hyena429

77 stang...i got the adaptor plate.....it wont work onmy spreadbore manifold...i did everything i could to not change that part of my car out..i didnt wanna go threw the hassle of puttinga new manifoldon if i could get away with a simple plate...the spreadbore is way to wide...i could get the carb to bolt on...but!! abouthalf inch of the spreadbore back secondaries were sticking out each side of the plate..the bores are just way too wide...and the spread would put the middle of the elderbrocks secondaries in the middle of a big space of metal..cause it just wouldnt match up...like i said..with some extra puddy or some one who is good at welding on cast could get it too work,...but it would of ruined the original set up.

{so that carb came stock on any 351c? } no..only came on the cj..the ho and the boss.

Colorado_Mustang

Depending on the tune, probably an honest 400 hp. This was one of the engines that was rated at a low rpm, instead of what it could actually do. The 390HP is a great example. It lost power through the years according to the numbers, but the rpm where rated kept changing, although the CR, cam, heads, and intake were all the same. They weren't as bad for underrating, putting out closer to 375hp. When I get my '65 F250 sorted out, I plan on putting it on a dyno to get some numbers. It's pretty much stock, as the cam isn't much different than the stocker, just a little more duration/lift (maybe 10 hp).

hyena429

{Lotsa bad info on here since I last read it. } lots of bad info? from what i seen..it was from the fly wheel and engine dyno...i even heard alot tested from the end of the transmision...but i never said i was for sure on any of it...was just tring to anser a few questions with what little info i had on the subject rollin around inmy brain:P.was wrong on the rear wheel part..but i said i wasnt sure...but i think the lots of bad info was a little much:P




From the Horse's...
Manufacturers cause most of the problems in that there are several standards by which they rate their cars when new. Without knowing exactly how much difference there is from one standard to another, it's easy to get into the mentality that "horsepower is horsepower" (mathematically, it is always the same, after all) without taking into consideration the circumstances under which it was measured.


SAE Net Horspower
In 1972, American manufacturers phased in SAE net horsepower. This is the standard on which current American ratings are based. This rating is measured at the flywheel, on an engine dyno, but the engine is tested with all accessories installed, including a full exhaust system, all pumps, the alternator, the starter, and emissions controls. Both SAE net and SAE gross horsepower test procedures are documented in Society of Automotive Engineers standard J1349. Because SAE net is so common, this is the standard we will use to compare all others.

SAE Gross Horsepower
This is the old process that American manufacturers used as a guide for rating their cars. It was in place until 1971. SAE gross also measures horsepower at the flywheel, but with no accessories to bog it down. This is the bare engine with nothing but the absolute essentials attached to it; little more than a carb, fuel pump, oil pump, and water pump. Because the test equipment on the engine is not the same as in SAE net, it is impossible to provide a mathematical calculation between SAE net and SAE gross. As a general rule, however, SAE net tends to be approximately 80% of the value of SAE gross. SAE J245 and J1995 define this measurement.

Cdn7173stangs

Inaccurate statement as usual when it comes to the best year's of the first generation Mustangs... Look up 71 - C, J and R Code engines then revise this year's old fallacy statement above. Your welcome.

Aweaver

I have a 65 coupe and a 67 fastback and I still have the first car I ever bought it's a 71 coupe. It has a mach 1 hood and I think it's a good looking ride. 64.5 to 73 is fine by me.