RussStang

I completely agree with this statement.



The 302 gets much of it's badass presence from nostalgia. I have yet to see any concrete evidence of this "500hp motor", and this subject has been discussed to death. I suspect that there are going to be any number of guys coming into this thread with their own stories about this motor, but again there will be nothing concrete. Yeah, the motor likes to rev. So what? You could get an LS6 to rev it's *** off on a dyno too, if you were really trying to prove something. At 8500rpm I bet that 302 is a real SOB to it's short lived valvesprings.

The fact is, the 69 z28 was a 14 second car, at best. I have certainly read of much worse times for it than that. An absolutely stock 2.73 A4 convertible LS1 fbody would eat one, let alone anything else with an LS1 in it, all the while doing it in an engine that is going to require little upkeep, in a car that is quite possibly heavier than a 69 z28.


How could Ford patent a displacement? Does that mean someone could patent a certain sized tire, and no one else could use that tire?



You already know the reason for this. Because they were gimp motors. Putting a race prepped engine up against a wuss prepped engine is going to lend itself to a fairly easy conclusion to come to. There was nothing magical about the 302. It was a race motor. Put it up against a race prepped 396 that spins some high revs, and see how well the No Replacement for Displacement adage keeps itself.

FiefSS

I wouldnt mess with a 2008 Vette in mine. Well unless I scared the old fella driving it with a few 8000rpm revs


But yeah they are two completely different motors and comparing the two is pointless. 302's with 500hp, I have never seen one most of the evidence I have seen is 360-380hp at the crank on a mostly stock setup. Cracking the 410-425 modified. Comparing that to a modern day vette motor with 380+ rwhp, that probably weighs 100lbs less, has wider rear tires, and a top end 50 mph higher is a bit difficult. I've heard of 302 powered Camaros in the 11's and 12's, but with the 3-6mpg that goes with them its no comparison to the low to 12 second vette that will be getting 16-18mpg in the city.

RussStang

I bet most of the ones you have seen making 360-380hp at the crank were running no accessories, and converted in STD numbers, not SAE numbers. That kind of power would have pulled the Zs into the 13s, and they were not 13 second cars.

SSRich

The reason i was asking they say that the 302 was awesome on road coarses you could wind them up coming out of the curves. This is why i am asking will the LS3 will be as powerfull in a road race as the 302. Because i live on top of a mountain.

MarcR94v6

Why didn't you just ask that to begin with? Sounds like you just got the information from people on this thread and made it sound as if you were asking if it will be a high revving motor, so that you don't sound like a fool. But I don't blame you for it, I've read your threads/posts before.

jg95z28

And once again I have to jog the cobwebs from your head and post fact...

http://www.z28camaro.com/oldrel.html

wildpaws

Well I hate to contradict your expert "knowledge", but indeed the 69 302 cid engines pulled 8K + RPMs quite easily on the street right off the showroom floor, not on a dyno, I did so in mine quite often. Calling it a "race prepped" engine is about as meaningless/misleading as a term gets, the 302 was not race prepped but a production engine, Chevy had offered several small blocks over the years with solid lifter, high revving versions. "Race prepped" would have been the ones in the Penske/Donohue Z/28 running in the Trans AM series, not the production versions seen at dealers all over the country. I agree there was nothing magical about the 302, but it was a very high performance engine for it's time coupled with an excellent handling chassis package. Perhaps if you had driven one back in the day you would not be quite so harsh in your criticism, I certainly did as I owned one in 1969 and it was an awesome vehicle for it's day.
Clyde

RussStang

Were there any rules back in the day that gave a smaller displacement engine an advantage to keep it on par with a larger displacement one? Forgive my ignorance, but I really don't know. I still find it hard to believe that a ***** out 302 could keep up with another ***** out engine almost 100 cubes bigger than it, especially when their designs are essentially the same.



My point wasn't that it couldn't pull 8500rpm off the showroom floor, my point was more to the effect was that it wasn't going to be a trouble free engine with extended runs up to 8500rpm. Even with it's 3" stroke, at 8500rpm the valvetrain in that thing is taking one hell of a beating. If I didn't care about the longevity of an LS3, I could rev the hell out of it over and over too.

I am harsh in my criticism because of guys coming in here claiming that they were 400-500hp motors. They weren't. Like I said, in the 69 Zs, they were decent 14 second cars at best. I wouldn't have a problem with it at all if guys didn't make up stories about it.

wildpaws

No, your point was that you think the 302 was not a true high performance engine and you continue to belittle the fact that it was indeed a strong performer. You continue to quote "they were decent fourteen second cars at best" in spite of evidence presented to the contrary. Just admit it, you don't like the 302 and will never consider it to be a real performer. I on the other hand liked the 302, owned and lived with one back in the day, and have had plenty of experience seeing many different engines going head to head back then. I'll take my experience over your supposed "knowledge" any day. I never made any claim as to the horsepower, what I did was quote a respected Ford engine builder (Holman/Moody) from back in the day that said they bought the parts from Chevy, bolted it together and it was close to 500HP. Nuff said!
Clyde

bossco

IIRC the 5 liter limit was imposed due to Ford using the 427 in the GT40s, 67 I believe coincides with their LeMans wins and the FIA banning large displacement motors from competion afterwich (I guess SCCA mirrored those rules).

bossco

The LSx motors are superior in every way, thier biggest limitation is the need for a valvetrain that will last 100K+ miles without service. Destroke an LSx and convert it to a non hydraulic valvetrain and the DZ/EZ 302s would wilt like butter in an atomic blast.

wildpaws

I believe he was asking about drag racing rules such as NHRA.
Clyde

jg95z28

Did you miss this part altogether?

Stock intake, stock carb, basically a stock Z/28 with headers and tall gears.

There's also this on a 67 Z/28 from the same website...

That's high 13's (13.88s at 105mpg) straight off the showroom floor with 4.10 gears and street tires. He later managed 12.38 @ 112mph with open headers and 7-inch slicks. 12 second cars in the late 60's was extremely fast.

The advantage the 302 had was the ability to live above 7000 rpm all day long.

And both these cars were running the small journal MO 302, not the superior DZ 302 that was available in 1969.

bossco

Whohoo!!!!!! Fish (think thats what the carb was called) Carburator FTW! GM needs to haul that yestertech out like yesterday and show the tree huggers a thing or two!

RussStang

No, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said that the 302 was an underperformer. It is a high revver. I like high revver, so don't pretend to know that you know anything about me. What evidence has been presented to the contrary? Where is it? Nothing concrete? Big surprise. Are you honestly suggesting a stock 302 car could be considered anything but a decent 14 second car? I smell nostalgia fantasies here, especially considering most of the decent 426 Hemi cars ran in the 13s stock. Are you suggesting a 302 could hang with a 426 Hemi?