I'd just like to no since the 1968 mustangs were the first ones with the 302's in them, how much horsepower did they come with stock ??

 

i want to say 255, thats what i think they are, but not 100% sure

 

210-230 hp versus 195 in the 2V, 289.

 

A 302 was rated at 230 HP with a four barrel carburetor in 1968 as a 'J' code. That was the only year a four barrel was offered in a302CID engine other than the Boss 302. At the end of the 68 production year, Ford installed some 302 two barrel carburetors as 'C' codes when the supply of 289 engines ran out. I assume it was rated at 210 HP, the 69 version, a 'F' code. This may be a rumor, but it came from a reliable source.
Jim

 

From
http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicl...f68mcont.frame
"The previously optional 289 c.i. 225hp V-8 was replaced by a 302 c.i. version rated at 230 hp. Increased displacement was achieved by increasing the stroke of the 289 from 2.87 inches to 3.00 inches. The 2 barrel carburetor 289 (rated at 195 hp for 1968) was replaced mid-year by a 2 barrel 302 rated at 210 hp. Thus both 289 and 302 V-8 powered Mustangs were available in 1968."

A key point is these horsepower numbers were SAE Gross and since ~1971 hp is rated as SAE Net.
http://neptune.spacebears.com/opine/horsepwr.html
SAE net =~ 80% of SAE gross so that 210 hp 302 2V would only be ~168 if measured by today's method. This is at the engine, if you knock off ~25% for drive train losses we are down to about 126 hp (138 for a stock 4V 302) at the wheels. I've actually seen tests that verify this is about the "right" horsepower when measured at the tires! Still think you're driving a muscle car?

 

no i think i am driving a pony car[8D]

 

Thank goodness, let's not confuse the two and furthermore, let's leave sports car completely out of the discussion!

 

so is mine a pony car or a muscle car?

 

Not sure, when you race the car does it damage your self esteme?
[8D][X(]

 

not my self esteem