Better go back to that 11th grade Chemistry class. Air doesnt burn. You can force all the air in the engine you want to with your supercharger, but without fuel it aint gonna do squat. The true limiting agent of the reaction in a running engine isnt the amount of air either, sorry. If you'd like proof, go look at any smog test results and you will see that there is excess air as well, anywhere from 1-3% o2 coming right out the exhaust pipe. I'll let you think about that a while and when you figure it out you can try reposting. Tell me again where the power is coming from when you get out of class.

And to top it off, you missed the entire point again, so I will state it again:

The engine that will make the most power is the one that burns the most fuel and burns all of the fuel it gets.

 

Power comes from air? How idiotic.

Power comes from the fuel. You don't burn air. Air (or more specifically oxygen) is of course required to burn the fuel. But the energy that's released, i.e. the thing that we're trying to get at to make the car move, lives in the fuel and comes out when it's burned. It doesn't live in the air waiting for fuel to come along.

The reason it's called forced air induction is quite simple. There's no practical limit to how much fuel you can dump into an engine. But of course it doesn't matter how much fuel you dump in, the energy that resides in the fuel won't be released without the air. There is a limit to how much air can be moved into the intake tract of an engine, under what we refer to as "naturally apspirated" conditions; since as those of us with a scientific education beyond the 11th grade know (and even those who stayed awake in high school science classes, maybe) there's no such thing as "suction", only pressure differential, the maximum amount of pressure available to force air into an evacuated cylinder is atmospheric pressure, about 14.7 psi. A blower or turbo applies additional pressure to the intake tract, thereby forcing more air into the cylinders, thereby allowing more fuel to be burned — which is the real goal of the whole exercise. Not to move air, but to burn fuel.

Get out of 11th grade, and graduate from high school, and go to college and learn to think rationally. Take some chemistry or physics courses and learn how the world really works. Then learn about logic. The quantity that is "limited" has nothing to do with how power is actually produced, or where it comes from, or understanding how to get more.

Power comes from burning fuel. Period. Burning hydrocarbon fuel requires oxygen (not air - nitrous is a good example of dumping what amounts to liquid oxygen into an engine, and thereby bypassing the "air" requirement). Power does not come from moving more air around, although making power (burning fuel) does require that more air be moved in the absence of a substitute.

This whole post has turned into a giant argument about a bunch of stupidity. The original issue at hand, i.e. could you make a 302 out of a LT1, got answered, that you can do that if you want to find custom rods or pistons. Then we discussed why it is that it would be a downgrade that would reduce the victim's power output, rather than an upgrade that would produce a superior engine. You are of course entirely free to build whatever you like, and we all encourage you to do so; we would like to hear the results whenever you build this hypothetical engine, honestly, without any kind of excuses or what-might-have-beens, only the hard numbers (cost and power are the numbers that count). Then if we're lucky somebody will build an otherwise identical 350 which will cost less and spank your 302 like a red-headed stepchild, and demonstrate your folly to you.

 

<b>
MADMAX:

And to top it off, you missed the entire point again, so I will state it again:

The engine that will make the most power is the one that burns the most fuel and burns all of the fuel it gets.
</b>

SO why do eclipse GS-T 4-cylinders beat the f u c k out of 305 camaros? they burn LESS fuel, all of it, and make a HELL of a lot more at-the-engine horsepower. how about 2000 4.3 Mustangs? They burn LESS fuel. And all of it too. Where in the hell did you pick up such a stupid idea?
And dont try that "its cause the car weighs less" bullcrap. the engine makes Twice the power and is HALF the size, regardless of the car weight. as for the mustang,<b> its all in efficiency.</b>

I think everyone can see what Im saying, more fuel does NOT equal more power ALWAYS. Somtimes its ok, if the engine can make more power burning more fuel, but thats not the case all the damn time.

why did we switch to fuel injection? Oh right. its more efficient. wait.. why? air still comes in and gets mixed and and and...
its cause BETTER ATOMIZED FUEL IN SMALLER AMOUNTS (Hence, LESS FUEL COMPLETELLY BURNED) = MORE MORE MORE HORSEPOWER THAN <b>LOTS OF COMPLETELLY BURNED FUEL/AIR.</b> Which i beleive was your original POINT which i just TOSSED OUT THE WINDOW


<b>
MADMAX:

And to top it off, you missed the entire point again, so I will state it again:

The engine that will make the most power is the one that burns the most fuel and burns all of the fuel it gets.
</b>

Re-state your point or we will all point and laugh.

 

Ah refreshing. The truth, isnt it beautiful?

Let's compromise. We are never going to see both sides of the coin (especially Madmax) Power is made my air and fuel. The fuel burned gives the power, but the ammount of power is limited by the ammount of air. There! Any problems?

 

King and Green, glad you FINALLY agree with RB83L69. If you weren't so busy trying to prove a "point", you would have noticed that after all your long worded explanations that you EVENTUALLY just restated what was stated earlier.

 

Okay. I reread Mad Max's posts and I think that I know where he is coming from.

In an ideal power you would have every single fuel molecule atommized and surrounded by oxygen to unleash it's chemical potential and power.

I am just trying to state that the ammount of horsepower you can make is limited to the ammount of air you can obtain.

I dont want to melishously argue, because we are just going to get farther from eachother's point. Tell me if I am right.

 

Cant cuss even? Geez.

So what makes you think that the GS-T burns less fuel? Gas mileage? Thats the worst argument I think I could possibly imagine at this point in time. Go ahead, give me a decent reason to support a statement like that.

Of course they burn less, the car doesnt exist. If you are referring to some other car that actually exists, are you comparing fuel mileage again? You do realize that the fuel consumption rate based upon mileage ratings is not at WOT right? And they burn ALL the fuel? Damn, you know, the EPA would love to see a car like that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kingtal0n
I think everyone can see what Im saying, more fuel does NOT equal more power ALWAYS. Somtimes its ok, if the engine can make more power burning more fuel, but thats not the case all the damn time.

I guess thats why Indy cars get such great mileage huh? Its all that fuel they are not burning. Ever hear about the different fuel maps they have, how they have a 'mileage' map and a 'power' map? Wanna guess which one burns more fuel?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kingtal0n
its cause BETTER ATOMIZED FUEL IN SMALLER AMOUNTS

Havent read much have you? FI systems throw small fuel drops into the air path. Carbs present fuel to the air and its sheared apart by the wind forces. Anyone who knows fuel systems knows a carb atomizes fuel better. Thats why they have a higher peak HP than a comparable FI setup on the same car. FI is for part throttle driveability and self-adjustments.

I'm done. Some people are just too smart around here

"In an ideal power you would have every single fuel molecule atommized and surrounded by oxygen to unleash it's chemical potential and power."

And an ignition source. Would be nice to burn it all at once just past TDC.

 

So am I right at what you are trying to say?

 

Regarding the Eclipse (or let's say any turbocharged 4 cylinder), the better fuel economy you are referring to only occurs when the engine is cruising in light throttle. But, in WOT, you will need a very specific amount of fuel to develop a certain amount of HP.

If you took that turbo 4 cylinder and put it in a vehcile of equivalent weights so EVERYTHING was equal (including the power, just one is a V8 and the other was a turbo 4 cylinder) and ONLY drove them in the 1/4 mile, you'd find that they would burn close to the same amount of fuel.

This is "masked" by the fact that few of us solely drive in the 1/4 mile. We generally do "mixed" driving which will 'mask' the amount of fuel the turbo 4 banger burrnt while in WOT. Nobody disagrees that in part throttle, a turbo 4 cylinder will burn less fuel but it has more to do that in "part throttle cruise" you are not producing that much power as it takes very little power to keep a car rolling on a flat surface at 60 mph. That is why GM is (again) having the ECM cut fuel to half the cylinders, since you don't need the power from all 8 cylinders to keep a 4,000 lb truck moving on a level surface @ 60 mph.

As I said earlier, this thread seems to have digressed from it's original optic. Yes, a SBC 302 has distinct advantages over a 305, but it more because the SBC 302 has a 4" bore that gives you more choices in big valve heads - which is necessary if you want to make a lot of power. But a 302 is at a disadvantage over a 350 (or 383). And, when you look at the stats I posted between a 383 and 377, the differences are so small that a simple difference in tuning could easily make a bigger difference.

RB and Max has said already (in this thread and many other times), that the SBC 350 is probably the cheapest engine to build - only if you have EFI will it become expensive and it has everything to do with EFI, nothing to do with the engine itself. If you wish to make a "stroker", the cheapest stroker that makes power is the 383 - and with the right combination of parts, etc, you can make a 7,000+ rpm engine with a 383 that will have more power at the top end that you ever dreamed of - with much better street manners than a smaller displacement motor.

 

Glenn

You said the 302 is better than the 305 (In which I think everybody agrees) because it has the bigger bore which gives more choices in big valve heads...

Then why doesn't the same apply to the 377 vs 383? Aren't we dealing with two different size bores, with the 377 being larger than the 383? Isn't this a similar scenario as the 302-305?

I'm just curious. I'm not going to get a 377, I would leave it a 400 or make it bigger.

It seems to me everybody grabs a crank out of a 400 and sticks in in the 350...why not just take your extra 350 crank and stick it in the 400?

 

Yes, there is an advantage to the 377s bore (less valve shrouding), but the advantages are minimal with the typical 23* aftermarket street heads on the market. The reason is most of the STREET 23* heads are designed around a 4" bore anyway. You don't have the situation as you do with a 305 vs 302 where you cannot physically install typical 2.02 street heads on the 305.

With race heads like 18* then the advantages of the 377's bore would yield different results (more HP @ higher RPMs), but this would be horrible for the street. And this would be the heads running 2.08 intakes and possibly even bigger exhaust valves. But these heads only show their "stuff" at very high rpms AND if you have a camshaft able to take advantage of those heads.

And that is the point RB, MadMax, myself and others are trying to piont out: Do you want a street engine or a race engine? For a street engine, as demonstrated by CHP's own test results, the 383 is the better choice - more low end TQ with minimal difference in HP than a 377. One thing CHP did not point out in the article, the 377 cost more to build than than the 383. For the difference between the two, you end up with a street engine that has less TQ minimal more HP and costs more to build.

Again, if you are talking "race only", then a 377 with big valve 18* heads (your going to need the flow for the higher rpms and 18* heads require a "shaft" rocker arms) with a mechanical roller cam shaft (of some ridiculous duration level) would be a better choice than a 383. But that would not be a good street engine.

 

Get a 502 and be done.

Andrew