Supporting Mods and Weight Loss - Ford Mustang Forum
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By 90lxwhite
  • 1 Post By Grimbrand
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 7 (permalink) Old 11-02-2018 Thread Starter
SHELBY GT 350 Member
 
90lxwhite's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,756
           
I was web surfing due to boredom and I stumbled onto this dude’s YouTube channel. He has a Honda s2000 that he does mods to. Then he will test and break down the before and after data mathematically.
On this particular episode he adds a cat-back exhaust. He says that it is made out of titanium and is 35 lbs lighter than the oem piece. He then tests it on a dyno and also does some rolling starts to 60 mph to test elapsed time. Well,the results were lack luster, especially since he said the cat-back was $2,500. It gained 2 horsepower and his elapsed time was reduce by a handful of hundredths of a second. Now, I figured the dyno wouldn’t show much gain, but I thought the 35 lb weight reduction might have helped more than it did. Especially since the car is light to begin with (I assume). If it were a greyhound bus and he removed 35 lbs, I would’ve expected less or no gain. Y’all know what I mean?
So what is the take away from this? A, you have to remove a butt-ton of weight to make a difference. So removing the smog pump, dog bone” on the rear diff, as well as other creature comforts on our mustang’s is a bit ridiculous. Especially if it’s a street car. Everyone is looking for cheap speed, but there’s really not enough items that can be removed to where it makes a noticeable difference. If your car runs an 9.0 1/4 mile and you are trying for an 8.99, then I guess an a/c delete in the name of weight savings might be worth it. But not so much if you run a 14.2. No need being sweaty and slow.
Take away B: Supporting mods are just that. If the motor is pumping in and out the most air that it can, adding larger and less restrictive piping before and after the motor isn’t going to help much if any. I’d be willing to bet that the majority of our mustangs motors aren’t capable of flowing enough air to where the throttle body and mid pipe becomes a restriction.
Spend wisely and don’t remove stuff that’ll turn off and future buyer in the name of weight savings. “It doesn’t have a/c and it won’t pass smog, but it’s twenty pounds lighter.” I’ve thought about an aftermarket K member but I don’t think the bang for the buck is there. Not for my wallet anyway.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FC-WuvZvVrQ

Grimbrand likes this.

Last edited by 90lxwhite; 11-06-2018 at 12:50 AM.
90lxwhite is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 7 (permalink) Old 11-05-2018
Apprentice
 
Astangthang2's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2018
Posts: 199
 
I was just wondering 90, and I'm sure they make an aluminum block for the 5.0, but what's the cost? That's one thing the 4.6 has cheaper and more abundance of.

Astangthang2 is offline  
post #3 of 7 (permalink) Old 11-05-2018 Thread Starter
SHELBY GT 350 Member
 
90lxwhite's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,756
           
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astangthang2 View Post
I was just wondering 90, and I'm sure they make an aluminum block for the 5.0, but what's the cost? That's one thing the 4.6 has cheaper and more abundance of.
Dart makes some, and there’s probably more aftermarket co’s that do. As for the price, they cost more than a lot of used 5.0/4.6 mustangs.
https://www.summitracing.com/search/...type/302-mains
There aren’t any OEM Windsor 302’s that I’m aware of. I’ve never had mine on a scale but curb weight is listed as 3354 for a ‘95 GT. Not super mega heavy but not exactly a fly-weight either. When the seats were being reupholstered I rode around without the backseat for a little while. It didn’t feel any faster.
90lxwhite is online now  
 
post #4 of 7 (permalink) Old 11-06-2018
BOSS Member
4.6L Member
 
JonR2006's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 4,990
             
Garage
I like EE's channel. He has a lot of good information. I do take what he says with a grain of salt. He is very smart but he is not focused on racing. He wants a drivers car that handles well and is comfortable to drive.

Matthew 26:52-54 / Go Pack Go!

1987 Mustang GT Hatchback - 2V Mod Swap In The Works

1997 Lincoln Town Car, PI Intake/Cams, Sofa-On-Wheels, "Fat Tony" we call it

2001 GT Convertible - D1SC / Geared / Cammed / 440wh 400wt - TOTALED 2/2019
JonR2006 is offline  
post #5 of 7 (permalink) Old 11-06-2018
BOSS Member
4.6L Member
 
JonR2006's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2012
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 4,990
             
Garage
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90lxwhite View Post
Dart makes some, and thereís probably more aftermarket coís that do. As for the price, they cost more than a lot of used 5.0/4.6 mustangs.
https://www.summitracing.com/search/...type/302-mains
There arenít any OEM Windsor 302ís that Iím aware of. Iíve never had mine on a scale but curb weight is listed as 3354 for a Ď95 GT. Not super mega heavy but not exactly a fly-weight either. When the seats were being reupholstered I rode around without the backseat for a little while. It didnít feel any faster.
Upgrade to a 351 when the time comes. Those blocks are much stronger. Heads will work but wonder if you would need a new intake...I'm not as familiar with what can be mixed and matched on the older pushrods.

I had a chance of going pushrod 351 in my car and I should have done it. It was my DD at the time and it was easier to keep the mod motor. I kind of regret it...My dad has now sold both of his extra blocks so I'm definitely not going pushrod now...

Matthew 26:52-54 / Go Pack Go!

1987 Mustang GT Hatchback - 2V Mod Swap In The Works

1997 Lincoln Town Car, PI Intake/Cams, Sofa-On-Wheels, "Fat Tony" we call it

2001 GT Convertible - D1SC / Geared / Cammed / 440wh 400wt - TOTALED 2/2019
JonR2006 is offline  
post #6 of 7 (permalink) Old 11-06-2018
GT Member
Classic Member
5.0L Member
 
Grimbrand's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2016
Location: Sedgwick
Posts: 2,106
 
Garage
Send a message via Skype™ to Grimbrand
The 289/302 smallblocks are amazing, given their physical size and weight, if you put good heads/cam/intake with them. Their only real limitation is block strength, once you take them around 500 horses, but if you go with an aftermarket block, that's not a problem either.

The 351, despite being heavier and a bit larger, holds even more potential. You can go well over 427 cubic inches with them, and it's pretty common to see them over 500 horsepower with the right supporting stuff.

Mod motors? Well, they're tough. I'll give 'em that. Weight-wise, they're comparable to a 351. But ye gods, they're absolutely massive! Despite their smallish displacement, they're wider than a 429!

Even if you wanted a drag car and don't care about handling, and your'e willing to carve out your shock towers, why not actually use a 460 (or bigger!) pushrod motor anyway? With those new John Kaase heads, you can even make it a Boss. If you don't care about mileage, there's not much limit to the power output on those things.

For any of the early cars that came with pushrod stuff, I have to say it makes more sense to stay pushrod, if you want to work on your own car. The fitment issues, and crummy Mustang II style front suspension you have to put in to use a mod motor doesn't make much sense to me.

My dream motor would be a 347 big-bore (4.125" bore, 3.25" stroke) aluminum block, with AFR heads, individual runner fuel injection and a mild cam. It'd be a blast on the track, but you could drive it anywhere, if you were able to keep your foot out of it. Pound for pound, it would be hard to find any other naturally aspirated engine that comes close.
Beechkid likes this.

I smile a lot. It makes people wonder what I'm up to...
Grimbrand is offline  
post #7 of 7 (permalink) Old 11-06-2018 Thread Starter
SHELBY GT 350 Member
 
90lxwhite's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 5,756
           
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonR2006 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by 90lxwhite View Post
Dart makes some, and there’s probably more aftermarket co’s that do. As for the price, they cost more than a lot of used 5.0/4.6 mustangs.
https://www.summitracing.com/search/...type/302-mains
There aren’t any OEM Windsor 302’s that I’m aware of. I’ve never had mine on a scale but curb weight is listed as 3354 for a ‘95 GT. Not super mega heavy but not exactly a fly-weight either. When the seats were being reupholstered I rode around without the backseat for a little while. It didn’t feel any faster.
Upgrade to a 351 when the time comes. Those blocks are much stronger. Heads will work but wonder if you would need a new intake...I'm not as familiar with what can be mixed and matched on the older pushrods.

I had a chance of going pushrod 351 in my car and I should have done it. It was my DD at the time and it was easier to keep the mod motor. I kind of regret it...My dad has now sold both of his extra blocks so I'm definitely not going pushrod now...
A new intake (because it’s wider) and I believe headers are needed to do a 351. Pound for pound the 302 is better unless you bore and stroke the 351 to get some big cubes.
I don’t think the bang for buck would be there if one just used a set of trick flow 170s’s or the likes on a 351. They’re heavy, and I don’t think the extra 49 cubes alone will get you all that much. It’s all about the top end combination I guess.
I’ve seen guys choke down a 331 or 347 with gt40 Ford Explorer heads and make less or the same as my stock headed 306 with a blower.
PS: The E7TE heads are terrible. Which are the stock 302 Mustang heads (non Cobra) from ‘87-‘95. Man, they had a long run with those turds.

Last edited by 90lxwhite; 11-06-2018 at 10:36 PM.
90lxwhite is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1