Ford Mustang Forum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
ok ready to ditch my gt40 set up ,even tho its done well for me

so is it possible to make a 350rwhp on a stock 302 short-block naturally-aspired fuel injected what h/c/i would do it for me

and yes i already have the little stuff (full exhaust,75mm throttle body,shorty headers,eletric fan,1.6 roller rockers,mass air meter ,fuel injectors to match,and dyno tune)

remember this is my daily driver to school ,cant use longtubes because im in California
b.t.w. in the future 3-6 month ill be doing a 347/331 stroker
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,166 Posts
You could do tfs top end kit but Id say even for a 331 you would need new HCI.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,166 Posts
Just depends on the build. I would probably use a custom cam due to CA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
With more displacement you'll be burning more air and fuel, making more heat, and making more emissions, which they will compare to what your car's 302 should make. Just because it says it's emissions legal does not mean it will actually pass emissions testing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
i was going to tell whoever grinds my cam it has to smog in cali

wouldn't you think a new engine vs my 160k mile 302 would burn cleaner even with 47 more cubes

if not i guess 331
 
G

·
you could always get your setup ready to drop in then take then take the car and do what it takes to pass smog and then yank the motor out and drop in your new setup. I have never had to deal with emissions so I am ignorant to the ins and outs but I would think its been done thousands of times.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,138 Posts
I would wait till you stroke it to start purchasing parts for it. Start saving cause building a good stroker will set you back some trust me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
350RWHP is going to be 450+HP @ the flywheel. A stroker is going to be the best way to go. The cubic inches will help you get the power. CA emission compliant is the tricky part....most builders if not all will not guarantee it to be emission friendly Unless they paid the big $ to get it tested and certified which last I heard was upwards of 500k per engine design....A few big companies got in major trouble with this because they were not C.A.R.B proved/compliant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
I built a 302 for a 70 Bronco in CA that dyno'd at 368 hp at the rear wheels using a single 600 cfm Holley 4170 carb, so it's doable.

We used the stock '70 block that was bored .040 over, which is that absolute max for a 302 because of the miles on it.

I port matched the heads and cut them for 1.90 int and 1.60 ext valves and milled for adj valvetrain.

Crank was stock and used forged pistons that ended up giving me a .000 deck height that brought the comp to 10:1.

Went with a Performer RPM cam and manifold for the RPM's of Off-Road and gears.

Changed from stock to MSD ignition. Had everything balanced up to 9k rpm.

Man did it run sweet. Not a twitch at idle. Little more compression than I wanted but it ended up being worth it. lol Just giving you an idea what can be done today since parts and technology have improved alot since 1995.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
I built a 302 for a 70 Bronco in CA that dyno'd at 368 hp at the rear wheels using a single 600 cfm Holley 4170 carb, so it's doable.

We used the stock '70 block that was bored .040 over, which is that absolute max for a 302 because of the miles on it.

I port matched the heads and cut them for 1.90 int and 1.60 ext valves and milled for adj valvetrain.

Crank was stock and used forged pistons that ended up giving me a .000 deck height that brought the comp to 10:1.

Went with a Performer RPM cam and manifold for the RPM's of Off-Road and gears.

Changed from stock to MSD ignition. Had everything balanced up to 9k rpm.

Man did it run sweet. Not a twitch at idle. Little more compression than I wanted but it ended up being worth it. lol Just giving you an idea what can be done today since parts and technology have improved alot since 1995.
I would have to see dyno sheets and a buildsheet of parts to believe this. Your telling me you used a 600cfm carb on a [email protected] flywheel engine!!!??? NO WAY MAN.

on a 408 stroker Edel perf RPM heads w/big valves, 10.1, 235/248 @ 50 573/582 lift cam, 750 double pumper were making 480HP @ flywheel! Your numbers I are highly exaggerated :nogrinner
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,756 Posts
I would have to see dyno sheets and a buildsheet of parts to believe this. Your telling me you used a 600cfm carb on a [email protected] flywheel engine!!!??? NO WAY MAN.
368rwhp = 423 flywheel HP in front of a T5. Certainly possible from a 302 but peak HP would have to be at 6500+rpm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,166 Posts
I would have to see dyno sheets and a buildsheet of parts to believe this. Your telling me you used a 600cfm carb on a [email protected] flywheel engine!!!??? NO WAY MAN.

on a 408 stroker Edel perf RPM heads w/big valves, 10.1, 235/248 @ 50 573/582 lift cam, 750 double pumper were making 480HP @ flywheel! Your numbers I are highly exaggerated :nogrinner
If you think 368 at the wheels is 500 crank hp then you wouldnt be able to read the dyno sheet if it was drawn in crayon. Although 420 hp on a 308 with what sounds like gt40 or e7 heads and 600cfm carb is not believable either.

Back to OP a 347 can be emission legal if it is not a hog (giant heads big monster cam) and has a good (ie. custom) cam. But like stated not sure how to tell if its gonna pass. I would be looking for someone in CA with a 347 that passes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
368rwhp = 423 flywheel HP in front of a T5. Certainly possible from a 302 but peak HP would have to be at 6500+rpm.
There are so many variables to just toss out that number. I have seen 14-19 % with manuals and anywhere from 17-30% with autos. Even 423Hp with the parts noted I would question. Edel perf cams are pretty weak (no specs listed). Even with that 423HP you state...really...a 600cfm carb...starving it big time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,138 Posts
Yeah but still a little high if you ask me for a 302 in a bronco. Not that I am saying it's not possible but I don't believe it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,756 Posts
There are so many variables to just toss out that number. I have seen 14-19 % with manuals and anywhere from 17-30% with autos.
Agree but the T5 is pretty efficient and the drivetrain loss, from several stock dyno sheets that I've seen, is 13-14%.

Even 423Hp with the parts noted I would question. Edel perf cams are pretty weak (no specs listed).
I wasn't referring to that combo in particular as far as getting 368rwhp from a 302 is concerned but since you mentioned it, I also think it's questionable.

Even with that 423HP you state...really...a 600cfm carb...starving it big time.
Surely not on a 302. A 600cfm carb should breathe well up to ~7000rpm with that displacement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
so with out stroking im limited to around 320 to the wheel

so might try a 347 and shoot for 375+

what h/c/i would reach at least 375 to the wheels on a 347 and what compression
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top