300 horsepower out a carb'd 302?

*isn't cutting it anymore

>>14206390
Heads and a cam

Only 300? Here, buddy.

http://www.mustangandfords.com/how-to/engine/28898-400-hp-302-small-block/

351W swap

>>14206390
300hp? Easy.

Roller 5.0 shortblock, 3-bar GT40 irons, B303, Performer RPM, 750 vacuum secondary holley, cheap Hedman longtubes, 4.10 gears

That combo ran 13.22 at 109.54mph on street tires with a 4000+ft density altitude at 3100lbs in an 82 Capri. While the ET sucked the MPH would be good for a high 11 in a car that hooked. Dream wheel says that weight/mph was 290hp

Holley EFI
Do it

>>14206480
all that work and money for 13s?

>LS1 swap

>>14206549
In a car that didn't hook at all? Sure.

LS1 would do the same thing in such a car.

Get the car to hook and they'd both run about the same.

File: 20151220_135235_Richtone(HDR).jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

Like this

>>14206630
Like what? An upper radiator hose getting ready to explode?

>>14206753
Yup. That's the secret.

>>14206621
hookedy dookedy fook

File: 20140308_124207.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>14206390
>smog era 302
Heads
performer/victor jr Intake
headers
650 4 barrel eddy or holley carb
mild cam

pic related, my stock 1979 302 I used to have. That was rated at a furious 120 hp from factory.

File: 1426278741257.gif (84KB, 253x230px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 253x230px

>wanting 300hp out of a emissions era, small block, carbed cast block

Right now you're pushing out exactly 135hp with a stock setup and you want to more than double it.

Either drop in a late 60s / early 70s big block 427/428/429 or do an LS swap.

>>14206413
>>14206480
>>14206630
>>14206815
>>14206818

What kinda MPGs would you be looking at to with a 302 or 351w that makes POWAH and as a Daily Driver?

I want to swap a 280zx or Supra but would be better off with an LS1 and two overdrives. Rednecks just seem to love that 350 SBC.

>>14207032
i dont know why people bother with these horseshit old fuel guzzling low power v8's

Just fucking get a LT1/LS1 CHEAP and swap it in, its the exact same engine yet it isnt shit

File: Capri Mall.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>14207032
I get over 20 even carbureted because of the manual. Plus idling along in a high gear lets people hear the cam menacingly going tonk tonk tonk tonk tonk

>>14207057
>>14206818
>Just swap in a junkyard LS1. It only takes $500 and a weekend

>>14207085
actually yeah ive been scowering facebook for weeks and i see $500 ls1's all the time on swap sells.

Well here in aus anyway i think you yanks have more of a hardon for them than we do we just tend to swap them out for a newer LS which imho is a big mistake but its all cheap so who gives a shit cunt

>>14206480
>4000+ft density altitude
i like how you mention this thinking it makes even a tiny difference

>>14207076

Good to know, but that's R35 GT-R level of crap fuel economy.

What type of numbers are you putting down? (torque, power, MPG with babying, and 1/4)

>>14207057
>>14207085

Junkyard motor with headers and a cam. I know 30 mpg isn't hard to do.

>>14207114
you dont even have to bother with a cam on a ls1 just mafless tune the cunt

File: 1443895997935.jpg (151KB, 475x341px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 475x341px

>>14207102

Retard alert.

>>14207117

That'll work for 400 whp?

I love the high RPM small block sound.

>>14207114
Put those frosted flakes back in the box, you ain't getting a tiger outta that.

>>14207128
you betcha i got told some mafless tunes are good for 240rwkw+ so yeah

well 350 at the wheels realistically but yeah totally doable

Get a brand new Telsa with Completely Electric Engine NOW

File: Rare+pepes+are+gr8+_582faf8f9ceb0071cf3072fdd0181d77.jpg (72KB, 680x583px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 680x583px

>>14207102

roots s/c, mechanical dizzy, dual quads and a msd box with btr. upgrade the shortblock when it grenades for even more powaaaaaaa

>>14207141

Thanks AUSFag!

You bet your ass I looked up the MAFless tune as soon as you said it:

http://www.oztrack.com.au/2013-09-27-06-14-12/ls1-tuning-explained

>>14207144

Elon, pls.

>>14207120
>>14207163
epic

>>14207202
hate to sound like a cunt but how would you not know about ls1 maf tune? its as aussie as kangaroo pies mate

>>14207854

I'm American.

Anybody everywhere only wanks over foriegn shit. Look at all of the weabos talking about Ricer shit.

>>14207912

Whoops, I meant to type, "Yah CUNT!"

>>14207912
>>14207922
Jesus everyone here jap crap is only for p platers and wankas mate

Straya

Alternatively you can keep the maf and do a tune and get similar numbers but its more complicated

>>14206818
>being retarded
302s and 460s had fuck awful stock heads. Simple head change will get you damn near 300 on a stock 5.0

>>14207032
I get 24 highway with ~400 HP 302

>>14208142

I swear I'll move to NZ because lax importation and no nanny state. Do the fuzz leave you alone in rural areas?

>>14208161
>durr simple head change
He will have to change the cam and much much more on top of that
>>14208176
No clue but i assume they do

NSW master race sydneys shit though stay away

>>14208172

Damn, that's not bad.

>>14206818
Big blocks aren't hp fiends. 302's are where it's at. If he wants 300hp all he has to do is H/C/I/E. All the parts to make 350whp are readily available for any 302. With just a little bit of head work they'll rev to 7500 rpm on a stock bottom end.

I honestly think this is the worst advice I've ever seen someone give about cars.

>>14208198
TORQUE

>>14208198
Or he could do a LS swap with a mafless tune and get 350whp+ without all that over the top work and have a reliable engine with good fuel econ

>>14208209
THANK YOU!! Anything above 351 is a TORQUE FIEND!! It works out real good until you start racing high revving nissans and the like on the highway. Light to light they're great! Almost unbeatable to be honest.

>>14208217
302's will run 300k on the odometer. Same goes for any Windsor ford motor. Also the fuel economy on the LS motors is not much better than any ford motor in existence and they sacrifice top end to hit those fuel numbers. You'd be better off arguing "lightweight" for driving dynamics than econ.

>>14208180
>380 HP with new heads, intake, headers
http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/116-0307-ford-302-v8-engine-buildup/
They're obviously expensive heads but it just goes to show the stock cam is not horrible

>>14208295
>>14208251
oh yeah sure lets just reco a 40 year old motor and spend 5grand on it instead of dropping in a $500 junkyard motor with better power, bolt ons and everything else

>>14208295
BTW those heads are also good for about 525 HP with a 408 stroker, so its a worthwhile investment. Lots of room on a 302

>>14208415
>t-this is better because everyone is doing it and they t-tell me so!
>i-i swear!

>>14208415
why are LS fags so fucking retarded?

an LS is not 500, the funny thing is a 351 or a 302 actually are and its cheaper to modify

>>14208453
Aussies have only just caught on the LS swaps mate so fuck off ai
>>14208465
Not in straya they aint

>>14208198

I've restored and bought/sold over a dozen classic trucks in my lifetime. A big block swap will come out in the value of the vehicle if it's done properly and you're able to find a correct engine for a vehicle.

I've done two 454ci swaps on inline 6 C10s with great results.

>>14208415
go on cl and you'll have $1000 rebuilt windsors coming outta your ass
you won't even get an ls core for that

>>14208477
>Craigslist
>Merrica
see here in aus people are literally wrecking parting out old VT Commadores left and right as donor cars

Average ls1 is like $300-700aud atm

>>14208161

>head change will add over 150hp

top kek

>>14208474
60-66 or 67-72 or 73-87

>>14208487
who the fuck cares what happens australia

my shitty 265 hemi makes 160hp from factory, but the engines were known to make 300hp in e49 spec chryslers.

a 302 would easily make more power from a
>4 barrel carb
>headers
>mild cam
>head replacement
>better flowing intake
and thats the simple stuff

>>14208473
the strayan 351 cleveland is better than the american one, ur trying to ruse me

>>14207100
literally where are 500 dollar ls1's in the land of kangaroos? never seen that

>>14208503
have fun getting ripped off on ls's dickheads
>>14208509
never said they where better i wont touch ford shit
>>14208537
facebook swap sells

>>14206390
heads headers cam carb

>>14208546
>won't touch Ford stuff
>trying to give advice in ford thread
Why would anyone trust somebody who can't read

>>14208562
That will cost alot of money compared to a engine swap
>>14208567
thats why i am saying ls swap

>>14208546
>be australian
>have the best Ford engines
>"wont touch them"

fuck off do you understand how it feels not to have Barra engines?

>>14206818
That's a smog era engine. It's breathing through a straw. 300hp, wheel or crank, either is easily doable.

>>14206520
Going to be worthless without heads on that era 302.

Literally 8:1 compression, it's hopeless until those factory heads are on the scrap pile.

>>14208615
i had a 4.0l intec for 4 years and everything broke on it
Biggest shitheap motor ive ever owned

Barras have the same issues wont go near them

Only barras worth owning are the Turbo'd ones from 2008 onwards

And still i bet they have issues.
>>14208567
>DURR FERD IS THE BEST DURR DURR
Ford reliability is a meme

>>14208843
8:1 is good for boost at least.
do the heads bump that up?

File: 1449796842301.jpg (247KB, 768x1024px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 768x1024px

>>14206390
You the guy with the $500 Fairmont wagon?

>>14208869
wouldnt you have to shave the heads you put on as well to bump compression back up? Not to mention cams, ignition and all the other gear like expensive 4 barrel carbs or efi?

Just fucking swap LS or a non smog Cleveland

>>14208894
There's plenty of non smog Windsors around too and yes heads can change compression. 4bbl carbs aren't that expensive. Realistically Opie would be better off buying a 302 or 351 Windsor that already has good heads, cam etc in it. They're common on Craigslist for a grand or less. Plus it'd only take a weekend to swap instead of a month or so gathering bits and tearing the engine apart and getting shit machined and not being able to drive the car until it's all done.
>cams
>plural
u wot m8

>>14208890
Sure am, that's not it though haha

>>14208953
So there's two red '79 Fairmont 302 wagons here? Wow. That one was posted a few weeks ago, he got it from a grandma's estate sale.

>>14208958
You misunderstood. I'm the same guy, the pic you posted isn't my car though.

I think there's a guy on here with a light blue fairmont wagon...

>>14208944
i mean cams in a general sense not cams plural
Sure go the windsor route i guess whatever as i said i am not a ford person anymore

File: 1449881912594.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>14208973
Ah. But this one is, right?

>>14208998
Yeah, that's me.

Gotta get rid of those awful hubcaps sometime soon.

>>14208576
Not really.

Heads off of an Explorer 5.0 are good enough and can be found at any self-service yard for around $40 each.

A decent set of valve springs for it, to replace the floppy low-RPM/low-lift truck springs, is around $150.

Headers, around $200 (and you'd need to buy those for your LS too, so might as well omit that from the comparison entirely)

A mild cam & lifter set for an old flat-tappet motor can be gotten from Summit for around $120.

No-name 4-bbl intakes can be had for $150 from Summit or Ebay, and holley 600 CFM carbs can be junkard scavanged from mid-80's Ford heavy duty trucks and vans for around $50 each.

All that together is less than the cost of JUST an ignition box for an LS motor.

>>14208869
>do the heads bump that up?
>>14208894
>wouldnt you have to shave the heads you put on as well to bump compression back up?

Chamber size on late model or aftermarket heads is much smaller than chamber size on the smog-era heads.

Bolt bone-stock GT40/GT40P heads from a late model explorer or mustang GT onto a smog-era long block, instant jump to 9.5:1 compression.

You could achieve the same thing by shaving the smogger heads, but why bother when junkyards are full of GT40P's for the taking, and so many high-flowing aftermarket aluminum heads are available.

>>14207102
You are a very special kind of stupid.

>>14207120
>>14209097
it doesn't make a difference because any decent car has a turbo

>>14209151
Fuck. This has to be bait.

File: image.jpg (39KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 500x375px

>>14209071
>>14209042

I love Otto for never responding to good / technical advice

Anything beyond useless banter, fan boyish buzz words. It makes me sick you assholes why can't I leave here.

>>14209534

I love Muscle and V8 threads. It's always civilized and never edge posting.

>>14209534
Well fuck me for going to sleep eh?

Thanks for the advice br/o/s

itt I learned the 302 is a shit engine

>>14211150
Until you get the bandwagon fags baffling about which engine is cost effective in mods. I've done both the LS1 and 302 mods and Ford's engine you tend to get more for your money's run.

>>14211851
great post

>>14211887
it is

literally lost all of my respect for the engine

a goddamn Honda engine is more cost effective to make 300hp

What about a 351? Wouldn't it be easier to upgrade that, since it costs less than a HO 302 and has stronger bottom end? For a lower price it seems like you get more HP and torque.

>>14211896
I doubt that plus a 300 HP 302 will be way way more reliable

>>14211927
Doesn't bolt up and heavier

You guys aren't appreciating just how cheap and simple the 302 is

>>14212112
Is a Chevy 350 comparable to a 351?

>>14212112

The 351 has a few differences, but its moreso torque instead of horsepower. It can make some serious power too.

So the consensus seems to be a good set of heads, a cam, intake, 4 barrel carb and headers?

>>14212598
Nope, Chevy 350 is compared to the Ford 302, typically.

>>14213281
Strange

>>14208172
Cops are all good pretty much everywhere in nz just be honest and don't be a cunt, was clocked at 103 in a 80 zone on my restricted (allowed to drive by ur self, no passengers unless they have had there full licence for 2yrs and can't drive between 10pm and 5or6am can't remember) he let me off with a warning for carrying passengers, speeding, and after driving curfew because I was dropping off drunks good times and they do checkpoints to catch illegally modded cars so u just keep ur shit together and it's allgood m8

>>14211851
>smog era v8 engine is shit
no shit

all these people who say its cheaper do to head cam and other expensive work are completely deluded

>>14213589
>Why are there thousands of built 5.0s hauling ass everywhere?

File: moog.jpg (506KB, 1805x1022px) Image search: [Google]

506KB, 1805x1022px

>>14213888

>>14212112
>Doesn't bolt up
What

>>14216953
Bigger motor?

>feelio when 305

>>14217743
I know that feel.
>will never be as good as a 350

>>14217426
Both are Windsor motors. I was told that they differ mostly in deck height. Many cars offered with 302 were also offered with 351

>>14220390
This is true. 302 is more popular for swaps due to lower deck height

File: 0011.jpg (116KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 800x600px

>>14221186
Bruh

File: '.jpg (21KB, 467x348px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 467x348px

>>14221322

File: 0012-2.jpg (117KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 800x600px

>>14221331
>literally wouldn't even be able to see if someone was in front of you.

I need this. A lot.

>>14208217
Bruh my 302 has 240k on the block and the last 100k its had h/c/i/e. And I rebuilt it last winter when it was running like a top because I wanted to put a bigger cam and rockers on it(also for shits and giggles since its not my dd).

>>14221346
HOW MANY CARBS IS TOO MANY CARBS?

>>14221582
Random af

>>14221587
The layman might presume that has a 427 in it but we all know it's really a 302

File: Image0533.jpg (223KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1600x1200px

>>14221698

>>14215320
kek

>>14206390
Going to be hard thats for sure, engines old and tolerances may not be to spec anymore.

My 1998 explorer has the exact same engine with EFI of course.

215 HP stock and torque monster/OBX headers give it +15 HP and +35-40 ft/lbs of torque.

Mines still slow but the extra torque is there. Better off buying a new 302 block, mines got 220k on it and probably on the way out.

>>14221814
>spending $5000 on a crate engine
We don't even know if OP knows how to do an engine swap...

File: retro_sega_doom_tower_by_malici0us-d308mqa.jpg (149KB, 649x1232px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 649x1232px

>>14221322
>>14221346

>>14221322
>hilborn scoop
>carb stacks
>dual quads
>3-4 carb spacers
>blower
>dual quad high rise
Throttle response time: 2 seconds, fuel is probably deatomized to shit. I've heard cars like these run irl its pretty sad sounding. Looks cool

>>14221186
They're more popular because they ran for a lot longer and they're cheaper and easier to find. Damn near every part bolts up except the intake manifold.

302 was based off the old 260 Windsor block design; its essentially an already stroked version of the engine. 347 stroker is almost pushing the skirts out past the bore sleeves.

351 is only 2 inches wider and an inch or so taller, always a better option if you can find one.

>>14222020
$5000? Maybe if you buy a built 302 @ 350-400 HP. lol

You can get a pretty basic one for $2000 or less.

>>14222154
$300 to hone the block, $175 for a rebuild kit, so even cheaper.
LS fags have no clue what they're talking about

>>14222152
Can't the 351 also handle up to 600 HP with stock crank and rods? Much more than an HO 302.

>>14222625
I'm asking because I have a Town Car with a low output 302 and I want it to have about 450-600 HP. From my research it looked like I'd have to get a new bottom end for any 302 but the stock 351 bottom end could handle much more. Also the 351s I could find were much cheaper than the HO 302s.

>>14222324

>>14222324
This guy gets it

>>14208235
This. 512 in my fury and it makes gobs of torque and a lot of HP, but it loses its balls above 6600 RPM due to my cam not having enough duration/lift for the air flow numbers my heads have. The whole horsepower deficiency with a big block is easily solved with a bottle though, at least that was my route to have just a little extra.

>>14208492
You laugh, but in my experience with smog era 440 mopar engines, a head swap and anything for exhaust manifolds besides the SMOG cast logs will take a 195 hp rated 440 to 350 in nothing flat and get better fuel economy.Of course you remove all the emissions shit, but that's a given.

And I want to mention something to the OP, I've said it before and it will keep you sane with classics. New cars are about miles per gallon, classics are about smiles per mile. I get 6-9mpg from my Mopar, but it blows past damn near anything on the street short of supercars.

>>14222127
Does it sound like "gallongallongallongallongallon"?

>>14224090
Your 440 is huge though, of course it's going to drink gas whether or not it's been souped up. I think I'm getting around 20ish mpg's right now. How badly would mileage be impacted with new heads, cam, headers, intake and can?

You would think that if an engine had more power, it would be revved less and not have to work as hard to get up to speed thus using less gas?

>>14224751
Depends on your cam profile and the fuel needs of your engine. It may actually help your consumption vs hp upgrading everything. If you don't start swapping pistons to raise CR and keep your CR under 10.4:1, you shouldn't lose much mileage unless you have it tuned incorrectly.

For example, I could switch from a single 800 CFM to a 750 cfm carb, adjust my timing, and it would run fine and get better mileage with less power. What it all comes down to is this, build it and test it or check on 302forums for some advice on MPG. Most folks aren't building 5.0 smog engines to get mileage out of they build them to make a lot of power as cheaply as possible (or they would build a BBF or BBM.)

>>14224751
>You would think that if an engine had more power, it would be revved less and not have to work as hard to get up to speed thus using less gas?
You would be absolutely right... Except when you go WAAAAAA and you'll probably do that more than you think you will because it's so cool.

>>14206390
heads, cam, intake, electronic ignition, headers. You'll be over 300.

>>14225140
>WAAAAA

Oh I know that feel. When I flipped the filter lid on my Chevy and straight piped it, fuel mileage went down the drain.

>>14225169
Ballpark estimate of what that would cost?

fix or repair daily

>>14222642
Bumping this

Know that feelerino op.
>get caddilac Eldorado from grandpa
>8.2L fwd
>190hp
Or my pops had mk5 continental
>7.5L
>206hp

But op get some new heads and scrap the smog stuff. Also get a new cam mate.

>>14222642
Yes. 600 is about as far as you want to go. The typical HP per cubic inch is about 1.35 on stock rotating assemblies (pre 2000-engines and non performance engines)
Stroking an engine creates more power without having to turn higher RPM which is less stressful on an engine. If you're building a horsepower screamer with big cams and tall intakes I would put 600 at the NA limit

>>14224431
It hits a really big lick then almost dies on its face because of the amount of fuel at idle and how far it has to travel
>WROMP.....WROMP.....WROMP....

What's the difference of gross vs net horsepower on pre-1972 V-8s? Ie, in 67 Mustang the 289HiPo Windsor was rated 271hp and 390ci FE at 320hp; what would the net figures of those two be?

>>14225960
300 HP is like $1200 on a 302. You could port and shave your heads for maybe $400. Ignition and cam is not necessarily needed, but head and intake is. You can also pull gt-40p heads off of a junkyard explorer, probably hit 300hp on $300, score an intake at a swap meet

>>14226965
Plus you gotta have a passenger tell you that the other side is clear like a locomotive fireman because of that thing.

>>14226968
Driveline loss is 15-23% depending on size/performance of drivetrains. Cars in the 1960s were actually a tad underrated for insurance purposes. Hard to tell desu senpai

>>14226968
no way of telling it could be 5% it could be 30% they could make more. you'd have to dyno them.
doesn't matter as after 40 years most of the horsies would have escaped anyway

>>14226998
>Underrated for insurance
Yep, especially anything in the 400s range!

>>14226991
Kek. chopped roofs look cool but boy they really fucking suck when you drive them

>>14226880
>Eldorado
Damn nice cars with a fuckhuge motor. That's definitely a winning combination. I was actually going to buy a 1975 but once I got looking at it, I realized it would be one hell of a project for someone just starting to get into car modifying.

On a side note, done anything to the exhaust? These cars sound great with some sort of muffler setup.

>>14226153
Already had to replace the headlight switch bubs

>>14221322
>>14221346


Why does that thing have R.O.B. instead of a hood?

>>14227308
F-Smash

>>14217426
351 windsor will bolt up where a 302 did. However it's both taller and wider so you may run into other clearance issues in cars that were never offered with 351. 351 swaps into Fox bodies are common but a very tight fit.

>>14224751
>How badly would mileage be impacted with new heads, cam, headers, intake and carb?

Heads by themselves will gain you several MPG from both the increased compression and improved swirl built into most modern designs.
If you were to drop modern heads on it but keep the smog-era factory cam and 2bbl intake, you'd see moderate HP gains, maybe 30 hp, but pick up several MPG.

You're then going to eat into that MPG improvement with a more aggressive cam and a bigger carb. And then the more aggressive of a cam & carb you put in, the higher it moves the RPM where you achieve peak power/torque, which will further decrease MPG. If your target is 300 HP you will probably not be running a cam that is well behaved at a 2000 RPM cruise.
It's just the situation that if you enlarge the carb and raise the valves high enough and long enough for adequate high-RPM flow, you lose beneficial turbulence at low RPM/part throttle.
However it would not be outlandish to build for 200-250 hp, with decent idle and low-end power for no-downshift cruising, and get roughly the same MPG that you were running on the smogger heads.

A dual-plane Intake will have minimal MPG impact (but an oversized carb or single plane will hurt it), and headers may slightly improve MPG.

>>14213330
>why is the ford 302 compared to chevy 350
The 302 has a number of features that make it more rev-friendly than the 350; it typically makes up for the missing displacement with RPM and intake flow, making it a pretty close match for the 350 in the hands of the aftermarket.

They're also both the most commonly found versions of their respective families. There's SBC 400's, but few people looking to do 400 builds because the 350 is so much more common.

>>14227829
All this is pretty correct op, but you can easily hit 300 with streetability and good idle quality. I would put the inversely proportional returns at around 375 HP for a 302

>>14227829
This is fairly accurate concerning the MPG situation, but there are a ton of hot street cams that will drive just fine and make the power you want. What he is saying about the MPG factor is mostly true, though I don't see getting the MPG you are now. If you really want to get the power and possibly increased economy, do your mods and look at an overdrive unit or an OD transmission. Not only will your mpg go up, your top speed also increases due to the extra gear out back. Only likely mod if you get an add on OD unit is a shortened driveshaft which would be about 200-400 depending on source or machine shop.

>>14227590
If I put a 351 into a first gen Panther, would I have to get headers custom made?

>>14231727
probably, or you could consider a set of tight short tubes. A 302 HO would be better for that application.

>>14230872
>>14229104
>>14227829

Okay, that all makes sense. I'm honestly not super worried about mileage, but obviously it sure would be nice.

Now how much do y'all think I should save up before I get into this? I'd hate to have the heads off only to find I'm going to need something else and have sit there for a month while I continue saving.

Oh also found out yesterday that I have a 2.26:1 rear end...
Would be perfect if I was planning on going 200mph at the salt flats!

File: mOnvOJG.png (298KB, 2271x2380px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 2271x2380px

>>14232479
>2.26

>>14231734
Why is the HO better? The 351 is cheaper and can handle more HP on a stock crank.

>>14234533
your building a wheeler, so you don't need a shitload of power, and it will be a bitch getting the either in that truck, it is nice that you can get a 302 that is a bit smaller.

>>14231727
First gen panther had a factory 351w option, so it's probably be an off-the-shelf part.

>>14234554
>panther
>wheeler
Did I miss something?

https://youtu.be/vHvXi_HejnI
https://youtu.be/sYIJpzo2RVY
https://youtu.be/KFwPXEeJ3aI?t=17s

>>14234641
wait fuck, I am retired. I thought you meant "pathfinder". I just read it wrong.

>>14234647
>retired
retarded. fuck.

>>14232479
>how much should I save

That's up to you and how much hackery & junkyard parts you can tolerate.

If you just plan open up the summit catalog and order a boxed kit with new name-brand everything, about 2 grand. If you plan to refurbish junkyard heads & carb you can probably cut that in half and not run out of money.

>>14232479
Might as well do the rebuild and heads in one go. Edelbrock e street heads are really good and only $980 for a pair. Get a used carb from a swap meet if you don't have a four barrel. You could get a mild cam for now too.
>$1700
Due to the need to remove parts that keep oil in the engine, might as well do it all in one swoop. Get a new set of pushrods and lifters when you replace the cam.

You can try to even get a set of gt40p heads off a junkyard exploder if possible

>>14234908
BTW they sell oversized ring rebuild kits and oversized bearings so if you want your engine to last another 200k, you should get it honed and the crank journals bored at a machine shop. They can even polish the crank too.

>>14235032
Also, as far as cylinder heads go, there is a bit of sound math behind them. Depending on their maximum flow at a given lift, you can estimate the maximum amount of horsepower they're good for.
If you don't ever plan to go over 350 HP, just port and valve a set of stock heads.
>425hp
Gt40p explorer heads
>500hp
Edelbrock e streets
>600hp
AFR heads. Start at 550 and work your way up for every model.
These are rough estimates of NA engines of course.

>>14235098
Yeah but everybody is saying the stock heads are shit, would a port and valve job really make them comparable to some gt40(p)'s?

>>14235585
Depends on the year. The problem with Windsor heads, especially after the 71-73 smog era is a huge fucking lump in the exhaust port, and really sharp angles on both. You can grind the lump out of the exhaust port (there are guides on doing so) by yourself with a dremel tool of you're cheap. Resizing valves takes specialized equipment though.
71 and earlier heads had larger intake valves already and are a good starting point; shaving them and using thinner head gaskets will increase compression and give you some power. Can definitely get close or as good as gt40 heads.
The secret to really good heads for a 302 is relocated valves and complete new runners, which the gt40 heads don't really have.

File: Screenshot_2016-01-13-23-36-46.png (819KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

819KB, 1440x2560px

>>14235585
>>14235612
Here I found you a little more info. The gt40p heads have a revised combustion chamber and different spark plug location and 1.84" intake and 1.54" and 58-61cc combustion chambers. You can't relocate the plugs, but with porting out the thermactor hump your heads will get really close, but gt40p heads are still really low on the totem pole

>>14235585
>>14235633
One last post before I go to bed. You can also keep an eye out on eBay for Pro Comp heads for a 302 ($700). They flow really well, and paired with a Victor or Weiand Stealth intake you can also find on eBay ($150) you'll hit a little over 300 horsepower with the stock cam. You'll probably have to reuse the stock rocker arms which is fine as long as you don't WOT everywhere. If the heads have guide plates USE HARDENED PUSHRODS. If you use regular pushrods they will wear out in about 1000 miles of gentle driving and bend, if not worse.

>>14235730
You really don't think I'll have to touch the cam to get over 300? Also, thanks for the write up

>>14236611
Depending on how good the heads and intake are (with headers) you can make 300 hp on the stock cam. Cams are really cheap and easy to install though. I would go to a roller setup when you do change the came though. Np. Hope this helped

>>14236833
Okay so if I do decide to change the cam, could I do it in car or will I have to take the whole engine out? Also what about the cam bearings? Do those need to be changed or should it be fine?

>>14236986
Cam races should be fine, as the cam is designed to wear. Youll have to remove the front drive assembly to get to the water pump/timing chain cover and remove the timing chain to change the cam, but it can all be done with engine in the car (drain oil obviously, and use break in lube and break in the cam properly). You can remove the intake and valve covers to get room to change the lifters, add "spiders," and change rockers and pushrods to convert to a roller setup. Just triple check to make sure everything is going to work together. There are a ton of guides to converting to a roller setup

>>14237010
Oh yeah don't forget to remove the pushrods and lifters before removing the cam so nothing falls inside anywhere. Just take your time, mark everything for its original cylinder number, and watch a bunch of guides on how to do it.

>>14237010
Hmm... I wonder how hard removing the entire front end of the car is. I suppose everything in front of the timing cover is gonna have to go.

Anyways, so a decent set of heads with a good valve train setup, intake and carb and maybe a set of headers and I'm there pretty much?

>>14238117
Oh yeah. With gt40p heads you'll probably be 285-300, like I said they're good for factory but still crappy for aftermarket. Just removing the radiator should give you enough clearance I would think. I know its not like the 85-86 where you can slide it in the bumper hole. Try to find a carb at a swap meet or something. Can get a good one for $75 instead of $350 new

>>14238214
Sounds pretty solid to me. Thanks again

>>14239572
Godspeed

>>14236611
I am skeptical that you can hit 300 hp on a stock 1979-spec cam. On a HO cam from a post-1983 302, sure, no problem. But then I've never tried.
>>14236986
You can do it in-car, but you have to take off the radiator and (possibly) grille.

>>14237010
I wouldn't convert a flat-tappet shortblock to a roller cam, as flat-tappet stuff is cheaper and more common.

If you do, then you have to worry about cam gear mismatch.

>>14239947
I've been doing some reading outside of 4chan and that seems to be the general consensus on the 79's cam unfortunately.

>>14239962
What do you mean cam gear mismatch?

>>14206390
Honestly OP, why do you want to spend so much money on such a shit tier engine?

i say splite the difference between the 302 and 351 and do a 331 stroker. I built one for a datsun 240 and it make 350hp 340tq and spun to 8k

>>14241540
I'm trying to not have to pull the whole motor out and that'd kinda defeat the whole purpose.

>>14241451
I don't even

>>14206815
>Changing heads
>mild cam

Pick one

>>14241992
>faggot


>faggot


Pick one

What kind of car is that anyway

>>14242493
'79 Ford Fairmont wagon

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>>14244457
Can anyone identify the type of plug that fits in here? It's for the AC power in the rear

>>14244768
that's the typhoon suspension module, leave it alone

>>14244831
Cmon.

Seriously, does anybody know what socket that is?

>>14245982
Bump

>>14247455
alright alright,

it's a pre-ww2 A/C jack for cars

File: 1437680502926.png (318KB, 389x694px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 389x694px

>>14206818
>I know absolutely nothing about what I'm talking about

>>14206818
get a laod of this retarded fucking cunt

final bump before I let the thread die

File: ss (2015-10-05 at 03.13.05).png (39KB, 135x111px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 135x111px

>>14207032

>Caring about MPGs

Why is /o/ so fucking poor?

>>14248274

GET BACK TO YOUR CONTAINMENT THREAD!!!

>>/o/hgt/