could a TPI feed the GM 302 at the higher rpms or allow enough CFM flow?

 

Nah. Shift points for the long TPI runners (when stock or fairly close to it) generally occur at 5300-5700rpm for max power. Although, the amount of revs depends more on the heads and cam, to answer your original question; probably not.

 

no but a Super Ram, Ram Jet, Stealth Ram, Mini Ram, or LT1/LT4 intake should.

 

thanks

 

I guess no one caught this.. but 302 is a FORD motor not a GM

 

Nobody caught it because it isn't true.

1967-1969 model years, Z28 option, 4.000" bore, 3.00" stroke, 302 cubic inches (rounded).

I had a salvage yard tell me the same thing in 1974 - "You want to put a Ford motor in a Chevy?"

 

not to mention it also revved up til about 9000 rpm i think, wasnt the first gen z-28 quicker in the 1/4m than the ss350 camaro?

 

Yeah the 302 was quicker, but wasn't because it has less cubic inches... for instance it had a solid lift racing cam, the 350SS had a 929 POS cam... now on the other hand, the 70 Z28 350 which had the same cam & heads as the 302 did, would blow the 302 away. And, the Z28 being a road racer, weighed about 300 lbs less than most of the SS350 cars, which were basically boulevard cruisers.

No the TPI would not be appropriate for a 302. TPI stands for Tuned Port Injection; this refers to its design, speciifcally, it is "tuned" acoustically for pulses occurring at a certain rate, i.e. RPm. It "detunes" at RPMs above and below that which is why a TPI motor has a Mt. Everest torque peak at about 3600 RPM, which is the "tuned" RPM, and falls off rapidly above that; and then of course as the tuning effect wears off, the simple restrictive nature of it takes over.

Bottom line: you don't want a 302 unless you have a numbers-matching 67-69 Z28; and in no case would you want a TPI on it.

 

What if he had Vortec heads and TPI Vortec intake?
Wouldn't that move the RPM range up?

Be pretty cool....get 302 TPI stickers and go hunting Mustang 302's

 

kids

 

No, it's the runner length that "tunes" the pulses. It's not a flow area thing.

 

Eh, if he wants a fast 302 with efi its easy and very possible, maybe just to say its a 5.0 to friends and let them think its a 305 ?

Take a new 5.7 LT1, swap in the 4.3 L99 crankshaft from a B body, stuff a roller cam in it, and voila, just dont ask me how well that crank will hold.

 

can the TPI feed the 302.. yes.. does that 302 go to 9000 rpms.. hell no. can a stock TPI unit feed it at 9000 rpms.. nope. what u will have to do is get an edelbrock intake *or tpis bigmouth* .. or a mini ram which i would choose because the mini ram is better for "usuable" rpms/power above 6000 rpms, but u will sacrefise alot of lowend tq because of the miniram/lt1 style small runners.. but in the end u will still have to port the sh*t out of the intake. then u wil NEED to get the TPIS large tube runners *if u do TPI*. and the 58 mm T.b. may be a good idea.. even though u may need only a 52 mm. depending on how much hp/tq u want to get out of it.

 

Does any 302 that's remotely close to streetable go up to 9000rpms? I doubt it.....

 

:sillylol:

 

If you build it right, a 302 can go to 9000 rmp. It is a 327 with a 289 crank. I think. It is like taking a 350 w/ 400 crank, but down stroking wrapps up alot quicker. And to be honest, a new 327 w/ 300 hp would be a very good block. I am sure you can have alot of fun modding it.

 

289? no. 283.

 

Man have you ever seen a 302 doing 9000rpm's?? It always makes me laugh to hear guys say "Yeah man my 327 would lay down 8000-9000rpms no problem..." then I would ask them what ignition setup they are running, then they say "stock points style":sillylol: :sillylol: :sillylol:

 

327 no never. I have talked to a guy that runs 350's at around 82-8400. But he is a circle track. And has more money in the heads than most probably have in there car!!!

 

A 327 has a shorter stroke then a 350- it would be
better at sustained hi RPM operation then a 350-
of course a 302 is the best for that among these 3.

 

well, i dont think i mentioned a streetable 302 revving to 9000 (consistently anyway). but as mentioned before, on a track, that would be acceptible.
again, thanks

 

aaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh............

The 'ole 302 discussion again. Really brings back memories....



:lala: :lala: :lala:

 

anybody have thirdgen with an old 302?
ive heard alot about these engines and my uncle has one, he said they would turn 9000 and so did the guy whos building my motor. might not but i sure have respect for them

chris

 

Heck, I could get at 283 and buzz it to 10 thousand RPMs. Next I could get a 265 and I bet I could hit 12,000 RPM.

I hope I can find a 262, I might spin 13,000 RPMs.

Why do people assume that redline is inversely related to displacement. It ain't that simple.

 

No it's not but it doens't hurt. To rev so high costs lots of money for strong and light parts- thenyou kill the low end power.

Honda engines a longer stroke then bore and some of them can rev past 8000rpm

 

 

It's not displacement that people think produces revs, it's a shorter stroke.

But, like you're saying, there's a lot more to it. Valve train and ignition will limit an engine's revs long before stroke. Seeing 540 cid BBC's reving to 8000 is quite a sight - but, like Bravo said, those boys have more in their heads than most of us have in our cars.

FWIW, I did have a home-built SBC 302 back in the mid-'70's - .060"-over 327 SJ block, 283 crank, 12.5:1 forged TRW's 302 pistons, low-pressure Hastings rings, LT-1 heads & solid lifter cam, sodium-filled valves, Torquer intake, Black Jack headers, electronic-converted GM points distributor (also had a Vette dual-point on it for awhile). Most I ever saw it tach was 6000 - it would lay over after that - probably a combination of ignition and valve train that limited it (factory stamped-steel rockers).

The 305 in my Camaro today will rev to 6300 with ease - without any complaint. On a 148k shortblock. Uses less oil, too...

 

thanks again.