Is 350 RWHP Possible ?

[Dark Knight]

If you go that route, you'll need more gear. With 4.30's and a 28in tire you'll be lucky to turn 6k rpm in the traps. I was hitting 6k with 4.30's and 26in tires

[Unit 5302]

Wow, everybody goes to their local "I cook the numbers" dyno guy and suddenly 400rwhp dyno slips from a N/A 302 are being given out like candy. If you have 400rwhp on a N/A 302, you had better be able to show some 120mph+ trap speeds on a time slip. If you can't, you don't have that much power. My guess is that you don't so I guess that's news for the purely dyno faithful. As helpful as dynos are when it comes to tuning, they are only as accurate as the operator makes them or wants them to be. It takes a LOT of rpm to get 400rwhp or 482hp at the crank from a N/A 302. The Edelbrock package is not going to cut it without SERIOUS additional investment.

The Borg Warner (now Tremec) T-5 is a lightweight transmission designed primarily with moderate hp/torque loads and high efficiency in mind. If you put 650rwhp to the ground hard on any T-5, you can kiss it goodbye after a few passes. If the T-5 were capable of handling that kind of horsepower, reliably, you'd see a lot more of them in racing. G-Force, as a company, does not like to give out actual horsepower or torque ratings for their products, but they indicate with upgraded components, they are good for about 600hp on DRAG RADIALS. That's 600hp not 600rwhp, and on drag radials. Those two numbers are vastly different. The average T-5 driveline uses up about 17% of the horsepower being produced by the engine. I'll do the math for you. 17 out of every 100hp is eaten by the driveline. So 600rwhp/.83 = about 725hp. If you take a 600rwhp car to the track on slicks and you hook up, you're likely to blow that G Force T-5 to pieces in short order, even with the race only dog ring setup.

My uncle owned, until recently, a 1969 Boss 302 that he fully restored. Gorgeous car, but spinning the tires in 3rd isn't all that impressive back in the day with low ratio gearing and the crappy tires available. He was disappointed with the very poor low end power production from the engine and sold it because he was tempted to modify the car. I think he liked his original owner 70k 1969 Mach 1 fastback with the 428CJ/toploader combination better, anyway. In fact, Ford racing decreased the size of the Boss 302's intake valves in 1970 to increase velocity because the 302 simply couldn't use all the air and the oversized valves/ports were slowing them down a little. I guess it worked since they captured the Trans Am championship in 1970 where they failed in 1969. More is not always better, and those AFR 205s are overkill for a N/A EFI 302. It's not all about peak power. It never has been and never will be. You need a usable powerband you can stay in, and your average horsepower you put down at the wheels to the tarmac will determine the numbers on your timeslip. That's the reason the SVO Mustang failed against the 5.0s back in the mid 80s. Sure, the SVO made more peak power, but it lost ground coming out of the corners. It's no different in drag racing when you're shifting gears.

Anyway, I'm done explaining this. Every once in a while, a new group of kids show up with 25hp K&N filters and 100hp exhaust systems from a magazine lighting up their eyes. It's not that easy. It never has been, and likely never will be with N/A engines.

For the record, Dark 5.0 has spent time in the dyno shop. So have I. 8 $%#%$@ hours straight before. You like the smell of burnt race fuel? I don't think I can stand it anymore.

[~The Jester~]

Originally Posted by Unit 5302

Wow, everybody goes to their local "I cook the numbers" dyno guy and suddenly 400rwhp dyno slips from a N/A 302 are being given out like candy. If you have 400rwhp on a N/A 302, you had better be able to show some 120mph+ trap speeds on a time slip. If you can't, you don't have that much power. My guess is that you don't so I guess that's news for the purely dyno faithful. As helpful as dynos are when it comes to tuning, they are only as accurate as the operator makes them or wants them to be. It takes a LOT of rpm to get 400rwhp or 482hp at the crank from a N/A 302. The Edelbrock package is not going to cut it without SERIOUS additional investment.

The Borg Warner (now Tremec) T-5 is a lightweight transmission designed primarily with moderate hp/torque loads and high efficiency in mind. If you put 650rwhp to the ground hard on any T-5, you can kiss it goodbye after a few passes. If the T-5 were capable of handling that kind of horsepower, reliably, you'd see a lot more of them in racing. G-Force, as a company, does not like to give out actual horsepower or torque ratings for their products, but they indicate with upgraded components, they are good for about 600hp on DRAG RADIALS. That's 600hp not 600rwhp, and on drag radials. Those two numbers are vastly different. The average T-5 driveline uses up about 17% of the horsepower being produced by the engine. I'll do the math for you. 17 out of every 100hp is eaten by the driveline. So 600rwhp/.83 = about 725hp. If you take a 600rwhp car to the track on slicks and you hook up, you're likely to blow that G Force T-5 to pieces in short order, even with the race only dog ring setup.

My uncle owned, until recently, a 1969 Boss 302 that he fully restored. Gorgeous car, but spinning the tires in 3rd isn't all that impressive back in the day with low ratio gearing and the crappy tires available. He was disappointed with the very poor low end power production from the engine and sold it because he was tempted to modify the car. I think he liked his original owner 70k 1969 Mach 1 fastback with the 428CJ/toploader combination better, anyway. In fact, Ford racing decreased the size of the Boss 302's intake valves in 1970 to increase velocity because the 302 simply couldn't use all the air and the oversized valves/ports were slowing them down a little. I guess it worked since they captured the Trans Am championship in 1970 where they failed in 1969. More is not always better, and those AFR 205s are overkill for a N/A EFI 302. It's not all about peak power. It never has been and never will be. You need a usable powerband you can stay in, and your average horsepower you put down at the wheels to the tarmac will determine the numbers on your timeslip. That's the reason the SVO Mustang failed against the 5.0s back in the mid 80s. Sure, the SVO made more peak power, but it lost ground coming out of the corners. It's no different in drag racing when you're shifting gears.

Anyway, I'm done explaining this. Every once in a while, a new group of kids show up with 25hp K&N filters and 100hp exhaust systems from a magazine lighting up their eyes. It's not that easy. It never has been, and likely never will be with N/A engines.

For the record, Dark 5.0 has spent time in the dyno shop. So have I. 8 $%#%$@ hours straight before. You like the smell of burnt race fuel? I don't think I can stand it anymore.

Dude, I TRUELY respect EVERYTHING you've ever posted on this board, so don't take this the wrong way. PLEASE!!!!

I'm NOT a "dyno" type guy, I tend to let my timeslips do my talking.

I know this is exactly what you were talking about (he said, she said type BS) but I really had a stock 302 with those darn Windsor Sr heads putting 285 on a dyno.

Now given our friend's combo here, I REALLY don't see where 350 on the dig is a problem.

Maybe it is though!!!!! Engine's are a "system", and each and every component has to work in conjunction with the next. Does this combo have it? Who knows. I personnaly think the heads are a bit much, but then again I've seen "smaller" engines make more horsepower than "rippers" for that very same reason.

Bottom line, I don't want you mad at me for disagreeing, but I think that this is VERY "doable". It's all about the recipe, smaller heads and I'm guessing 350+.

On a side note, I DO AGREE with the 400+ HP dyno sheets being handed out like candy. But, you have to realize alot of those guys really don't know how to interpret the information, and to boot they're trying to "sell" you on THEIR dyno! Not necessarily the car's optimum performance.

[Coupe50h]

Originally Posted by Dark Knight

If you go that route, you'll need more gear. With 4.30's and a 28in tire you'll be lucky to turn 6k rpm in the traps. I was hitting 6k with 4.30's and 26in tires

Wow, not here to argue, but i have 3.90's with a 26" tire, and im really close to bouncing the limiter.
I suggest 28"s when using 4.30 grs every time, main reason??
Cuz I see them at the track all the time, one guy still ran out of gear, spraying a 100 shot and 28"s, 4.30's..... also the 60's can improve with taller tire, depending on the overall setup.

[~The Jester~]

Originally Posted by wlingle92lx

This car is going to leave at 5000+ RPMs and never drop below that the whole way down the 1/4.

I agree with what you're thinking, but YES IT WILL. I shift at 8,500 with a stick, and it drops almost to 6 grand.


IMHO, you're on the right track, stick with it!!!!

[Unit 5302]

~The Jester~I appreciate the confidence, but I have been wrong before, and I will be wrong again, haha. I just happen to rely on history to show what the 5.0 can normally do.

Well, 285rwhp with the stock intake is a bit to believe, but I suppose it's possible. If you had an aftermarket intake, no problem. That being said, the Windsor Sr. heads are good, not fantastic, but they'll probably take you to at least 85% of what the 302 can do with better heads. The camshaft is the strongest part of the 5.0HO engine, and while you can add significant horsepower by going to a more aggressive camshaft, you're not picking up 100hp in the swap if you're still naturally aspirated. The intake, followed by the heads, followed by the camshaft are the weakest major power production components in the 5.0. With a good combination, how much do you suppose the Windsor Sr.'s were holding you back? 10hp? 20hp? 30hp? That's a lot to pickup when you're already running good heads. You'll need that cam to get you another 60, and you'll need it to make that power below 6500rpm if you want a chance to run a hydraulic cam (which the vast majority of street driven 5.0 EFI cars have).

Keep in mind, 285rwhp is about 340hp at the crank, whereas 350rwhp will require about 430hp at the crank. You need to add 25% more power beyond your modifications to hit 350rwhp, and that's a HUGE target for a N/A EFI 5.0, espeically with a hydraulic camshaft.

I'm not saying it can't be done. It can, but very few streetable 302s are N/A and making that kind of power (which was a comment more directed at 1979bruiser's comments about the Edelbrock package than the topic starter. wlingle92lx has a combination plan that is borderline (read barely, lol) streetable so he may very well pull it off. I still think his tranny is going to grenade in short order if he's able to put the power down , but I'd be the first to cheer him on since I'm a big fan of the Borg Warner designed transmissions (especially the underdog T-5) or rather I dislike the garbage transmissions Tremec has designed. Anyway, I kinda feel like this whole thread is bouncing around a little.

Coupe50h, I haven't seen the dyno figures on the new Z06, but I was aware of the times people are quoting on them. As much as I'd like to say the little 302 could lay the smack down on the LS7, it's kinda like wheeling Brad Johnson out onto the field and asking him to outthrow Michael Vick downfield. Sure, Johnson could lob the ball up at a 45* angle and scream out "500!" but lets be honest, it's not a real fair comparison, hahaha. Side note, even with a small blower the 1996-2001 4.6L DOHC engine has no problems putting out that kind of power with a couple little mods. Forced induction is absolutely the cheapest, most reliable, and easiest way to make power. It's also the future of automotive performance. I fully expect to start seeing a lot of turbocharged 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder E85 vehicles putting out a lot of power while increasing their fuel economy by engineering higher compression ratios and boost levels. The days of the V8 rumble and torquemonstering are fading fast. Kudos to Ford, and GM for keeping the big cube American V8 legends alive for at least a while longer.

wlingle92lx, on a side note, are you using racing lifters? If not, you're seem to be planning on getting into the eschelon of rpms that the stock type lifters are unable to cope with, regardless of your valvesprings. If you haven't gone to a high rpm lifter (I'm assuming you have) you will probably have to get some or you can expect to still see valve float since you can't compress liquid, even if your valvesprings are strong

I think I'll end my babbling on this topic at this point as it's pretty much derailed like Amtrak, sorry for the thread hijack, wlingle92lx

[Dark_5.0]

This isnt the first 302 I have seen put down 350 RWHP so I never doubted he could do it with his mod list.

I only added my 2 cents because the 400 RWHP claim with the parts listed was rediculous. The fact that "wlingle92lx's" motor only put out 353 RWHP really proves my point.

[tmoss]

Originally Posted by Unit 5302

Well, 285rwhp with the stock intake is a bit to believe, but I suppose it's possible.

Not only is it possible, it's been done more than once.........with "junk" ported E7s and a custom cam...........

280RWHP/330RWTQ with a 60mm TB and 292RWHP/325RWTQ with a 65mm TB. tried to post up the dyno graph and post but the attachment function on the site errored out.

[Unit 5302]

With timeslips to prove the "rwhp" indicated on the dyno? There have been otherwise stock 302s with a 347 stroker kit that can't put down more than 260rwhp. 285rwhp on junk ported E7s and a stock intake is bullshit, regardless of what the dyno slip says. Never going to happen without mega compression and race fuel.

You're talking about picking up 100rwhp or 120 crank hp by porting E7s and putting in a cam? Lets get real. What, exhaust give you 50? LOL. Seriously, unless you have some 110+mph timeslips with a junk ported E7 setup, a stock intake, and a "custom" cam, I'm not about to listen. For most people, that will get them maybe a 102mph pass.

I remember back when Skyman's dyno guy was showing 340rwhp, but he was still trapping 110mph. He knows the 340rwhp was a load of crap as much then as he does now, and he'll be the first to admit it. He used the dyno for tuning, not to know what his car was actually putting out.

[Coupe50h]

I just finally read this whole thread, omg, some intresting info along with some bs, I agree the 185's are the hot route, I can see making 350rwhp 302 with those heads, being I know of a 347 with 185's and a comp cams xtreme cam making 400 n/a, and just touching 120 mph in the 1/4...later

[Unit 5302]

400rwhp for a 347 N/A is at the upper range of the spectrum, but certainly possible. A 347 has 45 more cubic inches working for it than the 302 or an increase in displacement of roughly 15%. In terms of horsepower, the same hp to displacement efficiency would grant a 302 about 340rwhp. Having a N/A 302 making 400rwhp would be like a N/A 347 making 460rwhp. Not impossible, but very unlikely for a streetable car, unless you think there is an easy 75hp more in your friends 347

[Coupe50h]

Originally Posted by Unit 5302

making 400rwhp would be like a N/A 347 making 460rwhp. Not impossible, but very unlikely for a streetable car, unless you think there is an easy 75hp more in your friends 347

Sure there is, it comes in a bottle ..... naw, i know what you mean, your right cuz he was pretty much maxed out as far as a hyd. roller cam goes anyway

[tmoss]

here is something to think about regarding your cam - the more you increase the ability of the heads and intake to fill the cylinders, the less duration you need on your cam for your 302-306-308 based engines.

AFR 185 heads will make your target if you get the combo right........

[Coupe50h]

I hate to get off the subject, But unit5302, have you seen some #'s the c6 zo6 is putting out? A well known mustang builder around here owns one, and that thing ran 10's 130? with no problem, is that just shear hp/torque or what?
I witnessed this at the track, also some guys in town running against him from ls1tech.com, Alot of those guys were 10 sec cars! Sometimes I just wanna give up, bye the time i mod my car to make that much power, my car will be un-streetable

[Dark_5.0]

Originally Posted by Coupe50h

I hate to get off the subject, But unit5302, have you seen some #'s the c6 zo6 is putting out? A well known mustang builder around here owns one, and that thing ran 10's 130? with no problem, is that just shear hp/torque or what?
I witnessed this at the track, also some guys in town running against him from ls1tech.com, Alot of those guys were 10 sec cars! Sometimes I just wanna give up, bye the time i mod my car to make that much power, my car will be un-streetable

The Z06's performance is derived from a beefed-up, 7.0-liter Gen IV small-block called the LS7. It is the rough equivalent of 427 cubic inches and is rated at 500 hp and 475 lb-ft of torque.

Most mustangs with that much cubic inch run 10's also.

[92lx5.0convertible]

Dude,

you already know your car can hit 350 RWHP; you're just looking to have someone say "ooh and ahh"; how can you not afford $75 or $80 to get the car on a dyno?

[tmoss]

since you want some track numbers, how about 12.28@108 with ported stock E7s and ported stock "junk" intake. What does that put the HP at?

http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=843938

need we go on?

[Dark_5.0]

Originally Posted by tmoss

since you want some track numbers, how about 12.28@108 with ported stock E7s and ported stock "junk" intake. What does that put the HP at?

http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?t=843938

need we go on?

Very impressive,

I seen a car with a pretty much stock motor run a 13.10 @102mph @3000ft here were I am at. He had a little port work done to the exhaust side of his heads, ported lower intake, exhaust and 3.73 gears.

He hurt alot of LS1 owners feelings that night.

On my car my heads are really too big for a 302 thats why I can do 109mph but at only a 12.50. But thats not bad considering cars run a half second better and 3 or 4 mph more in Dallas or Houston compared to west Texas were I am at.

I am hoping my heads will be a better match with the 331 I have on order.

[Unit 5302]

Sounds like it's around the right area, depending on the weight of the vehicle... might have helped to note the intake was professionally ported

I don't give a flying **** what you think. I've seen far more bullshit on this board than I care to acknowledge; from people claiming to be somebody they're not to cars putting down 350rwhp and trapping 105.

I find it interesting that your combo is listed as GT-40P's with a 4* retarded stock cam, a ported Explorer intake, 1.7 roller rockers, and you managed about 15 crank hp less than the "stock" combo at 277rwhp on the dyno.

[tmoss]

Originally Posted by Unit 5302

I don't give a flying **** what you think.

I find it interesting that your combo is listed as GT-40P's with a 4* retarded stock cam, a ported Explorer intake, 1.7 roller rockers, and you managed about 15 crank hp less than the "stock" combo at 277rwhp on the dyno.

ditto on the first comment, your a class guy I can tell.

interesting that you pull a my **** is bigger than yours type comment on my car. It's a daily driver that I don't race - and the cam is 4 degrees advanced, not retarded. Peak numbers don't mean squat to me - average torque does.