Skip to main content

Mustangs with lots of horsepower like other cars are nice but I can't get excited about 0-60 times from green light to the next green light. I mean it is exhilarating but I get bored pretty quick with launch pad starts. 

On the other hand even if I might like to get another 50hp,  I still find that much of the joy is not rocketing from the Green light but the twisties and rowing through the gears with a close ratio box.  

I guess one could have one AC car,  and another one with more of a cruiser setup.  

What say you?  

Stan Galat posted:

Subi-guys: y’all realize that in today’s world, 175 hp is pretty tame, right? I understand the superiority of the platform (vs. Type 1), etc.— but just for perspective, there’s a Ford dealer in Ohio bolting superchargers on new Mustang GTs (which bumps them up to 800 hp), and then selling them for $40k.

I'm old enough to remember when Ford absolutely crowed about "The One-Hundred-Seventy-Five Horsepower Mustang GT."

ALB posted:
When fully warmed up, how high does the engine go with power when accelerating in 3rd gear?

On the street, I have never paid attention at what RPM the engine stops making power in third gear - I'm not sure if I trust the Chinese or Brazilian tachometer on the Vintage because the movement is not smooth. I'll make note the next time I'm on a spirited drive and will report back. Going by memory, when the engine was on the chassis dyno, it made HP power to 5700 RPM (max 128 HP at 5400 RPM), but I'm shifting around 4800 RPM because the torque is down low. I can break the tires loose when I shift into 3rd gear with a passenger. There is only 20 ft. lbs of torque difference between 2300 - 5400 RPM and max torque was 138 ft. lbs. All numbers at the wheels. The curves are very flat. But the torque curve has definitely shifted to the left

I can feel the acceleration slow around 5K in 1st and 2nd hence I shift at 4800 RPM when driving spirtedly. In the city, I can shift between 2200 - 2400 RPMs and still be able to keep up with traffic.

ALB posted:
And I know the oe Lemmerz wheels are heavy, but at 20 lbs each axle that's 40 lbs, right?

Yes, I meant 40 lbs total. One 6x15 Deep Six Fuch with a 185/70 Pirelli Cinturato CN36 tire weighs approx 21 lbs. The steel Lemmerz weighed the same but with no tire. I mounted a larger and inexpensive 195/65 tires on the steelies at an approx which weigh approx 20 lbs.


ZFNHSN posted:

I have a '63 VW pan. My 2276 doesn't seem to overwhelm the chassis.  I will follow up in six more months however

Again, no heater for me. Web 86b, 105 LSA, 42/37.5 valves on 040 heads. My deck height is not 'optimal' but I had 45cc heads to work with. I have no issues with low end response, overheating and driveabiliry  

I do think a smaller motor would be more in the spirit of what these cars were designed to run with the available technology back in the day. 

The Webcam 86B is intended for 1.4 or 1.5 rockers. If it was my car, I'd put 1.5 rockers on it. If those heads breathe well you can up the compression to 10:1 with no problem on 93 octane, as the dynamic compression numbers will be good with the large lift and duration.

I run the Web 86B with Pauter 1.5s in a 2165cc, and it pulls to 6500. I'm running 10.2:1 static with no pinging, but an accurate ignition system and jetting are crucial. I'm running just under .040" deck height with 52cc chambers. Valves are 44 x 37.5 on seriously massaged(welded and relocated plugs and welded intake ports and manifolds) 040 castings. Yours should be similar, you'd be at 10.1:1 with .100" deck height and the numbers you provided.

Agreed about third gear runs, with my 3.44 R&P I'm really moving along close to redline. It is hard to pay attention to power levels when the world is going by around 100mph.......

Last edited by DannyP

When I was trying to defang the CPR 2332 (I know Bruce has had good luck with Chico-- I did not), I tried running my 44 x 38 mm heads with an SLR cam on 105 lobe centers. It did not work as intended-- the idea was to give some bottom end back to a set-up designed to scream. I did not like it at all-- it completely neutered the top end, and gave me almost nothing on the bottom.

Lots of CB grinds are on 107 LCs, but most everybody else runs 108s.

My heads and valve train should support  1.4/1.5 rockets. I'm running dual high rev valve springs and these heads should flow, but I still need to look into clearance, compression, deck height, etc... Looking at the dyno results, the engine still made power at the upper end of the range and the HP numbers didn't really tail off like one would expect.  I think there is more power to be had without going too overboard and sacrificing reliabilty. So I believe 1.4/1.5 rockers will give me a few more ponies and perhaps extend the power band to maybe 6K. I've never had a large T1 before and this is my first experiment with a narrow LSA cam. It feels different with so much power down low  and hard to get used. It's still fun though.


Post Content
Link copied to your clipboard.