96LT1TX

hah, you do realize that motor is no where near stock right? It says in your post that it is a cammed, straight headers, carbed, 5.57 gears, 30" SLICKS(do you know how big that is?) the only things I see stock are the heads and the intake manifold...

Put those mods on any car and your in the 10s unless its a damn boat.

someone close this thread! Too many old people bragging about how fast there car was back in the day... sickening

wildpaws

Well gee, aren't you a real blessing to mankind. Some of those "old people" are likely to blow the doors off of whatever you are driving. While I'm approaching 60 years old, I still enjoy high performance vehicles and it's a real hoot to blow the doors off of some young punks car that thinks he knows all there is to know about high performance. Sorry, youth does not have an exclusive on high performance.
Clyde

Sparkz28ss

cammed? .....that cam is damn near a stock spec bump stick made by crane

the stock cam is a dontov 30-30

314/314, 254/254, .485”/.455”net,..485”/.455”net, 114/111

so lets see.. stock heads, stock cam , stock intake

you could get headers on the car from the dealer.. along with the dual quad setup.. but the stock 780-800cfm was good at making power..

...it has tall slicks yes... but did you not see the rear axle setup?


and Im not old ..

bossco

There's alot of grey area in that there cam by crane, even though it specs out like the original cam. The 5.0 liter guys do the same thing and are capable of running into the 10's with "stock" equipment on a hydraulic roller motor. These engines have been optimized to the Nth degree in accordance with rules that define the class.

IIRC, there was nothing really special about the GM 302s(unlike say the ZL-1 Camaros), beyond the cross ram intake. The heads were nothing special, typical GM hi-perf heads (which is to say another variation of the "fuelie" head) and there was nothing trick about the block beyond its 4.00 x 3.00 stroke using a 5.7 rod which did yield a nice high RPM friendly R/S ratio.

The GM 302 is not unlike Fords Boss engines (or cleveland engines) or Chryslers Hemi engines. They have become part of automotive legend. Good in there day and still relavent to a degree, but sorely outclassed by the technology employed by the big 3 today.

Z284ever

Actually, the 302 and later LT-1 Z/28 motors were chock full of the best premium parts which GM could find or develop. THE BEST PREMIUM PARTS WHICH GM COULD FIND OR DEVELOP. Holley carb(s), wild aluminum intakes, 2.02 heads, forged TRW pistons, forged crank, special rods (who remembers the choice Z/28 "pink rods"?), 4 bolt mains on the DZ block and LT-1. These were true high perf motors from top to bottom, front to back. Yes sir, they were very "trick". Except for the aluminum heads and block, they were just as exotic (for the period) as the ZL1.

LeadSled1

This is where things get wild. Similar to stock but not stock.

You can have similar cam specs like that for two cams yet the cams run completely different. You can not see ramp rates in the specs. This is how the 5.0 guys do it with the Mustangs. They are limited in lift but run steep ramps. This gets the valve open sooner and more air flow over the intake/exhaust cycle.

Dealer installed items are not how the cars came from the factory. I can buy a new Mustang GT at a Ford dealership and they will install a Ford supercharger for me. So does that mean the Ford Mustang GT is a 450 hp car from the factory and runs 12s stock?

No.

The stock heads are not ported for those cars but they have super $$$ valve work done on them and then they are heavily shaved to bump the compression up with the stock type pistons. Thus the reason they run C-11 fuel in the cars.

jg95z28

Some of you guys appear to be glossing over this statement I made earlier...

That's 12.38s in a bone stock 1967 Z/28 with 4.10s, open headers and slicks.

That's also circa 1967-8.

Marc 85Z28

1. First of all, he would lose in a heads up race with my Trans Am. And I can do it N/A, with the AC on, listening to the radio, on radial tires, and drive it to and from the track with nothing more than tire pressure and shock adjustments.

2. Stock 302s are just that, stock, and 302ci. His engine is not only at 306ci of displacement, but that engine uses all the tricks in the series. The cam is where all the rules bend, and is where most the of power increase comes from. Its called controlled valvetrain instability, as they use "square cams" to throw the lifter off the cam for additional power - intentional valve float if you will. Stock specifications ARE VERY LOOSELY interpreted. Trick valve jobs, much higher compression ratios, radical oiling system modifications, high tech coatings, etc etc. Again, I've watched "stock" 305 3rd gen Camaros run bottom 10s. So, 305>302 I have a coworker who held the 2 barrel 305ci B Stock in a G-body world record for years, so I am familiar with these "stock" BS classes.

3. Finally, Al Cordas LS1 Firebird has gone 9s under the same rules and restrictions as your almighty 302...

LeadSled1

I ran 12.2s back to back (12.22 and 12.27 @ 111+ mph) in a 99 Z28 with MAC Headers and Y-pipe going through the stock catback and a 3200 converter. This was on the stock Goodyear RSA tires and 3500 pound vehicle weight.

The car dynoed right at 300 rwhp.

112mph is no where close to 400 rwhp.

96LT1TX

AHAH if it isnt the stock cam, it isnt the stock cam... its that simple. Why would he replace it if it was "damn near stock"? It obviously isnt stock if he had to give you specs for it, and like someone else stated ramp rates, LSA, and all that crap are probably way different to obtain those times. I am sorry, but any LT1 w/ those mods could very well run the same as that car did back in the day... so congrats for keeping up with an LT1 (which seems like a fair assessment of my read through this post). And the title of the post is LS3 vs 302... not LT1.

This whole post has turned into the "ya its stock" race. I swear if I ever see someone at the track saying its stock and it has even HEADERS I go crazy. STOCK Does not mean any of the things you have mentioned in your post at all. Stock implies stock tires, stock gears, stock EVERYthing...you cant pick and choose which mods you will allow and race against any bone stock car, that is called apples vs. oranges.

Chuck!

For what its worth, my dad had a 69 Z/28 / RS (Black on yellow, my dream car) with a DZ302.

It had headers, slicks, 5.13 gears and went 12.50s at Norwalk in the 70s shifting at 7250 rpms (stock intake, carb, cam).

My Goat probably would be pretty close if I did the same mods to it (minus the super low gears) but it wouldn't be nearly as fun to drive.

He has some pictures of it at the track and he wrote "30-2 much" in shoe polish on the windows.

He sold it in the late 70s to one of his buddies and it bounced around to various people. At one point someone took the motor out of it to put in a drag-only car and that was the last anyone heard of the motor. My dad was actually able to track it down about ten years ago in Kentucky. He drove down with a trailer to buy the body and frame, but got spooked when he saw it needed a frame-off restoration and didn't bring it home. The price was $700. He's still kicking himself. Actually, one of his buddies owns it now and found a DZ302 that came off the line about a week after the original 302 so it'll be close to a numbers matching car when it's done, but not perfect. I really hope one day I have the money to buy it.

bossco

I remember pink rods - supposed to have been better than anything else on the market, local Chevy dealer used to sell them a bit cheaper than a good set of aftermarket rods - to bad they were plain old factory forgings that had been inspected and magnafluxed (you might get me on the rod bolts - I can't remember if they were upgraded over standard chevy stuff)

Cross Ram aside - The aluminum dual plane was a nice piece, always a good performer, but nothing cutting edge.

Heads were cast iron and didn't approach the kind of trick tech that was used in the modern LS7's heads compared to regular GM offerings - they were more or less another variation of the much venerated double humps (aka fuelie heads), not that these were bad, after a bit of port and polish and a 3 angle valve job, they could flow a respectable 220 cfm without hogging them out or going off the deep edge.

4 bolt main blocks were common enough (again you can get me if they contained high nickle content or the like in the DZ/EZ blocks - I can't remember anything special about them)

IIRC GM used forged cranks on the small journal engines and depending on the type of engine with later large journal engines (as you've indicated) recieved cast or forged.

I also dont know about accessory drives, the early Z/28's may have used underdrive pulleys to slow down the accessories so they could survive the elevated RPM????

Anyways, beyond probably the 3" stroke crank and a few other bits and pieces, GM raided the parts bins for a very well put together package, but nothing so trick that it couldn't be unreproducable using commonly available stuff from GM.

While good in their day all this old stuff pales in comparison to what we have now and all three manufactures have stuff today that would blow the old factory stuff so far into the weeds it isn't even laughable (Mopars new hemi and even Fords mod motors)

Z284ever

No argument there.

XcYZ

This has been an entertaining thread, love all the bickering.

It's true that the Gen III/IV has technology that's light years ahead of the Gen I/SBC, but the 4th Gen F-body will never have the character that the 1st Gens have. While advancements were being made in the driveline, the styling was going backwards. Bring on the 5th Gen.

Oh, and I've owned 4th Gens, I know the joys of ownership. lol

jg95z28

As Charlie said, "No argument there". My only goal was to point out the 302 cid Z/28s weren't as slow as some people think they were.