Ford Forums banner

Windsor upgrade path

4K views 26 replies 17 participants last post by  eb2flyz 
#1 ·
Gday guys, Im putting together a little piece of text at the moment concerning the Aussie EFI Windsors, and would like your input if at all possible. Its a Stage I, II, III, IV style upgrade path thing. What I want to know is if you guys still reckon the info is relevant. This is what I have so far

Stock 302 ED around 125rwkw

Stage I - 150rwkw
Reprogrammed EEC-IV / V
Headers/exhaust
modified cold air intake

Stage II - 200rwkw
As per stage I
Top half manifold
Off the shelf cylinder heads
Mild camshaft
Modified air flow meter

Stage III - 250rwkw
As per Stage II with
Vortech 10psi supercharger OR
347 cube kit
bigger valve heads
more aggressive camshaft
fuel system upgrade

Stage III - 300rwkw
??

Any feedback would be great
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Not that dynos are to be believed, but they usually eat up 50-55kw, which makes your power figures a little optomistic.

Standard 302 i think is 165KW, which is about 110rwkw

Stage 1: 125rwkw

Stage 2: 200rwkw is just not going to happen with a standard stroke. i'd revise this back down to 160rwkw

Stage 3: A VERY hot stroker with lots of top shelf parts and massive cam and lots of compression will make around 220rwkw - a touch over 200 if you have power steering, air, and cats. You will never see 250 unless the dyno is a dud. I'd make this stage 200rwkw.

Stage 4: I'd move the blower up to stage 4 / 300kw
 
#3 ·
I agree with Racer ^^^^^^ Although you could get a standard stroke 302 to about 190rwkw with full exhaust, 70mm t/b, filter with CAI, cleaned up GT40P's, CAM and a chip (on an AUII anyhow) It is really hard to do due to the large range of 5.0's out their.....
 
#4 ·
How about stating a power range eg. stage 1 = 125 to 145 rwkw

Then it's more usefull for some of the newer windsors too hich have better manifold etc to start with?!?! Just my 2c
 
#6 ·
It also varies greatly from model to model. The earlier heads on the 165 engines are almost the first thing to go in my opinion because the ports are different and why buy extractors for what needs throwing away?
 
#7 ·
All the stages you have right ST, except stage 3 should be a stroker, and stage 4 the supercharger on top of the stroker.

I think it would be possible to get a naturally aspirated 5.0L windsor to get 200rwkw, TFS twisted wedge heads, TFS intake, a nice stage II cam, 1.7 rockers, full exhaust and a piggyback chip might see you get there.
 
#16 ·
400rwhp is on the edge of craking the block. If it's poorly tuned then it will go bang sooner rather than later.

My EF Fairmont V8 when it was totally stock ran 119rwkw at Morpowa.

I can't see a 5.0 making 200rwkw with the stock lower intake as well, I would (and am) going with either an SVO/FMS Staggered-port intake (Explorer, Cobra or GT-40) or a TFS Street Heat or Edelbrock Performer 5.0. I can't see why 200rwkw isnt possible with a decent set of heads, new manifold, high-lift cam or 1.72 Roller Rockers, and some tuning. Remember the injectors will probably run out of flow by 200rwkw too.....
 
#19 ·
SiKEDXR8 said:
i reckon you can make 200rwkw with a 302....

and 230-240rwkw with a 347
Theres an eb running around in adelaide with a 347, with all the trimmings that has 245rwkw
I made 193rwkw with my 302, complete with GT40P heads and explorer inlet manifold. With trickflow heads and a better inlet manifold, you would be well into the 200s. Low end driveability might suffer a little through so you would really need to think about what it is your trying to achieve.

A (reasonably) well-mannered 347 can make 240rwkw. Mine makes 247rwkw and Brett (aka svo347) makes 240+ in a light ED.
 
#20 ·
slipper said:
I made 193rwkw with my 302, complete with GT40P heads and explorer inlet manifold. With trickflow heads and a better inlet manifold, you would be well into the 200s. Low end driveability might suffer a little through so you would really need to think about what it is your trying to achieve.

A (reasonably) well-mannered 347 can make 240rwkw. Mine makes 247rwkw and Brett (aka svo347) makes 240+ in a light ED.
About 6 years ago, i had my car (pictured on the left) dynoed, and it had less power than your mild P headed street engine. The heads alone probably cost twice as much as your whole engine. At that time, the car easily pulled 4 foot wheelstands and ran 11.29@117, so it was obviously making verifiable real power, not dyno power. At that time, it weighed about 1460-1470kg with me in it. Something quite obviously is not adding up......

I could only wish that my 347 made 247rwkw, and it would probably show that much if i dynoed it (on the same dyno) - if not more - but i dont want a figure that is meaningless. The engine is a real pig on the street, and i am expecting low 11's, high 10's when i race it (in full street trim, on real street radials). I'll post some time slips when i do. What times are your 247rwkw getting you?

My suggestions of power for the various stages listed above, was based on real world figures, not some silly numbers that most dynos seem to throw up these days. The only way to get a real power reading these days, is to weigh your car at the track, and calculate power by the MPH. Dynos are good for tuning certain things, but thats about all...
 
#22 ·
But if your going to spend any amount of money esp on an engine why wouldnt you get it tuned correclty, with a decent tune and being taken care of theres no reason why it wouldnt last long.
 
#24 ·
XRQTOR said:
But if your going to spend any amount of money esp on an engine why wouldnt you get it tuned correclty, with a decent tune and being taken care of theres no reason why it wouldnt last long.
Well, a lot of the engines you are talking about are either rebuilt and tuned by the owner, or at least tuned by the owner, and many of them are tuned by driving around the road, not on a dyno, and a number of things can be out by a fair bit if they aren't done properly.

300rwkw in an NA 347 will also crack the block sooner than a 300rwkw blown 347, because the engine has to rev a lot harder to make power in an NA application.

On another note, there is a US company making upper manifolds to suit the HO manifold, and they claim 4/10's off your 1/4 mile time, for about $300 US.
 
#26 ·
Aaron_EF8 said:
On another note, there is a US company making upper manifolds to suit the HO manifold, and they claim 4/10's off your 1/4 mile time, for about $300 US.
The HO lower only flows arond 130cfm per runner, while the upper doesn't flow too bad. There's no way in hell there's a gain to be had by changing the upper and leaving the lower in place. A common performance mod in the US is the exact opposite, they leave the upper stock and port the hell out of the lower. All a waste of time if you ask me since explorer manifolds are basically junkyard parts over there..
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top