While doing a search I ran across a thread "outside my office with his Mustang" dated early 2001.

In the thread "The ODB" claimed he runs 10.9@124mph with his 305 and invited people to come and watch.

Did anyone ever go to the track to see him run?

Thanks
Ken

 

That guy started a major firestorm on this board with that sort of thing. Fortunately it's been a long time since we've heard anything from him; although, some one of his running buddies posted recently about having him modify a set of 416 heads to accomodate LS1 rockers. It looked like about $600 worth of machine work in order to use a buch of used stock rockers that have a campaign out on them for the rollers falling out and showing up in oil changes, just to avoid spending $250 on a set of real rockers.

WHat the post actually says, is that he has a 305, and that he ran a 10.90. But that's not the whole truth. It turned out that he also has a 383, and that was what ran the 10.90. IIRC it also required a certain amount of nitrous; and the car is a completely gutted, hollowed-out shell, not a street-legal car (although he lives in some small town out in the country, so "street-legal" has a slightly different meaning for him anyway than it does for most of us).

In short, he wasn't telling the truth. He wasn't exactly lying either, but he certainly wasn't being truthful. I strongly suggest that you consider the source and ignore what was said.

 

Yes, ODB never quite volunteered the WHOLE truth. He left a lot of people jumping to conclusions and second=guessing.

However, I do have an MPG video of a full-bodied, street-legal trim, F-body 305 that ran a 9.93 - yes, in the complete ¼ mile. Owned by a guy nicknamed "Smitty".

 

Vador are you talking about the guy at http://www.tpi305.com ? Ever take notice that his "305" may be 305 cubic inches but doesnt even have the same bore/stroke as a factory 305? Its more like a 302. I'd pay to see any REAL 305 run 9's in a heavy f-body

 

Here is a 305 that does run 10.90's


Nuttin' stock about a stock car!!!

http://www.wildgooseperformance.com/

 

We'll I am sure you could ask him what he did a 10.9 on.
I thought his best was a 10.30 @135 on the 383.
You could probably also see pics of the ls1 rocker install and everything else if you knew where to look and decide what it costs yourself, but I'm not going to be one to say where.

|
|
|
\/

 

after looking at that guys tech sheet, for all intents and purposes it is a 302 (25 over)

 

Yup, that's Smitty. Not to get all entangled in the "ODB Games", but all I said was it was a 305. Looks a little like this:



And runs a little like this:

http://216.121.161.76/files/Smitty's...oc 9-9 Run.mpg

The point is, don't read anything into what you see before your face. That's the game ODB played, and many people took the bait and got drawn into arguments because they assumed way too much. That's exactly how people get burned at the tracks, and in life. Unfortunately, ODB paid the price for a lesson the rest of the members had to learn (and apparently, susequently forget). Consider this your reminder.

 

I don't want to cause problems, I was just curious if anyone had seen it run.

Looking at the bore x stroke combination (for a production 305) it seemed like it would be very hard to flow enough N/A air to produce the power needed for a 10.9.

The 305 TPI did a good job producing the torque it does with limited cubic inches but in hind site I wish the 5 litre S/B Chev had a 4" bore in the 80's.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving.
Ken

 

agreed

the 305 has too small of a bore for its generous stroke

i'm begining to wonder if 383's suffer from the same problem

not that they are a lame duck or anything, its just not that big of a difference from a 350 built otherwise the same

 

You aren't going to cause any problems here. My main point was that you get the WHOLE story before you reach a conclusion.

A "conventional" 305 is quite limited by bore size. It's tough to cram enough mixture through the necessarily smaller valves without some "help" to charge the cylinders.

Yes, the factory 305 did just what it was designed to do - make adequate torque for GM's typically heavier cars, produce reasonable power for its size, and meet emissions requirements. The 4" x 3" 5.0 liter engines such as Ford was building wouldn't have been acceptable in a 4,700 pound Caprice Estate wagon with a boat and trailer behind it, but the 305 eeked by with just enough torque at low RPM. The Ford 302 also had real trouble meeting emissions requirements, which was a major factor in its demise in 1995. A Chevy 302 would not have fared any better.