the street on a car that needs low end torque. The problem isnt necassarily the intake or carb that keeps them from making low end torque, its the fact you have a 240 cc intake port on a 357 inch motor. That cylinder head is approximatley the same size as a BB chevy square port head but with 100 less inches trying to make it work. The port velocity is too slow, by changing intakes, it doesnt help enuff, the head is still too big. Port the 2v heads and use them exclusively if you want low end torque. The smaller ports are much better suited for that. It should still run in the 12's even using them.

But then again, I'm probably wrong.

IP: Logged

badazzcougar
Gearhead

Posts: 132
From: Seattle
Registered: Oct 2001

posted 11-03-2001 07:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for badazzcougar   Click Here to Email badazzcougar     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thats why I picked up a pair of 2V heads this week and will be building them up this coming week. Your right. The ports on the 4V heads are just too big to be usefull. I'm not sure what ford was thinking in putting them on so many vehicles. Big vehicles at that with cams that didnt really work well with the heads and gear ratios in most of their cars that werent compatible. I dont quite understand early 70's Ford management decisions to be honest. OK the early 70's were a turbulent time for auto manufacturers and they had to make do with what they had until they had something to counter the emissions regulations and fuel economy problems the arab oil embargo brought and the lack of computer technology left mechanical only systems that are tunable for a certain rpm range only. It only took ...what 25 years for the industry to recover and start putting out factory hot rods again? I was reading about the new Corvette yesterday. 170 MPH top speed and EPA mileage estimates of 16 city and 27 hwy with 12 second quarter miles. My God !!!

[This message has been edited by badazzcougar (edited 11-04-2001).]

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 2004, 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 Conventions] [M&M Mug Shots]

[ Mustangsandmore.com Bookstore] [ Smokin' Fords] [Tech Articles]