400 Horsepower Pump Gas 5.0 Engine?

[410bruce]

Hello again, gentleman! Have any of you dabbled with the 5.0 engine? If so, is it really as easy as adding a set of AFR 185s or TFS 11Rs, a bit of compression and a decent camshaft to make 400 or more horsepower? I'm talking about a carbureted engine here, not EFI.

The reason I ask is, I'm thinking of building one for my '67 Cougar rather than going with the 428. It would be way lighter, handle better, way easier to work on and the biggest thing, I wouldn't have to change a thing--it's a virtual bolt in.

As always, thank you for any input.

[frnkeore]

It is pretty easy and a lot cheaper than a FE if you stay at ~306 ci but, your rpm range goes up, to do it and low end torque goes down.

Compression is hard to come by in a 306 though but, I think AFR has heads down to ~54cc and that helps a lot.

[blykins]

Hello again, gentleman! Have any of you dabbled with the 5.0 engine? If so, is it really as easy as adding a set of AFR 185s or TFS 11Rs, a bit of compression and a decent camshaft to make 400 or more horsepower? I'm talking about a carbureted engine here, not EFI.

The reason I ask is, I'm thinking of building one for my '67 Cougar rather than going with the 428. It would be way lighter, handle better, way easier to work on and the biggest thing, I wouldn't have to change a thing--it's a virtual bolt in.

As always, thank you for any input.

Yes, it's that easy.  I build 289's at that level for Shelby Cobras.   The 185's and 11R's will be too big in port volume for a lower rpm 300-ish inch motor.  An AFR 165 would be a nice cylinder head. 

[Joe-JDC]

When you say 5.0 engine, are you talking about the late model 302 with 50oz imbalance flywheel and damper?   If you are talking about a 289 or 302W from the '60s or '70s, then they use 28oz. balance for flywheel and damper.  Makes a big difference in compatibility of parts such as distributor gear, flywheel ring gear tooth count, water pump, timing cover, etc..  Building a 289 or 302W would be much simpler.  Oil pans, distributor, camshaft need to be selected for the proper 302 when talking 5.0 engines.  Joe-JDC

[frnkeore]

I think up through '78 was the 28 oz crank. one of my engines is a '79 and it is a 50 oz.

I agree the earlier engines are better blocks should be used but, stay away from the factory, roller lifter engines. They seem to fail more often. It's the crank that's weak in the 50 oz engine, the block, itself is ok.

In addition, the AOD bolts right up to one and you can have gears, to over come some of the lack of low torque.

[67xr7cat]

If you are going to go small block I'd go with a 351w.  Be very easy hit your goal and engine mounts, transmissions all bolt up.  You are also starting with a stronger block and more cubes, plus can go 400+ with a stroker easily.

[garyv]

I had Brent build a 347 for my 76 Bronco. Didn't want anything wild just a nice runner with broad torque curve. Used a 1980 block, scat stroker kit, hydraulic roller cam, factory roller lifters, Dart Pro1 heads, air gap intake and a 600 holley. It made a little over 400hp and could have made more with a bigger carb and more cam. 
Not hard to do with the right combination of parts.

Good luck on your build.

garyv

[410bruce]

Thanks guys. 
I've monkeyed with these a tiny bit. I built a 1980 302 with TFS Twisted Wedge heads 21 years ago and a 1990 5.0 for my old 1990 Mustang 5-speed Notch with GT40-X heads about 15 years ago. I like this engine because it is so small and light.
I don't want to go with a 351W for a couple reasons, I don't have one, but, I do have a 5.0, 302 and the 289 in the car to choose from. However the 302 is already at .040 so it may be out of contention. If I did go to a 351, it would be a 4V Cleveland. Love those things.
This is a stick car, a Toploader 4-speed to be specific, or it will be as there is a 3-speed in it now. No power steering or brakes so only 1 belt for the alternator and water pump. Absolute bare bones. Four wheel drum brakes as well, yee haw. 

[67xr7cat]

Well I have had 289, 302, and 351w's in 67/68 Cougars and if I was going to do another small block be a windsor. A 289/302 can get it done with the right gearing. Having the core already on hand helps that case, but really finding a 351w core is not hard or expensive and building it out not much different or expensive than doing the smaller motor.

To me the 67/68 Cougar is a bit heavy and the cubes help unless you want to put some gear in it. Of course yours is bear bones so that helps on the weight some if you don't mind the manual everything.  On the street the 351w just easier to make run.  You either have torque or you make it up with gearing. Unless you are going to make a 347 out of a 302 you are going to need a 3.91 or so gear with a toploader. If I was going to do a 302 I'd make a 347 out of it. Kits are not much more than re-doing the stock stuff anyways.

As for a Cleveland great looking engine, but finding good cores can be hard anymore and they get expensive to build, although not as bad as an FE. 

[Diogenes]

A big +1 on the 351W

My 68 Cougar had an early, healthy, .030 over 351W with ported D0OE heads, toploader, and manual drums and steering. It had the 8in rear with 3.80 gears--the car was a blast to drive on the street. I'd go with a 351W over the 302/289. There is a little less clearance between the shock towers for plug removal due to higher deck height than a 289/302, but still nothing like an FE in a Cougar.

I miss my old Cougar--fun car.

[Kevin66]

As has been said here, yes, it is almost that easy to do. I say almost because, like on any good engine build, you need to select components that will work well with each other to get the desired results. And if you want to enjoy the use of the motor for a number of years, you need that combination not to be pushed to its limits. Luckily, there are several variations that will do the trick.
As an example, look at engines that have been built by recognized shops and/or engine performance specialists. Brent is certainly one of those, but in the case I'm referring to here it was an engine built by Richard Holdener and the guys at Coast High Performance, a number of years ago. They built a 306 cid motor (forged rods & flat-top pistons), equipped with AFR 185 heads, a Comp XE274HR cam (224/232 @ .050", .555"/.565" Lift, 112 LSA), an Edelbrock Performer RPM, a Demon 650 cfm carb, and MSD ignition. It delivered 427 HP @ 6,100 RPM, and 395 lbs/ft of torque @ 4,900 RPM, when tested by Steve Brule out at Westech. In fact it was making 350+ lbs/ft from 3,250 out past 6,000 RPM, which is plenty for moving a Cougar around nicely with a 4-speed and 3.50+ gearing!

[410bruce]

Kevin66--That build was the reason I posted this thread. I had heard that the Westech dyno was a pretty generous machine, so I posed this query here to the real guys who build this stuff for a living to see if it was indeed accurate. Turns out it is. 

[blykins]

Kevin66--That build was the reason I posted this thread. I had heard that the Westech dyno was a pretty generous machine, so I posed this query here to the real guys who build this stuff for a living to see if it was indeed accurate. Turns out it is. 

I would say that it is on the generous side from dyno results that I've seen (they do a lot of work for magazine articles featuring different products, like AFR heads, etc.), but that 306 build would fit into the narrative of "a bit of compression and a decent camshaft".  I normally use smaller specs than those on 347's, much less 302's.

[410bruce]

Kevin66--That build was the reason I posted this thread. I had heard that the Westech dyno was a pretty generous machine, so I posed this query here to the real guys who build this stuff for a living to see if it was indeed accurate. Turns out it is. 

I would say that it is on the generous side from dyno results that I've seen (they do a lot of work for magazine articles featuring different products, like AFR heads, etc.), but that 306 build would fit into the narrative of "a bit of compression and a decent camshaft".  I normally use smaller specs than those on 347's, much less 302's.

Brent, I have some Cleveland questions. I'm going to email you if you don't mind. 

[Rory428]

For the past 5 years, I had raced a pump gas, stock block 331 SBF with out of the box AFR 185, and a single 650 Holley, with a moderately large (.570" lift) solid flat tappet cam, it made 487 HP on a SF901 dyno, and ran low 10s at almost 130 MPH in my 3000 pound 85 Mustang. Now I have a new big bore 347 (4.125x3.25") , with AFR 185 Renegade heads , still pump gas friendly, but with more high end bits & pieces (Dart block, steel crank,internal balance, thin ring pistons,Jesel belt drive, shaft rockers etc)amd even with a fairly small hyd. roller it made 528 HP on the same dyno. Which is actually 10 HP more than my last 428 race engine made in my Fairmont that ran 10.0s @132 MPH in my 3100 pound Fairmont. I am a diehard FE guy, but gotta admit, I do like these 8.2" SB Fords too. Never been much of a 351 W fan, at least with stock block/crank configuration. For weight & size, the 302 base is a nige light, compact package, 351 not so much.