• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cheap Horsepower

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
zerocool84 said:
This thread was about cheap horsepower and you can't get any cheaper than Civics or old Bugs. I never said it'd be driveable though.
Click to expand...

You can easily find a car with an older american V8 and make faster than a civic dollar for dollar. Many chevy and ford V8s can stand up to a fair amount more power and have plenty of aftermarket support. A chevy 350 is probably the easiest engine to find aftermarket parts for more power out there.
 
Bignate603 said:
You can easily find a car with an older american V8 and make faster than a civic dollar for dollar. Many chevy and ford V8s can stand up to a fair amount more power and have plenty of aftermarket support. A chevy 350 is probably the easiest engine to find aftermarket parts for more power out there.
Click to expand...

Depending on how you wanted to make power, you could easily find a v8 running/driveable F-body for under $1000 in most areas and add some spray.
 
TehMac said:
fyi, here is a link Ford/Mustang fans might find interesting 😀
Click to expand...

O.M.G. The strength of the old Cleveland block, the oiling and cooling of a Windsor. Do want. Do want very much. Since the 351 was simply half an inch taller deck height than a 302 one should bolt right in and pass a visual smog inspection in states requiring such things. Sure, it'll add another 200 pounds to the front of the car absolutely destroying the handling, but I could live with that.

Time to see how many kidneys I have left. A 351 block and a set of http://www.coatesengine.com/csrv.html these... mmmm. I need a moment.
 
jlee said:
You'll probably need slicks to hook up when you spray unless you have a staged setup..my buddy's modded MS3 will light up first and second like nothing, and it's not 400hp.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you might be right, im going to see how it goes without a staged setup and then if needed make adjustments, After installing a aftermarket front crossmember it hooks pretty good now but ill see how it goes after the engine swap.
 
v8envy said:
O.M.G. The strength of the old Cleveland block, the oiling and cooling of a Windsor. Do want. Do want very much. Since the 351 was simply half an inch taller deck height than a 302 one should bolt right in and pass a visual smog inspection in states requiring such things. Sure, it'll add another 200 pounds to the front of the car absolutely destroying the handling, but I could live with that.

Time to see how many kidneys I have left. A 351 block and a set of http://www.coatesengine.com/csrv.html these... mmmm. I need a moment.
Click to expand...

Will it add another 200 pounds? That doesn't sound right. It's a small block, not a big block.

Plus, they might make an aluminum block, I know 302 engine customizers who offer the 302 in aluminum.
 
Squisher said:
I don't know if it's the season or the new Camaro coming out, but prices seem to have crept up a fair amount on LS1 F-bodies. I've been thinking about selling my '02 Z28 for 3 years now (just can't bear to part with it, though) and it seems prices are $2-3K more than I remember them being the last time I looked. I'd have thought I'd have to settle for $9K for mine with 37K mi., leather, t-tops, and chrome wheels. Now, asking prices are more like $13K so I figure they'll settle for $11K-$12K.
Click to expand...

scorp00 said:
Another vote for LS1 fbody. I've seen LS1 fbody's with < 100k go for a little over 5k. I have 93k on mine and it's still burns the tires off.
Click to expand...

Gillbot said:
Depending on how you wanted to make power, you could easily find a v8 running/driveable F-body for under $1000 in most areas and add some spray.
Click to expand...

I'd love to know where people are finding LS1 cars for under $5K that aren't hammered shit. There's non of them around here. LS1 powered F-bodies are still going for $8K plus.

Any F-body you find for $1000 is going to have some problem with it that's going to make it unsafe for high horsepower. Be it suspension problems, blown posi unit, or rust.
Also, if you want to make more than 300HP on a 3rd gen F-body (82-92) you'll want to get sub frame connectors and stiffen it up a bit.

Also, to the person that said an LT1 from a 93-97 is an SBC, you're wrong. The LT1 motor is a reverse coolant flow engine and heads, intake, and most accessories will not fit on an SBC.
 
TehMac said:
Will it add another 200 pounds? That doesn't sound right. It's a small block, not a big block.

Plus, they might make an aluminum block, I know 302 engine customizers who offer the 302 in aluminum.
Click to expand...

May be a bit of an exageration. But the 302 is a very, very light engine. That calls for some tradeoffs and explains why most versions make relatively low power. IIRC the whole thing including heads is 460 pounds. There are heavier 4 cylinders out there.

In contrast both the 351 variants had reinforcement in places the 302 didn't even have places. The reason 302s have 2 bolt main bearing caps rather than 4 on the 351 is not to save a couple of pennies on some bolts. There 4 bolt 302 blocks, of course, but they are basicaly just 351 blocks with an inch shaved off the top (and that extra inch means a wider, heavier intake too).

Aluminum blocks are fine for racetrack only cars but I wouldn't want an *aftermarket* one for a daily driver that needs to go tens of K miles between teardowns. You'll likely get very weird cooling issues (including detonation causing hot spots and blown head gaskets) if you build an aftermarket one and get stuck in traffic on a warm day. Aluminum heads have some of the same problems but to a lesser extent.
 
v8envy said:
May be a bit of an exageration. But the 302 is a very, very light engine. That calls for some tradeoffs and explains why most versions make relatively low power. IIRC the whole thing including heads is 460 pounds. There are heavier 4 cylinders out there.
Click to expand...

Ford 5.0 V8 411 '89 Mustang 5.0 GT (dry) inc: manifold,
carb(?), headers and alternator. Not
inc: starter, smog pump, power steering
pump, AC compressor, flywheel

Pontiac Tempest slant 4 470


...but then again:
Buick/Rover 215 V8 318
Honda B18B four 326 🙂
 
TehMac said:
Well, in 1967, Shelby had the 302 in bone stock configuration as an option for his GT 350 Mustang. The engine had a four barrel carburetor and is noted to produce around 335 hp. Now I believe that is gross hp, so net hp is around 300-315.

One of the things that kind of disgusts me about Shelby is that he lost his innovative flair right after the '65 GT350. The '67 and following Gt350s were bigger and tbh, kind of crap compared to the original, and his GT500 wasn't really the best effort he could have made. The thing was heavy as hell and had the cobra jet engine--good for drag stangs but considering the sort of cars Shelby was known for prior to this, not the sort of thing you'd expect from him.

To be fair, he did experiment with a "Hornet Mustang" in 1968 that had fuel injection and Independent Rear Suspension, but why he never added that on is a mystery.

More agonizingly, the 302 was a beautiful engine that he could have modded like he did the 289. Balanced the camshaft, install a higher flow carb, aluminum intake manifold, he could have bettered his cars a great deal. But he chose not to, which is irritating.




Well I think SN95 started in '93 or '94, but I think the interest in the 5.0 surged in the late '90's, mid 2000's.
Click to expand...

302's came out in the GT350 in 1968. In 1967 the 428 was needed to hit that 335hp mark. (the K code 289 in the GT350 hit 306HP vs 271hp in the regular mustang lineup..there was a supercharged Paxton version though that could hit 375hp under low boost on the GT350).

The 289 and 302 aren't that much different in the 60's vintage.
 
JeffreyLebowski said:
I'd love to know where people are finding LS1 cars for under $5K that aren't hammered shit. There's non of them around here. LS1 powered F-bodies are still going for $8K plus.

Any F-body you find for $1000 is going to have some problem with it that's going to make it unsafe for high horsepower. Be it suspension problems, blown posi unit, or rust.
Also, if you want to make more than 300HP on a 3rd gen F-body (82-92) you'll want to get sub frame connectors and stiffen it up a bit.

Also, to the person that said an LT1 from a 93-97 is an SBC, you're wrong. The LT1 motor is a reverse coolant flow engine and heads, intake, and most accessories will not fit on an SBC.
Click to expand...

I've seen plenty of higher mile cars that are below $5K with plenty of life left in them. Sure, they are not going to be a show stopper, but what do you expect for a car that's 8-12 years old already?

Also, pretty much any fbody should get subframe connectors.

As for a sub $1000 car being unsafe for horsepower, that depends on the car but i've seen PLENTY of people get a running small block chevy powered car and hit it with a 100-200 shot of nitrous for fun track days and they are still alive. Furthermore, having suspension "problems", not having a posi or having some rust doesn't make a car unsafe.
 
Ever consider some less well-known classic muscle? There are plenty of cars from the late 60's that you could drop a nice v8 into for a reasonable price, as long as one has never been sold on Barrett Jackson.
 
alkemyst said:
302's came out in the GT350 in 1968. In 1967 the 428 was needed to hit that 335hp mark. (the K code 289 in the GT350 hit 306HP vs 271hp in the regular mustang lineup..there was a supercharged Paxton version though that could hit 375hp under low boost on the GT350).

The 289 and 302 aren't that much different in the 60's vintage.
Click to expand...

From what I understand, the 428 was underrated, it really produced around 420 hp stock, and then some more if you tampered with it.

But the 302 with GT40 heads was offered in Australia in the late '60's, and that produced 335 hp.
 
crazySOB297 said:
Ever consider some less well-known classic muscle? There are plenty of cars from the late 60's that you could drop a nice v8 into for a reasonable price, as long as one has never been sold on Barrett Jackson.
Click to expand...

I'd absolutely LOVE to get an old '65 or '66 Plymouth Barracuda, Valiant, a '69 Satellite painted tan gold (in honor of an old friend who had one back then) maybe with a 318, maybe with a modern Mopar 360 carb'd.

Not too hot on the Dodge Demons, but the dusters are pretty cool, especially with the banana twist.

it'd be cool to have a dilapidated '73 Mercury Comet with a 302 you could hop up and then restore the thing.

Definitely lots of cars with sporty aspirations that look cool too.
 
AdamK47 said:
LS1 FBodies can even beat the new 5.0 Mustangs.
Click to expand...

And old Fox-body Mustangs with the 302 can beat the new Camaros.

Comparing modded cars to stock cars isn't accurate. Now, I'm with you if you say that an LS1 F-body would likely be a cheaper platform in terms of HP/$ than a Fox-body 302 but just saying that a modded LS1 F-body can beat the current stock Mustangs really doesn't mean anything aside from that it can also beat the current stock LS1 Camaro.

ZV
 
Zenmervolt said:
And old Fox-body Mustangs with the 302 can beat the new Camaros.

Comparing modded cars to stock cars isn't accurate. Now, I'm with you if you say that an LS1 F-body would likely be a cheaper platform in terms of HP/$ than a Fox-body 302 but just saying that a modded LS1 F-body can beat the current stock Mustangs really doesn't mean anything aside from that it can also beat the current stock LS1 Camaro.

ZV
Click to expand...

Nope. Both stock.
 
AdamK47 said:
Nope. Both stock.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that the LS1 F-body cars were faster than the new Camaro SS. Interesting. I've never seen any published time where an F-body cracked 5 seconds 0-60; best I've seen was 5.2, which was slower than the '05+ 4.6 litre Mustangs.

ZV
 
Zenmervolt said:
I didn't know that the LS1 F-body cars were faster than the new Camaro SS. Interesting. I've never seen any published time where an F-body cracked 5 seconds 0-60; best I've seen was 5.2, which was slower than the '05+ 4.6 litre Mustangs.

ZV
Click to expand...

I don't believe they are. The problem mostly lies with the driver IMHO because the new camaros are heavy and hard to launch where the older cars were more forgiving.
 
alkemyst said:
where is this listed? That's news to me.

Still didn't happen in 1967 though.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Windsor_engine#302

Ford Australia also built some stroked, 5.7 L (~342 cu in) Windsors. With reworked GT40P heads (featuring larger valves), a unique eight trumpet inlet manifold, long throw crank, H beam rods and roller rockers. They produced 335 hp (250 kW) and 369 lb&#183;ft (500 N&#183;m).
Click to expand...

So it's stroked. Interestingly, I want to do a project similar to this, but I don't think I'll be using GT40 heads 😛
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top