this was done on another forum I visit and made a great thread. I would prefer to keep it ford engines on here. Whether its in a maverick comet mustang doesn't matter
i dont know if this ran beter than it should have but it ran really well as was expected. i started with a 351 lighting short block that you could order from the ford motor sport catalog back in the 90s. i pulled the lighting flat tappet cam out and put the f-303 cam in. i put edelbrock performer rpm heads and intake on. erson 1.6 roller rockers, and a holley 750 dp carb. the motor went into a 69 mustang. that motor was a torque monster. i never got a dyno run on it or even a good run at the drag strip. i did alot of streetracing with it and would beat low 12 sec cars. it also had a 150hp nitrous on it that would let it run with low 11 sec high 10 sec cars. the math for the weight of the car said that on the motor it was around 425 hp. not too shabby for 351 ci.
My 302 in my 71 Grabber is bored over.040=308. Isky solid lifter cam, probe pistons, Eagle rods, Edelbrock aluminum heads, 750 HolleyHP, Hooker headers, MSD distributor, coil and ignition box, Meziere water pump, Holley blue fuel pump. Has gone 11.81.
I'm going to go the opposite direction here. The 70 Torino Type N/W I had was powered by a 351C 4V. It would light up the tires at will and even chirp into second (FMX). The reason it fits here is it had so much blow by if you got into it it would blow the breather and PCV out of the valve covers. Once it was torn down they found 5 bent pushrods and 2 broken pistons! The thing shouldn't have benn able to move under it's own power.
In the early'70s a bunch of us that run 289s and early 302s would cut the heads .030-.040,C7FE Ford Boss 302 solid lifter cam(34.00!) Edelbrock Torquer,650 Holley,dual point,headers,4.56s or 4.62s we'd turn 'em about 7200rpm and in a 3100lb. early Mustang or Falcon, Maverick,with a set of slicks we'd go 11.90s,- 12.30s,ran that comb in a couple different cars,never disapointed...
The combo in my car right now.1991 5.0 H.O,somewhere around 80,000 miles on it,fresh gaskets and oil pump(for front sump pan),B-303 cam,new valve springs matched for cam,had a valve job done while heads were apart,performer RPM intake ,650 Holley,used stock Mustang clutch,5 speed trans 3.89 gears. Driving the car easy (No clutch dumping,only shifting at 5500 rpm) it went 12.99 at 107mph.The clutch was getting so bad i had to let it cool down for a hour between passes.And i was shifting into 4th gear at abot the 1000 ft mark only going through the end at 4500rpm.With a little abuse there is some good nubers to be made with this $500 engine.
several: The current maverick....really shouldn't run 5.80's & 90's but it does. 408" 12:1...basically a street engine but on alcohol. My old Merkur. Stone stock short block, head, intake, and exhaust manifold. All I did was add an intercooler, some pipes, upped the timing and pulled some fuel pressure. Fun & fast...for a 2.3 my old '84 GT. Iron headed 306, 10:1, and an old hyd roller turbo-specific cam that the '74 Maverick had it in it when it was turbocharged. 1/8 mile 7.98. Full weight, full interior, 5 speed with 3.73's in a 7.5 and knocked out 30+ mpg believe it or not. Flip side: '83 F100 with a 514"/C6. Figured it would've been a lot quicker than it was. Truck was only 3900 lbs (light by today's standards....) but should have run a lot better than 8.70s (1/8). Carb sucked as did the intake (stupid Weiand that just didn't work, nor did it fit right....). Heads were D0VE-C with 2.25/1.75 valves and the ports were opened up. Tried different gears, everything from 2.26 (through the 1/8 mile in 2nd at 3800 RPM) to 3.89 and ET never really changed much, nor did MPH. The 3.89s were fun though on the street. Effortless burnouts. The 2.26's would BOIL rubber. Can you say wheel speed??? Speedo only read 85...would do that in low gear...barely. Dad's Fearmont. 347, nothing really special other than some compression. RPM heads, Jr intake, Powerglide...small solid roller...6.30's & 40's at 107. RPM heads should NOT be able to run those numbers, or, at least thats what I'm told.
