nmcgrawj
Advanced Member
Well we all use the same driveshaft....so that tells me the point at which the transmission ends is the same point on both cars. I dont see the angles between the tranny and rear being different.
Max Power From a N/A Engine
- Thread starter j_lutter31
- Start date
Well we all use the same driveshaft....so that tells me the point at which the transmission ends is the same point on both cars. I dont see the angles between the tranny and rear being different.
-
Sponsors (?)
Well we all use the same driveshaft....so that tells me the point at which the transmission ends is the same point on both cars. I dont see the angles between the tranny and rear being different.
So you are saying the driveshaft, wheelbase and tragectory are exactly the same btwn the fox and 94/95 stangs?
nmcgrawj
Advanced Member
well that stuff isn't the same from car to car. Suspension height changes things doesn't it?
The wheel base is longer due to the longer input shaft. Does the driveshaft go into the trans the same distance on each car?
I don't see the difference making a dramatic difference. Simple chnages in wheel/tire height changes the height of the rear end...which changes the driveshaft angle. Which unless its a BIG difference...it doesn't matter
The wheel base is longer due to the longer input shaft. Does the driveshaft go into the trans the same distance on each car?
I don't see the difference making a dramatic difference. Simple chnages in wheel/tire height changes the height of the rear end...which changes the driveshaft angle. Which unless its a BIG difference...it doesn't matter
TrueBlue95GT
Member
The input shaft on the foxes is a shorter length than the SN95, the Fox uses a smaller Alternator, and the power steering pump is different. Those are the major differences that could affect the power output that I can think of that haven't already been mentioned.
I can't remember for certain, but the bigger and heavier standard wheels and tires on the SN95 and heavier rear disk brakes may make a difference in how horsepower is translated to the rear wheels as well?
StinkinLincoln
Member
some one, i think grn92lx mentioned about a certain 302 that ran a 11.19.
no i did not include that link, for a reason, that imo would be streetable to some, but to most, no.
that "project" was just to prove a point as to what gt40 junk can do... he said if he used other stuff, it would be an easy 10sec car.
no i did not include that link, for a reason, that imo would be streetable to some, but to most, no.
that "project" was just to prove a point as to what gt40 junk can do... he said if he used other stuff, it would be an easy 10sec car.
My point was that it was not just a 302 with some stock GT-40 heads on it, like many believe.
Have you seen how fast some of the pro guys go with stock E7 heads?
5spd GT said:
There is no denying that "normal' parts to be made to perform in abnormal ways when a lot of sacrifices are made, but the OP isn't looking for such cars. Here's an example of what a combo set on kill can do with an E7 head... but it has no relevance to this discussion as its a purpose built race car.
1st 10sec N/A E7 Car! - Corral Forums
Black Stampede
Founding Member
I've been messing with 94-95's for almost 12 years; I do a lot of research and I've yet to find them, but this thread will make you think that it is normal.
I completely agree. The fact is this thread is stupid. The original poster is not some loaded drag racer who wants some amazing all motor hercules. Seriously what is wrong with you people? Some of you guys have been on here for years and years and we all know FULL WELL that 90% of the 302 h/c/i setups people install produce between 290 and 310 at the wheels. It's just the way it is. Instead we have a 2 going on 3 page rant of people freaking out over what is streetable and what isn't. So go make a thread called streetable vs. unstreetable.
Until then, to the OP, max power out of a REASONABLE 302 like you seem to want to build (being in college not a ton of money) is going to realistically be around 310.
Rant over.
Oh, and if the OP does want some outrageous 8,000 rpm revver then my bad.
I only have two things to say here......
Displacement
Then turbo
I agree with Paul 100% in this thread...
Which is why I have a vortech at the moment, and eventually a turbo'd 427 with a small cam
1.2-1.3 horsepower per liter N/A is about all you can possibly get in a MILD MANNERED street setup..... If you want more overall power, stroke it...
It's no fun having a Daily Driver that has worse manners than Ricky Bobby's kids...
Displacement
Then turbo
I agree with Paul 100% in this thread...
Which is why I have a vortech at the moment, and eventually a turbo'd 427 with a small cam
1.2-1.3 horsepower per liter N/A is about all you can possibly get in a MILD MANNERED street setup..... If you want more overall power, stroke it...
It's no fun having a Daily Driver that has worse manners than Ricky Bobby's kids...
This is a good discussion although getting a bit side-tracked. Just keep in mind my experience. I used to own a 5.7 liter LT1 Z28. It had a factory 275HP/325TQ rating without mods. HA! You say. I can beat that easily with my H/C/I. Yep, that's what I said too. 
ALL HP IS NOT EQUAL.
When I beefed my stang up to roughly 350 crank HP I expected it to feel exponentially more powerful than the Z. I did NOT. This was a let down. HOW could this be possible!!?? Sure it made great power, but ...
The reason? The Z was putting out 325 TQ to the crank @ 2000 RPM stock. The mustang wasn't anywhere near that and after adding the H/C/I it only moved the power-band HIGHER in the RPM. So at normal everyday driving conditions, the car felt real slow.
Unless you drive around between 4000-6000 RPM all the time, there is no replacement for displacement with an NA car. So just make sure you are not setting yourself up for disappointment. If peeps want to brag about their small engine putting out 400HP let them. And then laugh at them when they have to drive around at 4000RPM all day to get the same power you have at 1500 RPM with a larger displacement engine.
Of course if that's what floats yer boat then go for it!
It's all about what YOU like in a car. :SNSign:
p.s. The gears helped but with the stang but in my case the Z already had good gears and I beefed it up a little (go figure). So it was like going from a g-friend with big boobs to smaller boobs...its just never the same.
ALL HP IS NOT EQUAL.
When I beefed my stang up to roughly 350 crank HP I expected it to feel exponentially more powerful than the Z. I did NOT. This was a let down. HOW could this be possible!!?? Sure it made great power, but ... The reason? The Z was putting out 325 TQ to the crank @ 2000 RPM stock. The mustang wasn't anywhere near that and after adding the H/C/I it only moved the power-band HIGHER in the RPM. So at normal everyday driving conditions, the car felt real slow.
Unless you drive around between 4000-6000 RPM all the time, there is no replacement for displacement with an NA car.
So just make sure you are not setting yourself up for disappointment. If peeps want to brag about their small engine putting out 400HP let them. And then laugh at them when they have to drive around at 4000RPM all day to get the same power you have at 1500 RPM with a larger displacement engine. Of course if that's what floats yer boat then go for it!
It's all about what YOU like in a car. :SNSign:p.s. The gears helped but with the stang but in my case the Z already had good gears and I beefed it up a little (go figure). So it was like going from a g-friend with big boobs to smaller boobs...its just never the same.
