Need some advice to beat a 1968 Mustang

You have an edge when it comes to weight.
You can use that along with the other ideas posted.
Every 100# of weight added or removed from your car is worth 10 rwhp.
Doesn't sound like much, but it really is a big deal.
Gas weighs 7# per gallon, or almost 1 hp per gallon. So race with only about 1/4 tank of fuel. Have a gas can waiting in the pits to get you home.
Don't have the spare in your car when you race. Empty your trunk and interior of anything not bolted down.

I don't know what ratio to offer without knowing a great deal about your car, but you DEFINATELY want to have a decent gear in the car. That will make a huge difference. In a light car like a Mav, the very highest gear you want, even with a stock/mild engine, is 3.25:1. Of course steeper gears are even better, assuming your engine is built for it. The lower the gears you use, the faster your engine needs to be able to rev.

 

How am I wrong? I never said "rwhp" didn't mean "rear wheel horsepower". That is exactly what I meant and how I meant it.

What is the purpose of parsing MY words???

Okay, you are right. I should have said that 100# effectively adds 10 rwhp or .1 second in the quarter mile.

I didn't realize I'd have a lawyer mincing my every word.

See MY above statement...
With less weight the car will be faster to the effect of 10 rwhp per 100# lost.

I apologize if gas weighs more than 6# per gallon, but less than 7#, and I said "7#". Thanks for pointing out another miniscule, over technical tidbit.

Now I get to return the favor and say YOU are "wrong" over a silly reason!
He has a 1970, so his tank is NOT 16 gallons.

Oh, and 16x6=96, which = an effective 9.6 hp... And that is using your figure of a flat 6.0000# per gallon, which is low. But who can race without some gas in the tank?

Oh, did you mean 3/4 of a tank would weigh 72#?
I could have guessed that, but you didn't make it clear.
(See how that works?)

You can't tell a person what gear "is the way to go" when you know nothing about his engine combo. Making a suggestion like that has always been considered pretty irresponsible on the boards, unless you know all about his combo from info obtained somewhere other than this thread.

That's all fine and well, but when mechanics talk about gears, lower gears mean "higher numbered". So the fact that I equated "lower gears" with revving higher is absolutely correct. If I had said "lower numerical gears", I would have been wrong. I have had plenty of experience with gears... hence my handle "ratio 411", a play on my favorite gear.

If your handle is any indication, I won't disagree with you on superchargers. I have never touched one in my life, and wouldn't tend to argue with someone who has.

3.25 is the highest gear I would use in a stock Maverick if I was in a position to gear a stock Maverick. I said stock because it is obvious a stockish engine won't rev as high. Since I don't know his engine combo, I made the next statement to show that the more modded his engine is, generally the lower gear he would need as a modded engine tends to rev quicker and/or higher.

Sorry if you didn't understand.
The OP hasn't complained.

 

I heared you would want to use a 3:55 or 3:80 on a maverick

 

dick landy (famous drag racer)used to employ a guy with a hole saw to go lighten up his ride....why? because 100 pounds less equals one tenth of a second faster. ever heard of the swiss cheese pontiacs? they had holes all over? ever heard of acid dipping....all to take off weight....that being said, " Speed costs money son....how fast do you wanna go".......

 

"I have a 302 with aluminum heads stock"
That's an oxymoron. No such thing.

 

That is what I wanted to know more about. I was not sure about the Explorer engines but didn't think they had Aluminum heads. I have not heard of any STOCK aluminum heads. Then again I don't know much anyway. lol
Ratio 411 that is the way I have always understood ratios especially in pick ups which is where I cut my teeth. Somebody says "man, he has some Low Gears!" always meant to me and my friends that it was a numerically higher ratio. High gears would be like 2.75/1 low gears would be 4.11/1 or 5.**/1
Of course that is from growing up around NC. Somebody growing up up north or out west might have heard it put the other way around when growing up/
clint

 

I remember that tactic.

I will never forget a Boss 429 (stroked to a much higher CID) that I saw once in Pro-Stock many years ago... They did that 'swiss cheese' tactic to not only the car, but the engine too!

They deburred and polished the entire block/heads, then they went and drilled a grid of holes through every bit of the metal that could be drilled without causing a leak of some sort. The lifter valley, the back of the block into the bellhousing, the engine mount bosses... anywhere you could think of that wasn't into a water jacket or the like. Same with the heads and other parts.

It was a good idea, as they lost a great deal of weight, but it must have been too time consuming as I haven't seen others doing it.

 

Anyway, back to the subject.
I think you might have a good chance at beating him. I have a stock engine that I overhauled, and really just a few upgrades internally. Didn't bore it. Put in better piston's, better cam, ext. Mainly the cam and pistons is what helped. Still have the original 2bl. intake on it. Same gears, same auto tranny. Stock Heads, and stock headers "Aka exhaust manifolds". Never dino'ed it. So just guessing by the numbers and what we put in it, it might be putting out near 280 to 290 HP. From the stock 210 hp. according to my motor manual anyway.
And i just raced a 2010 Mustang, and wiped him clean by about a car length. Don't know what he had? But I went and looked up stats on a base model, 315 HP, and about 3400 in weight. But our cars are about 2700 in weight.
Love beating people and let them find out that its only a 2bl. lol.
My Mav is not a fast car, but it is quick.
So there is a comparison!
But I have seen some bad ass 5.0s!
And doing some research, stock 5.0s. from mustangs are anywhere from 200 to 240 HP. From what I can find.
And a 68 Mustang was around 3000 in weight.
So you might have a good chance!

 

After doing some more research, it looks like the 68 mustang was weighting in around 2700 lbs. Just don't want to get my facts wrong. And from a more reliable website.

 

Not wanting to stir the pot(ok,maybe),but I've always heard that every 100 lbs you remove is worth a tenth....I guess that would be equavilent to adding about 10 hp?

 

Yes. It is.
He is ignoring the fact that it is an effective gain, which of course would not be seen on a dyno. It is, however, seen where it counts.

 

So, i can buy a 528 crate hemi is it stock to?

 

all i know is if you go with 4.11 (which i have) your gonna be prolly hitting 45 to 50 at 2500 and sucks on the highways but are fun to have when racing
id go with 3.50's if your using it as daily driver and get on the highways,but if wanna go faster at the strip get 4.11's and enjoy the cruise while everybody passes by you..i do lol

 

I know it's an old thread...

the new 302's are going to be all aluminum