I guessed 352 hp. I enjoy the affordable performance improvements. Interesting information about the 255 crank. Knowledge is horsepower! Thank you for sharing.
I ran a 70 302 and a Holley AFB manifold with a 780/vac secondaries and that motor was fast! The cam was in the 295@0.050 range and a .570 lift if I remember right (1983). Later put the motor in a Chevy LUV. ;-) I had a mentor that built his 67 289 to 504 HP @ 9 grand. Black Flagged at Daytona in 68. Teched and qualified. 168.76 mph lap speeds made them think it was a 427 SCJ. Imagine poppin the hood. "Well, that can't be legal!" "Tear it down..."
Would love to see what you could do with a 255, a customer at the parts store I worked at 22 years ago told me he put a set of 289 heads and a 4 barrel on one and really woke it up. Keep up the good work sir.
I have the same low mileage engine with the factory intake in a 94 mustang gt beater. A cam and valve spring change and it is a lot stronger than the factory mustang engine. A half or full point of compression would probably make a lot bigger difference in drivability.
No wonder my '86 GT responded so well with aluminum heads and E-303 camshaft swap. That is a huge improvement over the stock camshaft. Great information! Looking forward to the continuing improvements.
I watch every one of your builds and tests and have trouble identifying the maximum torque and HP on the dyno sheets.....my eyes don't work as quick as they used to.....can you use a highlighter on the sheets to make it stand out? Thanks....I've build a lot of engines...played with porting manifolds, heads, different carb spacers, headers, rear end ratios, etc Used Holleys large, small, vacuum secondary, double pumpers, etc. I very much appreciate your work. Thanks, Tom. Sunflower Garage
I had a similar idea for a streetable 5.0 with low rotating mass. I'm curious about the SBC rod. Won't that leave you with only a 1.0" compression height? Thanks for the tip on the 255 crankshaft.
4.060 x 4.060 x 3.485" x 6.2832 = 360.94 cubic inches. Scat had a 3.485 stroke kit for several years for the 5.0. 4.060 x 4.060 x 3.000" x 6.2832 = 310.71 cubic inches.
On the 255 crank, are you planning to de-stroke a 302? Assuming you will have to run longer rods, how does changing the rod/stroke ratio affect the measurable performance?
I find it very interesting that the super sucker run had peak torque at 3800rpm and peak HP at 6200rpm. I am letting that marinate in the brain department and trying to understand this.
Well considering the engine only had 215 hp at the crank when it was brand new, I'd take 300 rwhp. It's a 2000 Ford Explorer engine dude. Did that give you some satisfaction to tell everyone your negative opinion? Because it kinda showed some ignorance to be honest. Of course an engine's horsepower would go down when you add power-robbing accessories...................................
@@lykinsmotorsports Actually when Ford dyno tests their engines I researched they had every pulley smog fan felt they could have in ran it as in it was like in the car, so that made the 220hp,I've seen stripped like urs, with e7 stock make 260hp
@@lykinsmotorsports When I was a kid and early 2000 late 90s they had A gt40 engine package and that made 340 advertised horsepower and I think it had no bigger then a b cam
@@lykinsmotorsportssome of us like me literally only have an alternator and waterpump on the drive. My 302 is a 97 mountaineer engine that is completely stock minus a summit racing dual plane and while I have no dyno results, I am running 80 in the 1/8 mile on street tires in a 2600 lb Ranger with an 8.8 with a 3.73 from the same mountaineer. My truck didn't have any other accessories on the original 4 cylinder so I didn't add them.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Mamushi (feat. Yuki Chiba) [2024 London Performance]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pxTCJUuorKc/mqdefault.jpg)
I guessed 352 hp. I enjoy the affordable performance improvements. Interesting information about the 255 crank. Knowledge is horsepower! Thank you for sharing.
I ran a 70 302 and a Holley AFB manifold with a 780/vac secondaries and that motor was fast! The cam was in the 295@0.050 range and a .570 lift if I remember right (1983). Later put the motor in a Chevy LUV. ;-)
I had a mentor that built his 67 289 to 504 HP @ 9 grand. Black Flagged at Daytona in 68. Teched and qualified. 168.76 mph lap speeds made them think it was a 427 SCJ. Imagine poppin the hood. "Well, that can't be legal!" "Tear it down..."
350hp with GT40P heads! I can't wait to see what your cam does. I have to go back and see what you did to the heads.
So 4” of spacers = tunnel ram😊
Great use of factory P heads
Awesome numbers and awesome video Brent! I guessed 341HP but dang it made a few more ponys! 🇺🇸💪🏼
Really enjoying this series Feel better.
Eager little engine! Love these videos.
Would love to see what you could do with a 255, a customer at the parts store I worked at 22 years ago told me he put a set of 289 heads and a 4 barrel on one and really woke it up. Keep up the good work sir.
The drawback of the 255 is the small bore (3.68"). It's difficult to build compression and fit decent size valves. But of course it could be done.
Send one to me and we will see.
I have the same low mileage engine with the factory intake in a 94 mustang gt beater. A cam and valve spring change and it is a lot stronger than the factory mustang engine. A half or full point of compression would probably make a lot bigger difference in drivability.
I had an E cam in a 95 Cobra. Loved that car. Had a 100 shot of nitrous for those pesky Z28’s
Some pretty Engines
Kentucky Man:)
No wonder my '86 GT responded so well with aluminum heads and E-303 camshaft swap. That is a huge improvement over the stock camshaft. Great information! Looking forward to the continuing improvements.
Great info👍Happy Easter🙏
I watch every one of your builds and tests and have trouble identifying the maximum torque and HP on the dyno sheets.....my eyes don't work as quick as they used to.....can you use a highlighter on the sheets to make it stand out? Thanks....I've build a lot of engines...played with porting manifolds, heads, different carb spacers, headers, rear end ratios, etc Used Holleys large, small, vacuum secondary, double pumpers, etc. I very much appreciate your work. Thanks, Tom. Sunflower Garage
Awesome, tha ks for going over this.did not know that about that crank. Was that a 2 year only engine?
1996-2001 for the 5.0 in the Explorer.
Pretty sure the 255 was only 80-81.
I had a similar idea for a streetable 5.0 with low rotating mass. I'm curious about the SBC rod. Won't that leave you with only a 1.0" compression height? Thanks for the tip on the 255 crankshaft.
I stand corrected. It seems that JE makes a "Fly" weight piston with a 1" compression height. Hope I didn't give anything away.
What kind of power and rpm will that crank handle?
Hope you get to feeling better.
You don't have to worry about the crankshaft it's the blocks that crack
Those cranks are pretty weak...
How much hp are dyno headers worth vs. Fox chassis headers? If anything.
Great looking engine, how many more cubic inches could one get out of that particular block sir, tia😊
4.060 x 4.060 x 3.485" x 6.2832 = 360.94 cubic inches. Scat had a 3.485 stroke kit for several years for the 5.0. 4.060 x 4.060 x 3.000" x 6.2832 = 310.71 cubic inches.
Engines like plenum volume and runner length, just doesn't fit under a hood.
50 ounce balance cranks eat the front and rear main bearings out at over 7000 rpm.
What's the list number on that 650 you used. Have a fresh one, feel like it's jetted fat but that could be just new generation aluminum
On the 255 crank, are you planning to de-stroke a 302? Assuming you will have to run longer rods, how does changing the rod/stroke ratio affect the measurable performance?
255 crank is same stroke as 302', 3"...
What is your cold and warm rpm idle speed?
Is the 255 a 28oz or 50oz imbalance?
I find it very interesting that the super sucker run had peak torque at 3800rpm and peak HP at 6200rpm. I am letting that marinate in the brain department and trying to understand this.
I dont see anything special here, nobody thinks of no water pump, alt, powersteering, fan, and its at crank power, its a 300 rwhp if lucky
Well considering the engine only had 215 hp at the crank when it was brand new, I'd take 300 rwhp. It's a 2000 Ford Explorer engine dude. Did that give you some satisfaction to tell everyone your negative opinion? Because it kinda showed some ignorance to be honest. Of course an engine's horsepower would go down when you add power-robbing accessories...................................
@@lykinsmotorsports Actually when Ford dyno tests their engines I researched they had every pulley smog fan felt they could have in ran it as in it was like in the car, so that made the 220hp,I've seen stripped like urs, with e7 stock make 260hp
@@lykinsmotorsports When I was a kid and early 2000 late 90s they had A gt40 engine package and that made 340 advertised horsepower and I think it had no bigger then a b cam
Awesome! Mine made 350. And you know what, it is nothing special. It's a 2000 Ford Explorer short block with an intake and a shelf cam.
@@lykinsmotorsportssome of us like me literally only have an alternator and waterpump on the drive. My 302 is a 97 mountaineer engine that is completely stock minus a summit racing dual plane and while I have no dyno results, I am running 80 in the 1/8 mile on street tires in a 2600 lb Ranger with an 8.8 with a 3.73 from the same mountaineer. My truck didn't have any other accessories on the original 4 cylinder so I didn't add them.