is the ford 302 better than the chevy 305? As far as the block goes, is it a better block?

 

For what?

I guess if you have a F*rd, it's a better block. If you have a GM, the 305 would be better.

 

chevy 302 are better than either.....just my $0.02

 

Ford 302: 4 bolts per cylinder, better port layout possible. Blows head gaskets nicely. Blocks have been known to split down the middle.

SBC 305: Well, it is a SBC...

SBC 302: All the performance of a 350 for twice the money.

 

the reason i ask is my buddies at work keep crackingon my 305 and telling me how much better their 302's are. Granted, they have full roller motors with turbo's, so their over all engine is better (for now) but i was just curious as to why (if at all) their ford 302 was better than my SBC 305.

 

The thing that makes the 302 good is that its a 4" bore, instead of the 3.75" like the 305.

 

So the 302 has a 4" bore but a shorter stroke than the 305? is that why it's a 302? i'm not quite sure what makes up the cuid

 

ford 302= 4" bore and 3" stroke
chevy 305= 3.735" bore and 3.48" stroke

the 4" bore allows bigger valves without shrouding so that you can flow more air easier.

 

Geeze RB, leave it up to me to say "It's monkey spank"

The fNord 5.0 is a pile of crap, well any stock SBF. They have cheezy small valves pathetic ports which have only one advantage on the exhaust side that being the valves are closer to the exh flange but there too small. The blocks are like any other block nothing special in casting. The 5.0F responds better to mods but stock they blow, pre MPFI any HO 5.0 GM would whip a 5.0F HO.

 

a chevy 302 was the same bore/stroke as the f*rd, they made it for the Trans Am race in the late 60's, where the engine size was limited to 5.0L, they took a 327 (4"bore...same as a 350) and put a crank(3" stroke) out of a smaller engine(283 comes to mind, but I'm not quite sure), and got one of the best Hp-per-Cid ratio of any engine ever made, they had to make a minumum production run of the engine/body combo to qualify to put it in the race, so as they were going to use the camaro for the race they used a specal new, and not well know RPO code.... a Z28 "proformance package".....hence the Z-28 was borne.

 

Yes you are right. 4" bore, and 3" stroke 283/265 crank makes a 302. The rod/stroke ratio is an excellent 1.9. With a big enough solid roller cam and excellent exhaust with headers, the 1969 Z28 Camaro would rev high and was very fast.

You can build one for the street with a smaller cam and a dual plane manifold and it would be a very eager engine. It wouldn't have the torque down low like the 3.48" stroke engines do, but midrange and upper end power would be a lot better than a 305.

Then again, if you know what you're doing, you can get 330 horses out of the 305. Valve shrouding tends to be pretty bad on a 305 though.

A friend of mine bought my 283 and I punched it out to a 288 for him. He had me install it in his '82 Trans Am and I think it'll be a fairly decent engine. He would have probably done better with a 350, but with the right rear end, (and I do wish he invested in a good stall converter), the 700R4-trannied 288 should be pretty quick. We'll see. We're trying to figure out the hose and wire mess on top of the motor, but we're just about ready to break in the cam.

Personally, I would have matched this 288 to a good stick shift and a 3.73, installed a rockin' cam and a dual exhaust in his T/A.

 

Ford later 302's have huge 1.72" valves. Mustangs upgrade well because there is a huge amount of performance parts available for them. Thats because the mustang is the only performance car Ford has had for 30 years.

 

forged internals > cast internals.

 

besides the differance in bore size the 4 head bolt ford to the 5 head bolt SBC is really a big factor in port size and flow.

 

what comes to mind to me is that my 88 5.0 mustang has forged pistons and a better aftermarket than the 305, however, the hugest thing is that the stock ford computer will compensate WAY better than the chevy. Also, my mustang is lighter than my trans am was.