Details: Vehicle?  Weight?  Rear gear ratio?  Engine details: compression ratio, heads, intake, carb, exhaust?  Intended use?  Power brakes?

First it is a 302 bored .030 over rear gears are going to be 3.55/3.90. Compression 9.5/10.0 cast iron heads and 2 1/2 exhaust. Intake will be dual 4 bbl for show and some go. Convertor is undetermined right now. And it will be in a 68 mustang. Thanks for all the info and help from all you guys

6 Cam post and not 1 of them from Sal, someone better go check on him!

Last edited by wsinsle (4/02/2016 6:54 AM)

Power brake car?

I'm confused on the determinant of it runs good.  A car that runs good, but won't restart warm to me doesn't run good.  A car with a pig rich idle that runs like a scalded dog from 3,0000RPM up doesn't run good.  From my experience multi carb setups look cool, but on a street engine they're harder to tune and hard to get right.  One of my neighbors was a very influential and successful Pontiac racer in the 50's and 60's.  He told me how much better and faster he could get the old 389 GTOs to run by ditching the 3x2 setup and going to a single 4 barrel.  He's got the 3x2 setups stacked in his barn like cordwood.  Whatever, to each his own.  If you want to run the 2x4 and don't care about the added hassles that's your game. 

I'm trying to figure out what the goal here is camshaft wise.  Streetable and track killer are mutually exclusive ideas, especially with a small engine like a 289-302.  What's your HP goal? 

Seems like there SHOULD be a way to use 2X4 set-up by leaving both carbs(vac. secondaries ) and when the engine needs more air/fuel it will pull open the secondaries. Most prolly...it will spend 98% of its time on the 2 primaries butt he "WOW factor" would be over the top. Tunnel rams are even cooler!!
A lot of gear (think in the 4's) would be needed to get much hussle out of it.
Now the cool part!!
  I would cam the crap out of it!! 230*-ish intake  236-ish exhaust because.... those modded up 302 heads still won't(normally) flow as well as even Edelbroke heads. AFR's are still king at making power. I believe. Those small-ish ports will need a little more time to "clear out/fill up", so longer duration time will help that issue. Have it ground on a  106/108* LSA. I'd bet even a 110*LSA would NOT work as well. Most dirt track engines use a 106/108LSA because of the BLAST of bottom end power needed and the engine peaking out under 7 or 8 grand! Loong straight aways(think Dayton/Talledaga) can use a high reving engine. Not a street rod or dirt car
  Sometimes advancing the cam timing will move the power range down lower were you really need it. Be sure and degree it in!  Lift needs to be low enough to not hit the pistons! Around 480/500 lift I guess.
MAY need a looser torque converter than the stock one so it will be able to idle in D at a stop light. The gear will help the sluggish bottom end a loose converter may cause.
You realize 10:1 compression(minimum) will be needed to get the performance you want/NEED with a dual quad set-up.
You said the C-4 was beefed up?!  A reverse pattern manual valve body would be a great thing behind that killer engine!
Should be bad-azz  but will need plenty of out-of-the-box planning  to get it to do right.
You could always just wimp out and block the bottom of one of the carbs to make it "LOOK LIKE" it was functioning.(Only if the manifold is a single plane design though)
Let us know how it turns out.
6s6