i have a lo3 and i was woundering how hard is it to have a lo3 engine with 300 horse power on budget

what gains will these mods make :
lt1 cam
vortec heads
headers
exhaust
intake

 

hmmm that's almost too much to still keep the same block

New Vortec heads well might as well buy a 350 block

 

Its harder than you think. Unless you spray.

 

You'll need a bigger cam than that to make 300. From what I've seen/heard. . that stuff you mentioned can make an honest 240-260 at the motor with some good tuning. . . should make gobs of torque though.

 

thanks for the info. i was just woundering before i decide weather im gonna get a 350 and build it slowly or just do up the 305

 

JPrevost and I put my motor DesktopDyno with ported l98 heads put out around 300 at the flywheel on a 305 .030 over, i think a little less.... dont remember exactly but i do remember him telling me that #

EDIT:

300hp@5000rpm
310hp@5500rpm

 

what are u currently running in the quarter with that set up and how much did the engine cost you overal

 

My power output and engine mods are in my signature. A very cheap and simple build for the results as long as you don't mind spending some time on the heads. It is a .040 over 305 that has tugged a 5,300 lbs G-Van to a 9.89 @ 69.08 in the 1/8 mile with a 2.19 second 60' time.

 

The button is your friend my friend. You could almost put in your exact thread title and get a couple hundred thousand hits

 

That program is awesome for giving you numbers higher then what you will get in reality...


Build something bigger to hit your goal or spray it...

 

I agree, you want 300 rear wheel horses, you don't build a 305. If you're on a budget, then you can throw some good parts on your 305 to pick it up, but wait and see what you get out of it. Don't go into it expecting 300 HP only to be disappointed. Got a little captain in ya brody?

 

I always got some captain in me, nothing but the silver spiced tho...

My new handle...

 

ha nicely done sir

 

personally, I'm a fan of private stock

 

I like where this thread is going.

. . . that reminds me, I think my "air/fuel ratio" might be running a little lean. I think I'll go remedy that.

 

It's not really that Optimistic, given the right information. .050" cam specs are no good with DD2000. Headflow is very important as is compression. Here is what DD2000 predicts for my 272 RWHP/315 RWTQ Beast (Comes to 320 FWHP and 357 ft/lbs assuming 15% loss at peak HP and 12% loss at peak torque). In my case it actually under-estimated peak torque by some margin.

Then again perhaps since the converter stalls around 2,400 RPM it is playing with the numbers at peak torque as this is estimating peak torque about 500 RPM higher than recorded.

RPM-------HP------TQ
2,000-----110-----288
2,500-----143-----299
3,000-----176-----308
3,500-----218-----327
4,000-----258-----338
4,500-----293-----342
5,000-----316-----332
5,500-----325-----311
6,000-----317-----278
6,500-----295-----239

Here is the 300 RWHP version= 300 RWHP and 325 ft/lbs, simply open cut-outs.

RPM-------HP------TQ
2,000-----117-----306
2,500-----151-----318
3,000-----186-----326
3,500-----228-----342
4,000-----269-----352
4,500-----305-----356
5,000-----331-----348
5,500-----345-----330
6,000-----344-----301
6,500-----330-----267

Finally my 245 HP torque monster with 245 RWHP and 340 ft/lbs.

RPM-------HP------TQ
2,000-----139----365
2,500-----171----359
3,000-----204----356
3,500-----233----349
4,000-----254----334
4,500-----268----313
5,000-----267----280
5,500-----250----239
6,000-----220----193

 

Never tried it, every time I go in there to buy a bottle I look at it and say "Damn, it's too expensive to buy when I know how good silver spiced is..."





And on DD2000, I still don't think its numbers are very accurate....

 

Just to chime in on DD2000:

I've tested DD2000 against a lot of cars that I had accurate numbers - I've also done a lot of high level mathematical modeling myself (though not specifically on gasoline engines) - and l have to say this ...if you tell DD2000 the truth it will usually tell you the truth also (at least to a reasonable degree of accuracy). That being said, it is hard to get perfectly accurate numbers for head flow, CFM, etc., so people often over-estimate what they actually have. Even a very slight change in head flow can cause massive changes in output torque and hp. ...Soooo, if you're going to take DD2000 seriously you have to be as honest and realistic as you can when you enter the info. Don't forget that it is very hard to account for changes due to forged cranks, moly rings, windage trays, etc, but these things can affect motor output. That being said, DD2000 even underestimates cases like this. Usually it isn't off by more than 5% either way ...if you tell it the truth.

--
Casey

 

no track times that are worth a $hit due to a little issues, this weekend i will have times for it. The motor cost just over a grand to build, twice.

 

Hold the phone... who said I was using DD2000?????
It's DD2003 . DD doesn't report an accurate hp number. What it does do is report an accurate point of peak volumetric efficiency which in turn gives you a good idea of what your torque curve will look like.
As an example; vortec head simulations in DD don't come out very well. The reason for this is the chamber design. The port flow might not be classical and to universally group heads on an ONLY airflow basis doesn't work. This is where DD falls short, but again, who said this was the end/all tuning tool? It's just a TOOL, a decent one when you know how to use it.
DD2003 is better than DD2000 in that it takes more things into acount to give you a better picture.
The only reason I use DD2003 is because the better more accurate software is out of reach. I can't afford $8000 for a single license for Virtual 4-stroke . Oh well, I'd much rather spend that $8000 at a drag strip anyways .