I wanted to get a little over 200 hp out of the stock 302 that is in a 76 Bronco. Is putting in a performance cam the easiest way to go. It has messed up 2 barrel carb on it now and I was wondering about just getting another 2 barrel. Gonna do headers and dual exhaust as well. I want a little more power than it came with. Suggestions or experience please.
Community
Buy / Sell
Bronco Tech
3 Arm Wiper Setup
Fix Motor Mount
Roll Cage Braces
Throttle Body 65mm
Wheel Alignment
Heat Riser Replacement
Vent Window Repair
Center Console Mount
Straighten Bumper
Ford 6R80 6 spd
More Tech...
Fix Motor Mount
Roll Cage Braces
Throttle Body 65mm
Wheel Alignment
Heat Riser Replacement
Vent Window Repair
Center Console Mount
Straighten Bumper
Ford 6R80 6 spd
More Tech...
-
Welcome to ClassicBroncos! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all the site features, please take a moment to register. It's fast, simple and absolutely free. So please join our community today!If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.
302 rebuild horsepower
- Thread starter dax
- Start date
1970mule
Bronco Guru
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,515
well this is just my crappy experience and knowledge(or lack there of). but you should just rebuild the carb you have or just stick with the 2 bbl. it serves it purpose and is great. mine ran best with that one. these lil 302s don't suck more than 450CFMs or so. the headers will help it breath better and a cam will def wake it up. i just put a 351 cast cam in mine converting it to a 302HO so now i just changed the firing order from 1-5-4 to 1-3-7.. anyway a good tune up goes along way. also check the distributor and see if the points are good, check plugs and the coil.. a good solid start.
blubuckaroo
Grease Monkey
I just did quite a bit of mods to my '77 motor. I can tell you, the best money I spent went into getting rid of the 3.50 gears and putting in 4.11s. Any decent size tire will feel poopy with too tall gearing. You have to keep the little 302 in its proper torque band.
Broncobowsher
Total hack
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2002
- Messages
- 35,713
200 HP (flywheel) is a nice realistic goal for a 302. That will make a nice running engine that is still lightly stressed to live a good life.
Cam is a good choice. But I have a few questions?
Do you have emissions restrictions? If not do you forsee any coming? A lot of nice vehicles have been reduced to little more then trialer queens and lawn ornimates because someone stripped smog equipment off.
Are you doing a complete rebuild on the engine or just a cam swap?
Any head work planned or just keeping the originals?
The stock 2-barrel is a good cheap carb, but not really a performance piece. A nice aluminium intake (performer a good choice) and 4-barrel carb is a good choice. I have had good results with a 600 CFM Holley right out of the box on a stock 302 but that is as large as I would go. I would also be looking at a nicely set up Quadrajet now that I know a little more and have seen them run.
Something not mentioned, the distributer. Probably should consider something with a more performance orianted curve to it. The stock Duraspark setup is a good way to go. But the advance curve in it isn't that optimal. Properly curved Duraspark is a good way to go.
Cam is a good choice. But I have a few questions?
Do you have emissions restrictions? If not do you forsee any coming? A lot of nice vehicles have been reduced to little more then trialer queens and lawn ornimates because someone stripped smog equipment off.
Are you doing a complete rebuild on the engine or just a cam swap?
Any head work planned or just keeping the originals?
The stock 2-barrel is a good cheap carb, but not really a performance piece. A nice aluminium intake (performer a good choice) and 4-barrel carb is a good choice. I have had good results with a 600 CFM Holley right out of the box on a stock 302 but that is as large as I would go. I would also be looking at a nicely set up Quadrajet now that I know a little more and have seen them run.
Something not mentioned, the distributer. Probably should consider something with a more performance orianted curve to it. The stock Duraspark setup is a good way to go. But the advance curve in it isn't that optimal. Properly curved Duraspark is a good way to go.
200 hp is a easily attainable figure you only have to make up about 60hp on a detuned engine. Camshaft is the number one way to get this but get one matched to your vehicle and driving needs. I'd try to get the comp ratio to about 9-1. Stock 2 barrel intake and carb is fine. I hear that the later model aluminum 2barrel intakes do flow a little better but thats just what I heard. headers and exhuast will help a good deal. Also some slightly better heads will get you up and over that 200 mark you could bolt on a set of E7 heads for a slight gain but if I went with any factory head I would get some gt40 heads as you will get slightly larger valves which would help.
As Broncobowsher said a good advance curve can really help as well. I've seen about 10-15hp gains from a better advance curve.
As Broncobowsher said a good advance curve can really help as well. I've seen about 10-15hp gains from a better advance curve.
dbevans2249
Full Member
dax, Ford already figured it out for you. Just build your motor close as you can to the late 1965 Mustang 225 hp 289. Duplicate the cam, compression ratio and so on with your 302 and you will be there.
blubuckaroo
Grease Monkey
Be careful of the deck height on that block. Some years, ('76 maybe) Ford used taller cylinder decks to lower the compression. Be sure to measure the cylinder height if you buy pistons for it.
Are there some specific specs on that? I Googled it and came up with a bunch of stuff, but no specifics.
Can I assume the 2 bbl carb used in 76 was the Motorcraft 2150?
Might want to consider that the 220 hp 289 was tested for HP differently as well so it was really closer to the 77 specs than you think or the 77 specs are closer to the 65 specs than you think. If testing was the same you'd probably only see about a 20-30 hp differance. Basically in the early 70's a 302 was listed as having 205-210 hp then in about 72 testing changed and emissions started becoming big and power dropped to about 140 hp retarded timing sets, slightly lower compression and probably slightly different cams help drop the power.
As for the specs they dont give you much info in your link but basically like I said before about 9-1 compression and good RV cam and your other mods and you'll be at or above that 200 hp mark. For another comparision just look at the late model mustangs they were right around 200 hp as well.
As for the specs they dont give you much info in your link but basically like I said before about 9-1 compression and good RV cam and your other mods and you'll be at or above that 200 hp mark. For another comparision just look at the late model mustangs they were right around 200 hp as well.
mcdobson
Full Member
You don't want an engine that makes it's HP at 6000 rpm. forget about the 289 specs and cam.
If you are going to tear it apart for a complete rebuild, go talk to a machinist / engine builder in your area, they usually know what works.
If you are going to tear it apart for a complete rebuild, go talk to a machinist / engine builder in your area, they usually know what works.
NYLES
Bronco Guru
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 9,846
No but its Ok to have one that will srceam from 1000 to 6001!
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 11,917
Snicker. The 289 2V had a peak torque of 288 ft-lbs ..at 2400 RPM. The '68 302-2V torque peaked at 300 ft-lbs at ..wait for it..2600 RPM. LOL..you could argue that the 289 had the cam more suitable to the Bronco.
;DBetter read up the old Ford engines a wee bit more.
You are correct though..you sure do not want an engine that makes its HP at 6000 RPM. Probably why Ford never built a production engine that did..even the infamous Boss 302, their highest winding production engine, peaked at 5800 RPM.;D
Vragor
Jr. Member
A local rebuilder is trying to convince me that $300 to switch from standard pistons to flatheads in my 302 will get me allot more horsepower (along with a cam change). Both changes would be $500. Do you think it's worth it?
Depends a lot of stock pistons are dished and lower compression. Flatops usually raise compression and allow the use of larger cams both of which make more HP overall I would ask what the compression ratio will be. You really dont want much over 9.5-1 with stock cast iron heads and todays gas. unless you like buying premium fuel.
Cam selection is critical if the cam is to big then you will have a doggy engine at low rpms . Cams with specs similar to Edelbrocks performer cam are about what most broncos will be the most happy with.
Cam selection is critical if the cam is to big then you will have a doggy engine at low rpms . Cams with specs similar to Edelbrocks performer cam are about what most broncos will be the most happy with.
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2004
- Messages
- 11,917
If you are talking about the cost of completely rebuilding an engine with new pistons...it costs nothing to go with flat tops or not; its simply a choice made when buying the rebuild kit. A completel cam kit does not cost $500 either..not even close. Sounds to me like yr 'local rebuilder' knows when to try and take advantage of limited customer knowledge....and there is nothing new about that.%)
Increasing the compression does not get you a lot more HP. In conjunction with the right cam selection, increased static compression allows for developing higher HP.
