Ford Mustang Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello guys/gals,
I am in the process of planning my new combo. I hope to obtain 400+rwhp. I hope to make peak power under 6500rpm and the engine will be carb'd. I am not to worried about "drive ability" as the car is very rarely driven on the street. I do want reliability. I figure the easiest route will be a 347 stroker. I want to stay with a hydro/roller cam and have it run on pump gas. The engine will be balanced.
I currently have ported TW heads. I will probably send them back to Fox-Lake and have a stage 2 port job done or send them to Neil Erickson for some port work.

Here is my current thoughts on my combo...
stockblock-.030 overbore
probe 347 kit, forged crank and rods, flat top pistons
compression ratio = around 10.5 to 1, maybe 11 to 1 if needed
custom cam from a cam guru
TW heads 300/220 @ .600
1 3/4 longtubes
off road x-pipe
Holley 750 DP carb
Victor jr or RPM intake, port matched to heads

What should I cange or add? Will this get me to the 400 rwhp mark?
Thanks...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
682 Posts
You should be over the 400rwhp mark with that combo.

The deal that really breaks you free is the vic jr intake and the carb.

Get a custom carb.

Have the intake ported and flowed with the heads. Run the 11:1.

A good LT such as Bassani is going to be worth some power over a bad one such as BBK.

Have the heads that do near 300CFM @.500", and near 260CFM @.400" on the intake side.

I don't see why 450rwhp with tuning should be out of grasp.

A good 400rwhp can be made by 5500, and a good 50 more should be had before 1000 more RPM.

Keep the hydro's under 6800 RPM. Have good dual springs on the heads.

If you want a head out the box that suits your goals - the AFR 205CC can do it. Heck have AFR run a CNC program on a vic jr intake matched to the 205CC head.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I hadn't really given alot of thought to the AFR 205s but they would do the trick.
Who does the cnc port work on the intake?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
682 Posts
AFR can do the CNC port work. Perhaps someone else on here could do hand matching for you.

FPS has this "funnel web" intake. ANd canfield has a single plane intake.

All will be worth evaluating.

Run a tighter LSA on the cam since you won't be efi.

108-110lsa will build ball busting cyllinder pressures
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
70 Posts
like he said...you should be over 400rwhp with that first combo you listed. Just get the heads, cam and intake all worked out with a pro and you shouldn't have any problems reaching your power goals. Don't forget some nice big headers, just look at all the power these guys are picking up by simply switching from 1-5/8" longtubes, to bigger/stepped longtubes.

Trent
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
682 Posts
How much power are the guys picking up by swapping to the larger headers?

On some of the combo's I don't know if I could've attribute that much to the header alone.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
BigDaddy LTD LX said:
.

FPS has this "funnel web" intake. ANd canfield has a single plane intake.

Has anybody ran one of these? I wonder how the compare to the victor jr.?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,239 Posts
Sounds like a sweet street combo :D I'd maybe consider a Super Vic intake. I've heard people say it needs too much rpm to run, but I've been told otherwise by a few folks that have run them. They have all said they picked up top end power. I'm guessing you're not worried much about power below say 4000-4500 rpm anyway. Maybe go with a 3.48 or 3.5 crank for more ponies :) I'd wonder about going maybe 40 or 60 over, more cubes and it'll unshroud the valves some to help flow. I wouldn't worry about it running warmer, but maybe the larger bore would weaken the cylinder wall? Just throwing out some ideas here....they may all not be good ones lol :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
Are you dead set on the hydro-roller? Why not a solid flat? Would kill some weight in the valve train and still allow some nice aggressive lobe profiles. Would certainly be more rev friendly and the valve spring pressures would have to be as high.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
548 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
84_gt said:
Are you dead set on the hydro-roller? Why not a solid flat? Would kill some weight in the valve train and still allow some nice aggressive lobe profiles. Would certainly be more rev friendly and the valve spring pressures would have to be as high.
How much power would be gained from going to a solid flat from a hydro roller?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
729 Posts
Maybe nothing additional. I'm not enough of an expert to say. BUT......I can tell you a solid flat vs. hydro roller w/ be cheaper, easier to rev, and require less valve spring pressure (at least as far as open pressures are concerned) because of the reduced weight of the lifter.

No need for a solid roller at this level IMO. All's that would do is run you up and over the cost and valvetrain issues of the hydro roller into big league territory. If you wanted 500rwhp and were spinning it over 7k......maybe then.

Do a search on the username todd. Todd runs a nice carbed 347 w/ a healthy solid flat and is running 10.4s @ 130.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top