2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia All 2010 - 2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015 Camaro news, photos, and videos
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Al Oppenheiser talking about the Z28

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 09-29-2009, 11:35 AM
  #16  
Registered User
 
Z284ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Originally Posted by Chevycobb
I guess that's possible. They were pretty bad about that back then. But when I hear the term "big dog" I think of just huge power over other options, and not all around "performance" so maybe thats what he was getting at.
It was more than just possible - it was almost an inside joke. 290/290 for the Z/28. 290/290 for the Boss 302. 290/290 for the AAR 'Cuda. 290/290 for the T/A Challenger. Get it?
Z284ever is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 11:51 AM
  #17  
Registered User
 
jg95z28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
*cough* "Old Reliable" *cough*
jg95z28 is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 12:02 PM
  #18  
Registered User
 
CLEAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,576
Originally Posted by Doug Harden
He must be a H8ter too....
So it's ok to say when YOU want to use it!

I think it's right in line w/ what I was trying to say in the other thread, they're going to do the best they can w/ it, but even if they're able to take some mass out of some areas, the supercharger and ancillary components will probably end up w/ a net addition of some number of pounds. The common theory is 200lbs or so if I read your assumptions correctly. But I'm glad that you're at least giving them a nod for TRYING the best they can, even if they are handcuffed to a degree w/ the current car.
CLEAN is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 12:04 PM
  #19  
Registered User
 
CLEAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Texas
Posts: 2,576
Originally Posted by Z284ever
That's right!

Well, it's at least heartening to hear Al put it in those terms. Now.......let's see what they deliver.
I guess that "other" thread is all for naught now that we all agree.
CLEAN is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 08:33 PM
  #20  
Registered User
 
Shellhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 388
I think there's still a lot we don't know about this car. Some of the stuff people have been saying is that it will be strictly a manual, for example, and I don't see GM offering that specialized a car. That I've heard, though, GM hasn't made the transmission choice official.
Shellhead is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 08:55 PM
  #21  
Registered User
 
bossco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
Originally Posted by Z284ever
290/290 for the Boss 302.
Probably an accurate number till about 20,000 RPM, As much as I like Mustang, the Boss 302 engine was a POS until some serious work had been done the the cylinderheads. It was purely an excersize in excess.

Different story now'a days, there are some mighty fine canted valve cylinderheads on the market that can make a killer BOSS/Cleveland engine operating at a sane RPM.

Didn't somebody do a dyno flog on the EZ/DZ and Boss 302 engines a good while back? IIRC they did put out more than what they were rated for, but it wasn't exactly the heroic stuff people make them out ot be.
bossco is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 09:37 PM
  #22  
Registered User
 
Z284ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Originally Posted by bossco
Probably an accurate number till about 20,000 RPM, As much as I like Mustang, the Boss 302 engine was a POS until some serious work had been done the the cylinderheads. It was purely an excersize in excess.

Different story now'a days, there are some mighty fine canted valve cylinderheads on the market that can make a killer BOSS/Cleveland engine operating at a sane RPM.

Didn't somebody do a dyno flog on the EZ/DZ and Boss 302 engines a good while back? IIRC they did put out more than what they were rated for, but it wasn't exactly the heroic stuff people make them out ot be.
Figure the "base" 302 was good for over 350 hp. Crossram/dual Holleys/headers/chambered exhaust - easy 400.

The Traco prepped motors in the actual Trans Am cars were well over 450 hp.

The race prepped Ford and Chevy 302's were a pretty close match. The Ford 302 had afew more horsies up top, but the Chevy 302 had afew more ft/lbs down low. BTW, these motors would routinely spin over 7200 RPM.
Z284ever is offline  
Old 09-29-2009, 11:40 PM
  #23  
Registered User
 
Sixer-Bird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Coppell, Texas
Posts: 1,215
My uncle used his '68 Z/28 for drag racing when he bought it new. He beat up on big blocks all day long. That car was eventually handed down to my dad when he was in high school (early 70's) and I've been hearing the stories about that car since I was born, albeit based on its straight line performance. I wonder how many people who owned those cars back in the day actually took them on road courses? Did they even have autoX back then? Not that it would make any difference with the direction to take the new car.
Sixer-Bird is offline  
Old 09-30-2009, 09:39 AM
  #24  
Registered User
 
bossco's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: SeVa
Posts: 2,977
Originally Posted by Z284ever
Figure the "base" 302 was good for over 350 hp. Crossram/dual Holleys/headers/chambered exhaust - easy 400.

The Traco prepped motors in the actual Trans Am cars were well over 450 hp.

The race prepped Ford and Chevy 302's were a pretty close match. The Ford 302 had afew more horsies up top, but the Chevy 302 had afew more ft/lbs down low. BTW, these motors would routinely spin over 7200 RPM.
I know they could rev pretty high, and the Ford deniftely traded tractable power for a peaky number. The Boss 302 heads with Ford's version of the crossram (Cross Boss intake - I'd love to stumble on to one of those with that crazy inline autolite carb) had a bad habit of washing out the spark plug with raw fuel until the air really started to move.

The canted valve head was a good idea, but the mammoth poorly shaped ports where a real bad design choice. Fill'em up with epoxy and they picked up flow!!! I can also remember those plates (port-o-plates???) offered in the back of HRM, CC and other magazines that cut out the dip in the exhuast side of the head and helped pick up flow as well.

Anyways, was talking more in factory trim and 350hp or so was good, but didn't the L88 427's crank out more like 500hp in factory trim?
bossco is offline  
Old 09-30-2009, 11:23 AM
  #25  
Registered User
 
Z284ever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Originally Posted by bossco
I know they could rev pretty high, and the Ford deniftely traded tractable power for a peaky number. The Boss 302 heads with Ford's version of the crossram (Cross Boss intake - I'd love to stumble on to one of those with that crazy inline autolite carb) had a bad habit of washing out the spark plug with raw fuel until the air really started to move.

The canted valve head was a good idea, but the mammoth poorly shaped ports where a real bad design choice. Fill'em up with epoxy and they picked up flow!!! I can also remember those plates (port-o-plates???) offered in the back of HRM, CC and other magazines that cut out the dip in the exhuast side of the head and helped pick up flow as well.

Anyways, was talking more in factory trim and 350hp or so was good, but didn't the L88 427's crank out more like 500hp in factory trim?

Yeah, I've also heard that the Cross Boss intake should be considered "race only", since they were pretty unstreetable. That is unless your daily commute consisted of a long 7000 RPM blast with no traffic or lights.

I've driven afew early Z/28's, mostly '69's and one '67, and also a '70 Boss 302. I found them all to be very tractable at low RPM's without issues and not unpleasant at all. They were all 4bbls BTW. At low revs, they felt like any other milktoast 283/307/327 V8. But when you put your foot down, they'd really scream.

You know, it would be intersting to get 1FastDog in on this convo. He ordered a new '69 Z/28 with the Crossram intake and headers, I'd like to hear his impressions.
Z284ever is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
edman
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
5
01-22-2015 02:45 PM
ChrisFrez
CamaroZ28.Com Podcast
0
01-18-2015 08:05 AM
1LEThumper
Forced Induction
40
07-14-2003 12:45 PM
Red97LT1
Car Audio and Electronics
2
08-03-2002 07:29 PM
Brent94Z
LT1 Based Engine Tech
14
03-21-2002 04:44 PM



Quick Reply: Al Oppenheiser talking about the Z28



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:40 PM.