'78 Cobra 302 into 87 Ranger?

[Angie]

I am a show me kinda person. here is what i can come up with from what is being presented in a real way. in my build i will be impressed with a total 290 HP NET but in reality i am probably more at 275. Fully dressed HP.

cheers


http://www.automobile-catalog.com/make/ford_usa/mustang_2gen_ii/mustang_2gen_ii_cobra_ii/1978.html

petrol (gasoline) engine with displacement: 4942 cm3 / 301.6 cui, advertised power: 99.5 kW / 133 hp / 135 PS ( SAE net ), torque: 330 Nm / 243 lb-ft


NET vs GROSS HP ratings
https://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/


define HP GROSS

Gross output, which in the U.S. is typically measured using the methodology laid out in SAE standards J245 and J1996, is the output of a ‘bare’ engine running on a test stand with no external engine-driven accessories (e.g., alternators or water pumps), free-flowing exhaust headers with no mufflers, and optimal ignition timing. Gross ratings are also mathematically corrected for standard atmospheric conditions. In other words, gross output represents a particular engine’s maximum output under ideal conditions.

define NET

For that reason, the SAE and similar bodies have also established standards for measuring net output. Net ratings, such as the ones defined by SAE standards J1349 and J2723, are still taken with the engine on a test stand, but reflect stock ignition timing, carburetion/fuel delivery, exhaust systems, and accessories. The specific methodology varies depending on the specific standard being used, but the gist is that a net rating is a closer approximation of an engine’s output as actually installed in a car.

1978 302 = 133 NET HorsePower

add stuff heads https://lmr.com/products/what-are-gt40-heads-mustang

What Are The GT40 Head Power Gains?

Although you will see different gains from car to car and with more mods, we can give you a ball park power gain that you will see from doing the swap. Most stock Fox Body Mustangs can expect an increase of 20-40 horsepower over stock heads (at the crank), so around 15-30 rear wheel horsepower.

new HP 133 + (stock 35?hp) = 165HP

Add Cam extra 25-30 hp? add intake and 4 BBL 25 HP? add long tubes +15HP

165 + 80 = 245 ?? NET if lucky

 

[Will]

It's what it feels like when you punch the gas that matters.

 

[bobbywalter]

not sure where your at with the net/gross instructional thing and useless wheezer power numbers. unless your only willing to work with parts from that era or something...

magical 350 cube 350 hp.....??????? yeah it was magical in 1977....hard to do in 87.....getting normal in 97 and out of the showroom 700-800 hp streetable and...affordable cars exist today...

even in the 80's.... i had built offset stroker 340 based chryslers pushing the naturally aspirated 500 hp mark which i did not know at that time.. ....a later alum head version reaching 550/550 was a pleasant surprise....of course...it was over 400 cubes but a pleasant surprise none the less.. unfortunately.. streetable it was not.... for someone that was not a mechanic...

350 rwhp out of a 5.3 is generally an untuned cam swap...



for your 302....

assuming your not going stroker...


which i would suggest to consider a stroker if its power you want....

then a afr head, with suited cam and intake at about 10-10.5 to one and pump gas will get you 300 wheel hp with the fawking ac running and a c6 power hog putting go get some to the rear axle....may or may not require rods and pistons...


a complete trickflow set up and the right pistons will definitely go beyond a 100 percent ve for a few rpm...


cheap.....fawk no. 300 rwhp...easy with money.


good fuel economy?????











no

 

[Angie]

for your 302....
assuming your not going stroker...
which i would suggest to consider a stroker if its power you want....

i would go 351 before i would stroke a 302. i do have a 351 cleveland on a stand.

my build is a 306 with gt40p roller rockers, 5500 rpm custom ground original 68 cam from the 68 block, offy intake and 600 edelbrock.

and will be happy with this planted in the ranger. cheers

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Did Horse power ratings change somewhere along the way? It was magical if your engine hit the cubic rating IE 350 chev with 350 HP (naturally aspirated) Now it is easy to hit 350 HP at the rear wheels with out being blown in a small 302?

Can't wait to get my build finished then and see what a dyno will show.

thanks

Mid 90's 5.0 Cobra was 240hp out of the box, change intake, heads, cam, exhaust... 300 isn't too far out of line.

Of course the new 302/5.0 is running 430+/-hp factory stock right now, they have a lot of trickery going on compared to the old school pushrod engines though.

for your 302....
assuming your not going stroker...
which i would suggest to consider a stroker if its power you want....

i would go 351 before i would stroke a 302.

I looked into both and have to agree.

351W is a little bigger but you don't have to have everything balanced like you do with a stroker. Block is much stronger. I have read some don't like the bigger 351W bearings because they spin faster at a given RPM... I wouldn't be drag racing it anyway.

 

[Angie]

"Mid 90's 5.0 Cobra was 240hp out of the box, change intake, heads, cam, exhaust... 300 isn't too far out of line."

Gross or Net?

yes, but lets talk apples to apples.... 302 from 1978... non roller and carb... 90's EFI and full roller and better heads.... too easy to toss out the 350+ HP statement and expect it to be true.... noise from a tail pipe doesn't mean a nasty fast car/truck either.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

"Mid 90's 5.0 Cobra was 240hp out of the box, change intake, heads, cam, exhaust... 300 isn't too far out of line."

Gross or Net?

yes, but lets talk apples to apples.... 302 from 1978... non roller and carb... 90's EFI and full roller and better heads.... too easy to toss out the 350+ HP statement and expect it to be true.... noise from a tail pipe doesn't mean a nasty fast car/truck either.

I would assume by the mid 90's Ford had adopted the industry standard that came out in the early 70's.

'78 is more of an uphill climb but doable. Can convert to roller lifters if required, being that late it has the standard block so things like intakes are not goofy. Stock I don't know if they wheezed out 130hp though.

 

[bobbywalter]

I want to start by saying it's been YEARS since I've been here, but I'm finally back in a ranger and I'm glad to be back.

I scored a free 302 from a 78 Mustang Cobra that I'm going to be tearing apart, rebuilding and putting in my truck. I want to be pushing about 350 horse at the wheels, which shouldn't be too hard with a 302.

My truck is an '87 2wd 2.9 5 speed. I've been lurking here looking for answers for a bit but I can't find a good answer. What is going to be the most painless 5 speed to put behind this motor? M5R2? T5? Thanks in advance!

so....goal

"I want to be pushing about 350 horse at the wheels, which shouldn't be too hard with a 302."


What are your plans to do to the engine to hit these numbers? Curios to compare with what I have done.

cheers

curious of path to goal? or a challenge worthy of debate?

for whatever reason it appears you think 1 hp...actual real NON-GROSS...REAL ACTUAL HP to cubic inch is some sort of hard challenge.... 300 whp is easy with a 302....350 is a bit more of a challenge. so i am curious too.

for your 302....
assuming your not going stroker...
which i would suggest to consider a stroker if its power you want....

i would go 351 before i would stroke a 302. i do have a 351 cleveland on a stand.

my build is a 306 with gt40p roller rockers, 5500 rpm custom ground original 68 cam from the 68 block, offy intake and 600 edelbrock.

and will be happy with this planted in the ranger. cheers

lots of reasons to stroke a 302. weight and packaging is huge for a 2wd thrasher street brawling ranger....i like most, do agree when starting out with a 4x4 that will wheel and have bigger tires.... a 351 is the better dollar...and worth the extra effort...


if one wanted 350 whp like the op....which i guess for you would be net/net/actual tire smoke with the et's to back it up and not just tail pipe noise????

with the definitions listed....when i say whp...it will be a lower number then the two standards you outlined gross to net. corrected to the old standards 300 whp would look like 340-360 crank hp gross.


going to a complete trickflow setup is a non debate. 300 whp is just parts changing and dialing in the fuel...on the roller block

but stroker should be in that scenario for 350 wheel hp... in a 302 sized package which for a 2wd ranger application, there is merit to stroking.

"Mid 90's 5.0 Cobra was 240hp out of the box, change intake, heads, cam, exhaust... 300 isn't too far out of line."

Gross or Net?

yes, but lets talk apples to apples.... 302 from 1978... non roller and carb... 90's EFI and full roller and better heads.... too easy to toss out the 350+ HP statement and expect it to be true.... noise from a tail pipe doesn't mean a nasty fast car/truck either.

apples to apples.....? is it a 302 or not?


are you only using stock parts for 1978 for a 1978 engine

and comparing it only using stock parts from 1988 for a 1988 engine?




because you can get 300 whp from the 88 carefully modified/reconstructed...



the 78 if you lock yourself in that oem only footprint with that year parts....yeah....not happening.


is that apples to apples enough?


otherwise adding a custom hci to the 78 engine along with better rods and pistons easily pops the 300 whp cherry.


there are thousands of recorded builds getting 350 n/a wheel hp.....REAL HP....not 350 gross hp which is actually 130 hp...but 350 wheel horse power propelling a over stock weight fox platform on slicks into 11's.

its not magical....

there is only one question....what are you willing to spend to get there. and that is only overly high depending on the emissions requirements...

 

[Angie]

My whole point is and still is...


"I scored a free 302 from a 78 Mustang Cobra that I'm going to be tearing apart, rebuilding and putting in my truck. I want to be pushing about 350 horse at the wheels, which shouldn't be too hard with a 302. "

with this motor he is going to be shoving 6 grand or better into a black hole from a freaking BOAT ANCHOR.

many guys do not understand the dynamics of what it takes to build an engine capable of 350WHP. many guys just toss bs numbers and parts out there saying use this and that for this number.

here are 2 very interesting articles that will show what it takes from a factory that has the dollars behind it to engineer streetable cars/engines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Modular_engine

https://www.motortrend.com/news/infographic-shows-ford-mustang-horsepower-through-the-years/

if you don't believe me, call a engine building shop in your town. ask them what it takes to make 350 wrhp from a 302... and money factor.

here is a test for you. here is a 62 vette with a 350 twin blown engine. see if you can guess the net hp after dyno. here is a hint.... to turn the blowers took 100HP. this is a car my uncle had built in the late 80's. he can't get the teflon to stick on the blades anymore so its been parked for years as it sits like this (dirt and all)

what i really am trying to do is separate the BS from reality.

cheers

 

[bobbywalter]

here are 2 very interesting articles that will show what it takes from a factory that has the dollars behind it to engineer streetable cars/engines

thats bullshit of the highest order. that was results from guys with a gun to their heads and hands tied behind their backs with a boot pushing em under water.

if you told them their only requirement was to make 350 wheel horse power they would have got ya 500hp on pump gas.




i have been swapping v8's (all makes) into the rbv platform since the 1980's and lived through the dismal wheezer 302 era. which getting 350 hp was done then too...just not overly common.

so i guess i am at a loss to what makes his free boat anchor any different then the others since no matter what, i am starting with a hci swap right off the bat building any 302. all stock 302's are nutless cowards compared to any modern powerplant.

to build a solid bulletproof daily driving 351 that is capable of 420-450 hp takes me better then 5 grand, so i know the cost of entry. it is what it is...


it is why my first recommendation for a v8 swap is the ls platform.

a good 5.3/6.0 runner....bone stock for half the cost of the heads i prefer to use on a 302, makes more power. you can run a 4l80 or nv4500 as a bolt on...and they fit just as well and can weigh less.

winnie win win. except the chevy part...

theres probably 10000 dyno videos of guys pulling 300 whp or better with bolt ons to those boat anchor 302's.... sure it was a 3000 dollar swap over a long weekend on a stock bottom end that will grenade who knows when...but its a regular thing...


i have split a few 302s in half in my main truck my damn self....

build 350 hp....easy. bust block in half....thats easy too.

 

[baddad457]

I posted it last night but it must have gotten lost in the shuffle when we changed servers. Of course now I can't find the article I found last night.

It looked like they quit doing it in '76 so if the engine is a '78 you should be ok.

In the dark days of the 1970's rather than design new low compression heads Ford raised the deck height of the block to lower compression... which makes them kind of a freak. For 1977 they went back to the previous deck height and designed new heads.

The difference was only .020. Not a big deal. That can be easily milled off to true up the decks.

 

[baddad457]

not sure where your at with the net/gross instructional thing and useless wheezer power numbers. unless your only willing to work with parts from that era or something...

magical 350 cube 350 hp.....??????? yeah it was magical in 1977....hard to do in 87.....getting normal in 97 and out of the showroom 700-800 hp streetable and...affordable cars exist today...

350 rwhp out of a 5.3 is generally an untuned cam swap...

All these numbers today are the courtesy of variable cam timing and better heads than the SBF ever had.

 

[baddad457]

my build is a 306 with gt40p roller rockers, 5500 rpm custom ground original 68 cam from the 68 block, offy intake and 600 edelbrock.

and will be happy with this planted in the ranger. cheers

You're not going to get what you think here. Offy single four carb intakes were the worst designs ever made, aside from the Edelbrock SP2P. Ditto for an Eddy carb. Before you do anything look at tha casting numbers on that 78 block. If it's D8VE-A3A, you've got a winner with the same Hi-Po main caps that were used on the 289 Hi-Po and the Mex block. The D8VE-3A had the std mains. The block has the same iron content as the 289/Mex blocks (136 lbs) Good candidate for a stroker. I would go roller on the cam before wasting money on a flat tappet, lots of good off the shelf grinds out there for cheap. And you can reuse the lifters if it's not what you want. And there's no chance of a lobe/lifter failure in break-in.

 

[baddad457]

so....goal




curious of path to goal? or a challenge worthy of debate?

for whatever reason it appears you think 1 hp...actual real NON-GROSS...REAL ACTUAL HP to cubic inch is some sort of hard challenge.... 300 whp is easy with a 302....350 is a bit more of a challenge. so i am curious too.





lots of reasons to stroke a 302. weight and packaging is huge for a 2wd thrasher street brawling ranger....i like most, do agree when starting out with a 4x4 that will wheel and have bigger tires.... a 351 is the better dollar...and worth the extra effort...


if one wanted 350 whp like the op....which i guess for you would be net/net/actual tire smoke with the et's to back it up and not just tail pipe noise????

with the definitions listed....when i say whp...it will be a lower number then the two standards you outlined gross to net. corrected to the old standards 300 whp would look like 340-360 crank hp gross.


going to a complete trickflow setup is a non debate. 300 whp is just parts changing and dialing in the fuel...on the roller block

but stroker should be in that scenario for 350 wheel hp... in a 302 sized package which for a 2wd ranger application, there is merit to stroking.










apples to apples.....? is it a 302 or not?


are you only using stock parts for 1978 for a 1978 engine

and comparing it only using stock parts from 1988 for a 1988 engine?




because you can get 300 whp from the 88 carefully modified/reconstructed...



the 78 if you lock yourself in that oem only footprint with that year parts....yeah....not happening.


is that apples to apples enough?


otherwise adding a custom hci to the 78 engine along with better rods and pistons easily pops the 300 whp cherry.


there are thousands of recorded builds getting 350 n/a wheel hp.....REAL HP....not 350 gross hp which is actually 130 hp...but 350 wheel horse power propelling a over stock weight fox platform on slicks into 11's.

its not magical....

there is only one question....what are you willing to spend to get there. and that is only overly high depending on the emissions requirements...

I curious to know why you think the 78 short block is inferior to an 88 ? Do a H/C/I swap on either and you basically have the same result. But that's IF you keep the factory pistons. The 78 has a better block with 10 pounds more iron. The crank in the 78 is heavier, but the 88's balancer and flywheel are too. Both have the same rods. Convert the 78 to roller with new 1.619 Pin height pistons and they're identical.

 

[Angie]

You're not going to get what you think here. Offy single four carb intakes were the worst designs ever made, aside from the Edelbrock SP2P. Ditto for an Eddy carb.

Actually i feel i will do ok with what I have set up so far. I am not looking for a 1/4 mile screamer, nor an engine that will get revved over 5K. what I built was a thought out lower rpm torque engine with careful planning. The cam shop is 30 miles from me, so when i went there I told the engineer that i was planning on long tube headers, gt40P heads, bored 68 block, offy dual port intake, stock crank and rods and slugs that the machine shop suggested @ $70 bucks each. (no idea where the tag is on them now).

I let him know that I would seldom run over 5K and not into drag racing but wanted the stomp pedal to do its thing when needed. the original 68 stick was in very nice condition and after $300 i got a 2 stage cam, along with recommendations for lifters and push rods.

The bad rap the offy intake got was from guys that wanted a 1/4 mile screaming intake and used them with shorty style headers. wrong combination from the get go.

I am building a show truck so a beat the daylights outta it truck is not what i am after.

cheers and here is the engine

http://www.therangerstation.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156327