Horsepower
Thread Starter
|
Freshman User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Horsepower
Why is the 1969 Ford Bronco with a 302 V-8 rated at 220 horsepower and 9.5-1 compression and the 1973 Ford Bronco with a 302 V-8 rated at 138 horsepower and 8-1 compression.
How can I get the same horsepower and compression as the 1969 302 out of my 1973 302 and still have it look like a stock engine?
Thanks, I look forward to your replies.
How can I get the same horsepower and compression as the 1969 302 out of my 1973 302 and still have it look like a stock engine?
Thanks, I look forward to your replies.
Super Moderator
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 34,517
Likes: 2,826
HP ratings changed in '72 to NET HP, rather than the overstated previous ratings, which were done without aircleaners, exhaust, PS pumps etc.
Also, the lower CR made a difference, and a few other mods for emissions purposes.
All this stuff is internal except heads and intakes, if they are different. (sorry, can't tell you).
You can make a '69 clone easy. Just use '69 parts or equivalent, such as pistons, cam and the heads etc.
Also, the lower CR made a difference, and a few other mods for emissions purposes.
All this stuff is internal except heads and intakes, if they are different. (sorry, can't tell you).
You can make a '69 clone easy. Just use '69 parts or equivalent, such as pistons, cam and the heads etc.
Junior User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 66
Likes: 2
From: Surrey, BC
Ford Blue, what is your purpose for making it look stock? Is this for emissions test inspection or for show purposes? As 85e150six4mtod said most of the differences were internal so only a keen eye would notice different year heads. Is there any emissions equipment on your 73?
Thread Starter
|
Freshman User
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Toque,
My reason for keeping it looking stock is I like the stock look. To me it is great to get great performing engine and everyone thinks you got all these aftermarket add ons and you raise your hood and you watch their jaw drop when they see a stock engine compartment. I would rather change the inside and get the horsepower and compression like the 69. Would a 66 Autolite 2100 2 barrell be a better carburetor than the current 73 2-V Motorcraft. I have a friend that put a stock cast iron 4-V intake with a Autolite 4100 and he did not notice much horsepower increase just more gasoline usage. Thanks
My reason for keeping it looking stock is I like the stock look. To me it is great to get great performing engine and everyone thinks you got all these aftermarket add ons and you raise your hood and you watch their jaw drop when they see a stock engine compartment. I would rather change the inside and get the horsepower and compression like the 69. Would a 66 Autolite 2100 2 barrell be a better carburetor than the current 73 2-V Motorcraft. I have a friend that put a stock cast iron 4-V intake with a Autolite 4100 and he did not notice much horsepower increase just more gasoline usage. Thanks
Super Moderator
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 34,517
Likes: 2,826
If your 73 2V is not a variable venturi, then look on the side of it for a clock-like bunch of numbers on the side, with a 1.-- number cast in the middle of it.
The bigger that number, the bigger the carb.
1.10 to 1.23 if I recall.
So, if you are running a 1.23 and your 66 carb is a 1.10 or any number small than what you have, save the carb gasket cost.
Somewhere here someone has posted the CFM for the Ford 2V carbs. All are well under 500 CFM. Seems to me a 302 can only suck in just under 400 CFM anyway, so without internal changes, cylinder heads to improve that number and a cam to make things happen, the change to a 4V results in what your buddy has...more gas, not much more pass.
Don't limit yourself with the stock look. Once you get the internals cooking, an aluminum intake and headers are almost a must.
For a totally stock look, keep the 2V, build the bottom end and valve train like you're going to run the Indy 500, and hide a nitrous set up in there for power.
The bigger that number, the bigger the carb.
1.10 to 1.23 if I recall.
So, if you are running a 1.23 and your 66 carb is a 1.10 or any number small than what you have, save the carb gasket cost.
Somewhere here someone has posted the CFM for the Ford 2V carbs. All are well under 500 CFM. Seems to me a 302 can only suck in just under 400 CFM anyway, so without internal changes, cylinder heads to improve that number and a cam to make things happen, the change to a 4V results in what your buddy has...more gas, not much more pass.
Don't limit yourself with the stock look. Once you get the internals cooking, an aluminum intake and headers are almost a must.
For a totally stock look, keep the 2V, build the bottom end and valve train like you're going to run the Indy 500, and hide a nitrous set up in there for power.
