My car is finally together (mustang warning)
12-30-2009, 06:01 PM
#1
TQ > MPG
Thread Starter
My car is finally together (mustang warning)
Well its been nearly 2 years since I lifted a head at the drag strip (while running 11.8 @ 120mph 
).
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/E8BwLl4yfdk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/E8BwLl4yfdk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I switched combos from supercharged to high compression n/a. The reason for this was because my block isnt strong enough for 500+rwhp reliably, and I want fast + reliable. The supercharger made it fast, but due to the lower compression it was a little doggy off the line, and I had alot of little issues with the tune and components.
It was completely professionally rebuilt (only reused crank and rods) and I changed a bunch of stuff. Here's the vitals:
I'm hoping it will put down ~ 425rwhp/400rwtq on a DynoJet, and run mid/low 11's @ 120+ mph
It aint the prettiest or the fastest, but I think it sounds mean and should be able to back it up (mostly)
The ricey headlights are gone, and the side exhaust is gone in favor of dumps and stock side skirts
). <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/E8BwLl4yfdk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/E8BwLl4yfdk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I switched combos from supercharged to high compression n/a. The reason for this was because my block isnt strong enough for 500+rwhp reliably, and I want fast + reliable. The supercharger made it fast, but due to the lower compression it was a little doggy off the line, and I had alot of little issues with the tune and components.
It was completely professionally rebuilt (only reused crank and rods) and I changed a bunch of stuff. Here's the vitals:
- Canfield 195cc heads (mild port and bowl blend)
- Edelbrock Victor 5.0 intake (lower port matched to heads, upper extrude honed, inlet bored to 90mm)
- Custom grind solid roller cam
- 90mm MAF and 90mm TB with 4" intake tube
- 1 3/4 longtube headers, 3" hpipe, 3" mufflers (dumped) entire exhaust is ceramic coated inside & out from headers to mufflers
I'm hoping it will put down ~ 425rwhp/400rwtq on a DynoJet, and run mid/low 11's @ 120+ mph
It aint the prettiest or the fastest, but I think it sounds mean and should be able to back it up (mostly)
The ricey headlights are gone, and the side exhaust is gone in favor of dumps and stock side skirts
Last edited by Joe5.0; 12-30-2009 at 06:03 PM.
12-30-2009, 06:22 PM
#2
What supercharger were you running?? what PSI??? I had a 95 Saleen and had the Paxton Pro Charger and changed it and went with the Kenne Bell and DAMN DAMN DAMN the horsepower i had in that car. Too many tickets to count and a offer was made on the car i couldn't resist so now its gone 
12-30-2009, 06:36 PM
#3
What supercharger were you running?? what PSI??? I had a 95 Saleen and had the Paxton Pro Charger and changed it and went with the Kenne Bell and DAMN DAMN DAMN the horsepower i had in that car. Too many tickets to count and a offer was made on the car i couldn't resist so now its gone
Looks good.
Terry
12-30-2009, 06:57 PM
#5
Admittedly it's not my favorite gen Mustang, I think they can look good if done right. And I like what you've done with it
the torq thrusts fits the lines of that gen perfectly.
the torq thrusts fits the lines of that gen perfectly.
12-30-2009, 06:59 PM
#6
Trending Topics
12-30-2009, 08:30 PM
#8
TQ > MPG
Thread Starter
Thats steam, not smoke. Its 25* here No smoke at all, not any at all out of the valve cover breathers (no pcv system).
I had a Vortech S-trim on it, pullied to ~ 11psi. It made 400rwhp/380rwtq on a Mustang dyno (which would be about 440rwhp on a dynojet). On my first time to the track it lifted a head (improper installation by previous owner I believe) and its been down since. I had meth injection also, which I think was part of the problem.
And yes I can easily run pump gas (premium), Its not until you get above 11:1 that you have to start blending in race gas.
And I also prefer the 99-04 body style myself, but the mods for the 5.0 are so easy and plentiful, and I would have to have a Mach 1 or 03 Cobra, which is more spendy than I would want for my "toy" car.
No smoke at all, not any at all out of the valve cover breathers (no pcv system).I had a Vortech S-trim on it, pullied to ~ 11psi. It made 400rwhp/380rwtq on a Mustang dyno (which would be about 440rwhp on a dynojet). On my first time to the track it lifted a head (improper installation by previous owner I believe) and its been down since. I had meth injection also, which I think was part of the problem.
And yes I can easily run pump gas (premium), Its not until you get above 11:1 that you have to start blending in race gas.
And I also prefer the 99-04 body style myself, but the mods for the 5.0 are so easy and plentiful, and I would have to have a Mach 1 or 03 Cobra, which is more spendy than I would want for my "toy" car.
12-31-2009, 07:27 AM
#12
Senior Moderator
That sounds MEAN. Keep up the good work.
12-31-2009, 07:38 AM
#13
Registered Member
A man after my heart. You didn't mention the displacement of your small block. How many cubic inches or did you leave it stock as a 302?
Sounds super. Nothing like American iron. And it doesn't look ricey with a wing the size of a house. Good for you!
Sounds super. Nothing like American iron. And it doesn't look ricey with a wing the size of a house. Good for you!
12-31-2009, 08:41 AM
#15
TQ > MPG
Thread Starter
They are the most recent I have of the outside. It looks exactly like that this second because I havent swapped the headlights or side skirts YET, but they will be soon.
And its 347 cubic inches. Its a 302 bored .30" over and 3.4" stroke (vs 3.0")
And thanks for the compliments
And its 347 cubic inches. Its a 302 bored .30" over and 3.4" stroke (vs 3.0")
And thanks for the compliments
12-31-2009, 10:19 AM
#19
TQ > MPG
Thread Starter
I like the side exhaust also, but with the car being lowered the skirts would hit the ground all the time on even moderate inclines/declines. Plus the car has full length subframe connectors which get in the way of the side exhaust. I would have had to smash the pipes before the tips down so much that it would have definitely hurt exhaust flow, and thus power.
I would like to run tailpipes, but I have a panhard bar that doesnt really allow it, so I have to run dumps.
I would like to run tailpipes, but I have a panhard bar that doesnt really allow it, so I have to run dumps.
12-31-2009, 02:10 PM
#21
Registered Member
They are the most recent I have of the outside. It looks exactly like that this second because I havent swapped the headlights or side skirts YET, but they will be soon.
And its 347 cubic inches. Its a 302 bored .30" over and 3.4" stroke (vs 3.0")
And thanks for the compliments
And its 347 cubic inches. Its a 302 bored .30" over and 3.4" stroke (vs 3.0")
And thanks for the compliments
12-31-2009, 03:05 PM
#23
TQ > MPG
Thread Starter
12-31-2009, 04:26 PM
#24
Registered Member
Well here is what you would have. As you know, the 302 Ford engine is a perfect "over-square" engine with a 4-inch bore and a 3-inch stroke. This is an ideal over-square ratio which offers both a high-revving engine and one that is capable of producing decent amounts of torque. During the 60's American supercar era, all supercar engines were over-squared.
If you had increased the bore and stroke to 4.30" and 3.4" respectively, you would have 395 rounded cubic inches. A three-thousandths overbore would result in a 4.003" bore and with a 3.4" stroke, you would have 342 rounded cubic inches. However, if the overbore was three-hundredths of a inch, you would have a 4.03" bore and with the same stroke, you would have 347 rounded cubic inches.
I use the old tried and true formula of .7854 x bore x bore x stroke x number of cylinders for my calculations.
But with all of that nonsense aside, I love your engine sound and it looks great under your hood. I would have gone with the traditional Ford cast aluminum louvered valve covers, but that's just me.
How does it feel? Good and strong from off idle on up through the range? What transmission are you running in it?
If you had increased the bore and stroke to 4.30" and 3.4" respectively, you would have 395 rounded cubic inches. A three-thousandths overbore would result in a 4.003" bore and with a 3.4" stroke, you would have 342 rounded cubic inches. However, if the overbore was three-hundredths of a inch, you would have a 4.03" bore and with the same stroke, you would have 347 rounded cubic inches.
I use the old tried and true formula of .7854 x bore x bore x stroke x number of cylinders for my calculations.
But with all of that nonsense aside, I love your engine sound and it looks great under your hood. I would have gone with the traditional Ford cast aluminum louvered valve covers, but that's just me.
How does it feel? Good and strong from off idle on up through the range? What transmission are you running in it?
12-31-2009, 04:48 PM
#26
TQ > MPG
Thread Starter
I plan on making the LS1 guys have the same reaction
And southernboy that is correct, however in reality there is no way to bore each cylinder that much in a 302 block, so you would have 1 large cylinder on each side
But yes, it should have very good torque off idle and rev all the way to 7k. My cam specs put the peak hp rpm @ 6000, and peak tq @ 4700. I can move the peak numbers up if I go to a box style upper intake but I wanted to maintain some low end power for driving around.
I cant use the traditional valve covers because the 94/95's use a different bracket spacing for the accessories, which causes clearance problems with the alternator and large valve covers. Eventually I am going to relocate the alternator so I can have alot more options with valve covers.
Its very snappy off idle and really starts to come on the cam around 3500rpm. It is still running very rich and I have an ignition miss in the upper rpms that I have to figure out. I think I have a bad ground somewhere.
It currently has 3.55 gears (good for the old SC), but they definitely leave something to be desired N/A. I am installing 4.10's before spring, so that will help off the line and keep it in the powerband better between shifts. Its a Tremec 3550 trans, which is an older version of the TKO. It has an upgraded (26 spline) input shaft, so its good for ~ 500 lb tq which is more than enough. The driveline is good for ~ 800hp, as it has a Detroit locker rear end and custom Mark Williams driveshaft.
And southernboy that is correct, however in reality there is no way to bore each cylinder that much in a 302 block, so you would have 1 large cylinder on each side
But yes, it should have very good torque off idle and rev all the way to 7k. My cam specs put the peak hp rpm @ 6000, and peak tq @ 4700. I can move the peak numbers up if I go to a box style upper intake but I wanted to maintain some low end power for driving around.
I cant use the traditional valve covers because the 94/95's use a different bracket spacing for the accessories, which causes clearance problems with the alternator and large valve covers. Eventually I am going to relocate the alternator so I can have alot more options with valve covers.
Its very snappy off idle and really starts to come on the cam around 3500rpm. It is still running very rich and I have an ignition miss in the upper rpms that I have to figure out. I think I have a bad ground somewhere.
It currently has 3.55 gears (good for the old SC), but they definitely leave something to be desired N/A. I am installing 4.10's before spring, so that will help off the line and keep it in the powerband better between shifts. Its a Tremec 3550 trans, which is an older version of the TKO. It has an upgraded (26 spline) input shaft, so its good for ~ 500 lb tq which is more than enough. The driveline is good for ~ 800hp, as it has a Detroit locker rear end and custom Mark Williams driveshaft.
12-31-2009, 06:52 PM
#28
TQ > MPG
Thread Starter
Thats funny. I hooked it up to my surround sound and my dog didnt even flinch. He doesnt like it when I run it in the garage though, as it shakes a couple walls in the kitchen. haha
He's just a 12 week old lab though
He's just a 12 week old lab though
01-01-2010, 08:33 AM
#29
Registered Member
I plan on making the LS1 guys have the same reaction
And southernboy that is correct, however in reality there is no way to bore each cylinder that much in a 302 block, so you would have 1 large cylinder on each side
But yes, it should have very good torque off idle and rev all the way to 7k. My cam specs put the peak hp rpm @ 6000, and peak tq @ 4700. I can move the peak numbers up if I go to a box style upper intake but I wanted to maintain some low end power for driving around.
I cant use the traditional valve covers because the 94/95's use a different bracket spacing for the accessories, which causes clearance problems with the alternator and large valve covers. Eventually I am going to relocate the alternator so I can have alot more options with valve covers.
Its very snappy off idle and really starts to come on the cam around 3500rpm. It is still running very rich and I have an ignition miss in the upper rpms that I have to figure out. I think I have a bad ground somewhere.
It currently has 3.55 gears (good for the old SC), but they definitely leave something to be desired N/A. I am installing 4.10's before spring, so that will help off the line and keep it in the powerband better between shifts. Its a Tremec 3550 trans, which is an older version of the TKO. It has an upgraded (26 spline) input shaft, so its good for ~ 500 lb tq which is more than enough. The driveline is good for ~ 800hp, as it has a Detroit locker rear end and custom Mark Williams driveshaft.
And southernboy that is correct, however in reality there is no way to bore each cylinder that much in a 302 block, so you would have 1 large cylinder on each side
But yes, it should have very good torque off idle and rev all the way to 7k. My cam specs put the peak hp rpm @ 6000, and peak tq @ 4700. I can move the peak numbers up if I go to a box style upper intake but I wanted to maintain some low end power for driving around.
I cant use the traditional valve covers because the 94/95's use a different bracket spacing for the accessories, which causes clearance problems with the alternator and large valve covers. Eventually I am going to relocate the alternator so I can have alot more options with valve covers.
Its very snappy off idle and really starts to come on the cam around 3500rpm. It is still running very rich and I have an ignition miss in the upper rpms that I have to figure out. I think I have a bad ground somewhere.
It currently has 3.55 gears (good for the old SC), but they definitely leave something to be desired N/A. I am installing 4.10's before spring, so that will help off the line and keep it in the powerband better between shifts. Its a Tremec 3550 trans, which is an older version of the TKO. It has an upgraded (26 spline) input shaft, so its good for ~ 500 lb tq which is more than enough. The driveline is good for ~ 800hp, as it has a Detroit locker rear end and custom Mark Williams driveshaft.
01-01-2010, 02:35 PM
#31
Registered Member
Right on brother. Always nice to have a toy on the side when you want to get crazy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGrrudH6S_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGrrudH6S_g
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Oakes
Wash & Wax
10
10-12-2015 11:17 AM
