Re: 250 Performance Parts ??

Subject:

Comments:
: Okay--look, I'm not trying to start a war. I'm REALLY NOT. It just seems like a lack of communication. I wasn't glorifying the 4.6L V-8s. I HAVE driven one and was NOT impressed. I only mentioned them when Mark Gustavson tried to compare his 250 inline to a 302 and used the "new" Mustangs as an example. They don't have 302s. That's all I was saying. I think it's great if you want to experiment with a 300 inline-6. Most people (not all) who visit this board on a regular basis do not have the kind of money it would take to make an inline-six perform like a V-8; that was my other point. For simplicity's sake, a 302 will basicly "drop in" a Maverick engine compartment. Your statement about a 302 not being able to produce the low-end torque of a 300/6 is totally erronious. It all depends upon what camshaft and intake is used. Typically, a "V" design produces more low RPM torque. It is also NOT TRUE that a 300 gets better gas mileage than a 302. I have a friend (yes, I have friends) who used to have a 1984 F-150 with the 300. I drove the truck and really wasn't too impressed. I'm NOT trying to piss everybody off. I'm simply stating facts as well as an educated opinion. I'm NOT the ENEMY; I'm a total Maverick NUT. So please try not to be offended... : : : : : Here we go: First of all, the new Mustang GT has a 4.6 liter dual overhead cam V-8 , not a 4.9 liter overhead valve 302cid. It's not even the same engine. The net Horsepower rating at the rear wheels is 215 horsepower and I forget what the torque spec is. If all you want to do is compare your "built" 250cid engine to a STOCK Maverick 302, that's fine. But that's not saying much. It's pretty simple to bolt in a Cam, 4-barrel & dual exhausts on the 302 and ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY, BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT, blow the doors off your car. PERIOD. and to say that it sounds like or as good as a V-8 is UTTER NONSENSE. Better get your ears checked out. I know it sounds like we're "bench racing" here but I'm not impressed with your Dyno results. And unless a guy is rich, He's going to want to get the most bang for the buck and he could spend half on a 302 what you spent on your 250 and get the same or better performance. And the Maverick engines are SEVERELY detuned. A STOCK '68 or '69 Mustang 302 produced more power than your 250. By the way, my buddy Larry Biggs says "hi"... : : Hey T.L.--Before you talk up that new 4.6 Liter S--- excuse for a V8, you had better drive one! The manufacturer may say 215 horsepower, but this is pure B.S.!!That engine cannot even burn rubber off of the line!! I would rather have a good old 140 Horse 302, which could scald this lame, four-cylinder-like v8!! Better yet, give me a good old 300 I-6. That 4.6 liter has absolutely no power at all. I think theFord had better re-discover how to rate horsepower. The horsepower on the 4.6 liter is more like 125 net. : : : : : : : : : That's interesting but I still maintain my position. You mean that after all that work (and MONEY) all you got was 183 horse and 260 lbs./ft. of torque? My STOCK 302 (with the addition of a 4bbl. intake) put out 175 horse and 265 lbs./ft. of torque, and that was BEFORE I installed the Competition Cam (.456 lift/218 duration at .050), raised the compression from 8:1 to 9.5:1, and installed oversize valves. I don't know what your idea of "agressive" is , but I don't consider my motor to be very agressively built. What I do know however, is that my car would BLOW the DOORS off of ANY 250cid equipped Maverick or comet. I don't mean any offense; I've seen pictures of your car and it is VERY nice, but why spend all that money and still fall short of the 302's performance? The 302 (properly built) is cabable of 275-300 horsepower (at the rear wheels) and a piles of torque... : : : : : : : : : : : : : 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 : : : : : Okay, but i want you to tell me whether your motor has been measured on a full chassis dynomometer (Sp?). The new Mustang GT produces less than 160 horse at the rear wheels as measured on a dyno. : : : : : Remember, my measurements are the result of a proper dyno test. I'll bet that you would find that your engine does NOT put out the horse that you think it does. No offense here, but NO factory horse rating (whether the old gross HP measurements or the new so-called "net" SAE ratings)are anywhere near what the net, at the rear wheels, measurements are. : : : : : And you can't (no one can) determine what those numbers are by guestimating or calculating them from factory figures. Take your car to a fully chassis dyno and then let me know what your numbers are. : : : : : The bottom line is this: I can run with any non-Boss 302 in the Salt Lake area and my engine has a sound and a hp/torque curve unlike any V8 (I have two other V8 Mavericks, both with four-speeds, so I KNOW the difference). : : : : : Let's agree that we all enjoy our cars and those cars from others. : : : : : : : : : : cheers : : : : : Mark S. Gustavson

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: