Realistic Hp/tq Expectations...

Discussion in '1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-' started by CT Grim, Sep 18, 2013.

  1. Please don't flame my combo. This is what I have and what I could afford. I know there are many criticisms to be made, but I chose these items for specific factor, nostalgia, price, etc.

    Here is my setup...

    Stock 302 block with 135K, ..honed, new rings and bearings. Journals and tolerances spot on.
    E-cam, new timing set
    electric fan, SVE alum rad
    AFR 165's (58cc) w/1.7 Crower stainless rockers
    JBA shorties with BBK catless X, Dynomax muffs
    GT40 intake, 70mm TB, 75mm Pro M, BBK CAI, 24lb injectors
    stock WC T5
    Alum driveshaft, 3.73's

    What are my realistic HP/TQ #'s at the flywheel, and to the ground?
    If I left out any important details, let me know... Thanks!

  2. Guesstimate 280-300 rwhp and 320-330rwtq
  3. While I don't like to speculate on Hp number I will say that you seem to have a well thought out combo that should make great power and be a blast to drive on the street!
  4. Jeff, nothing really wrong with the combo, although not a fan of alphabet cams. It seems like a nice, streetable, reliable combo that should be fun to drive. If I had to guess you are probably in the range of 270-280 rwhp and 320 ish rwtq.
  5. I have a similar combo, but ported cobra/lower, race ported gt40p heads milled .30 with and Ecam. You can can only do so much with an Ecam but using it as a DD is Awesome. I drive the car so much now. They would be similar to my numbers for sure.
  6. Awesome info..thanks for the replies!
    I was hoping for 300/300 to the ground in my DD. :)
  7. If you want 300, you're going to have to address the weak links, but it won't be very cost effective.

    - E-cam with a custom or better matched cam. This would probably be worth more power than any other upgrade, but should also come after any intake/exhaust upgrades.
    - GT40 intake needs a ported lower, or more preferably an upgrade to an Edelbrock RPM or holley systemax series intakes
    - Shorties ==> Long-tubes of 1 5/8" and at least 2.5" collectors, but preferably 3"
    - A 75mm throttle body wouldn't hurt on those intakes, and a lightning MAF would probably be worth a couple of ponies together, too.

    It's really fun to speculate on, but I don't mean to demean your combo. In fact, if I had your car right now, I actually wouldn't touch a thing except the wheel, the pedals, and the shifter! :nice:
  8. You've actually picked out some very good quality parts there. I wouldn't laugh at that combo at all. Even if they don't give you the absolute max power, they are going to be very reliable and fit well, which saves you money. I think the estimates above are very attainable. If anything the E cam is the weak link. There have been quite a few people that have done well with that cam though. If I were to recommend any changes it would be to find a better camshaft. If it's not in the budget though, that's understandable, and you will do fine with the e cam. I disagree with FastRunner on the lower. The AFR 165 is a small port head, and porting the lower would only decrease the velocity going into the head. I think you are better off leaving it alone. If anything, getting it smoothed out a little might help. However, it probably wouldn't change the performance enough to be worth the cost.

    I actually disagree with him on a lot of things. I love longtubes, and I always recommend them. However, with a small port head it really isn't cost effective to go with a high rpm longtube header. I think the JBAs will be fine. If money were not a consideration, I would go with the longtubes, but with that combo I don't think it will make that big of a difference. I also don't agree on the Lightning MAF. They are a little slow to respond, and you are better off with an aftermarket unit. The Pro-M you picked out is a much better unit. It responds faster and doesn't peak out like a Lightning MAF. 75mm will flow way more than that engine is going to suck in anyway. No need to go bigger.

    Don't get bent around the axle chasing a peak power number. I think that combo is going to have a nice even power curve, lots of low end torque, and you are really going to enjoy driving it. I'd take a car with 250rwhp that jumps out of the hole and lays down a nice 12 second quarter mile than a car with 300rwhp that has to rev into the red to get moving and can't get a low 13 any day of weak.

    #9 revhead347, Sep 18, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2013
    89stang1 and Rick 91GT like this.
  9. That is my goal..a nice, flat torque curve. I always wanted a true GT40 intake...just love the look of the upper, and the runner velocity for torque was bonus.
    Thanks to all for responding!
  10. The GT-40 is an excellent intake design. You won't be disappointed. I like the way they look too.

  11. This is my Ecam flat torque curve, It's so much fun on the streets. But like ^^^^ they said if we had a better cam the hps would certainly go up but the torque curve would change. I only have 1.6 rr on this as well so I'm not even breaking .500 lift, no doubt the cam is holding it back and 300hp is doable. Believe you said you're doing 1.7 rr so that's a bonus though.

    #12 Grabbin' Asphalt, Sep 19, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2013
  12. You disagree with Ed Curtis, too. He ported my lower Cobra. No before/after comparison dynos, though. The Cobra/GT40/explorer is a restriction on heads that flow that well. It's not about intake velocity. It's about port velocity, which happens in the head. The intake's long runners provide the wave resonance benefit, not the runner cross sectional area.

    Here again you are in disagreement with Ed Curtis who had me replace mac shorties with long-tubes. A great many comparisons also show long-runners pick up power in the low-mid range in comparison to shorties.
    I mentioned too that I'd drive it as is.

    Cool. I had a 75mm bullet on mine. I think this is a fine MAF, too. Can you tell me how a lightning responds slowly? Can you tell me how much air flow it takes to peak a lightning MAF? How bout a 75mm MAF? I don't know the numbers, but I'm curious.

    Anyway, the point of my recommendation was in reference to swapping to a higher flowing intake with a much larger inlet. Cobra/GT40 intakes have 68mm inlets if memory serves. A 70mm TB with an inlet port is optimal, but a 65mm is right for stock. A 75mm TB on the other intakes listed is right, but I believe in having a larger MAF than TB. A 75mm TB is fine for a 331 or a 347, but I can still show documention that a 90mm works better. Worth the difference in price? Not to me, but only the user can decide.

    i.e. you'll take a care that has addressed traction, gearing, and weight over the car that was only focused on engine mods. Chances are a 300rwhp 302 is going to make considerably more mid-range torque than a 250rwhp 302. Remember, stock block 302s are RPM limited. No matter what you do, main caps are going to start walking around over about 7k RPM. Usually, you're much better off just keeping it to 6500 RPM and lower. If you can find a strong 250 rwhp, I'll try to dig up my old AFR 165 combo for comparison.

    In any case, the point is moot. The long runner intake small headed combo is not suited to high revving, and should be cammed appropriately.
    #13 FastDriver, Sep 19, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2013
  13. If I disagree with Ed Curtis then I disagree with Ed Curtis. I'm not afraid of disagreeing.

  14. Maybe you took that comment the wrong way. I didn't imply you would be afraid or that you are automatically wrong. Ed's a well respected guy who has a vast amount of knowledge and experience. I think citing the source for my reasoning is perfectly appropriate. Ed's recommendations and opinions should be more relevant to someone than either of our opinions.

    I think you're going to find the results of this article surprising:

    Here's another article that supports your argument:

    It appears there's more than meets the eye. Maybe this has something to do with valve timing/cam selection. Still, from a performance standpoint, I think the long-tubes are going to result in a better ET.
    #15 FastDriver, Sep 19, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2013
  15. I know a few people on this website that use FTI stuff, but that's the limit of my experience with his stuff. I'm familiar with his business, but nobody I know has ever purchased from him. I know he's popular in the Northeast, but this is a different region, and no one down here uses him.

    I still contend that there will be a nominal difference in performance between putting the intake on unfinished and having it ported or smoothed.

  16. Here's some good stuff on AFR heads & intakes:



    Now, doing the conservative beer math AFR 165 heads at 500 lift flow ~240 cfm and the stock Cobra limits the flow to 210 CFM. Then a ported cobra ought to pick up at least 30 cfm. Tom's 1.5cfm:1hp rule of thumb would lead to an expectation of 20 more hp. So, is that gain worth $250 + disassembly/reassembly time & money?

    I wish I could find the dyno TMOSS referred to in the first quote.
    #17 FastDriver, Sep 19, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2013
  17. 285/320
  18. You're not going to see any difference between a 302 and a 347 with a 165cc head. Slightly different peak point on the power curve, and maybe 2hp.

  19. To what are you referring, Kurt? If to my comments before editing, I had the head flow for the AFR165s confused with the 185s and wasn't able to believe a 302 could pick up 30-40hp from an intake port job, but it actually might if AFR185s are on the motor instead of the 165s.