400 rwhp from N/A stock 302 short block, H/C/I?

[Pure Stock]

Set up a dyno day to test some new ideas with the N/A stock 302 short block, H/C/I. Testing was performed on a Dynojet. The premise of this particular test was to expose if an increase in flow i.e., intake porting, in the intake tract would create a gain in power. The test was skewed because of a few factors that arose during the testing. I believe the fuel utilized was somewhat dated. (lack of preparation on my part). And a malfunctioning fuel regulator that would not allow an increase in fuel pressure. The facts that were drawn were concise. Without being able to compensate with the fuel a severe lean condition occured. A tune is in order so the A/F ratio can be dialed in for maximum power, along with other variables. The A/F would plummet around 4,800 rpm. The test was conducted in an rpm range between 3,000 rpm to around 6,600 rpm. At the shut-off point the a/f was near 13.7-8 The differences between the 2 Holley SM II's will not be divulged because of the skewed variables. Looking forward to the tune and freeing up more power with driveline modifications.

Best numbers for the day were 385/365 The goal is to try to hit the 400 rwhp mark keeping the circa 1993 short block in naturally aspirated form and not modifying in any way or shape.

In conclusion, using same day dyno testing revealed the weak points when the combo was altered somewhat.

[Viper_ed]

Who's going to do the tune?

[cam303]

Who's going to do the tune?

I am!

[yeahloh95]

why didn't you add some NOS fuel additive??? that surely would have helped

[cam303]

why didn't you add some NOS fuel additive??? that surely would have helped

Grape or fruit punch? :rofl:

[yeahloh95]

i like the grape it helps me push the gas pedal down further

[pRojekt02GT]

why didn't you add some NOS fuel additive??? that surely would have helped


The goal is to try to hit the 400 rwhp mark keeping the circa 1993 short block in naturally aspirated form and not modifying in any way or shape.


:rolleyes:

[Killercanary]

Throw that AEM on there and have at it! Joe once you start to tune yourself you will never think of doing it any other way. Good luck bud!

I will add that you will see more of a power gain with getting the timing nailed than with AF. When I tune I try to get the timing right first, then tweak the fuel as the more timing you add the more it tends to lean out the mixture. I'd get max timing in as low as you can with your car since its a race only setup.

[FineLineMtrSprt]

Got a complete list of mods?..Just wondering incase i attempt this.

[somethingclever]

Assuming you didn't go to a dry-sump: If you're just looking for a magic dyno number, then you can remove oil until the pressure starts to drop...then don't remove any more. :)

I'm sure you're well aware of windage and it's effects on not only oil control, but also hp.

A guy recently was doing some dyno testing on a 700hp engine and found 30hp when removing "excess" oil from the pan.

What I can't tell you is what will happen with oil pressure on a wheels up launch with less than normal oil volume in the pan.


So how did the mid-range numbers fair? An 18hp increase is very impressive with just intake porting.

Be sure to share your results when you're done....very cool info.

[yeahloh95]

Got a complete list of mods?..Just wondering incase i attempt this.

its just a stock short block with a stage one cam and a holley intake :sticktonge: he is even still running the egr:jump:

[FineLineMtrSprt]

Oh ok cool,thanks Yeahloh

[Killercanary]

Troy's humor doesn't always come across as it should as he was being a bit sarcastic, although the EGR comment was 100% correct (he and I both think Joe should delete it). Joe's combo is listed on the corral and hardcore as there are a number of threads there on it. He has spent a TON of time, money, and energy to get the car to run the way it does and as such he doesn't share all of its secrets which I totally respect. Troy is right on the shortblock being stock, the intake is a holley, the cam is undisclosed, and the heads are trick flow TW's. I'm sure if you search on either of those two sites you can find the other misc components but since I'm not 100% sure on them I won't try and guess at them here.

Its a well thought out purpose built race car and it runs as such, i say this so those that don't understand this are not sadly disappointed when they put together similar combos and have much different results.

[mlowry1260]

Throw that AEM on there and have at it! Joe once you start to tune yourself you will never think of doing it any other way. Good luck bud!

I will add that you will see more of a power gain with getting the timing nailed than with AF. When I tune I try to get the timing right first, then tweak the fuel as the more timing you add the more it tends to lean out the mixture. I'd get max timing in as low as you can with your car since its a race only setup.

Joe,

this has my vote, throw the AEM on there & you'll be able to log to see what's happening.

[Pure Stock]

Assuming you didn't go to a dry-sump: If you're just looking for a magic dyno number, then you can remove oil until the pressure starts to drop...then don't remove any more. :)

I'm sure you're well aware of windage and it's effects on not only oil control, but also hp.

A guy recently was doing some dyno testing on a 700hp engine and found 30hp when removing "excess" oil from the pan.

What I can't tell you is what will happen with oil pressure on a wheels up launch with less than normal oil volume in the pan.


So how did the mid-range numbers fair? An 18hp increase is very impressive with just intake porting.

Be sure to share your results when you're done....very cool info.


Mid-range numbers were down somewhat because of the extremely lean condition. The A/F would make a move to a more richer state in the 4,800 rpm range. The low side of the operating range is *around* 3,800 rpm. After the tune gets nailed down, we'll get back on the dyno for some testing centered around parasitic loss. At the point the combination is at now, it is paramount to look at other less well known for power increases.

[yeahloh95]

joe i think an electric vacuum pump would be a great investment for crankcase pressure removal

[somethingclever]

At the point the combination is at now, it is paramount to look at other less well known for power increases.

Like removing *excess* oil?

You may be surprised how little the amount of oil is in the EMC particpant engine.

Low tension rings are a great invention for a strip only ride...except that would get rid of the "stock shortblock" part.

Do you have an externally adjustable cam gear? (do they even make them for 302's?) Danny Bee makes a nice one for the BBF's.

Good luck on the tune and power improvements...:goodidea:

[somethingclever]

ANy update on this?


I think Jesel makes a belt drive for the SBF...if you don't already have one....perfect for dialing in that cam...(have you tried retarding it a degree or two beyond your current setup?)

You might already have them..... but how about micro-polished rear gears?

[biminiLX]

Both good ideas there.
Also wondering about an update.
-J

[Pure Stock]

ANy update on this?


I think Jesel makes a belt drive for the SBF...if you don't already have one....perfect for dialing in that cam...(have you tried retarding it a degree or two beyond your current setup?)

You might already have them..... but how about micro-polished rear gears?

Still rockin' the double roller chain and the cam is installed straight up. Seems like there should be some parasitic loss freed up with the belt drive, you'd think. I may be getting into heads up class racing soon if I can line everything up. I'd like to keep this combo and tuck it away for a little. As you mentioned there some small mods that can be tried. It's a damn shame I am going to have to add nearly 350 lbs. of ballast to the chassis to meet weigh in requirements. Add more gear, less tire height, another seat, and some more mods. Picked up another tranny several months ago for a spare. Just hoping the 8.8 will hold up. I am thinking that thing will need gone through and beefed up.

[mlowry1260]

[quote=Pure Stock;192816] It's a damn shame I am going to have to add nearly 350 lbs. of ballast to the chassis to meet weigh in requirements. quote]

The goodnews is you can place that weight where you want it!

[yeahloh95]

i suggest putting it all up front that way the wheelies wont be as big

[ModularMike]

i suggest putting it all up front that way the wheelies wont be as big
:rotflol: