302 RWHP and 322 ftlbs of torque :-)

[Bullitt95]

I can't link to a corral thread, but there is one there that reminded me of this discussion.

Here it is:

http://forums.corral.net/forums/5-0-5-8-engine-tech/1410913-d0oe-351w-ported-heads-running-11s.html

 

[ratio411]

Here it is:

http://forums.corral.net/forums/5-0-5-8-engine-tech/1410913-d0oe-351w-ported-heads-running-11s.html

How did you get it posted?
Everytime I try to link Stangnet to another board it blocks me.

 

[Gearbanger 101]

Yup, he's moving....but then those heads were mounted on a high compression 358W and not on a 289/302 like was your original point of contention? And with a flat tappet 241/[email protected] .554/.576 spec'd bump stick, C4 backed with a 3,800 stall converter and 4.30 gears....I wouldn't consider it very "nice" to drive around on the street either, which was my previous point.

Not trying to take anything away from the guy. It does prove that one can go fast on "junk" heads....but without the additional cubes, and wild drive train, the results wouldn't have been near as dramatic.

 

[Bullitt95]

How did you get it posted?
Everytime I try to link Stangnet to another board it blocks me.

I'm a magician.

 

[ratio411]

Yup, he's moving....but then those heads were mounted on a high compression 358W and not on a 289/302 like was your original point of contention? And with a flat tappet 241/[email protected] .554/.576 spec'd bump stick, C4 backed with a 3,800 stall converter and 4.30 gears....I wouldn't consider it very "nice" to drive around on the street either, which was my previous point.

Not trying to take anything away from the guy. It does prove that one can go fast on "junk" heads....but without the additional cubes, and wild drive train, the results wouldn't have been near as dramatic.

My point on the heads being on a 351w is only bolstered because if they can support that engine, they can support a 302 even better.
Make sense? We are only talking 1.94/1.60 valves here, supporting 358 cubic inches, and you know it's screaming with those gears behind a C4.
They are more than enough head for a healthy, mild, street 302.
Sure you won't go 10s, but it will be FAST without high dollar heads.

 

[Tramage]

finally snapped a pic of the dyno run

 

[65ShelbyClone]

The AFR looks good and it's stable, so at least the big carb is doing its job.

I'm a magician.

 

[ratio411]

The AFR looks good and it's stable, so at least the big carb is doing its job.

I does look really nice except for the initial tip in.
Looks like it needs a smaller squirter, and if the pump cam is not maxed out, more duration.
That high spot upon tip in is too much fuel from the squirter at that instant, then it runs down for a moment before the main circuit kicks in. Too much squirter, not enough duration. Duration is extended with a smaller squirter, which will lower the initial rich spot, and raise some of the lean spot. But I suspect more cam or pump volume is needed.

Edit:
I checked to see what carb he has, and with a DP, I wouldn't think you'd have to mess with the pump cams. They should be 330 cams, set in position 1, hole 1, and that should be plenty. I would focus on squirter size, mainly on the rear pump circuit, and I would also check the pump arm clearance in the rear circuit first. It might be a little loose. Since they stabbed the gas near 3k rpm, and it hit a bit rich, the front circuit may have had some residual fuel, meaning it's possible the front squirter could step up a bit in size, but until the rear circuit is tuned, that's just a guess. At 3k rpm, the front circuit should be spent, and the front main system should be all in, at least I would think....

 

[Bullitt95]

finally snapped a pic of the dyno run

With peak HP at 5500rpm, peak TQ at 4300rpm, and the 302HP/322TQ numbers at STD correction (SAE would be 290/310), I suspect even more that your engine is actually a 308 with the stock crank and not a 349.

 

[ratio411]

I am surprised you still list the heads as having 2.02" valves in your sig.
2.02" valves don't fit stock 289 heads. 1.94" valves are a squeeze.

 

[Tramage]

I am surprised you still list the heads as having 2.02" valves in your sig.
2.02" valves don't fit stock 289 heads. 1.94" valves are a squeeze.

Thanks for the heads up, I thought I had changed it lol

 

[Tramage]

I does look really nice except for the initial tip in.
Looks like it needs a smaller squirter, and if the pump cam is not maxed out, more duration.
That high spot upon tip in is too much fuel from the squirter at that instant, then it runs down for a moment before the main circuit kicks in. Too much squirter, not enough duration. Duration is extended with a smaller squirter, which will lower the initial rich spot, and raise some of the lean spot. But I suspect more cam or pump volume is needed.

Edit:
I checked to see what carb he has, and with a DP, I wouldn't think you'd have to mess with the pump cams. They should be 330 cams, set in position 1, hole 1, and that should be plenty. I would focus on squirter size, mainly on the rear pump circuit, and I would also check the pump arm clearance in the rear circuit first. It might be a little loose. Since they stabbed the gas near 3k rpm, and it hit a bit rich, the front circuit may have had some residual fuel, meaning it's possible the front squirter could step up a bit in size, but until the rear circuit is tuned, that's just a guess. At 3k rpm, the front circuit should be spent, and the front main system should be all in, at least I would think....

Wow very informative, thank you very much for the insight and once the weather gets nicer i'll definitly start messing with carb