Merc63

Just deal with the mass of the 302, and reduce overall mass in other ways. my 302 powered, AOD automatic equipped FC weighed 2720 lbs with iron heads, full interior, Autopower 6 point roll cage and nothing done to lighten the car. The same engine with aluminum heads in a lightened FB should be easy to get to 2000-2200 lbs with a streetable 330-350 WHP.

Part of the key to the hp is in the heads. My ported DART heads with a bunch of work are the equivalent of the new out of the box TFS stuff, and those can be worked for more power. A good cam, an 850 cfm double pumper Holley, and 10.5:1 or even 11:1 compression pistons, and it'll make the power and be reliable and driveable.

Phiber Optik

iTrader: (2)

I wouldn't go with a victor, one of the magazines tested the victor jr intake vs the rpm air gap, and they were identical peak power wise but the air gap made more power & torque down low! because of the dual plane design.

the best (world class) BW T5 transmission is rated to 300ft/lb torque, which is almost what a stock 5.0L motor makes at the flywheel. hence why so many break. if you plan on power shifting or dumping the clutch with sticky tires and good u joints prepare to replace the transmission

I know a local guy who makes 300rwhp and runs 10" slicks and has broken several t5's, the tko upgraded t5 and now recently broke his dog ring straight cut gear $6000 geforce trans. He lauches off the limiter and powershifts every gear when he is drag racing. just beware a manual trans might be a weak link if you make power.

decide how high you plan on spinning the motor, if you are using an FB with the stock axel your looking at 4.079's or more commonly 3.90's for the rear gears which could mean spining over 7000rpm occasionaly, for this you will need higher flowing heads like AFR 185's and an rpm air gap intake if you go with a carbed setup. to get the most out of the motor you might want to swap to a higher compression piston with valve relief for a big lift cam, switching to a solid roller will get the revs up faster and should be good for 40-50hp due to the steeper ramp angles. I would go with a balanced bottom end with new rod bolts and fresh bearings if it was me, just as a little insurance if the pedal goes deeper the 7000rpm,

This is all from experience I have a 357W forged rotating assm, edelbrock aluminum heads & intake and a built C4 in my 84 GSL-SE, not the lightest combo, but it gets down the strip pretty quick even with 8.5" slicks

aussiesmg

iTrader: (1)

I like this, I am looking at 7500 rpm as my redline, and although I'm not going to be drag racing the car it will need to launch well at standing starts, hillclimbs etc.

I am planning on using the stock rear, until and if it breaks then I'd conside stronger but again fighting weight is why I'm keeping the Hp to 350 flywheel.

The goal is to build a Targa Newfoundland competitor so i definately need reliability.

So keep the good stuff coming guys, thanks

Merc63

I agree. If you look at this picture, you'll see the 1" carb spacer above teh Performer dual plane manifold. Mad a good deal of differnce in rpm range for the manifold. Of course, the large carb size also helps, as a 700cfm carb can't keep up with the high rpm needs. theis one's a Holley ported to flow over 850 cfm if need be. It's done that way for the same reason teh STOCK BOSS 302 had a 780 cfm carb...




Actually, to get higher rpms, you'll need higher compression. At least 10.5:1. Mine had the built bottom end, and woudl run to 7500 without problem. Important with the 4.11 rear in the FC, even with the AOD overdrive trans.

peejay

The Boss 302 had a 780 because the engine had enormous ports, larger than a 429 (which were also HUUGE, for a 429!), yet poorly shaped so they *needed* to be gigantic to have any flow, and the powerband was stretched to the extreme righthand side of the tach.

We can make more power with more driveability and less RPM today with our better-flowing heads, and correspondingly, something more driveable than a carb fully twice the size of what it should be

Merc63

Again, if you look at that picture, you'll see a Holley of the flow capacity I described. It had no problems with driveability, even with the big Chevy valves in the ported heads. I HATE it whan people say "well I read this theory on how big carbs have no driveability" when I had this car as a street driver for 5 years without a problem. The circle track engine builder than did the carb knew what he was doing.

The unmodified Edelbrock 700 cfm carb that was on it to start with couldn't keep up or make the power. And in cars like these, with 23" tall tires and 4.11 rear gears, you don't WANT a low revving engine. As it was, with the 7500 redline, it was no faster on the top end than it was stock going down the front straight at SIR. And it had to turn the same rpm at 70 mph on the freeway as it did with the rotary in it. We're not discussing big block cars with 9" Ford rears and 30" tall tires for drag racing.

peejay

Just speaking from experience, I've *never* seen a mechanical secondary carb have decent driveability unless you were willing to live with the quirks. Probably half of the tuning issues we get are people who bolt on a huge mechanical secondary carb and expect to be able to whomp it at 1500 and not bog. The only time they ever work well is with a nice loose converter, which few people want to spend the money on, since it's not shiny or easily accessible.

If you're willing to *drive* the thing, well hell I've seen two Dominators on a tunnel ram on a 289. Just need to accept that there isn't enough airflow for all of the main circuits until a higher RPM, and drive accordingly, and expect a bunch of weird hitches because 90% of your drive time is on the idle circuits.