Close



Results 1 to 24 of 24
  1. #1

    Default NHRA and CFI carb

    Does NHRA/IHRA require the use of the cfi for 84 stock class automatic. Even the dealers were removing them for 4180's back then.

  2. #2
    FEP Power Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    1,788

    Default

    Yes. Its a stock casting formula, they check everything. An M code was a rare kind of Ford that was fueled differently according to the transmission.


    If you have an M code SROD or T5, you can add an auto and you'll be fine. Take the CFI off, and you have to install the full 4-bbl stuff and run it as an auto M code. If you want to stick to CFI, then you'll have some issues like what cam (no roller cam existed for CFI's), what intake (2-bbls are very poor 63 to 79 type 2-bbl designs with a revision)


    There is a triangle or admirals hat similar to the 3.3 Ford six, but you have to work to the casting/cam/intake/induction rules the No HotRods Allowed give you.

    Back in the day (and still today) you can take one of those from a 19 plus second quarter mile plodders to a 15 secodn street pounder. There are huge freedoms if you know how to work it. Even shiming the hydraulic lifters, and using the 31 pound per hour air pump as a CFM increaser. Or fiddling with the injectors or fuel tables or temperature sensors to invok open loop. Or rework the ignition TFI. Or changing the rocker ratio by selective matching and changes. The SAE cheater cams that match given NHRA specs, but have another ramp and checking point. Ther's untold you can do.


    But you've gotta talk wih you NHRA rep, and see what they say. CFI is very adjustable, but you have to find a person who can rework the pulse width and fuel tables, or buy an open source Linc computer that fits in the existing case fi they let you fiddle with the fuel loads.


    I'd say there is 350 hp hiding there if the tech guys let you massage the cam, air fuel and ignition ramps, and selectively find the castings that make power.


    Ther's the headers, the exhaust, the AOD's ability to be hopped up, there is alots thats good in the CFI M code.
    Ethyl Cat:-"The thing that really prohibits people from EFI is knowledge and fear. If you are not comfortable with engine sensors and electricity, EFI is not for you. If you are.... jump in, the water is fine! "
    NZ Fox Racers http://www.nzmustang.com/Images/Hist...s/pinepac1.htm
    Tadpole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBNnGxDgtY & Stylus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRvP8Y3d0K8
    Racer who broke Stylus' Sounds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cXJ1kHu4TI
    1st Fox http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...=1#post17229616v I6's @http://www.xecltd.info/default.html
    NZ Mustangs 247... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcf6UYVKbGo

  3. #3

    Default

    I have an 83 notch that could run as an 84. 83 and 85 5.0 did not have an auto. The 84 auto was a CFI. I want to run the 4180 carb with an auto, but it does not seem that ford offered that.

  4. #4

    Default

    Did any M code 302 engines come with 4V and autos from the factory or dealership in USA or Canada? NHRA says I can only run combos listed in the rules unless I can show proof. Thanks.

  5. #5
    FEP Power Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    1,788

    Default

    No 4-bbl M code had an automatic. Ford made the CFI a two barrel auto, and the manual was always a 4-bbl from 1983 to 1985. No mstakes were made, no exceptions to this rule, as the transmission decided on the intake maniofld and emissions package. From mid 194, it got worse, M code manuals had roller cams and auomatics kept the non roller 351 W camshaft.

    NHRA is right, its an either or deal, and a production mistake wouldn't have gotten through the gatekeeper.
    Ethyl Cat:-"The thing that really prohibits people from EFI is knowledge and fear. If you are not comfortable with engine sensors and electricity, EFI is not for you. If you are.... jump in, the water is fine! "
    NZ Fox Racers http://www.nzmustang.com/Images/Hist...s/pinepac1.htm
    Tadpole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBNnGxDgtY & Stylus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRvP8Y3d0K8
    Racer who broke Stylus' Sounds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cXJ1kHu4TI
    1st Fox http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...=1#post17229616v I6's @http://www.xecltd.info/default.html
    NZ Mustangs 247... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcf6UYVKbGo

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Hockin View Post
    83 and 85 5.0 did not have an auto.
    '85 5.0 did have an auto, factory rated at 180 HP. That probably works against you though, since the
    HP increase was almost entirely in the exhaust system. The basic engine was the same kit as in '84.

    The one advantage here, as xctacy already mentioned, is that both the 4V/5-speed and CFI/auto cars
    have the same 'M' engine code in the VIN, so NHRA would not know if you swapped it over to the 4V/
    5-speed spec. If you did, then running as an '85 would allow you to run a roller cam along with the
    4V carb.
    Cheers,
    Jeff Cook

    '79 Mont StaWag, 5.0, 58K original miles ... '81 Futura Coupe, 3.3, 62K original miles ...
    '85 GT 5-speed T-Top, Eibachs, Konis, & ARE 5-Spokes ... '85 GT CFI/AOD Vert ...
    '65 notch, 289 auto, Pony interior ... '67 coupe 6-cyl 4-speed ... '68 Vert 307 4-speed...
    (And a 1-of-328 Deep Blue Pearl 2003 Marauder 4.6 DOHC, J-Mod, 4.10s and Lidio tune)

  7. #7

    Default

    I dont know why but the NHRA does not have accepted V8 auto for 1885. Only the 5 spd. If it is not listed you cant run it. I know there was a CFI auto in 1985. The late ones had roller cam. I did contact my div rep and he said there was confusion in the past about this so they will not accept a 4180/auto combo.

  8. #8
    FEP Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    687

    Default

    I have not checked the NHRA classification guide for a while, but I thought that the 85 5.0 CFI/ automatic combo was listed. The reason NHRA does not allow the automatic transmission with the 4 barrel engine is because Ford did not sell the carbed engine with an automatic, only the 5 speed. There were a couple of guys up here in Div. 6 who put together 1982 5.0 2 barrel HO Mustangs & Capris with automatics a few years ago, after NHRA took a big whack of HP factor off many various 2 barrel 302s. They ran them for a bit, until NHRA clued in, and then correctly listed these as stickshift only combos.Personally, I applaud NHRA for catching their mistake, as far as I`m concerned, NHRA has allowed far too much non factory stuff into Stock (and S/S) in recent years. As far as I`m concerned, lightweight aluminum race seats, wheelie bars, aluminum Edelbrock heads, fuel cells, lightweight 4 wheel drag race disc brakes, and Quick Fuel accepted carbs have diluted the purity of Stock Eliminator. When I started building my 85 Mustang M/Stocker, 15 years ago, if I knew that NHRA was going to allow all this aftermarket stuff, not to mention all the 2008 and newer "factory purpose built" drag cars, like the Cobra Jet Mustang, Drag Pack Challangers, and COPO Camaros, all of which are unavailable with a VIN number for street registration, and utilize drivetrains far removed from the Mustangs, Camaros and Challangers that can be purchased from the showroom floor of local dealerships. You certainly can NOT go to your local Dodge franchise, and drive home in a new Challanger with a 14.1 compression, .600 lift cam, and sesentially a Tunnel Ram intake, along with a 2 speed Powerglide transmission, and 9" Ford solid axle, or a supercharged pushrod stroker Windsor type engine in a Mustang,yet NHRA allows these 100,000 dollar "make believe" cars play in Stock Eliminator, usually with factory HP ratings considerably lower than the actual street legall cars that the factorys DO sell to the general public. Before I decided to build my 85 Mustang Stocker, I looked at making a Stocker out of a 789 Fairmont with a 302 2 barrel and 4 speed trans. But at that time, NHRA had , for whatever reason, bumped the factory 139-142 HP rating up to 200 factored HP. Considering that the 85 Mustang 4 barrel 5.0 was only rated at 205 (currently 208HP), it made much more sense to go with the Mustang combo. Since then, NHRA has reduced the HP factory on most 302 2 barrel combos several times, which would have made me re-consider the Fairmont project. Common sense dictates that the need for a third drag car is not in the cards. But with the "gift" from NHRA, there are several 302 2 barrel Mavericks and Comets on the West coast that are a whole lot faster in T & U/SA than they were in P&Q/SA!
    1978 Fairmont 2 door sedan, 428CJ 4speed. 9.972ET@132.54mph. 1.29 60 foot
    1985 Mustang LX hatchback NHRA Stock Eliminator 302 4 speed best in legal trim 12.31@107 mph, but has gone 11.42@115 with aftermarket intake, carb, and iron Windsor Jr. heads.New for 2012! 331 cube SB Ford, AFR 185 heads, solid flat tappet cam, pump gas; 10.296ET@128.71 mph, 1.37 60 foot.
    1979 Zephyr Z7, all original 302 auto, 2nd owner.

  9. #9

    Default

    We ran into this problem recently as well. NHRA refuses to let a carbed/automatic/302 Mustang in since they never saw one from Ford. If you want an automatic you have to run the CFI. Period. No argument. No begging. No crying. No way.

    We are now back to two options.......
    A: Build a 1979 Mustang or 78/79 Fairmont with the 302-2 barrel and an automatic for R-T-U/SA
    B: Go waaaaaay back to the Maverick with a 302-2 barrel and automatic for N-O-P/SA.

  10. #10

    Default

    All kinds of weirdness in the guide. There is (or was) some kind of one-year-only lightweight Saleen listed, 89 or 90 maybe, but I don't know why...
    Looking for info on early [pre-Y2K] Fox Mustang drag cars (AMRA, NMRA, FFW, SF Fastest 5.0 Shootout, 5.0 Vs. GN shootout, etc.), as well as magazine test cars.

    Fox history geek and militant Fox-ist.

  11. #11
    FEP Power Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    1,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy Hockin View Post
    I dont know why but the NHRA does not have accepted V8 auto for 1985. Only the 5 spd. If it is not listed you cant run it. I know there was a CFI auto in 1985. The late ones had roller cam. I did contact my div rep and he said there was confusion in the past about this so they will not accept a 4180/auto combo.

    The CFI never had a roller cam in the M code 5.0. Even if the block had povision for it, the ignition and distributer gear didn't exist for the roller cam to be fitted to the CFI, and there was no calibration for the cfi with a roller cam.

    NHRA rules apply because a 5speed 4180 4-bbl 5.0 puts out over 210 hp, and if an AOD were hooked up, it'd be even quicker in a traction limited Fox. So its CFI auto only.

    The EO orders cover engine spec and gearbox, but in some classes, its open slatter with respect to hot rod parts like head castings, rockers, intake manifolds, pistons. Then there are no EO order issues, you've got freedoms. The Fox 5.0 is waaay quicker than any other platform, so they've knobbled the race horse before the , um, Grand National. Buick be thankfull for that!
    Ethyl Cat:-"The thing that really prohibits people from EFI is knowledge and fear. If you are not comfortable with engine sensors and electricity, EFI is not for you. If you are.... jump in, the water is fine! "
    NZ Fox Racers http://www.nzmustang.com/Images/Hist...s/pinepac1.htm
    Tadpole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBNnGxDgtY & Stylus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRvP8Y3d0K8
    Racer who broke Stylus' Sounds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cXJ1kHu4TI
    1st Fox http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...=1#post17229616v I6's @http://www.xecltd.info/default.html
    NZ Mustangs 247... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcf6UYVKbGo

  12. #12
    FEP Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Santa Maria Ca
    Posts
    643

    Default

    Wow. You stock racers are even nastier than the California Smog board! I slipped a CFI to SEFI swap 84 notch through the strict California smog program without even a question! Good thing the tech wasn't a stock-type drag racer.

    Where can I find info on this lightweight Saleen model that was offered and accepted by NHRA? Was it a notchback or something?
    85 Saleen Mustang

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BaconB8 View Post
    Wow. You stock racers are even nastier than the California Smog board! I slipped a CFI to SEFI swap 84 notch through the strict California smog program without even a question! Good thing the tech wasn't a stock-type drag racer.

    Where can I find info on this lightweight Saleen model that was offered and accepted by NHRA? Was it a notchback or something?
    NHRA operates with no rhyme or reason. I know a couple of guys that have been trying for years to get the 70 LT-1 Nova legalized for stock with no luck and no explanation. The specs were submitted clear back in 70 and Chevy built plenty to qualify, but no go.

    On the Saleen, it was a hatch, if I remember right. You'd have to check the class guide on NHRA's site. Don't remember what year it was, 89 or 90 maybe. I recall the shipping weight was ridiculous, like two or three hundred pounds lighter than a standard LX hatch. I emailed Saleen about it years ago, but they played dumb.
    Looking for info on early [pre-Y2K] Fox Mustang drag cars (AMRA, NMRA, FFW, SF Fastest 5.0 Shootout, 5.0 Vs. GN shootout, etc.), as well as magazine test cars.

    Fox history geek and militant Fox-ist.

  14. #14
    FEP Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Santa Maria Ca
    Posts
    643

    Default

    Slight threadjack.....

    I own one of those cars. Its the one-of-14 police chassis Saleens built for 88. Does this mean I have a built in weight break if I were to race in the class?

    It lists a 2 door Saleen sedan with a weight of 2782 pounds! Thats light!
    85 Saleen Mustang

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BaconB8 View Post
    Slight threadjack.....

    I own one of those cars. Its the one-of-14 police chassis Saleens built for 88. Does this mean I have a built in weight break if I were to race in the class?

    It lists a 2 door Saleen sedan with a weight of 2782 pounds! Thats light!
    Nah, they'd just move you up a couple of classes. Even if you nailed the combo and bombed the record, they'd tack on another 25-35 horsepower and put you out of contention anyway. Like I said, no rhyme or reason. I haven't looked at the guide in a few years, but the last time I checked, the 83-84 carb/stick 5.0 Mustang carried something like 25 more horsepower than the 85. You do the math on that one...
    Looking for info on early [pre-Y2K] Fox Mustang drag cars (AMRA, NMRA, FFW, SF Fastest 5.0 Shootout, 5.0 Vs. GN shootout, etc.), as well as magazine test cars.

    Fox history geek and militant Fox-ist.

  16. #16
    FEP Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    687

    Default

    I don`t know when you looked at the NHRA Classification Guide, but I first started building my 85 Mustang M/Stocker around 2000, and I have never seen the 83/84 5.0 rated any higher than the 85. Personally, I think the 83/84 should be rated slightly less, as cam has a bit less lift on one end.
    1978 Fairmont 2 door sedan, 428CJ 4speed. 9.972ET@132.54mph. 1.29 60 foot
    1985 Mustang LX hatchback NHRA Stock Eliminator 302 4 speed best in legal trim 12.31@107 mph, but has gone 11.42@115 with aftermarket intake, carb, and iron Windsor Jr. heads.New for 2012! 331 cube SB Ford, AFR 185 heads, solid flat tappet cam, pump gas; 10.296ET@128.71 mph, 1.37 60 foot.
    1979 Zephyr Z7, all original 302 auto, 2nd owner.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcfairmont View Post
    I don`t know when you looked at the NHRA Classification Guide, but I first started building my 85 Mustang M/Stocker around 2000, and I have never seen the 83/84 5.0 rated any higher than the 85. Personally, I think the 83/84 should be rated slightly less, as cam has a bit less lift on one end.
    Bingo!!! I agree
    Stephen Johnson
    SS/D 427 Ford Fairlane NHRA-IHRA
    National Record Holder 9.49 @ 139mph
    1985 Mustang daily driver
    10.88mph 125mph N/A 337

  18. #18
    New User CDNGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Saint John, NB Canada
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Good information in this thread! I might head down this path with my '84 so I am watching it all closely

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mcfairmont View Post
    I don`t know when you looked at the NHRA Classification Guide, but I first started building my 85 Mustang M/Stocker around 2000, and I have never seen the 83/84 5.0 rated any higher than the 85. Personally, I think the 83/84 should be rated slightly less, as cam has a bit less lift on one end.
    Sure the 84 should be less; quite a bit less in fact. Nevertheless, 20-some odd years ago the 84 was rated higher. It may be different today, but it doesn't really matter. Factors and weight breaks change, cars gain and lose horsepower and move classes. It's just an illustration of NHRA class system coming off like something out of MAD Magazine.
    Looking for info on early [pre-Y2K] Fox Mustang drag cars (AMRA, NMRA, FFW, SF Fastest 5.0 Shootout, 5.0 Vs. GN shootout, etc.), as well as magazine test cars.

    Fox history geek and militant Fox-ist.

  20. #20
    FEP Power Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    1,788

    Default

    NHRA have always been anti Ford due to FoMoCo's eventual 71 to 81 100% factoy performance hiatus. Thsi showed itself as a lack of grass rootes support for 10 years. GM's traditional market leadership and nested loop options for an AMA motor racing ban company closed the gap on the remannts of the Total Performance dominance with the FE, Boss 302, NASCAR 429 and 4V 351C engines. Basically, NHRA found that Mopar also were offered too many freedoms with its small blocks...275 hp gross 340's, and fuged down the curve 340-6 packs at 290@5000 rpm ensured these cars were practically outlawed by the class rules.


    For 1982, SVO was now officially back in town, and there was this 1983 gem from the press in the form of Cam Benty in 1983's Car Craft magazine.

    He was an instumental whistle blower wnen he took the tare mass of the 82 5.0 2v Mustang/Capri and 5.0 F car GM specialty coupes. The GT and RS's had its laughable 157 hp, and produced target horsepower readings for its 15.1 sec 1/4 mile time.

    Cam asked the rhetorical question.


    "Is Detriot starting to fudge its horspoer ratings agin? You decide"


    The basic performance issues were the same as the 1971 Boss 351 Mustang...the press cars in 1971 and October 1981 were "prepared" with non standard parts and detailing. Hence NHRA just continued with the rough justic, rough law for 84's. The auto trans ban is total proof.

    06-03-2016, 04:32 AM Post #240
    http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...veryday/page10

    In a similar manner, the inital cam spec was claimed as the "351w marine cam" for the 1982 GT. It was able to do two up times of 0-60 in 6.9 secs, a 21.4 second 0-100 mph time, and a 15.1 second 1/4 mile in an optioned up Recaro'd and TRX'd GT Mustang and RS Capri. 130 mph top speed. At the very least, the press cars were 100% blueprinted, but based on the bare bones production spec.

    When production tested, only 15.8 sec 1/4 mile, 127 mph, 0-60 in 7.5 seconds, 0-100 in 23.1 seconds, and that was with 161 hp and 247 lb-ft from the Capri RS 5.0 2-BBL HO. Car and Driver got 8.1 and 16.1 seconds for there Mustang 5.0 GT. It used the stock 1973 Torino 351W cam. Between the press and porduction cars, the engine 'lost' 34 flywheel horspower. A 157 or 161 hp engine would have had to been 193 hp to drop 1 second off the quarter mile. Thats more than just a cam change.


    Same with the SSP Mustangs. The police were able to get 132 mph out of a bluff 0.46 drag factor coupe, and almost certainly, Ford had prepared the cars ouit of siaght to reach that figure with a so called 157 or 161 hp engine.


    I can only guess that Ford were telling the truth, and that the press cars has the marine 351w cam. Preproduction Fox 5.0's illicted performance that took years to filter down to normal production 83-86 M codes.


    There is no way 157 hp was even the flywheel figure as the 1987 GT had 225 hp and had trouble doing 136 mph and 15.4 second flat 1/4 miles.

    And dropping a 180 pound passenger takes only 0.3 secs off a 1/4 mile time in a 16.1 second car...its worth 10 extra hp.

    Anyway, its the prep that makes the basic package so strong. Ford engineers did it within the rules.


    So the NHRA would have decided to square up to known differences. The upgrades to the 84 were not significant, but taken together, any 83 to 85 car had to have a nastier factor when they never matched the stock acceleration figures of the 1982 Press 5.0 2v HO Mustang and Capris.
    Ethyl Cat:-"The thing that really prohibits people from EFI is knowledge and fear. If you are not comfortable with engine sensors and electricity, EFI is not for you. If you are.... jump in, the water is fine! "
    NZ Fox Racers http://www.nzmustang.com/Images/Hist...s/pinepac1.htm
    Tadpole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBNnGxDgtY & Stylus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRvP8Y3d0K8
    Racer who broke Stylus' Sounds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cXJ1kHu4TI
    1st Fox http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...=1#post17229616v I6's @http://www.xecltd.info/default.html
    NZ Mustangs 247... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcf6UYVKbGo

  21. #21

    Default

    Back in the day, my buddy's stone stock 83 GT turned 93 mph in 14.9 at Great Bend on stock tires. No option, non-TRX car with the T-5. 175 horsepower? You tell me.

    I've seen stock 85's run deep 14's, and stock 87 sd cars run high 13's at 100+ mph. Factory power ratings are essentially meaningless; Ford has been under rating power since the 5.0 HO came back in 82. 235 horsepower for a 93 Cobra is a bigger joke than the 428CJ only making 335.
    Looking for info on early [pre-Y2K] Fox Mustang drag cars (AMRA, NMRA, FFW, SF Fastest 5.0 Shootout, 5.0 Vs. GN shootout, etc.), as well as magazine test cars.

    Fox history geek and militant Fox-ist.

  22. #22
    FEP Power Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    1,788

    Default

    Yep, the Moroso dream wheel broke the wheel hp verses 1/4 mile et and trap speed mold. It effectively bore out what Rodger Huntington and then Cam Benty said about factory engine ratings.

    157,161, 175, 180, 190, 200, 210 were clearly consrvative aged engine SAE net test readings. I seriously doubt a well run in factory 5.0 would show figures so low, and that is proven by the performance figures. Once you bump up the timing, added high test octane booster (just a spike of Benzene based paint thinners used to do it), you have in the 5.0 a very responsive sub 9:1 compression drag monster.

    Actual wheel hp varies, but FWHP was known from Factory Dynos (SAE net eliminated the abilty to take the power ratings from further down the scale)
    Weight was known from scales (although again, shipping weight could be used)

    and the "co-efficient" was calculated through plotting many many MPH results over the 1/4 mile on a graph.

    And although that doesnt allow for inertial effects and auto or manual loss factors (which is why chassis dyno to 1/4 mile factors are aways divergent, especially for automatics)....,

    The plain facts are that Ford just grabbed the SAE net rating from the aged 50 000 mile compliant CARB/EPA Federal Test 75 , and then just played around with press car prepartion. For 1982 and 1983, the rating varied from 157 to 161 for 82, or 174 to 175 for 83's. Actual wheel hp to make the press 1/4 mile times was significantly higher than the measured loss world wide for cars with single rail gearboxes, 190 or 220 mm tires with 7.5" axles. Everywhere from Australia to Africa, Fords with axles, gearboxes and tires that size lost 26.4% through the drive train.

    Since Ford had to play within the rules, as long as the parts didn't invalidate the sniffer tests and result in other castings that would be picked up by NHRA, it was open slather for tweeking. And believe me, if you can make a stock 5.0 intake manifold produce 390 flywheel hp, there are no limits to what can be done by within the rules or illegal modifications. Even a stock intake can be picked appart, reprofiled internally, and reglued and JB welded back together, and you cant pick it unless its removed to check. And thats exactly what the Group A Mustang guys did to get 390 flywheel HP net in the 1985 model year 5.0's.

    Elseware in the performance world, GM Holden allowed this practice in Australia from 1974 to 1987 with there Rochester Quadrajet fueled 5.0 normally had net ratings of 165-188 hp. "Modified", 248, 275 and even 300 hp factory carb 5.0 engines with headers, Crane or Wade cams with the same advertised duration as supplied to CAMS were released. The issue was ramp angle for camshaft duration assessment, and allowable lift. In 1974, they even used the Repco Formula 5000 intake pot castings as a factory head casting permutation. The late Peter Brock "Holden Dealer Team" Commodores from 1981-1987 were corporate hot rods with nested options which ment the factory exhausts or cams or intakes could be EPA/ Australian Design Rule invaldated by being replaced by a Dealer fitted option. In the USA, FoMoCo couldn't do that, so they just grabbed aged dyno runs, and if you wanted to race, you got factory SVO support.

    Of course, Fords competition has practiced corporate cheating in Motor Racing since the battles at the European Touring Car challange in the 70's, and Michael Kranfuss played the response to that era with Zakspeed and Works Fords. Ford realised this resergent 5.0 engine would be pulled apart by the Feds, NHRA, and the FISA Group A homologation committees. The stock cam changes, intake casting numbers, and castings had to be declared.

    So the automatic 5.0 would assassinate the existing order, because a good automatic is a formidable foe on the drag strip. You might loose

    Theses days, SAE Net has other calibration requirements that prevent the earlier practice happening.

    Lastly, David Vizard used the variations of the Hale and Fox RWHP calculations that Moroso uses, except he plugged in frontal area, drag, and cubic inches verses startline mass in his 1987 2nd edition of the A Series book. Right then and there, the true baseline of rear wheel hp to ET and MPH was defined, and everyone has spent most of the time arguing about HP Losses from the engine to the drive train. Ford were lucky enough to be able to fiddle with press tune to cover off just how much more power a 165 HP 3203 pound US 5.0 CFI Ford LTD made than a 3199 to 3450 pound 188 HP 5 liter Australian Ford Fairmont or LTD.

    Answer? Sears Point by Motor Trend magazine in March 1984, 5speed 175 hp 5.0 4bbl Bob Bondurant LTD
    0-60 MPH in 7.5 seconds
    Standing 1/4 mile 15.9 seconds at 89 mph

    1985 LX LTD cfi 165 hp 5.0/aod
    0-60 mph in 8.9-9.1 sec,
    Quarter mile time is 16.6 at 82 mph to 16.9 sec at 80 mph., 126 mph top speed

    Australian C4 gearboxed 5 liter 188 hp FC Ford LTD (Modern Motor 1982)
    0-62 MPH in 13 seconds
    Standing 1/4 mile 18.8 seconds at 74 mph, 110 mph top speed.

    Now the ligheter C4 gearboxed 5 liter 188 hp XD Fairmont did (Motor Manual 1979)
    0-62 MPH in 10.1 seconds
    Standing 1/4 mile 16.9 seconds at 84 mph, 118 mph top speed.

    So taking off 200 odd pounds and lumping the CFI into little Mustang or Capri would have created a real potential drag strip upset.

    Were Ford cooking the bookes? Yes, but its important to understand they did so within the rules, based on what SAE Net or DIN Net figures they decided to publish. In the USA, the emission cylce engine has to pass the 50000 mile durability rule, and thats clearly the only way you can include hp figures like that and still do quarter miles like they had almost 200 hp.
    Last edited by xctasy; 01-15-2017 at 02:24 PM.
    Ethyl Cat:-"The thing that really prohibits people from EFI is knowledge and fear. If you are not comfortable with engine sensors and electricity, EFI is not for you. If you are.... jump in, the water is fine! "
    NZ Fox Racers http://www.nzmustang.com/Images/Hist...s/pinepac1.htm
    Tadpole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBNnGxDgtY & Stylus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRvP8Y3d0K8
    Racer who broke Stylus' Sounds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cXJ1kHu4TI
    1st Fox http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...=1#post17229616v I6's @http://www.xecltd.info/default.html
    NZ Mustangs 247... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcf6UYVKbGo

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xctasy View Post
    Yep, the Moroso dream wheel broke the wheel hp verses 1/4 mile et and trap speed mold. It effectively bore out what Rodger Huntington and then Cam Benty said about factory engine ratings.

    157,161, 175, 180, 190, 200, 210 were clearly consrvative aged engine SAE net test readings. I seriously doubt a well run in factory 5.0 would show figures so low, and that is proven by the performance figures. Once you bump up the timing, added high test octane booster (just a spike of Benzene based paint thinners used to do it), you have in the 5.0 a very responsive sub 9:1 compression drag monster.

    Actual wheel hp varies, but FWHP was known from Factory Dynos (SAE net eliminated the abilty to take the power ratings from further down the scale)
    Weight was known from scales (although again, shipping weight could be used)

    and the "co-efficient" was calculated through plotting many many MPH results over the 1/4 mile on a graph.

    And although that doesnt allow for inertial effects and auto or manual loss factors (which is why chassis dyno to 1/4 mile factors are aways divergent, especially for automatics)....,

    The plain facts are that Ford just grabbed the SAE net rating from the aged 50 000 mile compliant CARB/EPA Federal Test 75 , and then just played around with press car prepartion. For 1982 and 1983, the rating varied from 157 to 161 for 82, or 174 to 175 for 83's. Actual wheel hp to make the press 1/4 mile times was significantly higher than the measured loss world wide for cars with single rail gearboxes, 190 or 220 mm tires with 7.5" axles. Everywhere from Australia to Africa, Fords with axles, gearboxes and tires that size lost 26.4% through the drive train.

    Since Ford had to play within the rules, as long as the parts didn't invalidate the sniffer tests and result in other castings that would be picked up by NHRA, it was open slather for tweeking. And believe me, if you can make a stock 5.0 intake manifold produce 390 flywheel hp, there are no limits to what can be done by within the rules or illegal modifications. Even a stock intake can be picked appart, reprofiled internally, and reglued and JB welded back together, and you cant pick it unless its removed to check. And thats exactly what the Group A Mustang guys did to get 390 flywheel HP net in the 1985 model year 5.0's.

    Elseware in the performance world, GM Holden allowed this practice in Australia from 1974 to 1987 with there Rochester Quadrajet fueled 5.0 normally had net ratings of 165-188 hp. "Modified", 248, 275 and even 300 hp factory carb 5.0 engines with headers, Crane or Wade cams with the same advertised duration as supplied to CAMS were released. The issue was ramp angle for camshaft duration assessment, and allowable lift. In 1974, they even used the Repco Formula 5000 intake pot castings as a factory head casting permutation. The late Peter Brock "Holden Dealer Team" Commodores from 1981-1987 were corporate hot rods with nested options which ment the factory exhausts or cams or intakes could be EPA/ Australian Design Rule invaldated by being replaced by a Dealer fitted option. In the USA, FoMoCo couldn't do that, so they just grabbed aged dyno runs, and if you wanted to race, you got factory SVO support.

    Of course, Fords competition has practiced corporate cheating in Motor Racing since the battles at the European Touring Car challange in the 70's, and Michael Kranfuss played the response to that era with Zakspeed and Works Fords. Ford realised this resergent 5.0 engine would be pulled apart by the Feds, NHRA, and the FISA Group A homologation committees. The stock cam changes, intake casting numbers, and castings had to be declared.

    So the automatic 5.0 would assassinate the existing order, because a good automatic is a formidable foe on the drag strip. You might loose

    Theses days, SAE Net has other calibration requirements that prevent the earlier practice happening.

    Lastly, David Vizard used the variations of the Hale and Fox RWHP calculations that Moroso uses, except he plugged in frontal area, drag, and cubic inches verses startline mass in his 1987 2nd edition of the A Series book. Right then and there, the true baseline of rear wheel hp to ET and MPH was defined, and everyone has spent most of the time arguing about HP Losses from the engine to the drive train. Ford were lucky enough to be able to fiddle with press tune to cover off just how much more power a 165 HP 3203 pound US 5.0 CFI Ford LTD made than a 3199 to 3450 pound 188 HP 5 liter Australian Ford Fairmont or LTD.

    Answer? Sears Point by Motor Trend magazine in March 1984, 5speed 175 hp 5.0 4bbl Bob Bondurant LTD
    0-60 MPH in 7.5 seconds
    Standing 1/4 mile 15.9 seconds at 89 mph

    1985 LX LTD cfi 165 hp 5.0/aod
    0-60 mph in 8.9-9.1 sec,
    Quarter mile time is 16.6 at 82 mph to 16.9 sec at 80 mph., 126 mph top speed

    Australian C4 gearboxed 5 liter 188 hp FC Ford LTD (Modern Motor 1982)
    0-62 MPH in 13 seconds
    Standing 1/4 mile 18.8 seconds at 74 mph, 110 mph top speed.

    Now the ligheter C4 gearboxed 5 liter 188 hp XD Fairmont did (Motor Manual 1979)
    0-62 MPH in 10.1 seconds
    Standing 1/4 mile 16.9 seconds at 84 mph, 118 mph top speed.

    So taking off 200 odd pounds and lumping the CFI into little Mustang or Capri would have created a real potential drag strip upset.

    Were Ford cooking the bookes? Yes, but its important to understand they did so within the rules, based on what SAE Net or DIN Net figures they decided to publish. In the USA, the emission cylce engine has to pass the 50000 mile durability rule, and thats clearly the only way you can include hp figures like that and still do quarter miles like they had almost 200 hp.
    Man, these sort of conversations make me miss the good old days.
    Looking for info on early [pre-Y2K] Fox Mustang drag cars (AMRA, NMRA, FFW, SF Fastest 5.0 Shootout, 5.0 Vs. GN shootout, etc.), as well as magazine test cars.

    Fox history geek and militant Fox-ist.

  24. #24
    FEP Power Member xctasy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Dunedin 9011, New Zealand, South Pacific
    Posts
    1,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BaconB8 View Post
    Slight threadjack.....

    I own one of those cars. Its the one-of-14 police chassis Saleens built for 88. Does this mean I have a built in weight break if I were to race in the class?

    It lists a 2 door Saleen sedan with a weight of 2782 pounds! Thats light!

    Probably would have one, NHRA's rules apply, though. Those guys would not use the shipping weight.


    IIRC, Saleen shipping weight for 1988 was about 2973 pounds from a Hot Rod article on what was an 88-72. Red hatch, Racecraft suspension options. Have to check the magazine again to be sure, but it wasn't the 3205 most other LX Areo Hatches weighed in at.




    For auto CFI HO, it wouldn't have had any weight breaks. For the later cars, the Areo era was one of fatness returning, air bags were going to be fitted, no way to find a CFI notch with less weight than what Saleen would have had on anything they had tuned.
    Ethyl Cat:-"The thing that really prohibits people from EFI is knowledge and fear. If you are not comfortable with engine sensors and electricity, EFI is not for you. If you are.... jump in, the water is fine! "
    NZ Fox Racers http://www.nzmustang.com/Images/Hist...s/pinepac1.htm
    Tadpole https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBNnGxDgtY & Stylus https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRvP8Y3d0K8
    Racer who broke Stylus' Sounds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cXJ1kHu4TI
    1st Fox http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...=1#post17229616v I6's @http://www.xecltd.info/default.html
    NZ Mustangs 247... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcf6UYVKbGo

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •