Posted by Mark S. Gustavson on May 24, 1998 at 22:56:41:
In Reply to: Re: 250 Performance Parts ?? posted by T.L. on May 24, 1998 at 21:20:06:
: Competition Cams makes great "bumpsticks" for these engines and Holley and Edelbrock make performance intake parts for them as well. You can also have the head milled to raise compression and put a large exhaust pipe on it. Another thing that can "wake it up" is to install a lower (higher numerically) gear raito in the rear-end. You should be aware however, that your gas mileage will be just as bad (if not worse) as the 302-V8 but the performance will never be as good as the V-8. The 250 is simply not a "performance" motor. No matter what you do to it, it still won't make the power that a 302 is capable of. So IF you really want performance (horsepower & torque), you might as well drop in the 8. I can respect that you want to be different (so do I) but you can't get blood from a turnip. If you want power, go for the GUSTO and if you want economy, leave your motor stock. If your gonna have poor economy, you'd might as well at least have the POWER...
: : Does anyone know if there are any performance parts
: : for a 250? I would like a cam and headers.
: : I know it doesn't take much to put a v-8 in, but
: : I would like to be a little differant.
I beg to differ. While the 250 is not typically considered a performance motor, some careful and aggressive work,
it can be made to run as strong as 4-barrel 302 that is not aggressively constructed. I spent a LOT of money
on my tri-power 250 (watch for an article in the
upcoming newsletter for the Maverick club) and it goes like stink.
Seriously, this motor would scarce the Bravo Sierra out of you.
It pulls like crazy, winds past 5500 (remember, the 250 has SEVEN main
bearings), and sounds unlike any ordinary 302. I admit that I spent a pile
on the motor, but it just false to think you can't get one to run
with all but the most aggressive 302 motors.
After I broke my motor in, we took the car to a dyno and ran a full
test after dialing in the distributor. At 4500 rpm, the engine was producing 183 horse at the
rear wheels with 260 ft.-lbs of torque. Not many production Ford small blocks could do as well. (Remember, that
horse is delivered to the rear wheels, NOT at the flywheel).
The problem, of course, is that a 302 that could pull harder than my
250 could be built for a LOT less than I spent. That is really the
point that needs to be made here.
Thanks for reading this.
Cheers,
Mark S. Gustavson