hoopty5.0

mechanicus terribilis
Mod Dude
Dec 14, 2010
7,027
5,779
204
SW Houston
Oh, no. I’m with Scott too, aka hotfox.

Aaaaaand you can easily double the power of a factory Windsor. The 351 in my truck makes a whopping 210 fwhp. I could double that without even messing with displacement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HotFox and RaggedGT
  • Sponsors (?)


HotFox

10 Year Member
Jan 5, 2009
816
446
104
39
SE Michigan
@CarMichael Angelo
I just was trying to put some reality to where you were going. There is not many people in this hobby that go backwards on HP. We all seem to always want alittle more or alot more.

Also Dean was painting a picture and still seems to be that ITB is a power adder adding tons of HP. If you look back at the history of this thread majority were saying big numbers NA hp. I was the one of the few saying low NA hp which seems to be closer to reality, imagine that. I am still curious about the reversion piece, maybe at WOT you will see some spray on your glass cover?

Hey man if your happy and you enjoyed what you built that is all that matters. Plus props for using BMW parts as a great way to relate your work to your hobby.
 

CarMichael Angelo

I don't like your attitude, let me fix that.
SN Certified Technician
Nov 29, 1999
11,210
12,108
234
61
Birmingham, al
Oh, no. I’m with Scott too, aka hotfox.

Aaaaaand you can easily double the power of a factory Windsor. The 351 in my truck makes a whopping 210 fwhp. I could double that without even messing with displacement.
I was talking about a 5.0 if that matters.
I'd imagine if my engine wasn't 100 cubic inches smaller than a 351, and 50 smaller than a 5.0, my statement about doubling the power w/o any aftermarket head (S), or intake would have little merit.

To you [email protected] Fox with respect, you're wrong. There have been more than a few " returning it back to stock" threads that pop up here regularly, and who knows how many just disappear off the board because they got tired of the compromises they had to make just to keep 500+ HP on the road. For me, the concern that I'll put a window in the side of that block wasn't worth the thrill of putting it into boost.
 

hoopty5.0

mechanicus terribilis
Mod Dude
Dec 14, 2010
7,027
5,779
204
SW Houston
"I've done something that nobody can do with a NA Windsor.

Double the factory rated HP."

Oh boo. You should have qualified your statement originally, knowing either Iowa Nick or someone was going to call you on it.

Ok, then lets go the 5.0 route, citing @NIKwoaC as an example. He has an '86 5.0. The factory rating was 200/285. With a good set of heads, a REALLY mild cam, and nothing else really special, he put down something like 333 rwhp. call it 17% drivetrain loss, and he's at 390 fwhp, just 10 hp short of doubling the factory output. I'd bet with a little more cam and timing, he could add another 30 easily.

how can you refute that? You've got a "good" head that you made even better by porting. You've got a mild-ish cam. That's the same thing Nik did and boom. double-double.
 
Last edited:

CarMichael Angelo

I don't like your attitude, let me fix that.
SN Certified Technician
Nov 29, 1999
11,210
12,108
234
61
Birmingham, al
"I've done something that nobody can do with a NA Windsor.

Double the factory rated HP."

Oh boo. You should have qualified your statement originally, knowing either Iowa Nick or someone was going to call you on it.

Ok, then lets go the 5.0 route, citing @NIKwoaC as an example. He has an '86 5.0. The factory rating was 200/285. With a good set of heads, a REALLY mild cam, and nothing else really special, he put down something like 333 rwhp. call it 17% drivetrain loss, and he's at 390 fwhp, just 10 hp short of doubling the factory output. I'd bet with a little more cam and timing, he could add another 30 easily.

how can you refute that? You've got a "good" head that you made even better by porting. You've got a mild-ish cam. That's the same thing Nik did and boom. double-double.
meh,..Let him do that with a stock head.

Collin, you can call my head a good head if you want. The fact of the matter is that the head was made by Ford au. in 1980. And that old assed head is sitting on an engine never intended to make any more power than the 100 HP it was rated at in 1968.

And is miles behind a set of afr 205's sitting on a roller cammed v8.

He can use any stock head he wants to put on it, and port the piss out of it as well to include a Cleveland head if he wants, just use what Ford made
And see if you can make that work with a set of GT 40's
 

02 281 GT

Agreed...My wife has great Boobs
10 Year Member
Feb 3, 2009
1,666
953
164
Wichita Falls, TX
It's worth mentioning that better factory heads for a Windsor motor could also be sourced from Australia. Australia doesn't even regulate vehicle emissions. This is one of the reasons Ford AU cars used Cleveland engines for so long while they had an ever-so-short four year run here as they simply couldn't meet the CAFE standards that came into effect in 1975.

That being said, you have to admit that if (one of) your goal(s) is simply to double the factory horsepower, 100hp is an incredibly low bar to start with. You're in a much favorable position to achieve it with a Ford US 250 engine with an Aussie head than someone with a Windsor motor being restricted to stock parts. Then again, they could just run Aussie 302 Cleveland heads.
 

a91what

SendMeUrDataLog
Mod Dude
Apr 6, 2011
8,326
4,843
204
30
Hillsborough county
Splitting hairs here guys. The setup looks amazing, with a new muffler will sound amazing and it is unique.

Mike anyway to do a larger rocker arm? maybe increase the lift some?

I mean the thing will idle at 700 rpm loaded and be happy.... thats crazy for something with no runner volume... i want to see this on a dyno

where does it feel like the car runs out of steam?? what rpm?

BTW i want a copy of that tune and the datalog
 

hoopty5.0

mechanicus terribilis
Mod Dude
Dec 14, 2010
7,027
5,779
204
SW Houston
meh,..Let him do that with a stock head.

Collin, you can call my head a good head if you want. The fact of the matter is that the head was made by Ford au. in 1980. And that old assed head is sitting on an engine never intended to make any more power than the 100 HP it was rated at in 1968.

And is miles behind a set of afr 205's sitting on a roller cammed v8.

He can use any stock head he wants to put on it, and port the piss out of it as well to include a Cleveland head if he wants, just use what Ford made
And see if you can make that work with a set of GT 40's
Mike, I didn't call the head good, YOU did. You were creaming yourself in the first few pages (the quick reference post #1 was quite helpful) of the thread about how awesome the Aussie aluminum crossflow head is and "the Aussies did big things with it."

But here we are, 400 pages and 5 years later, in NA form. Today, it's just an old assed head, never destined for greatness. What changed?


I should point out, I'm not trying to argue because I'm butthurt about anything, I just dont think that the windsor comment had any merit. The car looks great, it's different and unique. I like it a lot and deserves a 10/10 for execution.
 
Last edited:

RangerJoe

I leave the horn on while driving
5 Year Member
Apr 26, 2010
2,660
1,227
174
Georgia
We do have a member on here making well over 300rwhp with e7's, granted that thing is fairly radical.

Joe
 

CarMichael Angelo

I don't like your attitude, let me fix that.
SN Certified Technician
Nov 29, 1999
11,210
12,108
234
61
Birmingham, al
Mike, I didn't call the head good, YOU did. You were creaming yourself in the first few pages (the quick reference post #1 was quite helpful) of the thread about how awesome the Aussie aluminum crossflow head is and "the Aussies did big things with it."

But here we are, 400 pages and 5 years later, in NA form. Today, it's just an old assed head, never destined for greatness. What changed?


I should point out, I'm not trying to argue because I'm butthurt about anything, I just dont think that the windsor comment had any merit. The car looks great, it's different and unique. I like it a lot and deserves a 10/10 for execution.
My point was that it was the best head I could hope for back then ( it was the only head that could be counted on for any kind of power, it was the only head that was made of aluminium, it was the hands down the BEST head I could hope for.)

But,...that still doesn't change the fact that the intake valve measures 1.7", the I port is only 1.5" in diameter, and the e valve measures 1.5", and that tiny assed little port cross section was only 1.3". The chamber is basically open, and is detonation prone.

I'm guessing 225-250 whp. Just like I was guessing 350-400 with the turbo. Whatever losses are there from the drivetrain I can't say,....
whether it's 22-25% or more is irrelevant, because I'm talking about what I feel.
If I'm close to that, then I'm happy.

The factory rating for a roller camned 5.0
Was over 205-210-ish the last time I paid attention to that. Whether that is FW, or WHP, IDK.

I still say that if somebody was hobbled by the same stock stuff that I am, then getting twice the factory rated power out of a 5.0 might be a little more of a challenge.
 

95BlueStallion

You drunk?
10 Year Member
Feb 22, 2007
5,268
2,980
214
Cedar Rapids, Iowa
@hoopty5.0 , I wasnt gonna call him out. Im saving all my argueing for my wife when my suspension parts get here.

I did think about saying something, cause thats just how @CarMichael Angelo and I roll, but I am happy for him that he is proud and happy with his creation. Let him brag a little (or a lot), as he has done something none of the rest of us would do.

Im still waiting for that exhaust video Mike. Chop chop, you have new knees after all! No excuses (except that youre in ATL).
 
  • Like
Reactions: stangboy

droopie85gt

Hookers and Beer for life!
Dec 26, 2016
820
613
123
Cordova, TN
I have an 85 GT that was 225 hp and now a piddly assed 220 cubic inch v-6 Ram that makes 305 hp. That 3.6 V6 is twin camm'd VVT. Still I don't think it a stretch that your 250 is making 300-340 fwhp. Any way you slice that pie you come up a winner! Good job!
 

xecute

Active Member
He misses the turbo. Where's Garry the Snail?

The funny part is that Ford USA directly managed Ford Austalia, and though its true that it used a large percentage of cast off parts with previous years emissions standards in lag, it also spit polished a lot of logs. I think the automatic 250 for 1979, even with a cross flow head and a single 1-bbl Bendix Stromberg Technico carb passed US 1973 emissions and made an exactly 46% loss at the rear wheeels. A not uncommon Horsepower loss for an auto in line six.

Untitled-TrueColor-02.jpg




Thats where the the rear wheel horspower can double, triple or quadruple on any domestic US or Australian I-6.


63 REAR WHEEL HP TIMES 4 IS 252 rwhp horsepower. CMA could have quadrupled his log head 250 Maverick engines rear wheel horsepower!

DOMESTIC BLITZ (Wheels March 1979, Vol 50, No.4, Page 26) had a VB Commodore, TECortina, XC Falcon, HZ Kingswood and UC Torana comparo.

The Commodore VB 3.3 gave 19.2 sec 1/4 mile

RPM_____kW_____ Nm_____RWHP_____RWLB-FT
4500____47.0_____99.6_____63.0_____73.4
4000____50.7_____121.0____68.0_____89.2
3500____48.4_____132.2____64.9_____97.5
3000____40.2_____128.1____53.9_____94.4
2500____34.3_____131.0____46.0_____96.6

71 kW[DIN Net] (95 bhp) @ 3800 rpm
213 Nm[DIN Net] (157 lb-ft) @ 2200 rpm
9.2:1, 1-bbl, 3298 cc.
GM Stasburg Trimatic, 3.08:1 diff
Tare weight 1224 Kg, or 2698 pounds. Test weight approx 3100 lb's
Average Imperal mpg was 19.5 mpg.

Power loss was a factor of 1.4

The Torana UC 3.3 gave 19.8 sec 1/4 mile

RPM_____kW_____ Nm_____RWHP_____RWLB-FT
4500____39.6_____83.8_____53.1_____61.8
4000____44.7_____106.8____59.9_____78.7
3500____42.5_____115.9____57.0_____85.5
3000____35.8_____113.9____48.0_____84.0
2500____30.6_____116.7____41.0_____86.0

88 kW[SAE Gross] (118 bhp) @ 4000 rpm
251 Nm[SAE Gross] (185 lb-ft) @ 2100 rpm
9.4:1, 1-bbl, 3298 cc.
GM Stasburg Trimatic, 3.08:1 diff
Tare weight 1200 Kg, or 2646 pounds. Test weight approx 3046 lb's
Average Imperal mpg was 16.6 mpg.

Power loss was a factor of 1.97

The Cortina TE 4.1, in bad tune gave 18.2 sec 1/4 mile

RPM_____kW_____ Nm_____RWHP_____RWLB-FT
4500____42.8_____90.6_____57.4_____66.8
4000____53.6_____127.9____71.9_____94.3
3500____57.0_____155.4____76.4_____114.6
3000____51.5_____164.1____69.1_____121.0
2500____44.0_____168.0____59.0_____123.9

92 kW[DIN Net] (123 bhp) @ 3700 rpm
288 Nm[DIN Net] (212 lb-ft) @ 2400 rpm
9.0:1, 1-bbl, 4089 cc.
BW 35 Automatic, 2.92:1 diff
Tare weight 1220 Kg, or 2689 pounds. Test weight approx 3090 lb's
Average Imperal mpg was 17.9 mpg.

Power loss was a factor of 1.61

The Kingswood HZ 3.3 gave 20.1 sec 1/4 mile

RPM_____kW_____ Nm_____RWHP_____RWLB-FT
4500____27.6_____58.5_____37.0_____43.1
4000____41.0_____97.9_____55.0_____72.2
3500____40.2_____109.8____53.9_____81.0
3000____36.5_____116.2____48.9_____85.7
2500____32.0_____122.4____42.9_____90.2

88 kW[SAE Gross] (118 bhp) @ 4000 rpm
251 Nm[SAE Gross] (185 lb-ft) @ 2100 rpm
9.4:1, 1-bbl, 3298 cc.
GM Stasburg Trimatic, 3.36:1 diff
Tare weight 1369 Kg, or 3018 pounds. Test weight approx 3420 lb's
Average Imperal mpg was 17.8 mpg.

Power loss was a factor of 2.145

The Falcon XC 4.1, in good tune, gave 18.6 sec 1/4 mile

RPM_____kW_____ Nm_____RWHP_____RWLB-FT
4500____47.0_____99.6_____63.0_____73.4
4000____58.9_____140.6____79.0_____103.7
3500____62.6_____170.8____84.0_____125.9
3000____56.6_____180.3____75.9_____132.9
2500____48.4_____185.0____64.9_____136.4

92 kW[DIN Net] (123 bhp) @ 3700 rpm
288 Nm[DIN Net] (212 lb-ft) @ 2400 rpm
9.0:1, 1-bbl, 4089 cc.
BW 35 Automatic, 2.92:1 diff
Tare weight 1540 Kg, or 3395 pounds. Test weight approx 3800 lb's
Average Imperal mpg was 18.6 mpg.
Power loss factor was 1.46.

On Page 35, the Falcon, Commodore and Holden Kingswood were retested, the same models but the Falcon was an XD this time. The variance was interesting, with the Falcon six worse performance wise than the 330 pound XC tested in March 1979.

It's interesting to note the differences.

The Falcon XC 4.1, in good tune, gave 18.6 sec 1/4 mile

RPM_____kW_____ Nm_____RWHP_____RWLB-FT
4500____47.0_____99.6_____63.0_____73.4
4000____58.9_____140.6____79.0_____103.7
3500____62.6_____170.8____84.0_____125.9
3000____56.6_____180.3____75.9_____132.9
2500____48.4_____185.0____64.9_____136.4

92 kW[DIN Net] (123 bhp) @ 3700 rpm
288 Nm[DIN Net] (212 lb-ft) @ 2400 rpm
9.0:1, 1-bbl, 4089 cc.
BW 35 Automatic, 2.92:1 diff
Tare weight 1540 Kg, or 3395 pounds. Test weight approx 3800 lb's
Average Imperal mpg was 18.6 mpg.
Power loss factor was 1.46.

The Falcon XD 4.1, in good tune but new, gave 18.6 sec 1/4 mile. The earlier June Issue showed 18.5 secs.

RPM_____kW_____ Nm_____RWHP_____RWLB-FT
4500____56.6_____112.0____75.9_____82.6
4000____61.0_____147.6____81.8_____108.8
3500____63.3_____174.9____84.9_____129.0
3000____55.8_____180.0____74.8_____132.7
2500____48.4_____187.2____64.9_____138.0

94 kW[DIN Net] (126 bhp) @ 3600 rpm
292 Nm[DIN Net] (215 lb-ft) @ 1800 rpm
9.0:1, 1-bbl, 4089 cc.
BW 35 Automatic, 2.92:1 diff
Tare weight 1390 Kg, or 3064 pounds. Test weight approx 3464 lb's
Average Imperal mpg was 17.5 mpg, but it was sateted that 21.7 was possible easily in the June issue.
Power loss factor was 1.48.
Top speed was 162 km/h, or 101 mph.
 

stangboy

Founding Member
Aug 31, 1999
4,059
526
194
42
New Orleans, LA
stangboy77.stangnet.com
Holy SHT Mike!!! I had several pages of catching up to do but I'm finally caught up! The reconfigured engine bay is what dreams are made of...to car guys/gals!! All the other upgrades are great too....especially the new gauges. The digital guages didn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. And Steve (and Dave, of course) is definition of an awesome car guy.
 

CarMichael Angelo

I don't like your attitude, let me fix that.
SN Certified Technician
Nov 29, 1999
11,210
12,108
234
61
Birmingham, al
Well, I'm going to attempt a drive of about 50 miles round trip if I get out of the dealership on time tonight.
I drove the thing to work last week, and it seems fine.
I'm a little concerned because the interstate in the middle of this city is a jug phck right now because of major construction, and the alternative routes take me through some pretty sketchy parts of the city to get to where I'd be going.
The ring gear bolts loosened on me last year and some had even fallen out and were laying in the bottom of the center section of the housing. Back then, the car always made a clank noise when I put it in reverse, or I dropped the car in 1st gear at a light.
I think it's doing that again.
When I fixed it last year, and added the girdle, I just torqued the bolts w/o any thread sealant. All other times, this procedure had always been adequate. On the monster for some reason, it ain't.
So, caution to the wind, I'm driving it. The car doesn't have 50 miles on it since the rear end fiasco of last year. Those damn bolts will have to hold me for one 50 mile rt drive.
I'll deal with it on Monday when the car goes back up on jack stands for the muffler addition.
I called Magnaflow and asked for a recommendation. Dude says I should leave the loud assed muffie in place, and put one of their oval pieces in between.
The one he recommended looks like this:
mpe-11216_oh_xl.jpg

Cost on it is 91.62
409 stainless steel straight through perforated tube w/fiberglass packing.
Then there's this:
sum-633000_at_xl.jpg

409 stainless steel, Straight through perforated tube surrounded by fiberglass packing...
35 bucks.

Now I know,...I'm on record for stating that the high road is a road of no regrets.....and more often than not, the low road is full of ruts and potholes,......but it's a freakin muffler.

How much different could it possibly be?
 

droopie85gt

Hookers and Beer for life!
Dec 26, 2016
820
613
123
Cordova, TN
I would say it is in longevity. And since it's not your daily driver, that almost $60 saved can go towards some fuel in the Monster's belly. I think it should do the trick. My new V-6 Ram has a giant beer keg sized muffler under the back seat and then a small muffler looking resonator on the tail pipe and it's super quiet. I've heard audio clips of different exhausts on it and they all are super loud without that resonator.
 

Similar threads