400 hp With a stock cam - Mustang Evolution

Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 1979-1995 Mustang GT



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them here!
Old 01-04-2014, 12:14 PM   #1
Registered Member
Regular
 
white95mustang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northwest Indiana
Region: Indiana
Posts: 40
400 hp With a stock cam

400 HP 302 ci AFR 165 cc(Stock Cam)

i stumbled upon this article about 2 days ago, and i was highly intrigued by it. The only thing i'm wondering is considering this ad is from july 2003, would it still apply to todays products that are being produced?

I have been trying to look for a N/A 350+ horse power build for under 3grand and this looks the most promising.

if all of this is true, would i lose any power keeping the car fuel injected, or would switching to carbureted make that much of a difference?
white95mustang is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-04-2014, 07:58 PM   #2
Registered Member
Regular
 
Sgt_Syke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Colorado Springs
Region: Colorado
Posts: 257
Switching it won't make enough of a difference to matter. Those don't really change your power numbers.
Sgt_Syke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2014, 11:36 PM   #3
Registered Member
Regular
 
white95mustang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northwest Indiana
Region: Indiana
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt_Syke View Post
Switching it won't make enough of a difference to matter. Those don't really change your power numbers.
you're talking about the carbureted vs efi difference, correct?
white95mustang is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-05-2014, 12:27 AM   #4
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Salinas
Region: California
Posts: 7,415
I see no reason not to believe that Car Craft article. Good flowing intake, heads, and a nice set of headers go a long way. Your stock intake probably won't flow like the Weiand/Demon set-up that they used but I doubt you'd see a dramatic drop in the numbers.
straybullitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 12:52 AM   #5
Registered Member
Regular
 
white95mustang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northwest Indiana
Region: Indiana
Posts: 40
and i can always get a bigger / better flowing intake manifold.
white95mustang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 12:55 AM   #6
Registered Member
Regular
 
TheRoadWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Shelbyville, KY
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 79
EFI is going to be more efficient, reliable and keep tuning capabilities ie Bama, Quarterhorse etc on the table, which can really make a big difference on a 400hp motor.
__________________
1995 GT. HCI 3500stall 4.10 gears.
1986 SVO project.
TheRoadWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 02:56 PM   #7
Registered Member
Regular
 
Sgt_Syke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Colorado Springs
Region: Colorado
Posts: 257
Correct, I was referring to efi v. Carb, no diff really.
Sgt_Syke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 08:07 PM   #8
Registered Member
Regular
 
white95mustang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northwest Indiana
Region: Indiana
Posts: 40
also 1 more question i forgot to ask, will the tri-y headers fit into a mustang? only because it said it was the motor was being put into a 60-65 falcon
white95mustang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2014, 09:49 PM   #9
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Salinas
Region: California
Posts: 7,415
Unfortunately, I don't think that Doug's makes.a long tube header for your car. You could call them and make sure though.
You should be able to achieve similar results with any QUALITY long tube header though.
straybullitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2014, 06:17 PM   #10
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,590
A stock headed AFR165 stock cam and good intake with bolt on/tune combo is good for around 280-300rwhp and that's about the limit of it, at least before a power adder. Word of advice, don't believe anything the magazines print. They inflate their numbers and make wild claims to sell magazines and get advertisers to pay them for space.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2014, 08:11 PM   #11
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Salinas
Region: California
Posts: 7,415
Awww, they're not that far off Scotty. Those numbers were on an engine dyno without all of the in car restrictions of the vehicle. With the drivetrain loss the numbers are close...
Kinda.
straybullitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 12:00 AM   #12
Registered Member
Regular
 
TheRoadWarrior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Shelbyville, KY
Region: Kentucky
Posts: 79
You guys made me feel a little better on my GT40P setup rather than what I was originally saving for which was the AFR 165. I had saved 1,500$ and was gonna dump it on the AFR heads, but instead pulled together my whole salvage yard combo for the same money, maybe a little less.
__________________
1995 GT. HCI 3500stall 4.10 gears.
1986 SVO project.
TheRoadWarrior is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 01:52 PM   #13
Registered Member
Regular
 
white95mustang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northwest Indiana
Region: Indiana
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottydsntknow View Post
A stock headed AFR165 stock cam and good intake with bolt on/tune combo is good for around 280-300rwhp and that's about the limit of it, at least before a power adder. Word of advice, don't believe anything the magazines print. They inflate their numbers and make wild claims to sell magazines and get advertisers to pay them for space.
well my goal is atleast ~320 wheel power. In the magazine print, they said theyre refering to power at the fly wheel, which is obvious. i dont plan on making any where near 400 wheel with this set up, you have to take into account of the loss of power between the motor and the wheels it self which is near roughly a 15% difference
white95mustang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 02:29 PM   #14
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,590
That isn't a 400 fwhp set up either. Those setups dyno at 280ish usually with the stock cam. If you factor in 15% driveline loss that's around 330fwhp. Again, the rags purposely inflate numbers and print flat out lies sometimes to sell product or just get ppl to read (and therefore get paid from advertisers).

You want a good combo? Do a GT40 head/intake/stock cam and supercharge it. 425-450whp, stock gas mileage, stock street manners, completely emissions legal no spending $2500-$3000 on a HCI and making 100hp less than someone with the supercharger. I learned this the hard way.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 05:40 PM   #15
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Salinas
Region: California
Posts: 7,415
Well, will you at least agree that you could have a pretty solid 350 bhp engine using that combination?
Just so that we don't have to go back and forth about how driveline losses can vary, a good deal, from that 15% that I see tossed around all of the time..
straybullitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 05:55 PM   #16
Registered Member
Regular
 
mike_jay5.0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: lauderdale
Region: Florida
Posts: 103
That build only produced mid 300hp. I have heard that the dyno they used was not calibrated.
mike_jay5.0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 06:17 PM   #17
Staff
Regular
Staff
 
scottydsntknow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: JB MDL
Region: New Jersey
Posts: 16,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by straybullitt View Post
Well, will you at least agree that you could have a pretty solid 350 bhp engine using that combination?
Just so that we don't have to go back and forth about how driveline losses can vary, a good deal, from that 15% that I see tossed around all of the time..
15% is the give or take parasitic loss, it could be more, it could be less, rwhp numbers are also tossed around too much vs timeslips.
__________________
2000 Mustang GT Steeda #0048

Just because I give you advice, doesn't mean I know more than you. Its just means I've done more stupid ****.
scottydsntknow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 06:33 PM   #18
Registered Member
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Salinas
Region: California
Posts: 7,415
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottydsntknow View Post
15% is the give or take parasitic loss, it could be more, it could be less, rwhp numbers are also tossed around too much vs timeslips.
Yep. Dyno numbers are good for measuring gains/losses during tuning and that's about it IMO...
straybullitt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Lower Navigation
Go Back   Mustang Evolution > 1979-2015 Mustang GT || Tech and Talk > 1979-1995 Mustang GT

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


» Like Us On Facebook



05:13 PM


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0

MustangEvolution.com is in no way associated with or endorsed by Ford Motor Company.