How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09

Topic: How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09 (Read 13159 times) previous topic - next topic

How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09

Reply #30 – January 23, 2009, 08:41:45 PM

Quote from: rancheronut;253213

sounds about right for those cars. but those good old boys, that where the 1st owners. now like to say they ran high 10 to low 12 right off the showroom floor in there story of the good old days..

Yep, just like the fish story, gets longer and weighs more with each telling... First thing you know that sardine is Moby Dick... LOL

BTW the 14.21 was ran with a Holley 600cfm 390GT carb in place the orignal 735cfm Holley(externally except for pt no, they look the same)... That one change no doubt hurt it by two tenths, but it is more responsive at part throttle with the smaller carb... Will lug down to 20mph in high gear and never whimper, whereas it would have a bucking fit at the same speed with the 735, so it just sets on the shelf...

Had a aftermarket Holley 780 on it for a time, by the ass-o-meter it was a little stronger than the 735... With that carb probably could have run a high 13, but I swapped it for something(so long ago I've forgotten)... At the time I was swapping carbs, I had a wife, two small kids, house payment, car payment(the Cobra Jet)and barely made ends meet, couldn't afford to go to the track... Figured that was OK at least I had the car(soon will be 36 years)...

How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09

Reply #31 – January 23, 2009, 08:42:05 PM

Quote from: rancheronut;253213

sounds about right for those cars. but those good old boys, that where the 1st owners. now like to say they ran high 10 to low 12 right off the showroom floor in there story of the good old days..

Yeah, kinda like my father, who cannot wrap his mind around the fact that new Mustangs and Corvettes are quicker and faster than the old ones ever were. Hell, his '08 V6 Sonata would probably run rings around his old '68 442. He doesn't understand that 300 horsepower back then was really more like 225, and that 5-inch-wide bias ply tires and leaf springs were not the best way to get that power to the ground. Most modern V6 four-door sedans are quicker than just about any small-block cars from the 60's, and even the big blocks would have their work cut out for them with some modern V6 FWD econopoopsters, and the modern car can actually turn a corner (and carry its occupants in air conditioned comfort and airbag/ABS/traction control safety, and actually last 250k+ miles with little more than oil changes, and return near 30MPG)...

Of course the 60's cars DO have modern ones all beat to hell when it comes to styling, and they can be made really fast, but in stock form most people look back on the 60's with rose coloured glasses.

How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09

Reply #32 – January 23, 2009, 09:32:57 PM

No doubt the new Mustangs have more HP than the 60's counterparts....we're talking v6 against the old v8's. Rear-wheel measured vs. flywheel back then, too.... but give me an old one anyday. Modern tech on suspensions as well...agreed.

But when it come to torque?

How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09

Reply #33 – January 23, 2009, 09:34:33 PM

boy if i could do a BBF again. i would do it in a heartbeat! the last 460 i built, was in 1997 .
i use BBF from a 1974 cougar XR7 WITH ONLY 24,000 MILES on the car.
stock 1974 ford shortblock.
1979 460 crank,
429 CJ rods,
ARP rod bolts,
.30 over TRW forged pistons,
svo cam (234intake/244 exhaust at.50) and svo chain set with ROADS lifters,
1974 460 heads with 2.09 intake/1.73exhaust/ intake pucket ported/complete exhaust ported ,
cast iron 1971 mustang 429 exhaust manifolds ,
complete 2 1/2 exhaust with dynomax (summit)lers,
EDLEBROCK dual plane plane,
780cfm vac sec holley,
2000 stall converter,
stock amco rebuild c-6 with after market shift kit.
3.89 rear gears stang first/ then swap 3.50,
3.50 ranchero
N50 street tires on rear .

short block clearance;
piston was .010
main was.003
rad was .0025

DROVE BOTH THE CAR AND then aTRUCK with this engine on the street plus race them . it idle at 900 at the stop lights. cruise great and i would turn 7200 rpm(3.89 gears) out the back door at the 1/4 mile .

foxbody ran 13 .1 and got 13 when it did have the 3.50 gears)
73 ranchero ran 13.9 and got 11 mpg with 3.50 gears)

massCougarxr7;
if your going to drive it on the street put some 1998 or up cobra springs all the way around..
here a photo of the ranchero and the BBF was close to 9 yrs old;
[

How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09

Reply #34 – January 23, 2009, 09:38:32 PM

the only reason i don't do 460 foxbody swap now is cuz i already have more rebuilt small blocks than projects.

but my zephyer wagon WOODY could go BBF INSTEAD SBF, if i Could fine a good deal on good BBF;

How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09

Reply #35 – January 23, 2009, 11:19:33 PM

Quote from: HAVI;253231

Rear-wheel measured vs. flywheel back then, too....

Nope today as then it was flywheel HP... Big difference is prior the "advertised" HP number was on a dyno tuned engine, running open headers... Detune the carb and ign for Joe Average street usage, fit a full exhaust system(which was often just 2" and never more than 2.25") and 25% of the original HP is now choked away...So basically HP numbers prior to '72 are what the car would have when modified... Today the rating is as installed with accessories and exhaust system...

If HP numbers back when(1970) were real, how could a 4100lb Buick GS(Skylark), with a 455, rated at 360Hp give such fits to 3900lb 450Hp 454 Chevelles??? Easy, Chevy like most of the others were lying... In the early 90s, based on trap speed in the 1/4mi, Muscle Car Review said the Buick had to producing 353Hp to run the numbers(13.3s @ 103) that were published in Hot Rod(or what ever rag)... The 454 Chevy was making similar numbers... Interestingly my Bird runs almost the same numbers(13.11 @ 105.3 best) as the Buick but I'm 400lb lighter... Still that means the little 5.0 is making close to the same HP as a 1970 455cu Buick...

It's been said the 335Hp rating on the 428 Cobra Jets was laughable(under rated), but in reality that's close to what they produced in stock form(still slightly over rated)... With above mentioned mods another 80-90Hp could be unleashed...

BTW MM&FF did a head comparison 7-8 years ago and squeezed 245 HP out of a totally stock HO 5.0, running with the open dyno headers... Soooo, a good set of headers and 2.5" cat back will maybe get you 20HP(assuming all else is stock)... On a modified engine with heads, cam and better intake the numbers could be closer to 50 Hp, which is what most mfgr's would advertise...

How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09

Reply #36 – January 23, 2009, 11:43:50 PM

I had a freudian slip. I was thinking 1972 and SAE, and mentioned rear wheel hp. You be right.

How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09

Reply #37 – January 24, 2009, 12:12:32 AM

Quote from: TurboCoupe50;253255

So basically HP numbers prior to '72 are what the car would have when modified... Today the rating is as installed with accessories and exhaust system...

.

, Muscle Car Review said the Buick had to producing 353Hp to run the numbers(13.3s @ 103) that were published in Hot Rod(or what ever rag)... Interestingly my Bird runs almost the same numbers(13.11 @ 105.3 best) as the Buick but I'm 400lb lighter... Still that means the little 5.0 is making close to the same HP as a 1970 455cu Buick...
.

I Found on the dyno you loose close to 100hp when you go from stripper to fully dressed with factory exhaust.
as 5.0 close to 455,maybe not SO close .because from my racing days .
weight= HP. BEING 400lbs lighter is big different when i comes to HP in ET racing.
thats why, i allwise like to use my dyno over ET guess's.
if you don't believe me look up what 1987 to 1993 mustang LX runs and then look up 1987 to 1993 mustang GT runs. the lx is close to 400lbs lighter than the GT. they have the same drive train/computer. the extra weight comes from the GT ground effects/ GT STUFF inside passenger compartment.
yes ,i agree the some of the newer cars can and will spank the good old boys when there both factory stock in both cars.

that why i have sold my 71 boss351/ 73mach1/ and other pre 1973 stuff . out of my 14 cars/trucks only2 are older than 1980 and that my 72 mustang coupe that i drove in highshool and my 1973 ranchero because it was free.
i like the mid 80s to late 90's. best of both worlds. you have newer drive train with out the government bull:flip:

.( like all the computer B.S. because people are laaaazy and have there car tell them what wroung/where to go/ even tech message them on the home computer when it check it self)

How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09

Reply #38 – January 24, 2009, 09:20:40 AM

Quote from: rancheronut;253269

as 5.0 close to 455,maybe not SO close .because from my racing days .
weight= HP. BEING 400lbs lighter is big different when i comes to HP in ET racing.
thats why, i allwise like to use my dyno over ET guess's.

Well IF the old assumption, loosing 100 lbs is worth a tenth applies, I'm maybe 20hp short of the Buick... Notice I ran quicker by .2 and 2mph... At equal HP I should have bee .4 quicker...

Anyway, you're correct, ETs are mostly worthless when comparing HP, it's the MPH that tells the story... Cast in point, dropping from a 4.30 to 2.80 rear will kill just about one second ET on a 3500 car with roughly 300Hp... BUT assuming traction is adequate, the mph will still remain relatively close... MPH is the benchmark, not ET...

Of course a dyno tells the story as well, but you can't race one of those... Or as one one guy at the local tracks states...

"You can sleep in your race car, but you can't race your house"...

How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09

Reply #39 – January 24, 2009, 10:50:34 AM

lol! weight and ETs dont mattter to me. i want my cougar to be a weekend driver, or summer car... Im shooting for 450 to 500 horse. I already have my list of parts for my build, the only thing im iffy about is my heads.. I want somthing like the edelbrock 95cc performer heads, but im not too willing to pay 900 bucks each.... But i did find some bare 95cc heads for like 700 each....probably wont save much,so ill just jump on the complete ones and avoid the hasssel.. The only thing that will be original to my block will be the crank and the block itself.... Pistons and beams are known to blow somewhere around 350 horse..(as told by 460ford forums) The stock crank can handle up to about 800 horse, so that wont need replacement...And dont worry I plan on taking photos every step of the way, and creating two threads. one for the motor build and one for the swap...Ive also sped the widebody idea....too much time involved and i dont want to be hated at CJ for ruining a nearly mint cat!!!!!

How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09

Reply #40 – January 24, 2009, 05:43:59 PM

Quote from: massCougarxr7;253331

lol!i want my cougar to be a weekend driver, or summer car... Im shooting for 450 to 500 horse. The only thing that will be original to my block will be the crank and the block itself.... Pistons and beams are known to blow somewhere around 350 horse..(as told by 460ford forums) The stock crank can handle up to about 800 horse, so that wont need replacement...cat!!!!!

the 429/460 had two style of rods;
1- first was stock passenger rod( none CJ style) was good for about350hp .
2- the factory 429 CJ or 1979 later truck( same as CJ) rods .
the(CJ OR 79later truck rod) LATTER one is used in the 460cid 500 hp m-6007-G460 and there 514cid 625 hp M-6007-D514 that SVO CRATE ENGINE that ford mass made

so you better call ford to recall all of them because you say there rods are only good 350HP.

just pick up a ford M-6009-E460 or better yet a M-6009-D514 short block and build your dream weekend driver, or summer car engine.

How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09

Reply #41 – January 25, 2009, 10:21:26 AM

Quote from: HAVI;253231

But when it come to torque?

I've heard that horsepower determines how fast you hit the wall, but torque determines how far the wall moves after you hit it....

How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09

Reply #42 – January 25, 2009, 01:20:05 PM

Well i was planning on rebuilding the block inside and out anyway...i would just like to have a completely rebuilt motor that makes serious power,and every part be frsh and new.....also im gonna take care of this motor and my cat for as long as i can. While im working on the block im also going to re-do the evry bushing and rusted bolt on the frond and rear. its pretty much going to be a completly rebuilt xr7, with a purdy big motor.... I dont care how much it will cost, money comes and goes, but cougars are yours forever!!!!!!!

How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09

Reply #43 – January 25, 2009, 01:21:31 PM

And yes it will be an AOD with appropriate shift kits and transbrake......just in case....i got a little something planned for the body too!!!

How possible? Pics of block and trans....3/18/09

Reply #44 – March 18, 2009, 10:55:17 AM

Heres a pic of my block, trans and stock heads.... enjoy, and the rust you see is a little rough on the outside, but the cylinders are only a very light surface rust........ its getting bored over anyway so it shouldnt matter.....

[/IMG]

[/IMG]
i think the trans is aod, but it came on the block and was in a 9,000 lb van, so its prob. not an aod