small (1k pound) trailer towcar. I'm building another car for vacationing/touring. Bought a 50k mile 1 granny owner 78 Zephyr 302, C-4, A/C ect. Have done the Fox/Mustang updates, suspension, brakes, 8.8 3.08 Trac-lok, ect.
Want to build gas mileage/torque engine. Thinking about high compression, SP2P W/truck Holley(annular boosters,about 500cfm), OEM Mustang shorties & 2.25" duals,cold air intake. Maybe oem style roller cam (spec's?), roller rockers, Snow water/methanol, MSD timing control.
Most of my driving will be 2k-3k rpm so i will start w/carb maybe go to mass air efi later.
Would like to get about 12-1 comp w/flattops, think there are some early small cc heads that would do it.
IDEAS and opinions Please! Especially on cam specs. There are some very sharp folks on here, I know there will be some great ideas coming.
My ZX-2 spoiled me on gas, my FE F-250 on pulling power and the Starliner on FUN. Now for a new project.
Thanks for listening,
Ron.
...with a '71 Pinto. Think'n a 3.00 rear, C4 trans, and a 289. I've got a 390cfm Holley and a 195@.050 cam I got from Ken at Oregon. Small chamber 58cc heads and flattop slugs. Maybe some skinny 27" tall tires tuck'd under.
I'm too chicken to go with that big compression. Don't think you can get 12:1 in a 289/302 with a flat piston. Besides, keep'n methanol in your Snow system could offset any gas savings.
only in the winter. Compression really picks up mileage/power, just got to be carefull on detonation. I think I remember early 221/260 heads at 43? cc's. Will settle for 11/1, zero deck of course. Read a story about a guy who put 14/1 slugs in a Fiesta, picked up 10mpg. Light cars are less prone to detonation though.
There are a lot of other small tricks too (tuck tires, narrow bumpers, block off grille and pickup air under the bumper etc... I also read years ago Pintos were more aerodynamic in reverse! One of the ProStock teams was going to turn the body around but NHRA nixed it.
The one thing i'm not sure about is the cam events, don't know of anyone who has done this compression/velocity thing except J.Feuling but, he pasted away a few years ago.
Keep the ideas coming guys!
Thanks,
Ron.
no 12.5 flats for standard-stroke 302, even with the 54-ish '65 quench chamber heads. There are some 260 heads with supposedly smaller chambers than that, but you are still talking big domes and a balancing act.
I'd go small domes and zero deck with Singh grooves.
Another closet Fairmont /Zepyhr fan eh? In addition to my 428 Fairmont 2 dr sedan race car, I have owned & modified several other 302 Fairmont 2 doors, and have a Zepyhr quite similar to yours. Mine is a 1 owner 79 Z7 coupe, that I bought from the 94 year old original owner a few years back. It still has it`s stock 302 2V, C4 and 2.26(!) rearend. The stock pistons in these 78-79 302`s are flat tops with 4 eyebrows, with the stock 79 cc heads, the stock compression is a whopping 8.4-1. On 2 of my cars, I swapped 1969 351W heads onto the 302, which was worth 6 tenths in the 1/4 mile. The rest of the combination consisted of a smallish "Blue Racer" cam (.448I, 472E lift, 204I, 214E @ .050 dur)Edelbrock Performer with a factory Holley 4 barrel from a 76 390 pickup, Hedman 1 1/2" long tube headers with no cats, and original 87-93 FOX Mustang mufflers and tailpipes, with extra 2 1/2" tubing added to accomadate the F/Z`s 5" longer wheelbase and much longer rear overhang. I had a 8.8 Trac Lock with 3.55 gears, and started out with the stock C4, with a B&M "Holeshot" convertor & shift kit, later I rpalaced the C4 with a T5 5 speed. The 5 speed made a huge differance, 9 tenths quicker in the 1/4 mile (12.80@105 mph best), and much better fuel mileage, as the overdriven 5th gear knocked the freeway RPM down by almost 1000 RPM (about 2200 RPM @ 70 MPH.) I never really kept track of MPG numbers, but the 5 speed easily traveled more than 100 mile further per tank with the 5 speed. I am considering doing pretty much the same mods to my Zepyhr, although the C4 may stay, so my wife can drive at least ONE of my cars!
428 powered Fairmont drag car, Best ET:10.03@132.11MPH, best 60 ft: 1.29
59 Meteor 2 dr. sedan 332, Ford O Matic
74 F350 ramp truck 390 4speed
Rory, you just outted me for the Fox fan i am. LOL.
May 25 2009, 11:30 PM
My Zephyr had a 2.53 gear ugh! I put a 500 2v w/1982 5.0 GT aircleaner on when i first bought it and w/the 5.0 exhaust system (oem headers, 1985 offroad pipe shortened! 1990 oem mufflers and LX tailpipes w/extensions) it picked up a bunch. Am just finishing up the 1990 3.08 TL w/SSB discs and GriggsSport T-Bird torque arm and panhard bar, variable rate coils, Airlift bags, and Konis.
Did you know the Fox Mustang seats and folddown rear fit? Just don't cut out the X behind the rear seat until you strengthen the chassis or your rear window will explode! (ask me how i know that!) LOL!
Originally bought this car for a beater to replace my 81 Granada, it belonged to a friends granny but it is too nice to beat up so i'm building the car i can no longer buy new (V-8 RWD Sedan). Think I can build a nice cruiser under 15k and drive it for 10 years or more!
Thank you all for the info and keep it coming!
Ron.
Although a good suggestion - I am concerned whether its possible?
May 26 2009, 7:47 AM
The chambers of the early 221, 260 heads are awfully small. Not to mention the ports where never intended to flow at any appreciable level. Even with larger valves, if they will physically fit - the ports might be more of a problem than valve size.
The 289 (hipo ?) might be the minimum head that would accept a decent (1.9ish intake / 1.6ish exhaust) and support reaonable flow rates.
this is just speculation on my part. Might be worth measuring valve spacing on those early heads to see if its possible to fit larger valves .... without hitting water or having them choked to the point of being useless by shrouding or the pockets.
There was an article on those 221 heads a while back as the "trick" way to get compression. They have tiny valves stock, as the bore was only 3.5". One-piece guide plates are often listed as fitting 221's as well as 289's, but I would sure double check the spacing to be sure.
Hipo and regular heads have the same ports and chambers, so there's no need to spend bux on the HP stuff. Lots of quench heads still floating around.
Too many car mags to go through, but I'm thinking I've seen this on the Net somewhere also. Bob Machoneman (his legal last name, I'm sure) would be the most likely to have a link, especially since he hangs out in the N54 SBF group a lot. I'll try some hit-or-miss searches but no guarantee.
If 260's wind up being a ticket, torino john has a set for $100.
as I kinda skipped this thread over the holiday. See Reid's page below on the 221-260 heads. Actually the slightly larger valve sizes in the 260 head (and I think this is what FElony was alluding to) seems to be the better pic.
Now, that being said, the much later GT-40P heads as delivered on Explorers would be an even better choice. Cheap and they even outflow even the GT-40 heads. However, at about 59cc's, getting maximum but still streebale compression may require a special piston.
heads seem to have the same chamber as early 289, so really the 221 is the answer for Ron's evil, I mean thoroughly respectable, idea.
There was a 221 in my local Craigslist a few weeks back. Just checked and now it's gone. Must be someone else with the same sick, I mean totally logical, scheme.
There seems to be some conflict among documentation sources for early heads
May 26 2009, 6:34 PM
"...The 289 High Performance cylinder head is a unique casting. The Hi-Po head has cast-in valve spring pockets that maintain spring stability at high revs. This head also has screw-in rocker arm studs. These features make this head very desirable for racing and street performance applications. Valve size is the same as the standard 289 head through 1967. The 1967 289 High Performance service head has slightly larger ports while keeping the same sized valves. The Hi-Po head number to look for is C3OE, which is the 1963 head with small 49.2cc chambers (for higher compression). This head has the smaller valves1.67/1.45-inch. Beginning in 1964, the 289 Hi-Po s intake valve size increased to 1.78-inches where it remained through 1967.Combustion chamber size increased to 54.5cc for 1964, just like the standard 289 head. Numbers to look for here are C4OE-B, C5OE-A and C5AE-E. These heads are obvious at a glance. Just look for the valve spring pockets and screw-in studs..."
At some point they started making them the same, but not the early heads. The Ford Perfomace magazine by Pat Ganal...seems to be one source of the confusion. then there is a mention of the same differences listed above. I found that online at http://www.mre-books.com/interchange/interchange5.html. The reference is from "High Performace Ford; parts interchange" by George Reid.
I'm not so much arguing the point, after all these years - it would take a miracle to find an unmolested set of heads from 1960's, even harder to find Ford HiPo heads that hadn't be "worked". But if someone is looking for a needle in a hay stack, might as well look for the Golden ones while you are at it.
This message has been edited by beoweolf on May 26, 2009 6:45 PM This message has been edited by beoweolf on May 26, 2009 6:40 PM
I have a set of '66's salted away for later, actually three sets
May 26 2009, 7:11 PM
they have the slotted pushrod holes, but otherwise unremarkable. They are all in the 54cc range. It would take a dome to get over 10:1 with them.
I built a straight axle '66 Mustang for a guy with a 289 and 221 heads with 1.94/1.5 valves, just enough cut away for the valves and the domes to fit. That was a wicked little bastard, 4-speed-4.88 detroit locker. 110 octane only. I think it was right at 14:1. It had the biggest cam we could find in it and it still idled at 1000 rpms. It was like a chainsaw.
Ah the good old days when gas let you do that. The closed chamber Boss 302 engine and trans I built back in 1974 had a big set of domes too. We put it in my uncle's '37 Plymouth business coupe. 4-speed-4.88s DL again. That was a hot rod. Pink premium, the wonder drug for all that ails you.
The stick will be a big mileage gain but you need to watch that highway RPM if pulling a trailer. You kill mileage by lugging it and that might happen at 2000 rpm or more, a T5 with 3.08's pretty much needs EFI to be efficient. Gear it to do do 2200-2500 on the highway and you won't need to downshift for every slight hill. I like the 83-85 Mustang Holley 4180 carbs, I don't think the truck carb is any advantage over that. You don't want to kill power at the expense of mileage and you can have both. I would not use an SP2P. The Performer RPM is better... it makes lots of low end torque and doesn't hurt top end obviously.
Trans is a C-4 W/stock converter, B&M Towing shift kit, Deep pan, big aux cooler and temp gauge.
3.08 rear and various tire heights should keep it in a carbs rpm range.
I will be very aware of throttle opening and lugging for sure.
Don't need much high end power, just gobs of torque to get it moving.
Thanks for the info Tom,
Ron.
Bob Mannel's book Mustang & Ford Small Block V8 1962 - 1969 is the bible on the early heads, he has pictures and outlines of the chambers as well as a compression ratio chart. The 289 HiPo heads did not flow any better than the "regular" 289 heads. Some of those early chambers were very similar to current thinking in chamber design except the spark plug was recessed in those old heads.
I bought a 85 Mustang GT new, special ordered it with many delete options, one of the few with no A/C. Order it with 3.08 gears but it came with 2.78. It would get 27 mpg or more at 70 mph stock, the only change was an Edelbrock EGR Performer intake, Motorsports 140 speedo, underdrive March pulleys(first set made), and Hurst shifter. The Edelbrock was a big improvement, more HP, more MPG and idled better - stock intake is junk. Edelbrock no longer offers that intake, it was very similar to the current Torker II except it was made to fit the stock EGR carb plate. Sometimes the Mustang would get over 30 mpg. Those years Holleys are good street carbs. BTW the stock EGR was still hooked up.
some amazing gains from a 351w i think, in a f -150, was in the mid upper 20's, maybe low 30's. Along with 400hp range. Cant think of his name off the top of my head. Ran a head shop up in Canadia I believe, was posting on here alot awhile back. Havent heard anything as of lately.
This car is a highway cruiser, set the cruise @90, turn up the a/c, srereo and roll. Don't need 400hp but, 400lb ft @ 2000 rpm would be nice!
A friend has a bone stock 87LX Conv that got 27mpg on the road when it was brand new. If I can match that i'll be a happy camper....
Just got home so i'm going to check all the provided links and post more later.
Thanks so much to everyone!
Ron.
