Search results

Lol. Good one

Thanks for the comments. now if I can just find the time to put it back together, I might be able to get it out of the garage and on the street. ugh!

That would be awesome if the underrating winds up being the case. Getting closer to wanting one bad enough to buy one. . . . .probably will have to wait a year for one anyways

Depends on how the rest of the car is setup. If you have it setup for straightline, weight transferring, it'll always handle like a bus relatively speaking. If you're starting with a stock suspension the following pieces made a dramatic difference: Sway bar bushings Strut tower brace...

I think at the start of this all I clearly said I was not doubting any of this, it's a new concept to me, probably new to a lot of people and would sure be nice to see it laid out in a nice comparison to show the possibilities of what cam compensation can do for this type of setup. Yeah, mags...

That would be a nice comparison to see though and could prove the point. Does the current combo have a custom cam as well. I think typical drivetrain loss is more like 15% on a stick . . .and I've read somewhere before that dynojets read high by about 7% . . .and considering the 289 was likely...

Thanks guys for taking the time to pull that info together. Question though are both those results from chassis dynos or engine dynos? The results for the afr165 302 sound pretty consistent with typical chassis dyno results and I see dynojet at the top of thegraph. How about the 289 +.06?

Pm sent

Thanks my curiousity would appreciate anything you can dig up. Regarding the latest vette motor, or even the older one, at 5.7-6.0 L I'm pretty sure there's no shortage of torque simply by way of displacement. No? +1.0L from 5 is 20% more displacement/torque.

Thanks. I understand the need for a well thought out and executed comparison . . Trust me on that. I'm assuming this was done and that there is something out there that dispels the myth of snall ports/low end torque. Seems counterintuitive to me since I would have thought smaller port/cross...

Curious if you could quantify how much torque at 2000-2500rpm this motor combo made . . .if you don't mind sharing. It would help me a lot to know whether I can truly expect to make any more bottom end torque out of a 302. Thanks.

That's interesting, definitely would not expect that. If you don't mind sharing, I sure would like to see a back to back dyno graph in the 2000-3500 rpm range of an efi 302 with two different port sizes and their complimentary cam. I think we can all agree that its easy to make more bottom end...

I like my afr185's but if you're going to stick with a 302 I would go with the 165 as they will make better bottom end torque. It'll work well with the intake and the cam should be ok but there's likely a better one. Then you can always put a centri supercharger later on to compliment the top end.

love the new kicks

That is the reason I decided against the KB (no intercooler) for my 5.0 but that is the setup I want! I saw a couple of articles on the internet but do you know anyone who is fab'ing up these things around here? One thing that worries me about this setup is all the extra piping and therefore...

Absolutely. Like who the heck shows up to a stang party in a Mazdaspeed 3? :burnout:

True, they're not cheap as an initial investment but if you're always going to be updating/upgrading your combo, a couple of custom tunes will cost you as well. I'm just saying, if you're in the area and you have a Tweecer, I'm willing to tune it for you . . . no charge. By the way, as...

If you get or have a tweecer I can tune it for you

I'm soo jealous you peeps have your stangs out. I'll cruise in with the speed 3. Maybe I should go rent something.

By the way, I apologize if that sounded negative. Don't mean to be, just wanted to provide counterpoint and make sure we're all working to correct info so we can make informed decisions about our purchases.