How much rwhp/rwtq will the following motors make stock?

- 302 Windsor (i.e. '68 Shelby GT)
- 390 FE (i.e. '68 GT)
- 428 Cobra Jet (i.e. '69 Mach 1)

Anybody know?

 

This one http://www.ncinternet.net/~durham/dynoshop.html shows

'70 Mustang Convertible:
302-2V HP to the rear wheels, dynojet 112 hp

More hear http://www.mustangandfords.com/techarticles/5216/

1965 289 High-Performance Automatic
Actual Rear Wheel: 141 hp/254 lb-ft

1965 Shelby GT350 Four-Speed
Actual Rear Wheel: 202 hp/237 lb-ft

1966 289 High-Performance Four-Speed
Actual Rear Wheel: 144 hp/238 lb-ft

1967 Shelby GT500 Four-Speed
Actual Rear Wheel:
240 hp/354 lb-ft

1968 GT500KR Automatic
Actual Rear Wheel: 275 hp/336 lb-ft

1969 Boss 429 Four-Speed
Actual Rear Wheel: 214 hp/324 lb-ft (bad fuel pump during dyno run)

1969 Mach 1 428 CJ Automatic
Actual Rear Wheel: 213 hp/266 lb-ft

1970 Boss 302 Four-Speed
Actual Rear Wheel: 179 hp/209 lb-ft

I guess the "Good ole days" weren't so great after all.

 

Hahaha. I am depressed, just to think that my 69 Mustang w/ a 302-2v is making as little as 112 hp at the rear wheels! When I rebuilt the engine I was guessing like 200 hp to the rear wheels, that is a joke I guess!!

When the 2007 comes in that I ordered, that 270 hp to the rear wheels is going to make me smile like crazy!!

 

I'd still rather have the old one. Modern is boring, steril and environmentally-friendly. Old is loud, mean, and rough. EFI? No. Roller camshaft? No. Coil-on-plug ignition? No. Catalytic conveters? **** NO!!

My dream is to never have to buy a new car, only old school.

 

**** the new days. I'd rather have a 215rwhp Boss than a 260rwhp SN-197 GT any day...

 

When my 69 was dyno'ed, i got 170 HP at the wheels; using the 80% math based on stock published numbers, i should of been getting around 232.
Using the "is over of" formula and the 428 CJ at 213 wheel HP ( based on 335 stock flywheel ), thats 63.58% retention.

using 65.58% against mine should get me 198 wheel HP.

sigh

hopefully I can get close to doubling it after the work is done.

 

After I took the time to research your question, a simple "Thanks for responding to my question" would have been nice.

 

Ah yes, thanks. I still would rather have an old 302 over a new GT.

 

I share your love of the classics. My all time favorite mustangs:

1966 G.T. 350
1970 Mach 1 428
1969 Boss 302

I was surprised at how low they dynoed in that article. I thought they would have been a lot more.

 

makes you appreciate 40 years of automotive technology....

 

Those numbers do seem kind of low. I've seen stock GT350 with street tires get into the 12's in the 1/4 mile.

 

lightweight does amazing things....

 

40 years of improvements in casting and machinign technology, weight-saving materials, and tire designs.

Oh, and codeman- 500cfm seems kinda small...

 

nahh...works great!

 

Of course, that's what Ford probably said about the 735? carb on the Boss Nine...

 

Great info on these posts! I wanted to make a performance comparison between my 05 gt convertible auto and a ‘67 390 auto gt convertible. After reading a great deal of info on gross vs net horsepower and average rear wheel calculations here is my quick/rough calculation. 05 stock rear wheel= 263 ( based on most stated number) 300 net SAE which indicates a 12.4% trans loss. I basically applied this to the ‘67 including a gross to net calculation by selecting a conservative 10% loss from gross ( 320 ) which is 288 net horse power for the ‘67. Applying a further 12% transmission loss ( a guess ) results in 247 rear wheel for the ‘67 390 auto. So I’m thinking that the 05-09s out perform the ‘67 390s EXCEPT for torque ( 400+ vs 320 ) In fact thι 05-09 0-60 is 5.2 vs 6.5, 13.7 vs 14.7 in the quarter and a theoretical top speed advantage of 143 to 130 ( data from various web sources ) HOWEVER by all info I have read the ‘67 390 conv auto is at least 150 lbs lighter in curb weight than the 05-09 GTs.Thoughts from anyone?? thanks.