i was talking to a guy i know and he has a 302 from the 69 camaro's. anyway how good were these engines??? did they have alot of good parts in them. and from what i can tell it needs a rebuild, so what would be a price that i can stop at. it has the engine and transmission which i may be guessing is a muncie. it sounds stock but may have been modded for racing.

thanks for the info

ace

 

the 302 69' is pretty rare from what i believe..is a bad *** engine too. i once worked with a guy who had one in its origional form and bragged of its rarity. .......Im sure it was a 69..not 67?

 

If you don't have a 69 Z28, then it's worth too much for your car. That is, if you pay anywhere near what that motor is worth to someone who actually has a 69 Z28 and needs an actual 69 Z28 motor, then you will have paid enough to buy a couple of much faster motors that will fit your car.

I'd say you should pass; but before you do, pick up a copy of Hemmings Motor News and see what those motors are really worth; then if you can get it for less than that, you should buy it, sell it, and use the profit to build something better.

You can duplicate that motor in a 350 using a regular 350 short block with flat-top pistons, and a set of double-hump heads such as the 186 casting, and a repro cam (solid lift, not a very good cam any more by modern standards); except that as a 350, it will produce at least 50 more HP.

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ace_Murdock
[B]i was talking to a guy i know and he has a 302 from the 69 camaro's. anyway how good were these engines??? did they have alot of good parts in them. and from what i can tell it needs a rebuild, so what would be a price that i can stop at. it has the engine and transmission which i may be guessing is a muncie. it sounds stock but may have been modded for racing.

thanks for the info

The 302 Chevy was an awesome motor. It was made for high rpm horsepower(3000-8000 RPM!). It shares the bore of a 350(4") and the stroke of a 283-327(3"). From what I understand, most of the 302's had steel cranks and forged pistons with around 11 to 1 compression. The 302's are probably not good for street usage, but it would be an inteeresting conversation piece and maybe a source of income, if it were sold to someone who needed one really bad. If it sounds like a good deal to you go for it.

 

The 327 does not have a 3.0" stroke it has a 3.25" stroke.

 

My bad. Thanks for the correction.

 

69 can't be that rare or he'd want more. I have seen this car in person.

http://www.fastlanecars.com/data/listings/l0034.html

 

They made a ton of 69 Z28's.

 

20,302 to be exact.

David

 

well he will tell me what he decides in about a month. i would really enjoy having it if i can, i kinda collect engines right now.

but the 1969 302 had complete forged internals right???

the gears are turning inside my head right now.

now which would be better a 302 or a 400

 

Yep, but there are ALOT more '67-69 Z28's on the road now than GM EVER PRODUCED

Plenty of guys think '69 Camaro, and just "Add" the Z28 part.

As for the engine.......they don't make alot of torque, but the comment about using a 350 and getting more HP is kinda off....

The 67 Z28 with the 302 ( 607 made I believe ) was produced for ONLY ONE REASON, so GM could call it a "production car" and it would be legal for SCCA racing and such.

While the 302 was only rated at 290 HP from the factory, it's not that simple.

Growing up my brother had a '69 DZ 302 car.....4 speed, 3.73's and nothing else. With big tube headers, bigger cam, street slicks, and a tune on the factory Holley, that car ran low 12's and saw the 11's a couple of times......

The thing about the 302 motor was it's ability to REV......I mean making the shifts at 8000 RPM and it LIKING IT......

Long stroke engine = more torque down low
Short stroke engine = less torque down low but makes ALL it's power high up in the RPM range.

That's what road racing was all about...

IF ( BIG IF ) it's a REAL 302, it can be worth some good $$$ to the right person looking to finish a Z28 resto..but it can be hard to verify the engine.....back then the VIN wasn't coded on the block, and the block used for that later 302's was identical to the 350 , so it can be a toss up.

But as a STREET motor they sucked.......they were DOGS on the bottom end.....that's why most guy dropped in 4.11's and 4.56 gears back then...

67 302's were a small journal 327 block with 283 crank. Later years used the large journal block which was the same as the 350 ( which was first produced in 67 and ONLY available in the Camaro )

I remember an old magazine that dyno'd a stock Z28, and it pulled down about 340-350 HP at OVER 6000 RPM. They added headers, a single plane intake, and a bigger cam, and came away with OVER 450 HP.......

HTH
Chris
85 IROC

 

You guys are right.THey made alot of z-28's in 69.Hom mkany them had the dz-302 in them.Not that many.They infact very rare.

My dad has built 4 69 camaro's.(building one right now to)He knows alot of guys that own camaro's.And one them owns a 69 z-28 with a Dz-302 with the two holley's on it.The car is a 4 speed with 4 wheel disk.One of the rarest option's was the electric trunk lock.Which this car also has.The car is #'s matching.


The guy owns midwest muscle car.Which is in the goodmark dealer display thing in any mag.It is in missouri.

I would say if it is a 302.And it is a complete motor.Complete with the intake.It would be worth alot of money.So I would ****** it up as fast as possible!

 

the 302 was good for what it was, but wasn't made for any other reason than covering the trans am rule of 305 cubic inch maximum. the 302 had not much torque down low and not enough hp up high in stock form to make it worth building. it did rev to 8k plus, but a 327 or 350 with forged internals wouldn't have had a problem even back they revving to 7k plus and making more power while doing it. it was just the cubic inch number they wanted. 302 was the only engine in the first gen z28's so it really isn't that rare. the only real rare one is owned by a guy from california with a canted valve 302 (bought from smokey yunick auction if i'm corrrect). as for the 400 vs. 302 choice, 400 all the way.

 

how come no one ever has a CNA 302? but everyone and their brother has a DZ 302?

 

I hear ya on the DZ comment....my brother's Z is the only TRUE Z that I've been that close to. And while it was an original Z28 ( my Dad knew the original owner way back when ) the shortblock was not original... but it was a DZ motor. I'm guessing it came from another Z.

I always wondered why everytime I hear a 1st gen Z story, somebody involved always talks of a car that came with the headers in the trunk, or the crossram intake etc...never seen these in person myself, so maybe I'm just a non-believer...I always figured most of these cars got modded to the gills as soon as they were driven off the lot anyway, but what do I know I wasn't even born until a few years after they came out..


Chris
85 IROC

 

on the subject of old motors, what info do you got on the 65 283.

might get a 64-65 truck with a 283 4 speed, seams to run good. truck is in good shape over all. no rust and some spare body parts. sure its a gold mine just waiting to happen if the right buyer is found. I can get it for 7-800.

 

It's amazing how cars that ran low-mid 14s seem to turn into 11 second cars when it's somebody quoting their uncle or grandfather reminiscing about them...

And equally amazing how the same people who will tell you in one breath that old heads are useless and obsolete will tell you in the next breath how fantastic some romantic-sounding motor ran with the same heads that they just dissed.

I don't have to listen to grandfathers to know how those cars ran; I was there. I have rebuilt those motors and built duplicates of it, and I can tell you exactly how it ran. I can also tell you how in 70 when they changed it to a 350 in the production cars, the "rating" (FWIW) went from 290 HP to 375 HP. And the most amazing thing about that is that it was the same heads, same cam, same block casting, same intake, same carb, same exhaust, same trans, same gears; all they did was change the crank and the piston pin height. Adding .48" of stroke gave 85 HP according to the factory's "ratings", which we all know were bogus back then, but still... that should tell you something. And I can also tell you how the minute we could get our hands on 350s to build them instead of 302s or 327s, we did... because if you weren't running one, you were getting beat by them. The little motors simply don't produce as much power.

I really wish people would come back to earth, get the stars out of their eyes, and deal with reality instead of living in some fantasy land of dreamy-eyed romance. The fact of the matter is, those cars (the early Z28s) were not drag racers at all, they were set up for road racing. They got murdered on the streets and the strips by the Chrysler 400+ inch motors and the GTOs and the 428 F*rds, which were low-mid 13-second cars.

And a truck 283 is a worthless pile of garbage as far as performance is concerned. It has tiny valves, smaller than 305 vavlves (1.72" I think, it's been a long time, I don't care what the number is because we all just threw them in the trash without looking any further), etc. etc. Plus, it's 70 cubes less than a 350, so you'll get spanked by an otherwise equally prepped 350 (read equal $$$) every single time, no questions asked.

 

While I agree, that $ for $ the 350 ( or the 383 stroker, or better yet a 400 ) is a MUCH BETTER platform to build from for torque ( it's what produces HP ) and power overall....the 302 was, as you stated ( and I believe I did to ), a road racing engine by design, to meet the 305 cubic inch limit that was enforced.

But the 302 was designed to make HP up high...I guess you've never heard of Ed Hoover of SC? I seem to recall him building some pretty nasty destroked SBC's in the 260-280 cubic inch range that ran pretty damn hard...and shifting them as high as 9000 RPM didn't help I'm sure.

This is no tale related to me by my Grandfather or whatever..I was there. This was the early 80's, and most of the musclecars were still just "old cars" so they weren't highly-inflated like they are now ( which I personally blame on the 60's Mustang craze of the mid 80's which seemed to catch on to all other makes and models )....

Am I saying I'd build a 302 to drag? Nope...a bigger cube motor will make more power, at lesser RPM's ( and thus alot less stress on components ) than a smaller cube engine will..for a lot less money.

Stock, the Z28's were slow...and got crapped on by any garden variety bigger cube muscle car on the street...

Gear it, cam it, good exhaust, more gas and air crammed through it, rev the hell out of it and hope it stayed together, and those little 302's would scream....


I can understand the point of your post... although I'm not old enough to have been there when they were new, it seems like the older they get, the faster the old cars become...and then there's that "Don't build 'em like they used to.."... I hope not!!!

Cars back then weren't intended to go 100k miles...of course advances in gaskets, plastic materials, bearing construction, rings etc have greatly improved engines.. as well as other drivetrain components....not to mention sheetmetal that doesn't rust out within a few years.. or plastic as the case may be

If I had cubic $$$$ and lots of free time ( read no job ) i'd love to put together a rev-to-the-moon destroked small block... of course cams that don't come on until 4000 RPM don't tend to drive well at posted speed limits or around town, but hey, it's not like I'd have to drive it everyday


Just my highly inflated 2 cents... YMMV

Chris
85 IROC

 

And you're right too, as far as that goes... but there are practical limits to this "high-RPM" business that people seem to want to buy into. Things you don't think about will fail, in ways you can't imagine unless you've been there.

Ever had a clutch explode? I have. Thank goodness I still have feet: the debris went downward; a piece or 2 went up and cut through the bell housing and a little bit of the floor pan like it wasn't even there. Ever had an alternator fan explode? I have. Ruined a perfect 69 Chevelle SS396 hood that way. Want to know what motor this happened with? It was a 292 (283 .060" over, halfway from a 283 to a 302), with double-hump heads, the Z28 "30 across" solid cam, a 4-speed, and 3.73 gears (stock in the Z28s BTW, and people used to call those "highway gears" back then!). Basically it was a 302 clone with 10 less CID. That motor also twisted the shaft part of the clutch gear out of the gear part of it in a M21.

Then there's the problem of getting all the peripheral systems around the short block to work and survive at that kind of RPM... the inertia of the valve train is so high that the springs can hardly move the valves, retainers, rockers, push rods, & lifters back to their rest position before the next valve event comes along; distributors that work at that kind of RPM are $$$; water pumps, power steering pumps, etc. are all problems. Ever see the pulley systems the NASCAR guys run? I guarantee you their alternators don't charge at less than 5000 RPM.

By 1980, most 69 Z28s were already wrapped around light poles and trees, or had been so heavily modified that they bore little or no resemblance to the original. I was well acquainted with both situations. And about half of the plain Camaros (that's what we called them, "plainCamaros" like it was one word) already had the repro badges and stuff on them, so very few people that had started hot-rodding after about 75 even knew how a Z28 actually came from the factory. The few that were still stock were already highly prized and sought after by collectors with big $$$, and you never ever saw one being driven hard.

My "been there" goes back quite a bit farther than that, to when they were new. I've been around a whole lot more than 1 of them, though I've never owned one (couldn't begin to afford it back then). Those cars, and their motors, just weren't what most people nowadays seem to want to make them out to be; and it's certainly not a good platform for an inexperienced builder to attempt, and no matter how good of a motor it is, you'll still go faster for the same $$$ with more inches and less RPMs. But the myth refuses to die, and just gets stronger with the young folks every year.

I just don't think, having been there and done it, that it's such a good idea. Way too many problems, too hard on parts, too many unforeseen disasters.... all just to have a car that you can't use to its fullest. Better to build a cheap motor with lots of inches that gives power in a way you can use and doesn't destroy things spectacularly on a regular basis from running on the ragged edge of the physical limits of endurance of its parts.

 

I would not be using the 283 in a car, it would stay in the truck. just asking how it is, if anyone think its worth buying the truck.

 

Oh that...

It's a perfectly good truck motor, gotta be one of the most indestructible ones out there... not a whole lot of power or anything, but not wimpy either, could easily last 400,000 miles if the timing chain gets changed and the oil leaks fixed every couple of hundred...

 

While I'm probably alot younger than you, I grew up racing..in fact, I spent my 15th birthday ( in SC you get your permit when you're 15 ) at the local 1/4 mile track...with my 67 SS Chevelle...complete with slipping clutch ( intake leak soaked the disc and I was too anxious to wait until I could get it fixed ) and loud U-joints

While I haven't had a clutch explode, I did have a U-joint get "called on high" right when I hit 3rd gear...didn't know what happened at the time......just all of a sudden I was sandwiched into the steering wheel and was starting DOWN at the track through the windshield......luckily it came straight back down and only cost me a broken control arm, broken shock, and a really nasty dent in the floorpan...and the cost of a new pair of underwear....

I also lost one of those "cool...gotta have it.." flex fans.....it lost a blade, it sliced through the battery, ate up my radiator hoses, and have the underhood wiring, and ended up embedded in the battery itself......that was hard to explain to Dad after walking home 5 miles and trying to tell him I wasn't racing ( I really wasn't )....

As for valvetrain wear and failure.....I'm with ya there. I got a smokin' deal on a L79 spec 327 when I was still in high school...as I was still scrounging to finish the 454 for my Chevelle ( the original 396 was long gone.....it had a replacement 402 when I got it ) it seemed like a great deal. IT had a solid cam and I swear to ***, it seemed like everytime I got on it, I had to stop and adjust the valves or turn up the radio so I wouldn't hear 'em chatter

Also used to love how the stock GM rockers would fail and the pushrod would push straight on through.....that sure sucked.....used to carry spare rockers in the toolbox...what can I say I was broke...

Remember how crappy the stock 4 speed shifters were? I remember banging my knuckles against that metal dash everytime I tried to nail 3rd....ouch.....

Those shifters felt like a spoon in a jar of mayo...

But yep, I totally agree more cubes = less $$$ and more power...and more per gallon...

As for the 283.......400k miles is no exaggeration. My best friend had a 66 El Camino his Grandpa gave him...he wasn't aloud too swap another engine in it until the 283 blew up...FAT CHANCE!! One day we left it in neutral outside the auto shop at school and left a cinder block on the gas pedal.....I came back out and the thing was STILL RUNNING!!! I guess it helps when it won't pull much past 6000 RPM or so.....

We ended draining all the oil out and saying it just blew..come on, a 283 and a glide in a El Co? Passing was more like a crapshoot than anything.....

Go big cubes........

But I'd still like to have a SB2 based SBC on the street someday......it's be fun to shift at 8000 RPM and have everyone look at you like you're crazy...

Later
Chris
85 IROC

 

Do people not realize that the 302 was the only motor that came in the z28 back then. Because do you know what z28 started out as? That is right z28 was the engine code for the DZ-302

 

Umm... maybe I missed your point.

Of course the ONLY engine available in the 67-69 Z28 Camaro was the 302...but you're incorrect in saying the DZ-302. It didn't appear until the latter of the 3 years, after the 302 changed to a large journal block from a small journal block.


The 'Z28' RPO code ( that's all it is...it later became famous as a "model" of the Camaro ) , to MY knowledge consisted of the 302 cubic inch engine, 4 speed transmission and a "special purpose" suspension.

AFAIK everything beyond that was either an appearance package or an added option.

HTH
Chris
85 IROC

 

Sorry i just knew that it was the option for the 302, and i think someone sayed that somebody had a 350 stock in the 196X something camaro and i was just trying to say that it would have had to been a 302 not a 350 to start with.

Sorry for mistalking

Levi

 

That's right; the 67 Z28 was strictly the production version of a road race car, built solely to fulfill the SCCA requirement at the time for 500 copies to be built in order to run it in the Trans Am series. (The Pontiac of the race series name came along later, riding on the actual race car Camaro's coattails.) The 67 Z28 was not available with any options whatsoever, except a heater (optional); you couldn't even get it with a radio, let alone carpet, bucket seats, etc. People heard about it, and every one of them was snapped up; it was a bit like we talk about "1LE" or "B4C" cars here, except that it was the only RPO anybody knew at the time. If you wanted one of those race cars, you went to the dealer and asked for "Z28". In 68 alot more of them were built, due to their wildly popular "handle" that you could order them by, and they even included a little badge (the 67s were unmarked); then in 69, it became just another boulevard cruiser and was totally watered down, and you could even get Z28 with the RS (Rally Sport) appearance package which included such useless un-racing gewgaws as disappearing headlights. Then in 70 the ultimate degradations were added: auto trans and A/C. It's pretty much been downhill from there, with the 170 HP jokes of the 70s, to the LG4 and L03 cars that were at the time and are even more so today slower than some sedans, etc. Many disgraces to a proud heritage. But there have been a few bright spots since those gloomy days: L69, G92, 1LE, etc., and now the LS1.

I still get a kick out of the little weenie FWD grocery carts with "Z24" and "Z26" on their sides; I bet most of those owners haven't the vaguest whiff of a hint of a clue what that's really all about.

 

Actually...you're weren't mistaken if you were talking about the Camaro in general and NOT the Z28.

The plain Camaro's base engine ( in 1967 ) was a 230 straight 6 cylinder. Next in line was the 327, and then the 350. This was an ALL NEW ENGINE, and in was ONLY available in the Camaro in 1967. You could also get a 396 if you knew which box to check, as well as the 302 in the Z28.

350's could also be had in 1968 and 1969 Camaro's as well, so it's VERY likely ( more likely than a 302 or a 396 ) that someone had a '69 Camaro with a factory 350.

Clear as mud?

HTH
Chris
85 IROC

 

I might add, in 67 there were 2 "SS" Camaros; the "regular" SS had the 350, the other had the 396. Most of us call the one kind just "SS", the other "SS396". That small block SS was the first 350 application, and was the only 350 until 69.

 

i wasn't able to sell the 283, i had it posted for 500 bucks but no one called. it could also just be one of those times in the year....

we will see how much the motor goes for, if it is cheap....why not twin turbocharge it?? a high reving 302 with twin turbo could have quite a bit of possiblities.

 

1967 Z28, only 602 production cars made.

Dz was designation for the 1969; ML was designation for the 67. 1967-68 small journal; 1969 large journal.

There were 350cid production Z28's in 1969, not just the 302 version. The 350's were a fill in for the pace car in 1969, at Indy.

1968 was actual first year of a production Z28, GM scrambled to whip up the magic number of 500 cars in 1967 to meet SCCA requirements. And upon purchase, you would find a set of headers and an intake manifold in the trunk.

The factory rated output was 290hp at 4,700 RPM. Spin it to 7,200 RPM and it made a couple of hairs over 400hp. They talked down this because insurance was becoming a big issue in the late 1960's.

There are myths, but there are truly only legends......

 

the late 69 302s were cna engine codes. it always gets me how every time someone talks about a 302 it's a dz.

rb i was thinking 73 was the first year for the auto trans, along with ac for the z28, but like most things i've been wrong before.

 

Only the block code in 1969 is DZ.

 

The 1969 v-8 302 had 290 h.p. came with 4bll. bore and stroke4.ooo x 3.00 compress ratio 11.00 max torq. LBS. FT.@R.P.M.290@4200 .That motor had more H.P. then 307 , 327 and 1 of the 4 350's of the same year [ all factory] The best motor made that year ,427 with 3 carbs 435 H.P. wow all factory that year [ what a good year!!]

 

ede you could be right, I was thinking it was 70½ but I could also be wrong... they say when you start to get old your memory is the second thing you lose, problem is, I can't remember what the first one is supposed to be.... I'm sure I had it at one time though, whatever it was...

 

The 1969 code is D Z ,v-8 302 w 4 b c

 

ok so if this does turn out to be an actual 302 what kind of production numbers are we looking at.

I see that the 302 came with the z-28 from 1967-69. but the z-28 didn't only use the 302, so how many 302s in all were made?

or for each year.

 

My father had one in a 61 vette, with a cam, all bolt ons, and 5.57 rear gears. Said he used to shift at 8000 rpm. He said he murdered a 302 pinto and a GTO. He said it only would go around 110, but had no problem doing that and no problem losing traction in all 4 gears. He sold the car. Too bad. I never got to ride in it.

 

according to my chiltons 64 to 71 manual the 69 302 was coded DZ early production and CNA late production . now i'm not saying it's right and i know better to believe everything i read.

 

Yeah ede, youre right on the money.