Ford Muscle Cars Tech Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Programmer
Joined
·
856 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hey guys. I'm building my first engine believe it or not. I have a 351w, bored 30 over, hyper pistons, AFR 185cc heads (2.02/1.60 valves 58cc chamber).. About 9.5compression. I am going to have the hooker 6208 headers, holley double pumper 750, edelbrock rpm air-gap, etc. I have 3.80 gears, shift kit, and 2200 stall. Now I know my stall is what is really going to hurt me, but forget about that for now. I want at least 400 hp out of this bad boy. I know that using the desktop dyno programs is just a wild guess as to how much horsepower your engine will actually have.. I have been wanting a cam with duration around the 226-230 range. I've been looking at crane cams. The first crane cam I plugged into this engine program is the crane 226/[email protected] cam. It has .502/.520 lift, 110 lobe. Desktop Dyno says my engine will have [email protected] with this cam. When I plug crane cams 230/[email protected], .509/.526, 108 lobe into this program, it says my engine will have [email protected] How is it possible that a bigger cam would have less power (I mean its not that much bigger)...

Thanks,
Chris

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: 66stang on 4/23/02 11:57am ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Seems like the timing would be diff with the diff lobe seperation and whatnot. I'm far from a cam expert.

Alta Loma huh? Right next door to me (Fontana). Where are all these cool Mustangs around here? *grin*
 

·
Programmer
Joined
·
856 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
It really is amazing how many mustangs there are out there today. I see at least 5 to 10 a day, from the 65-66 era alone!

Also, i've come to the realization that DD2K sucks! Heh. So i'm going to just have to try a cam. I think I will pick the 230/240 one and see what she does!

Chris

On 2002-04-23 00:00, MunchE wrote:
Seems like the timing would be diff with the diff lobe seperation and whatnot. I'm far from a cam expert.

Alta Loma huh? Right next door to me (Fontana). Where are all these cool Mustangs around here? *grin*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
The I.E. is chuck full of classic Stangs. I have a 68. A guy I work with has a 66 and another co worker has a 68. Right around the corner from me is Bates Auto Upholstery which does classic Stang resto's. a few GT 350's and the such there. In Fontana there is a guy on a street behind the Farmer Boys at Cherry and Slover that has about 20 Classic Stangs on the lot that he parts out. This is where I got my 68'. Last of the complete cars he had.
 

·
Programmer
Joined
·
856 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Hey, that guy that parts them out. Is it some old guy that lives in fontana? he has a lot with them all over the place. I've been there a bunch of times if thats what your talking about.

On 2002-04-23 01:16, 68StangJurls wrote:
The I.E. is chuck full of classic Stangs. I have a 68. A guy I work with has a 66 and another co worker has a 68. Right around the corner from me is Bates Auto Upholstery which does classic Stang resto's. a few GT 350's and the such there. In Fontana there is a guy on a street behind the Farmer Boys at Cherry and Slover that has about 20 Classic Stangs on the lot that he parts out. This is where I got my 68'. Last of the complete cars he had.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
To help with your original question, I played around with my Engine Analyzer program, some Crane Cams, and your combo for a while. It predicts that the 230-240 cam will make about 10 more HP than the 226-236 108 cam. The same 226-236 cam with 112 degrees of lobe seperation, the H-286-2, seemed a bit better. It made 7 more HP on top end, a bit more low end torque and only sacraficed 2 ft/lbs in the midrange compared to the 226-236 108 cam. The 230-240 cam lost low end torque below 4400 RPM and was only 3 HP better than the 226-236 112 cam. Another cam that worked good was the H-234/3294-2S-10 cam (234-238 .527-.536 110 l/s) It made 11 more HP than the 112 l/s cam and 2 more ft/lbs at the peak and it was still slightly better than the 230-240 cam on low end. My program predicted 430 HP at 6000 and 430 ft/lbs at 4700 with that cam. I simulated dual 3" Flowmasters for an exhaust system as well just so you know, and to help you pick a converter, I'll tell you that with all of the cams the HP graph moved past 350 ft/lbs of torque at 3100 to 3300 RPM.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top