I'm going to ask a question that is gonna stir up alot of trouble, but I have to ask. Before I do, I want to state that I am a die hard Chevy man! It seems like no one wants to build 305's. Everyone always says don't waste your time, or why when you can have a 350. I have a 305 TPI in my 89 Bird, and not alot of buget to swapout, or build another(350) motor. So here is my question.

Why do we need at least a 350 to go up against the 5.0 Mustang guys. They are even going smaller with the 4.6's being very competetive. More than half the time it seems like the Chevy 305, even the TPI, is just a play thing for the Ford 5.0's. Believe me, I'm not jumping sides, or happy about it, but it got me wondering, and would like some honest input.

 

i know of a few lb9s that will hand some stangs there @ss
but yea the ford 302 responds to mods with reckless abandon
but so does the 350...

the 305 was an attempt at decent performance and better gas milege.. but as far as mods go the money will be spent more effectivly on a 350 or larger

there are plenty of parts that will wake up a 305 and that will kick a 350 in its @ss

parts like intake base, runners, headers, heads and cam...slighty overcam your 305 if u plan on building a 350 that way the cam will be "perfect" when its ready for the 350

you can get plenty of power from a 305 but you will get another 40-50 horse and 60+lb ft. when the same parts are used in a bigger motor..

HTH

ohh and the 4.6 stangs are jokes lol *puts on flame retardent suit* lol

 

Its not a matter of cubes in this war against ford. There 5.0s came from the factory with halfway decent cams, forged slugs (90-93) and better intake systems (went from map to maf instead of what GM did). Those motors had ALOT more than ours did at the time. The 305 was never meant to make horsepower. It was a smog era engine and stayed that way for the most part. The heads, cam, and compression just plain suck. The overall cost of aftermarket parts is exeedingly expensive for this size motor when a 350 will suffice for cheaper. Do a search and you will see this has been argued a countless amount of times. So what if ford wants to get smaller. We did by 4 cubic inches IIRC (LS1).
They chose their platform and we chose ours (seems we are the wiser seeing as we don't need SCs to compete )

 

im not an expert but doesnt the 302 have a 4" bore just like the 350, but just has a shorter stroke...its something like that, the 305 can be made fast but has 3.75 bore and im not sure on the stroke, it just comes down to what makes power easier and cheaper, if you got the money you can do a 305 but a budget buildup is best with a 350, or 302 if your on the darkside.

 

It's all about the bore/stroke ratio, head design, and volumetric efficiency. The 302 Ford enjoys a 4" bore like teh 350 SBC. This allows a larger valve (and port) to fit into the chamber, and improves flow. You could build a 302 Chevy (it was done before the Ford 302 was born), but we already know that the same bore with a longer storke is a more efficient package. That's probably why the more serious Ford guys stroke their 302s to 347 cubes. The older 351C was already a better bore/stroke ratio, but Ford chose not to make that in lieu of the 302. We'll never undersatand why.

As for the 4.6L Romeo modular engine, it's in a different league, like the Cadillac Northstar 4.6L V-8. These engines come from the factory with very little left to modify to make power. The same modifications in a larger engine will yield better results. The modular design is pretty suspect for durability as well. Their limits to power are still to be determined, but I doubt you'll see a 1,400 HP 4.6L modular any time soon. SBCs have been there many times and survived.

Your 305 suffers in design from the limited valve an port sizes that can be squeezed into the smaller chamber without shrouding the valves. It's a great engine for making torque at lower RPMs, something the 302 and 4.6L will always lack. With the smallish valve, however, the flow to make power at higher RPM is just a little lacking. All you can do is maximize the port design and make flow through valves that open farther rather than larger valve faces.

 

thanks for clearin my words up, i was on the right track but didnt know all the little details you just described

 

Good input, and thankyou!! I guess I'm not supprised buy the answers I'm getting. Maybe part of me wants to try it to see what can be done. I have done all the free mods that TPIS suggests, was very happy with the results, and thought how far can I take this and stay with the 305. I actually do have a 350 under the work bench for some day, but I'm mind boggled by all the build choices, and WAY low on funds. Not sure which way to go.

 

if your on a llimited budget and looking for the most power you can get than i would start workin on that 350 you got sittin under the work bench

 

The problem isn't cubes. Some of us, even some of us with 305s, don't have any trouble competing with the F*rds. We have either carbs, or some form of FI that didn't come on these cars from 5-92

The real problem is TPI. I feel sorry for people who think they're somehow going to turn that into a performance system..... because it simply isn't. Never was, isn't, never will be.

You ought to hear all the belly-aching going on in the F*rd camp about LS1s these days. Lots of moaning about "I'm so sick of getting handed my a$$ by those LS1 cars, all they do is go to the dealer and buy one, and it's a second and a half faster than my car, and no amount of money I can spend on mine will let it keep up". Sound familiar?

 

Yes, the TPI system starts to choke its own chicken at about 4,400 RPM. I was speaking more generically to the 305 question. But even with a carb, Stealth Ram, or LT1 intduction system, you must admit, it's a little "307-ish" in basic design. Like a John Deere two-cylinder, it will run forever and make enough torque to pull nearly anything, but torque at RPM is a totally different issue. Splayed valves would have helped the little engine a bit, but without charging, it's more of a challenge to fill the cylinders through the smallish valves.

 

Right, 305s in general as they came from the factory are pretty lame. To put the reason why into perspective, don't forget that the 305 itself is basically a relic from the 70s smogger era, designed to push around little-old-lady grocery-cart sleds on as little fuel as possible, when the speed limit was 55.

But it's a small block Chevy just the same, with all of the parts availability and all that, the same as the 350 or the 400. If you un-70s-smoggify it, it's a whole lot less of a slug.

The whole bore/stroke thing is pretty interesting as far as that goes. It might be alot of fun to take a SBC 302, the 3.25"x4" kind, and put a LT1 intake or a MiniRam on it (both of those being of somewhat similar design to the F*rd FI intake), and stick it in one of these cars lightened to the same weight as the F*rd competition, and then see what you end up with. Not that I would actually do that with my own car, but it would be an interesting exercise to go through on somebody else'e money. That would reduce the whole cylinder-wall shrouding effect of the 305, which in turn would allow the better-flowing intake tract to do its job, and then it would be more of an apples-to-apples comparison.

I was totally underwhelmed by TPI when it came out in 85, and nothing has happened since then to change that opinion. The first one of those cars that I drove left me with no feeling whatsoever of speed, it was more like driving a big truck with no load or a school bus or somehting. Big grunt off the line, unstoppable up to maybe 35 mph, but no top-end speed and power, unable to complete a pass on a 2-lane highway. Personally I think the TPI 305 was one of the worst things that ever happened to the F car, if not the worst: it is the reason, pure and simple, that the Mustang is still in production, and our cars are "on hiatus". These cars lacked the glamor-type appeal that the Vette has, and so never recovered from the damage to their image in the motoring public's mind that was done by their lack of power and speed. The 350 TPIs were so crippled by the combination of TPI itself and their pathetic drivetrain combinations, that they did little to offset the perception in the public's mind.

 

Doesn't it always come down to "the package"? The 305 was never fully "packaged" by the factory. I almost doubled the factory output, and it is very comfortable as a daily driver (it was -1 F outside when I started it up to drive through the snow to work today).

TPI wasn't packaged for power by the factory. That doesn't mean it can't be improved. True, you won't have many of the factory parts when you get done modifying it, but the basic concept is still there. Main limitation is batch firing rather than individual cylinder injection.

For all the discussion of poor 305 bore/stroke ratio vs. 350, isn't it interesting that the LS1 ratio is less than the 350?

 

The LS1 is great because it has Ford Windsor heads on it

I've seen the two laying next to each other at the machine shop...the Windsor head was out a long time before the LS1 head.

...just trying to stir up some ****

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but those of us that have to stay emissions legal are stuck with TPI right? All the research I've done so far would indicate the a reasonably built TPI setup would make a killer truck motor.

 

Actually, if you really want to get the swizzle stick in there, the design is not that much different thaan the heads on the 1918 Chevy Series 'D' V-8. Yes, 1918 - 14 years before Ford "originated" the idea, and they still f8cked it up with a flathead design. (For a little more stirring, Robert Ely Olds was mass-producing automobiles in 1901 - almost three full years before Henry Ford "originated" that concept, too.)

1918 Series 'D' - four bolts per cylinder, alternating intake/exhaust ports, overhead valves with covered, shaft-mounted rockers, crossflow design with a central camshaft.

The Windsor series of Ford engines did not use the more common E-I-I-E valve placement pattern. The alternated intake and exhaust valves along the head (like the 1918 Chevy), making larger port volumes available in the same casting space. Their weakness is in the bolt pattern and castings, whereas the LS1 series has six bolts cantelievered over each cylinder bore. The Fords (except the 302) used an unnecessarily heavier crankshaft 9and complete rotating assembly), wherease the really should have made the case more rigid. This didn't hurt bottom end durability, but performance.

 

I knew I was gonna get shown up on engine knowledge

...touchè...

hahaha...I just felt like shaking the can-o-wasps

 

Hey, he warned us...

Actually, there's no "showing up". The Ford Windsor family has enjoyed a couple of advantages over the small-bore SBCs, and suffered some disadvantages. It's probably almost a wash. As for the Fords, rumor is, if you have a 302 or 351 (or 400 for that matter), keep it. After rebuilding a Ford or two in years past, and seeing the Romeo in development in the early '90s, I'd agree.

In other words, Cap'n, keep that 302 running and ignore the hype that FoMoCo is trying to jam down your throat. It's like Iacocca saying that front wheel drive was so much better, or Nader saying the Corvair was inherently unsafe. Time proved them both wrong, but only after it was too late for either of them and their organizations. "Chrysler" and "credibility" are seldom terms spoken in the same sentence any more. I guess "build American" really means "asssemble in Mexico from Japanes parts" to Chrysler execs. Daimler isn't helping, either, since their creidbility is in serious question with their business ties to Iraq.

And "consumer groups" all too often don't have the consumer's best interest in mind, since they rarely understand the topics that they so eloquently try to present. These are the people that think air bags are safet than belts/harnesses, arc-fault circuit breakers are better than shunted ground faults, and that entitlements are better than earned rewards.

In the same vein, I have a feeling that Ford will regret dropping the old lines for the headlong development of the Romeo engine more than they already do, and you'll see some complete engine case castings coming out of Dearborn before too long.

 

So whata about Fords big blocks??

460 vs 454(stroked 427?)

 

Take that stupid F*rd rocker gear off their 429/460 motor, and put some BBC roller rockers on it, it works a whole lot better. Yes I've done it, it's a bolt-in. You just have to use push rods for something else.... a Buick maybe, I forget. It's been abotu 20 years now.

In fact, a F*rd 429/460 looks exactly like a BBC inside. If I thought about it for a minute, I could probably remember some other things that fit (lifters maybe?). Kind of like somebody at F*rd woke up and said "Hmmmm...... these things go pretty good, and are cheap to build.... how close can we make something to it and not get sued??"

IMHO the best motor F*rd has ever made was the 351 Cleveland. That was an impressive piece actually.

Another good piece of copying is the C-6. You transmission people will know what I'm talking about.

 

Didn't they used to have a NASCAR race named after the C-6? The "Motorcraft 400" or someting like that?

Actually, on transmissions, the older Chrysler Torqueflites (like the 727) weren't a bad design for durability, just a little inefficient in the planetary gear drives.

(Note to self - after reading preceeding posts, it's definietely time to get a new keyboard on the garage PC. Damn, I typed that like a four-year old. Actually, probably worse than most of them are today.)

 

And what about Dodges 318?? I've never seen anything on those.

 

318 or 318T? The truck engine is one of those "run-forever" engines, as long as you take care of it. Not very emissions friendly, however.

 

One thing that I'm surprised was overlooked was the lifter bores (read:cam selection) of the Ford Windsor family (post roller as well). The lifter bores and lifters are larger, allowing a much more aggressive cam lobe. For example a chevy hyd flat tappet listing would be dur@.050 234º/244º lobe sep 112º and lift of .488/.510, ford's would have the same dur & lobe sep, but the lifts would be .520/.544. And IIRC the 302 went roller in '83 or thereabouts for the HO motors. For a Roller cam I just pulled a listing for a ford of dur@.050 220º/226º lobe sep 114º lift .529/.544 a chevy dur 228º/236º 112º .507/.525. Granted not the same, but I didn't have much time.

 

If you're bored, here's more on teh "mighty" 4.6L Ford modular engine:

http://www.nwjcra.org/****boxcopcars/

 

You mean a more "radical" cam? I've got non-roller lifters for a 305 and 302 as well as the valves. There is like a hair differ... well I'm this far might as well mic em brb....


No 305 lifters, my dad must have sold them as they where in perfect condition.

But I do have 8 302 lifters.

Now the 302 had a Cleveland intake so the cam will be different, but this 1986 302 has 1.783 intake valves 1.45 exhaust valves. The lifter 2 inches tall and .874 inch diameter. The space unpolished is .49 inches tall and starts 1.1 inches from the bottom of the lifter where the lifter rides the cam (give or take .01). I did see the 305 lifter next to the 302 lifter (right after I popped it out of the cracked block). The 305 lifter is just a little smaller and the oil hole/unpolished area is lower.

More radical cam?? I don't think so. More like compensation for crappy parts.

But the springs on this 1986 302 are just 1 spring per valve where the 305 has a duely spring per valve (to stop spring harmonics?).

But why would anyone want a larger lifter?? Is there some major problem with having a smaller lifter that I'm not aware of? You'd think it bad because it adds weight to the engine and increase metal to metal surface (1hp difference? LOL).

 

If you look at how a flat tappet cam lobe works, you can see that if the lifter is a larger diameter, the lobe will contact it sooner as it spins under the lifter, and stay under it longer. It's a small thing, but like all small things in racing, add up lots of them, you can make a BIG thing out of them.

The hot tip for years in racing (real racing, not low ET street drags) has been to bore out the lifter bores in the block to use AMC lifters. They're the biggest diameter production ones of the correct design to use in other production V8s. Does that mean that the AMC V8s were a superior motor?? I don't think so....

FYI, the SBC lifter diameter is .842"; the F*rd diamter is .874"; the AMC/Chrysler lifter diameter is .904". BTW you can't use a Chrysler .904" lifter in a stock Chevy motor because it doesn't have an oil hole to feed the push rod; Chryslers oil their rocker shafts directly.

 

These are used lifters that have worn spots on them, when I get home I'll measure the worn area on each of the eight. If I only had a digital cam.

 

O-S, yes a more aggressive ramp can and is used. You will see for like duration and lobe sep, the lift is almost always bigger on the ford peice, and when grinding custom cams you can take full advantasge of it. It is a combination ofa lot of little thins that add up. Noted most particularly, the stroke, cam and firing order. Now the new 4.6 tonka toy motor, while a capable motor, probably will not match the 'mystique' of the 4.9 302.

 

i do not understand why ford went to taht motor. They should have maybe came out with an internally balanced 302( i always thought thats what sucked about 302s is that they are externally balanced so you have to watch out.)... and an option for a bigger motor like a factory 347 or 351 in a mustang.... but they went to a modular 281?!?!? i dont get it.

 

Really, it comes down to if you are comparing stock vs stock, you don't want to compare stock vs anything else it's not the same.

I think that both designs had "controled limits". For instance the GeForce 256 video card, right out of the box you can overclock it 20-40 MHtz. Makes me wonder why I didn't come "overclocked".


-elsewhere-Do you ever think automarkers will get the idea to have computer controlled hydrolics to open the valves?-elsewhere-

Good point RB83L69.

I like to watch the funny cars race;325mhp in 4.8 seconds lol. Do you think they use the bigger lifter idea on their big blocks?


Same thing to the thunderbird -dead-.

 

Fuel cars use rollers. Those, it doesn't matter what lifter diameter they are. But, just FYI, most of them are .904"

Winston Cup still uses flat tappets, and those guys do the large lifter thing.... they started letting the Busch and Truck guys use rollers, mostly as a cost-saving measure believe it or not. They'll get a whole season out of a few assorted cams, rather than totally trashing a billet flat tappet that costs almost as much every single race.

I've heard that there is some experimentation going on with electric valves, kind of like injectors. Same principle. This is mostly in some sort of smaller motors though, lighter parts.

Take a mic to your lifters. See if they're still the nominal diameters.

 

Well, go over the to Mustang forums and see that they stroke the 302 to make a 347.

I don't have the 305 lifters. Ya I mic'd the 302 lifters and got ^ what is up there.

If I owned a junk yard, then I'd have time to put hydrolics on lifters and see how long the engine runs

 

I think I'll add a little tid bit too.302 windsors and strokers use a really short rod.Those long rod chevys have been hyped to death 6 in. rod, whatever ,it's just a sales pitch and does not show up on the dyno.The shorter the rod (to an extent)the more usable cam duration you can run.It yanks the mixture in.

 

Yep, very common. Ther really is no replacement for displacement.

As for the computer controlled hydraulics, well some company has been playing around with the idea, but they used, IIRC, compressed nitrogen, and they are currently running in one ofthe indy or cart races, not sure.

 

Theres a prtty sweet design being worked on here.
Rotary Valve System


Later,
Steve

 

I've seen those heads. I think they're a great idea, but evidently the auto manufactures don't.

Pull up to Stake 'n' Shake with this under the hood.

 

Why on earth would they have used a Ford 302 over a Chevy 350?

Is there even a site where you can go a buy a stock 302?