Drac0nic

I am not quite as sure as you are they are the wrong turbos, but I am definitely all ears on the cam. They may not be an optimal match 100% but I suspect the output will still be good especially for the $ invested in them.

Assuming I get 250 at the flywheel with 0 boost, at 7.5 PSI I could assume roughly 375hp and 500hp at 15 PSI. That would be roughly 37.5/50lb/min respectively with pressure ratios of approximately 1.5/2 That should make these hit the marks on the map as below. I threw a map up with this on it, it's a v1/v2 but they are dimensionally close to the GN compressors. As close as I have ever found for a map. I believe the actual map will shift somewhere over to the left a little bit. ED:red marks are for 250hp N/A and blue for 275. I should go back one day and calculate with the compressor inefficiencies but would like to get this thing on the rollers to see where I stand before I spend some serious time crunching.

As I said though the point of this is to learn though. I have my theories on how this should work, and would definitely like to see how reality agrees or disagrees with them. Innovators never follow they try new things and take even failures as valid information.

That being said I mean the above as no form of argument rather I would like the whys to go along with the whats.

TxTtopZ

Actually, I cannot see why anyone can speculate on the cams being wrong considering I have not seen anything that entails what the LCA or ICL are? A 204/214 cam is not bad from a duration stand point for a 305. I see the turbos being just fine for a mild boost build and if thats what your aiming for then no problem!

89fbirdformula

Atilla, may i ask what your credentials are?

i mean, anyone and everyone on the internet can claim anything...

You yourself have claimed to be a famous engine builder, just curious as to your credentials.

Klortho

You know, what does it matter? There has been more than one person on here say they know he is a major engine builder and if he wants to keep his identity secret, that is his choice that I personally will respect.

I for one am interested in how this motor turns out.

Doom86

Right so what's the point if anyone can claim anything on the internet? He could be a builder for Autozone for all I care. You know why? He helps people. There's loads of builders on TGO but very few if any who offer constructive help. Ask me how I know?

Go start a thread on how to build a motor, or heads, and see who responds. And no I don't mean how to bolt **** together that someone else built.

I don't agree 100% with what Atilla says or his ideas on what is right (no one's perfect). But he's damn good at what he does and has the dyno sheets to prove it.

Atilla I can't wait to see how this thing turns out. I'm secretly challenging you; your HSR 305 build vs my CCC Qjet 305 build, but don't tell anyone though it's a secret.

Atilla the Fun

Most 204/214 cams are on a 112 LSA, ground 5 degrees advanced. There are a very few that are on a 110 LSA.
For a mild build, it's a decently good choice among the cheap cams, it should give good driveability, good mileage, and easy tuning.
But there's 10% more power to be had, if it gets a HR setup of the proper spec.
I'd call COMP and order a custom bumpstick with the 3324 lobe for the intakes, and the 3313 lobe for the exhaust. I'd go with a 112 lobe sep.
I can't fault your plotting on the compressor map, but to get 7.5 psi in the intake manifold, you're gonna need more like 9 psi between the turbos and the intercooler.
Also, if you're at much elevation, you need to correct for that. Squirrel Performance has an excellent online app to help you plot the entire boost curve and correct for elevation and intercooling.

Atilla the Fun

IDK if it's allowed, but first, does anyone want to see the progress on the car, or should I stick to only pics of what's directly related to the 305? If noone wants to see, then it doesn't matter if it's allowed.

Klortho

I wouldn't mind, I own a Mustang as well with a mildly built 302 in it, I've never seen progress of a GM powered Mustang before.

TxTtopZ

Because this a 305 GM powered 5 liter Mustang, I am all for the pics! Its probably the only one in existence. Also, do you HAVE TO have a roller 305? IF NOT... let me know.

Drac0nic

You can't drive an engine.

Atilla the Fun

Yes, it must be roller. Not like you're gonna ship me a pre-roller block anyway, right?
I already have 5 good used sets of stock roller lifters, 2 of which I've already rebuilt.
It's cheaper to do that than to buy retrofit roller lifters. But for the few who insist on running their original, pre-'87 block, CP sells Howards' for $298/set.
To me, staying non-roller is just as unwise as staying with any block with less than 4" bores. Finding an '87-up 350 short-block is a $150 deal, and really is a wiser use of less money than putting ANY headers on ANY 305.
But I want to see what a 315 with stage 2 Vortecs can do. The hope is to surpass any 311-cube Ford Mustang with iron, production, GT40 heads, even ported.
Plus, real GT40s only came on the original Lightning pickups, later Exploder 40P heads weren't quite as good, what with smaller exhaust valves.
If I succeed, those guys will cry "foul" over my 4 "extra" cubic inches, but 60 over is 60 over, Chevy or Ford.
Then again, it's only fair if the 311 uses what they call a "bread box" upper intake manifold.

Atilla the Fun

Looks like the votes are in. If the moderators don't approve, they can delete the pics and give me a warning, then we'll figure out something else.

TxTtopZ

I agree... I am going with the 880 block I have, roller 350. I need those heads. I am taking the 5.0 out this weekend or next and it is going for up for sale. I can sell the 416's to someone if they want them, separate. So, NO, I wont be shipping you a non roller block, but there is one on my local craigslist. FYI

Doom86

I totally agree if max power for the $$ is your goal 350 SBC is better. But I have this "I want to see what it can do" bone in my head so I play with a 305. I have a 350 SBC that I tore down to rebuild I've been told by 2 people smarter then me I could re-ring it and go too, so that isn't the problem.

We all like a good under-dog story too right?

Post them pics we wanna see this thing.

How big are the runners on the stage 3 ported vortecs? I'm just wondering why you wouldn't go with those. That is of course if they aren't too big, or require bigger valves.

Atilla the Fun

my stage 3 is 2.02 valves, and I find it extremely challenging to get consistent results from them. 270 cfm is there to be had, but it's so difficult that I can't just show-and-tell, or I would.
Since the goal IS higher rpm performance, I started toying with a stage 2.5, just trying to reduce turbulence off the intake guide bosses. It doesn't show up on the flow bench, but it does sound better, and doesn't hurt swirl. You can't hear it on a running engine, but after enough time with the bench, you learn how heads should sound.
With high rpm, you want more port volume. Grinding the intake guide bosses doesn't change the cross-sectional area at the pushrod pinch. For my 315, the pinch is NOT getting touched. For a 383, I might. But this way, the 315 should have 175 cc. NO more than 180.
If you want an EXTREME 305, then start with a new pair of good old Edelbrock E-Tec 170 heads. Add a 4"-stroke crank, 6" rods, custom pistons, et cetera.
I may go get that LG4 today, I'm feeling decent.
I'm about to upload the pics. After I find some breakfast.

89fbirdformula

Correction..

Real gt40's were also on 93 cobra's, and the early v8 explorers i beleive 96-97, may have been 95/96..i cant recall, but in 97 or 98, ford went to the GT40P head, which have been proven to make MORE power then a normal gt40 head, this is of course under that basis that the heads are factory stock, and the only variable during the comparison.

That said, GT40 headed 302/306/308 isnt all that impressive powerwise, most dyno in the 260/280rwhp dependant on compression/cam/intake selection.

Atilla the Fun

In any case, they're not as available as Vortec 350 heads, and they don't have the potential of the Vortec 350 heads. So, for junkyard building a 5 liter V8, the Chevy will dominate.
These next few pics are a couple of years old, from when I has an LG3-headed 355 laying around.

Atilla the Fun

nm

Atilla the Fun

nm

89fbirdformula

Looks just like my buddys SBC mustang..

btw, sweet escort wagon

Atilla the Fun

nm

Atilla the Fun

nm

Atilla the Fun

nm

Atilla the Fun

nm

89fbirdformula

instead of beating the firewall, and you're using EFI...

why not just use a small cap dizzy?

and yeah, ford swisscheesed those things bad, they never repopped anything, they just added holes to suit whatever crap the later models needed for mounting stuff..

Atilla the Fun

I appreciate you being more civil recently, but you're still jumping to conclusions.
Just because the pics are new does not mean that the work was recent.
It is a good point, and had I considered EFI back then, I could have moved the engine back another 1/4 inch.
Maybe with the slotted holes in the AdvanceAdapters plates, I still can, we'll see.
This brings up the worst thing about the Mustang. It sets the engine farther forward (even the Ford 302) relative to the front "axle centerline" than the F-cars (all generations work out basically the same), which themselves are not as good as C3-C4 'vettes.
The difference between SBC F-car and SBC my Mustang is at least 3 inches, even if I can go another 1/4 inch.
Even with MM K and MM arms, it's still 1.5"+ worse than any F-car.

TxTtopZ

Yes I didnt catch that, gt40's did come in the 96/97 explorer/mountaineers.
NOT just the lightnings! Which had 351's anyway!
I dont care about how much more common Vortecs are to Gt40's. Because it's not much considering all GT40's are the same and there were 3 different variants of the vortec. That being said, the same can be said for the Gt40p's to vortechs. 906's can be good but seemingly there has not been 1 solid conclusion about the valve seats. Different sources say different things. I dont care what anyone says about Ford or the 5 liter Mustang. I have had equal amounts to both, and ITS A FACT the 5 liter is the easier of the 2 for mods! 1985 saw the first year of roller for Ford, but still had the weak 7.5" rear. 1986 changed that, but they had crap heads, but at least EFI was there. Forged pistons were there in 1985 all the way up to 1992 where in 93 they had hypereutectic. The Mustang is lighter, more available with a 5 speed and the aftermarket has more companies offering more options.
That being said, the Camaro is still the nicer, most easy to drive, better looking, better handling and since it indeed does have a small block chevy in it, and we essentially DO have the same parts offering (just as said earlier by less companies) It can outperform the Mustang.... NOW:
Junk yard for junk yard build why would someone not get a 351 to begin with? A junk yard 351 with ported worked GT40's or 40p's (remember you have to work stock vortecs as well) can also make 400+ HP. So- now that we have had that history lesson lets stop comparing the two. It's has nothing to do with this until we see some performance figures.

Atilla the Fun

figuring the details:
I want a 315, NOT a 334 or a 350, but if you're considering a 334 for any reason other than a stealth resto upgrade or class rules, then that's foolish.
Boring a 305 and adding pistons is the same money as doing a 350, but the stroker crank money is better spent changing blocks instead.
Anyway, figure an LO3 block from an old lady's Caprice, with under 150,000 miles. The decks are probably good, just lightly sand them with a long board. Figure mains also good, no need for any honing. That puts the real deck height at 9.0230" for the sake of safe figuring.
SpeedPro H534NCP60s are 1.560", =/- 0.00025".
Figure resized stock with new ARP bolts come out to 5.700"
Figure FelPro specs on the 1094s are accurate.
Vortec heads. Play it safe and figure 57 cc.
This puts me at 10.29:1, but correct for elevation, it's 9.4:1
The Lunati cam specs at 218/226-112 at 108, 471/480. With COMP ProMagnum 1.52:1 rockers, and with the hydraulic lifters doing what they do, real lift at the valves is a hair under 473/482. Fine.
The overlap at 50 is negative 2 degrees, so not only will it pass emissions, but also it will be marginally good with turbocharging, but decent with supercharging and great headers. For this, it'd be 1.625" long-tubes, even with the boost.
For boost, swap to Edelbrock E-Tec 170 heads. At 62 cc, that gives me 9.66:1. Elevation-corrected, that's 8.75:1.
This should offer an easy 700 horses, on pump premium, without ever going over 6200 rpm.
With a Tremec, and an axle, and sticky Mickies, You should get a corrected 600 horses to the pavement.
This is right at the point where stock 5.0 Ford blocks literally break in half. This being an SBC, you're most likely to break any stock crank. I guess I'll have to get a Scat cast steel version.
Since I have the 8.8" axle, I'm that much closer to being able to try it.

Atilla the Fun

Also, considering how far forward the engine sits, if I do boost, it'll be rear turbos. Not only does it move the weight back, but it eliminates the intercooler way out front. In that case, there honestly isn't any sense in 1.625" headers, which are fine for the n/a combo. The wise move is 1.50" long-tubes, fully ceramic coated, inside and out. The intermediate pipes, then, should be 2.25". There should be a true X-pipe.
2.25" dual will be fine for my N/A combo, because the air is thinner up here. If you're copying this at sea level, you should use 2.5" dual.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Will this be N/A tuned first, then add the boost later? I'm curious to see how it does on motor first.

MassD

iTrader: (1)

Tooth paste works great but if you do it by hand you'll be there for hours, use a drill and a polishing wheel, if you want to do it by hand get compound from an autozone or something, it is far more aggressive and should make hand polishing much easier.

Atilla the Fun

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough earlier. I'm interested in the N/A build. That's my desire. Once that's done, then I may add boost, health and funds permitting.
But if so, it'll be to sell or trade for a '95 'vette ZF car. That's what I want, a '95 'vette, with the 6-speed.
'95 had the best LT1, it had as standard the big brakes that first appeared for '88, and were optional on non-ZR1s in '88-'94. '94 didn't have the improved opti-spark, and most didn't have the big brakes. '96 had OBD2. So '95 is the only year worth owning.
I like the looks of the convertible with the top down, and with the rare optional removable hardtop, but I'll probably try to buy a coupe, then add a cage, then cut the top off, then try to make it look good.
In fact, I already have a set of pistons I bought just for a future '95 'vette.

Atilla the Fun

The toothpaste was virtually free, took 20 minutes, and made a worthwhile improvement.
I'm afraid anything more aggressive would prove counter-productive. This'll pass inspection, and that's all that really matters.

Atilla the Fun

The variance in Vortec exhaust seats becomes moot when you're going to 1.60" valves.
The '86 lower intake isn't as good as '87-up. Those "forged" pistons are NOT forged. They are pressure-cast.
Putting a 351W in a fox mustang takes a fancy high-dollar, non-production oil pan. and NO amount of mods to ANY version of the Ford GT40 heads can equal my stage 2. And just in case I am misinformed on that count, I can flat state that my stage 3 can't be touched by any production GT40 head, no matter what porting or who does it. But stage 3 requires a 350 block.
And this thread isn't just for your benefit. It's my chance to tell why as well as what and how.
Junkyard building still interests me, and I do want to prove that a self-built 305 will surpass a self-built 302. It will. It may not be easier, but as long as we keep power-adders out of it, the Chevy does win.
But driving the Mustang, it's just a whole different feel. It's a driving experience I enjoy. And aside from locating the engine, the Mustang does have much less mass ahead of the front tires.
But this thread is still not about the cars. It's about the 305.

MassD

iTrader: (1)

I work at a car wash/detail center and we use compound on the headlights all the time, they come out like glass. This guy uses a machine but it can be done by hand to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-DHMKBLa4s

TxTtopZ

FRPP offers a complete oil-pan kit (PN M-6675-A58) that includes a 5-quart (stock capacity) rear-sump pan, a dipstick, a tube, and a pickup. The oil pump and drive are not included, so you'll have to purchase these items separately. For a street application, FRPP recommends a stock-replacement oil pump (available through Melling), while a street/strip engine with looser bearing clearances (0.0025-inch) can use an FRPP M-6600-B3 pump.
302 to 351W oil pan
I believe you are correct on the 305, but only from a street able stand point.
As for flow numbers... I'll take your word for it, as I really dont care.... I have a GM and just want to see the 305 built.

Drac0nic

Thought the CVPI pan would work for this swap. That being said love the fact the Chevy swaps in that easy. No wonder everyone does it.

In regards to the 302 versus 305 I could see the aftermarket availability of parts being a bigger handicap for a 305 than the actual parts themselves. If you look at the number of heads for a 4" bore 350 versus a 305 (eg 2.02/1.60 valved) the numbers are significantly disproportionate. The other thing is that it's easy to tune a 5.0 intake to whatever RPM you want it to compared to a TPI intake. Without a huge outlay.

Guest

Maybe stage 2 shouldn't be boost. Maybe it should be a rev kit, more cam, and a TPiS Mini-Ram?

Drac0nic

I could in theory see this sort of engine be limited in that regard and it sort of goes against what he has in mind in some ways I think which is good drivability and good performance. Spray on the other hand would make for an interesting setup....

CanuckBird

Kudos to you Atilla.It's nice to see another 315.7 being built besides mine.

Atilla the Fun

Your math is wrong. It's a 315.074

Atilla the Fun

I realize people are curious about longer-duration, modest-lift cams for Vortec heads, and how Vortecs do at 6500 rpm when so cammed, but dd up the costs of the AFR Hydra-Rev kit, a new cam, and the Mini-Ram, and then add up the costs of 2 new Chinese turbos, and a few feet of mandrel-bent exhaust pipe.
The turbos are the better performance for the smaller investment.
If you want a bigger cam for an EFI Vortec 305,
COMP's 3052 lobe for the intakes. It specs 284 degrees at 0.006", 230 degrees at 0.050", 0.480" lift, so use 1.50:1 rockers, NOT 1.52:1
For the exhaust, the 3053 is 296/240, 0.480
Order it on a 114 lobe separation angle, it should have the same idle as an XR276HR10.

skinny z

Quick aside here. IF you were building a carbed 350 with the lobes spec'd above would you be more inclined to run a tighter LSA? 110 or 108 perhaps? As we've discussed before, you say the XR276HR10 has too much lift (and even more with 1.6 rr) for the stock Vortec intake port although I like the idle quality, drivability and mileage I'm currently getting with the 110 LSA/106ICL.

Atilla the Fun

No, I'd leave it 114, but I feel that 7 degrees of overlap at 50 is too much for a daily driver 350. If you're liking the XE276HR10, then your current intake closing is at 39* ABDC. If you order this cam, it'd move to 46*. So you'd need slightly more rear gear to maintain your mpg.
This cam is for power to 6500, and will not be "on" until after 3000 rpm. For a 383, I'd tighten the LSA a little bit.
Your idle quality would be the same, but whether you advance this cam or not, it still won't make the low-rpm torque of the XR276HR10. Mostly because of the earlier exhaust opening. That earlier exhaust opening is why this cam would have a louder exhaust, but the overlap being the same will result in the same lope as the XR276HR10.
We could spec you a different cam with the same specs as the XR276HR10, but just with less intake lift. However, the XE series only have 6 degrees extra exhaust duration at 50, and even with my stage 1 Vortecs, that's not enough extra.

skinny z

Thanks for that Atilla.
Aside from an upgrade to the single muffler exhaust, a cam swap is about the only modification I'd consider. I'd like to continue with the current 350 baseline I've established and experiment.
Now if my machine shop tells me my standard bore 350 (which "slightly" smoked a rod bearing ) is too far out of whack for one last re-ring and re-bearing then the whole 350 project is out the window and I move on to more cubes.
Thanks again. I'll be in touch when it comes down to the nitty gritty of the cam spec.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

CanuckBird

You mean to say my engine is only 315.074! Darnit i've always thought of it as a 316!

Atilla the Fun

What, dual cats into a Mufflex 3.5"?
I've gone as much as 0.003" over on re-rings, doing a power hone ( NOT a bottle brush hone ) without any trouble, and would be willing to try 0.004 with certain combos.

Atilla the Fun

All I can say is that since a zero is nothing, you maybe just dropped it? How hard can it be to drop a nothing?

Drac0nic

Hey goofy Q of the minute but how high would you take this as a 60 over otherwise stock 305 bottom end? Or will there be something else added to the bottom end for improved longevity?

ED:how high of RPM.

Atilla the Fun

I've done this 315 before. Stock bottom end, except ARP rod bolts and SpeedPro H534NCP60s with matching rings. Melling M55 oil pump, rod bearing clearance at 0.0020-0.0025", main bearing clearance at 0.0025"-0.0030".
It's been to 7000 many times, and is still being driven, 8 years later.
BTW, it was balanced and truly blueprinted.