Totally.
And all the ridiculous rationalization that follows.....

 

If the 305 was so bad, why did they write a song about it ?


When I take her to the track she really shines
(giddy up giddy up ̶4̶0̶9̶ 305)
She always turns in the fastest times
(giddy up giddy up ̶4̶0̶9̶ 305)
My four speed, dual quad, Posi-Traction ̶4̶0̶9̶ 305

Giddy up giddy up giddy up ̶4̶0̶9̶ 305)

Nothing can catch her
Nothing can touch my ̶4̶0̶9̶ 305)

Giddy up ̶4̶0̶9̶ 305)

 

@Tom 400 CFI My apologies I meant to tag Fast355, he's the one that was sure it was 18% lost.

 

 

Even if you discount the drivetrain loss all together, say it was 0% and every pony wound up to the rear tires




You still can't dismiss the fact that in 1989 Nissan produced a 122 cubic inch engine which put down 250rwhp using all factory parts in a car that weighs 2800lbs or less.

So any way you slice it. Anything that chevy produced between 82-99 is basically dog ****.

These days (from say 02+) you can get a 4.8L Engine for $300~ that will support 800rwhp reliably in a daily driver.
So why does this thread even exist?

 

I see you got banned from ls1tech. Does that mean you'll be spending more time here?

 

You have now heard from several well respected members that have plenty of experience with these engines such as Fast355, as well as Sofakingdom who is actually a physicist - again with tons of SBC experience, and myself that owns a 305 car AND a dyno. None of us agree with you.

What is your analysis of that conundrum? Seems the consensus here is that you are wrong. Plain and simple. Given the opinion of respected members you have virtually zero chance of convincing anyone of these claims.

Rebuttal? I'm curious to hear your analysis of why you are now in this position?

GD

 

Best post in the entire thread.

 

And next to my 61 cubic inch 80 rwhp 1978 Honda Goldwing that weighs 584lbs I'll bet your Nissan would look like dog poopie itself , so what's your point ?

That there are other faster machines out there than our beloved third gens ?

Well no shiznizzle Private Pyle , Like the thread needed YOU to point that out ? Congrats Captain Obvious , you've SAVED the day again !!!

 

Only if you ask nicely

This site has some very well laid out info
https://www.w8ji.com/rotating_mass_acceleration.htm

From the right perspective, the energy you 'lose' into a drivetrain is just waiting for an element of appropriate extraction- and a small bit is converted to heat due to friction.

 

Reading would really help you out. Even the article I posted for you fell right in line with a 18% loss for the 87 Firebird tested on the dyno PHR used back in 1987.

 

You are missing salience. Torque is partially dependent on displacement. All internal combustion engines apply here; we must observe what every manufacturer is doing otherwise we are just closing our eyes in the dark and pretend the outside world doesn't exist.

Once you see what 2.0L can do easily (500rwhp is the new standard for 122 cubes), then see what 3.0L can do easily (upwards of 800rwhp is typical these days) it doesn't matter what kind of car or engine we are talking about. The point is how each manufacturer utilizes what they are giving us; how they endow the displacement such that it will live up to the name of performance, and how much is costs to get into our hands in the first place. e.g. if anyone can go to a local scrap yard and pick up an engine capable of supporting 800-1000rwhp for pennies (almost free) it should immediately put the damper on anybody using something that costs more and produces less, regardless of what manufacture

 

This thread was pretty sucky early today, pretty interesting now.

Regarding the LG4, the roller cam, 9.3 compression ratio, 081 head,'87 LG4, is a different animal than the '82 140 hp LG4. Honestly, the LG4 in my '87 IROC was a smooth, torquey, perfectly acceptable motor, let down by 2.73 gears and a 700R4 tuned to get to 4th gear at all costs.

 

My Friend , what I am not missing is that like all machinery , there are some with more and some with less , and it's kinda pointless to compare different vehicles with different performance levels . You gave the example of the Nissan having better stats than our F bodies and I came back and gave you a vehicle with even better stats than the Nissan , , , and as to cost I'll bet back in the day you could have at least TWO Goldwings for the price of one Nissan , more performance per Dollar in the Motorcycle world than in any other .

My bottom line here is that I don't sit awake at night keeping score of all the vehicles that are faster or slower than my car , dork measuring contests were never really my style , and if Impact's Garage is happy with the performance of his 305 , , , well , , I ain't gonna be the one to go pissing in his Wheaties and telling him about all the faster vehicles out there , I mean , Crap , , we're still faster than a stock 1969 VW Bug , right ????

 

There is a CFM chart, maybe from Hot Rod magazine, that someone posted here, that shows that adding headers to a T-pipe, single cat, LB9/L98 doesn't outflow a stock N10 with the stock 2.25" manifolds.

 

Add a properly built set of headers with a proper Y-pipe with a good merge Y and you will realize just how badly those logs choke even a stock engine. Talking SLP Tri-Y from the early 90s or Dyno Don headers not some cheap junk.

 

@Fast355 Thanks for the link! Can't believe I missed it the first time! That's a killer article and it actually does fit really well with what I've been learning. I have to admit 18% really looks like the right figure for a GM auto and solid rear axle. If that's the case then that LG4 was making about 175 crank HP bone stock with full accessories and single exhaust! (and 190 with factory cold air!!!) That is indeed more than the advertised power rating even if it is only 20 horsepower more. It also seems I'm overestimating the stock intake a bit, at first glance it looked like a really good piece for 80's factory equipment but there's clearly room for improvement.

 

I think we're being trolled, with this thread. Gotta be. No one can really believe the crap that's been posted by the OP.....

 

No, dude. No. It is not the right "number".

Did you read this?

 

My 165 HP LE9 was a torquey engine. Flat top pistons, 601 heads, a 929' 350 cam, and no feedback junk carb. Also let down by a 700r4 and 3.08 gears. Atleast the early truck/van 700r4s had later part-throttle shifts than the newer ones. The stupid pellet cat and 2" manifolds choked that 305 G20 van by atleast 25 hp compared to the tubular manifolds and true duals of the same year 350 G30 van.

 

The 4 cylinder and the V-8 with the same RWHP ratings are not producing the same torque numbers, nor are they producing peak power at the same RPM...

 

87 LG4 had a rating of 170 hp/250tq.

 

I read it and you seem to miss that the approximate 18% loss was for a given transmission and differential. Those being a 700r4/4L60E and a 7.5 or 8.5" differential.

I have found atleast 10 different examples that show this. More if you count trucks with the ~10 hp it takes to turn the mechanical engine fan into consideration.

You also seem to forget that the LS engines are all over the board power wise. I have seen a 325 hp rated 2002 F-car put 310 hp down at the tires. I don't believe for a second that it has a 4.6% loss. Just the same as you should not feel anything less than about 12-15% loss is accurate for even a manual trans.

 

@Tom 400 CFI What transmissions are those? And how do we know for sure what the crank HP is? Just trying to be thorough here.

 

Oh yeah? So how do you explain the numbers that multiple cars produced? :bigears

But keep in mind, that post of mine that you quoted was not directed at you.

 

Whatever came stock in each of those cars.
T56
T56
ZF-6
ZF-6

Since your'e being thorough, what about the rears? And the flywheels? And wheels size/weights....all that affect results on an inertia dyno.
Rears:
Getrag
Getrag
D44
D44
....all way bigger and beefier than the F-bod 10 bolt.

 

Heck, I don't own the place. Knock yourself out!

For what it's worth, I looked up your last 10 posts prior to being banned and I didn't see what was the big huge deal. One of your comments was actually funny as heck, but nobody got it!

Oh well, enough of that.

 

For the sake of being honest and thorough I wanted to say I just realized the car in the article Fast355 linked was a 5 speed not an auto so I doubt it but it may possibly be making a bit less crank HP than I said earlier. Assuming drivetrain loss for that T5 is only 15% instead of 18% it would still be still making 183 crank HP in completely stock trim with factory cold air package and single exhaust which is more than what's advertised for that year. According to their tests the cold air package that my car came with is apparently worth almost 20 HP at 4500 RPM! So that's obviously one of the reasons my car seems to run so good. If the 15% loss figure IS accurate here that would also mean they were able to get that LG4 over 210 crank HP (182 wheel) with just an aluminum intake and single exhaust and that still backs up what I've been seeing on dyno tests, on calculators and feeling with my butt dyno.
Also for the sake of being thorough I should mention I just learned that some LG4's vary in compression a bit from year to year. This can cause a variation in power obviously, the least of the bunch like mine are around 8.5:1 and the best of the bunch are 9.5:1 and according to my favorite HP calculator this can yeild a difference of as much as 20 HP. It would have been nice if mine had come with more compression but you can't have everything for 600 bucks and it already seems to run pretty darn good anyway.
Heck according to their dyno test the cold air package practically makes up for the lower compression. After seeing how much enlarging the cold air inlet helped this car I'm definitely gonna do that to mine too. @Fast355 Many thanks for passing on that article, it had some VERY valuable info for me!

 

@NoEmissions84TA Very interesting, I'm new to the feedback system. Been an old school carb and distributor guy my whole life and never messed with this aspect of auto tuning. I'm guessing it's just a chip I replace under the dash somewhere? I would appreciate a link to any kind of article that would help me learn about it. Thanks in advance!

 

If you're going to make power then you're going to need to turn more than 4500 rpm, or whatever those 305's do. The SBC valve layout needs a large bore diameter to fit the valve sizes needed to support big power. You're just not going to get there with the relatively small bore diameter of the 305 engine. If you did something silly like de-stroke a 400 with 4.125" bore down to a 305, then it would give you access to cylinder heads that would make the engine Superman by comparison.

It is hot rodder instinct to say playing with a 305 is a complete waste of time, but I can't say tinkering on your car is waste of time if it brings you joy, even if the results aren't great. But at some point all of us look back at the money we've spent and have some buyer remorse, and think to ourselves.... if I had known then what I know now! And in that case most of us wouldn't start with a Camaro if we did it all over again.

 

[QUOTE=QwkTrip;6339962]

It is hot rodder instinct to say playing with a 305 is a complete waste of time, but I can't say tinkering on your car is waste of time if it brings you joy, even if the results aren't great. But at some point all of us look back at the money we've spent and have some buyer remorse, and think to ourselves.... if I had known then what I know now! And in that case most of us wouldn't start with a Camaro if we did it all over again. [/QUOTE

I just got finished spending about 2K on mods to my 305...no regrets the thing came alive Big difference in HP performance and driveability. Qwik, you are right about bringing me joy, it was just enough to make it REALLY fun to drive. Could have gotten more bang for my buck with something other that a LB9 absolutely, but as stated, no buyer remorse here.

 

LOL You act like I tried to compare a lawn mower to a boat?

In reality, the Mustang, Camaro, and Silvia, are all extremely similar, and very good to compare for the sake of learning.

the category of interest is 3,000 to 4,000lb performance daily drivers, under or around $20,000 brand new
there are many such rides not just mustang/camaro but many are more expensive (Evolution? Skyline? Supra?)
they are extremely similar and related within this category and get compared all the time, but we have to set guide lines to make it fair (such as a max price).

Silvia, Mustang, Camaro, are all coming:
-Rear Wheel Drive RWD
-5-speed, 6-speed, and automatic options
-sold as performance vehicles
-two doors, back seats w/ 'full size' interior and a trunk
-20 to 30 miles per gallon gasoline use
-similar price to purchase (around or less than 20k new)
-huge aftermarket for all of these
-etc I just made these up to see how easy it is to compare them as similar

Very much like comparing two weapons side by side, or two computers made in the same year. we can do the same thing for cars using either statistics or common sense.
Turning a blind eye to the mustang made in 98 or the Silvia made in 98 just because its not a Chevrolet seems ignorant.

We should learn from the competition instead.


I'll just jump right in and say that the Silvia has it easy
-Independent rear suspension eliminates Torque arm and improves handling, I am told
-factory differential supports over 500ft*lbs of torque and limited slip
-optional upgrade differential is around $300 used and supports approx 1000rwhp launches on a T-brake, has 32-spline axles and 3.5:1 ratio that bolts right in (easy diff option)
-engine bay appears roomier than similar cars for some reason
-weight is 1000lbs less than mustang or camaro
-upgraded brake option designed to stop a 4200lbs vehicle using 30mm rotor, 4-piston caliper, are easy to get $150~ used or reman (from local auto stores even)

basically for around 500 bones you can upgrade the brakes and diff of the Silvia into a 9 second car capable equipment, more or less.
Then put whatever engine you want in it (V8, I6, etc) because its so light anything will work and most of the modern engines weight about the same

Actually with an LS engine, Silvia is even more balanced and lighter than with the factory 4-cylinder
https://ls1tech.com/forums/conversio...ce-inside.html

I'd say its a completely fair comparison given the size, weight, price of those kinds of cars.

 

That's what it is all about, bud!

 

Having had MANY 240's (the USDM Silvia) here in the dyno, I can tell you they are absolute $hit boxes. Most have been modded to death and people want way too much for the silly things. They are a lot smaller and extremely cramped inside. I just finished tuning a 240 with an SR20DET swap and it made 240 RWHP. And that's with a more powerful engine swap that they never came with here. Saying the 240SX was even a competitor to the F body is untrue because here in the USDM you could only get the 2.4 NA engine with 155 HP. IMO they are overpriced heaps.

That said, we have had LS swapped 240 drift cars here with 775 RWHP. Mostly these are fiberglass over a chassis that's been wildly upgraded with cages and tubing..... here's a video of the 775 HP Formula Drift car we tuned. 3 stage NOS:


GD

 

This is salient. And absolutely true. And why I am proud to say there is a V8 in my Nissan that makes more torque from just off idle even if it didn't have a turbocharger on 87 octane than the 2L could ever hope to achieve.

However, in the drag race, with the right setup, all the extra torque from the V8 below 5k is basically useless once you 60' the car
And pound for pound (mass for mass) the V8 drivetrain is going to store more energy so it will need to make more power than the lighter 4-cylinder drivetrain requires to go the same MPH at the same race weight
Also the heavier V8 rotating mass will use more fuel (economy is reduced) due to friction and kinetic energy lost once imparted
And the V8 (OEM) typically will not tolerate the 7k 8krpms that the 4-cylinder can achieve, thus the 4-cylinder drivetrain can go higher MPH or use a steeper rear gear (numerically higher) to achieve more torque to the rear wheels and increase the rate of engine acceleration without sacrificing fuel economy or top end

There are many advantages to having a lighter drivetrain, lighter car, smaller engine, if you can keep the power the same and use it properly, it makes no difference whether the 400hp is from the V8 or from the 4-cylinder, the lighter rotating version with the higher redline and better gearing will win?

And you might say that the increased torque from the V8 is more useful in a daily driver at least.
However if we compare the 2L pump gasoline turbo torque output (250 to 350ft*lbs is typical) and multiply in the rear gearing (4.11:1 is factory) with the appropriate 5 or 6-speed transmission ratios, it likely comes out damn near the same as the V8 through every gear-range of acceleration, the car is often faster than the V8 with the same power rating because of that increase 1,000rpm of redline headroom that is so typical of 4 and 6 cylinder drivetrains and reduced weight overall.

A tough comparison to make without driving both species of vehicle. But I have and I am telling you, both 400hp versions are fun to drive and one of them does 30-33mpg also

not really banned. Just had them say that to make a few people over there happy
certain sensitive individuals can dish it but they can't take it
I still post under a different name, careful not to hurt anybodies feelins'

 

I know how to calculate horsepower. In your calculation, you used the 240 lb-ft at 4500 to come up with 205 hp. The engine isn’t making 240 lb-ft at 4500 rpm, however. That number peaks much earlier so it is an invalid demonstration.

 

The silvia/camaro/mustang are all **** boxes. They are the cheapest cars from each manufacturer that I can think of which still have performance and RWD.

There is nothing cheaper out there that is so similar. Less than 20k new and usually 5k or less used for most of those cars.

The reason the 240sx has gone up in price is because it is rare. there are maybe only 10k of them left from 95+
I don't consider the models before 95 to be worth modifying due to the era of chassis construction (it is inferior and heavier before 95)

You bring up a fair point about the comparison for the 240sx, but is it really not a competitor?
In 1989 they released my Camaro 305 LO with 160~hp
And in 1989 the factory 2.4L engine (half the size) had nearly the same hp and both are 5-speed

so It's kind of similar?

But this hobby isn't about the statistics at first. I think the main point is being lost in the order:

1. 2. displacement is just one aspect of the vehicle and application and overall very low influence in the big picture of a vehicle in myrid applications

3.

 

Exactly. Torque drops off at peak HP.

HP = TQ x RPM ÷ 5250

Look at a dyno (from my website):

GD

 

heres what you can do with 305cubic inches

305x6000/3456 = 529CFM * .069 = 36lb/min
gasoline power output of approx 360bhp or
360 * .85 = 306rwhp is possible at 6,000rpm with 100% VE using a vaguely warm (slight drop density) air at sea level

And its that simple. You plug in the numbers, you get numbers, done.
---
If it makes any less than that it suffers from VE loss (induction system which includes valve events and exhaust style, is not properly setup)
If it makes much more than that its using nitrous or boost, or higher rpm
---

To summarize, you take displacement and calculate air flow. then convert airflow into power by including air density and rate (angular frequency or angular velocity) and by accounting for fuel quality (peak cylinder pressure timing/rate)

And thats what an engine, any engine, does or can do. There is no reason to get all confused about what a 5L or 2L can do when the math is fairly consistent, accurate, easy to use... sorry to interrupt

 

If you are into drifting, they have the right setup. Big engine bay, RWD. The IRS suspension can be cambered for drifting, and the front steering angle is easily modded.

Problem is production numbers, and most of the available units have been modded to death or wrecked in drifting events. The price is outrageous and they SUCK as regular daily drivers. The bigger F body is a much more comfortable size..... yeah they are both $hit heaps in the scheme of things but at least you have room for us tall guys in the F body and you can find decent body's still.... and you can get parts cheap.

GD

 

my personal opinion is that the 240sx is an incredible daily. Maybe cause I am only 180lbs or less? You seem to make a big deal about the size and I feel that the 95+ is plenty large as a Camaro. Are you thinking of the S13 maybe? (pre 95 chassis) because those are definitely 'small' feeling.

I daily'd a white 1997 240sx, 400hp 2.0L 5-speed for almost 20 years and got more than I paid for it back when finished because the price went up over time. So rare for a car to do that.

Now I daily the V8 5.3/4l80e/turbo 1995 unit for 3 years (25,000miles so far) and it's been an absolute dream come true, the LS truly is as maintenance free as they say, haven't had a single hiccup, don't even look at the plugs. The car itself is fine, I guess. You can tell shes a bit front heavy with the iron V8 but I feel the aluminum 5.3 would fix that up.

Theres a mod for 240sx also which allows you to drop the drivers seat a couple inches lower (cut out the floor slightly) and is typical for tall drivers to do.

As to parts. I feel that the parts for 240sx are very easy to get? Maybe because I know all the local spots where importers bring fresh parts all the time.
For example last year had somebody smash and grab from my car. I went to the local importer and he gave me a whole door free with fresh glass and window motor etc... just because I know the guy for so many years. Thats the kind of 'parts' I get usually (free, cast off, or cheaply somehow). The junkyard may not have any 240sx left but there are still tons of parts from other cars that fit (Q45 differentials and 300ZX brakes for example) some of which Nissan has even started to make again (they re-started production of some out of production parts recently for the 240sx crowd)
So it's not all bad.

As to production numbers, I dont think its fair to use that against the 240. Instead, I think of it as a boon, the car is worth more, you can invest more into a 240 and get more back from it when done. Thats not a bad thing....

 

Dude , with all of your praise for the Nissan , with no mention of any third gen Camaro or Firebird that you own , the question has to be asked , DO you own a GM third gen F body ????

 

 

If I have a bunch of old cars that I don't drive, does it count if the car is driving or not?

No I don't drive a daily thirdgen anymore but I used to. What difference does that make anyways? I Still care about the thirdgen community and want them to have success

My point isn't that people should use Nissan parts in their thirdgens. Only to ask what can we learn by comparing similar cars. I take one look at Ford and I am like "F ALL of that" but I can't say the same thing looking at a Nissan, there are some good ideas. One of them is the turbocharger, which eliminates concerns over displacement. Now you can use whatever engine you want, from any car, and have any amount of power you want. It eliminates what I see as 'scrapping for nickles and dimes of power'. Your power is a **** called boost controller in the glove box instead. Doesn't need to be a Nissan to use that idea!

 

Turbo's are fun.... but the drift world is headed more toward supercharges and NOS due to their ability to deliver predictable, linear power. Turbo spool while in the middle of a drift can be difficult to control.

I don't necessarily disagree with you about the 240SX in particular, I just HATE working on Nissan's in general. Their "regular" cars are a PITA, They don't provide easy access to anything - their transverse passenger cars, vans, etc always have some oversized engine stuffed in sideways with poor access.

The SR engines are pretty decent, but the RB's are relatively fragile.

Don't get me started on the Z32 300ZXTT...... what a nightmare to work on.

I don't really have any love for the any of the manufacturers of transverse, and even most of Nissan's normal layout's..... they don't make them repair friendly in most cases.

Also - manual boost controllers are teh-suck. Once they pop open you can't control the wastegate and close it back down at higher RPM to maintain the boost level up top.

GD

 

My gen-1 350 swapped thirdgen won't be winning any races against modern technology, but that doesn't diminish my affection for the car...

 

right, we should limit discussion to rwd platforms with inline engine configurations that are easy to access, of course
agree that in general the OEM tightly packs their vehicles because lets face it... that is modern tech, a packed up combination of parts all generally designed to play nice together with cramped confines. We could do the same things if we are sure they will 'never' need to be touched again.


I mean. How many RB have you tuned? I've done around 15 of them all over 400 500 some 650rwhp RB25 RB26 it doesn't matter, they seem stalwart to me.
There is some issue with the oil pumps for drag cars I've noticed but other than that it seems fairly robust platform when tuned right? Like anything else

Never heard of that car. Nope no idea what ur talkin about, nothing that atrocious could possibly exist therefore it does not...


While I agree with this. I never said anything about either of those things lol. You absolutely need electronic boost controller and it isn't very expensive anymore. You can almost build one for ~$50 using basic arduino and basic solenoid I think. I never needed to go that far though because there are so many to choose from now.

to generalize;
You can take almost any engine made after 02' and double the output. If you do so carefully using turbocharger it will last a long time (200k or more is possible since 1989). Turbocharger means choose any displacement. So use the cheapest one if you want. The cheapest turbo V8 is 4.8L supports 800rwhp cost $300~ and wham going into almost any RWD platform? And the thirdgen is already intended for a V8 so....

 

+1






Has any 305 thread ever gone according to plan?

 

Yes, but at the end of the day that really is your favorite hobby, now isn't it? It's not about anything else.

It's a far greater skill to learn to meet people where they are and talk about what they are interested in.

 

RB's: Yeah the crank/oil pump issues with them; and the oil getting stalled up in the heads...... and I've seen a lot of "rebuilds" gone wrong. Probably mostly from lack of attention to detail - which they absolutely require. With proper tuning they are good engines - just not quite as good as the 2J or even an LS..... contrary to what most here will believe, I would put the 2J above the LS in terms of reliability, power handling, etc. They are just tanks - massively over built.

GD.