347 hp?
04-26-2011, 03:35 PM
#11
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: California
Posts: 10,468
.....
It's too hard to say without knowing more about the heads. Ported to the max by a pro that 347 could make decent power, but not any more than a 302 with decent heads and a cam.
And the Edelbrock carbs aren't really a performance carb. And the 4150 Ultras are a way overpriced variant of the 4150 with the same tuning options as other carbs. You can do the same thing with a Quick Fuel etc, but for a lot less money.
And a 750 is fine for a 347, a 650 would strangle the life out of a properly built 347. Which by the way, would need a hell of a lot more head than GT40anythings. I wouldn't put anything less than AFR 185 comps or TFS 190's etc on a 347.
It's too hard to say without knowing more about the heads. Ported to the max by a pro that 347 could make decent power, but not any more than a 302 with decent heads and a cam.
And the Edelbrock carbs aren't really a performance carb. And the 4150 Ultras are a way overpriced variant of the 4150 with the same tuning options as other carbs. You can do the same thing with a Quick Fuel etc, but for a lot less money.
And a 750 is fine for a 347, a 650 would strangle the life out of a properly built 347. Which by the way, would need a hell of a lot more head than GT40anythings. I wouldn't put anything less than AFR 185 comps or TFS 190's etc on a 347.
04-26-2011, 04:47 PM
#12
D.R. THE PATHETIC DORK
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 30,863
04-26-2011, 05:03 PM
#13
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 33
.....
It's too hard to say without knowing more about the heads. Ported to the max by a pro that 347 could make decent power, but not any more than a 302 with decent heads and a cam.
And the Edelbrock carbs aren't really a performance carb. And the 4150 Ultras are a way overpriced variant of the 4150 with the same tuning options as other carbs. You can do the same thing with a Quick Fuel etc, but for a lot less money.
And a 750 is fine for a 347, a 650 would strangle the life out of a properly built 347. Which by the way, would need a hell of a lot more head than GT40anythings. I wouldn't put anything less than AFR 185 comps or TFS 190's etc on a 347.
It's too hard to say without knowing more about the heads. Ported to the max by a pro that 347 could make decent power, but not any more than a 302 with decent heads and a cam.
And the Edelbrock carbs aren't really a performance carb. And the 4150 Ultras are a way overpriced variant of the 4150 with the same tuning options as other carbs. You can do the same thing with a Quick Fuel etc, but for a lot less money.
And a 750 is fine for a 347, a 650 would strangle the life out of a properly built 347. Which by the way, would need a hell of a lot more head than GT40anythings. I wouldn't put anything less than AFR 185 comps or TFS 190's etc on a 347.
The 4150 is overpriced, Agreed, A demon, Quick fuel or some other ect. is fine. I use a road demon jr. on my car and like it... I like the 4150, Its solid. I like the performance out of the box. my brother's looks well built and like a higher quality of carb than mine. Whats that everyone says on the forum
"Good, Fast, Cheap. Cant have all 3" ??
On a 2.2 cm Restrictor plate, Nationwide cars make 470hp. In the mid 70's Before the restrictor plate, Nascar said 390 cfm was max, the cars where still to fast. I am sure 650 is enough for a street driven mustang. Big cfm #'s do not add inches to your junk, yet everyone loves them so??? Just Because they make an 1100 cfm carb dose not mean your 347 needs one. 650 cfm supports a little over 400 cubes @ 110% volumetric efficacy Anything street driven comes nowhere close to that without a power adder. I have spent countless hours working on everything from a Wankel Rotary that makes 700+ hp on 93 cubes & 800cc injectors all the way to Mann diesels that power ocean liners and cargo ships. I have a degree in Diesel Tech.
As far as the gt40p, notice I said "On a Budget". Not everyone can afford 13 to 16 hundy for a set of Alloys. For $200.00 + gaskets GT40p's are yours. With a $40.00 Makita grinder and half a fargan brain you can port match them up and get some flow..... Isn't there a tread on this very forum about 300+ rwhp on gt40p's with injection and 302 cubes??
<~ That's me floating in a sea of reason, all alone. lol. Well back to work.
Last edited by Ten/Seven; 04-26-2011 at 11:41 PM.
04-26-2011, 11:27 PM
#14
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: CA
Posts: 33
its all about usable power. I prefer a set up that makes maybe 5 or 7 less hp for the last 500 rpm but makes 7 to 10 hp more from 2,000 till then. A good set up to me makes the power quick & low. You jump it, It Growls! If its for the track only that's a different thing.
04-27-2011, 12:01 AM
#15
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location:
Posts: 381
As far as the gt40p, notice I said "On a Budget". Not everyone can afford 13 to 16 hundy for a set of Alloys. For $200.00 + gaskets GT40p's are yours. With a $40.00 Makita grinder and half a fargan brain you can port match them up and get some flow..... Isn't there a tread on this very forum about 300+ rwhp on gt40p's with injection and 302 cubes??
<~ That's me floating in a sea of reason, all alone. lol. Well back to work.
<~ That's me floating in a sea of reason, all alone. lol. Well back to work.
04-27-2011, 06:47 AM
#16
D.R. THE PATHETIC DORK
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 30,863
I am sure it runs fine. Try a 725 cfm Road or race demon and watch your low end and throttle response go up. top end #'s don't give you beer flavored nipples. its all about usable power. I prefer a set up that makes maybe 5 or 7 less hp for the last 500 rpm but makes 7 to 10 hp more from 2,000 till then. A good set up to me makes the power quick & low. You jump it, It Growls! If its for the track only that's a different thing.
its all about usable power. I prefer a set up that makes maybe 5 or 7 less hp for the last 500 rpm but makes 7 to 10 hp more from 2,000 till then. A good set up to me makes the power quick & low. You jump it, It Growls! If its for the track only that's a different thing.
04-27-2011, 07:03 AM
#17
3rd Gear Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WV
Posts: 848
this is what the guy told me about the heads..
the heads are 1965 289 58cc heads with 1.7 roller rockers with chevy valves port and polished there is over 1,400 dollars in head work not counting the parts.. they make the compression 10.9:1..
The car seem like a really good running car.but if i have to save up for some heads that's not a big deal.The body is perfect that matter to me more cause the small things in engine i can add little at time..So would gt40 heads be a good idea if you p&p them like that one guy said??
the heads are 1965 289 58cc heads with 1.7 roller rockers with chevy valves port and polished there is over 1,400 dollars in head work not counting the parts.. they make the compression 10.9:1..
The car seem like a really good running car.but if i have to save up for some heads that's not a big deal.The body is perfect that matter to me more cause the small things in engine i can add little at time..So would gt40 heads be a good idea if you p&p them like that one guy said??
04-27-2011, 08:03 AM
#18
D.R. THE PATHETIC DORK
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: West Virginia
Posts: 30,863
this is what the guy told me about the heads..
the heads are 1965 289 58cc heads with 1.7 roller rockers with chevy valves port and polished there is over 1,400 dollars in head work not counting the parts.. they make the compression 10.9:1..
The car seem like a really good running car.but if i have to save up for some heads that's not a big deal.The body is perfect that matter to me more cause the small things in engine i can add little at time..So would gt40 heads be a good idea if you p&p them like that one guy said??
the heads are 1965 289 58cc heads with 1.7 roller rockers with chevy valves port and polished there is over 1,400 dollars in head work not counting the parts.. they make the compression 10.9:1..
The car seem like a really good running car.but if i have to save up for some heads that's not a big deal.The body is perfect that matter to me more cause the small things in engine i can add little at time..So would gt40 heads be a good idea if you p&p them like that one guy said??
and no reason to remove those heads in favor of a lesser performing head with the work that has been done to the 289 heads currently.
04-27-2011, 08:58 AM
#19
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lil' Rhody
Posts: 22,376
this is what the guy told me about the heads..
the heads are 1965 289 58cc heads with 1.7 roller rockers with chevy valves port and polished there is over 1,400 dollars in head work not counting the parts.. they make the compression 10.9:1..
The car seem like a really good running car.but if i have to save up for some heads that's not a big deal.The body is perfect that matter to me more cause the small things in engine i can add little at time..So would gt40 heads be a good idea if you p&p them like that one guy said??
the heads are 1965 289 58cc heads with 1.7 roller rockers with chevy valves port and polished there is over 1,400 dollars in head work not counting the parts.. they make the compression 10.9:1..
The car seem like a really good running car.but if i have to save up for some heads that's not a big deal.The body is perfect that matter to me more cause the small things in engine i can add little at time..So would gt40 heads be a good idea if you p&p them like that one guy said??
