Ls3 Vs 302
07-07-2007, 09:31 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Exton, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,011
Correct, I was.
That is all pretty impressive. Why is it that when any mag today tests a resto car built to the same specs, that none of them ever come close to touching anywhere near 13 seconds. I must admit, I am still extremely skeptical on this, after all I have read over the years to the contrary.
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.
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.
Last edited by RussStang; 07-07-2007 at 09:34 PM.
07-07-2007, 11:39 PM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Because no one is going to give their $100,000 Z/28 to some journalist schmoe and say: "no problem, dump the clutch at six grand and make sure you powershift my pricey baby at no less than 7,200 rpm".
07-08-2007, 01:10 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 58
Here is a post from Jerry MacNeish recently on a first gen camaro forum regarding power output of his two 302 cars (one of which is the afore-mentioned "Old Reliable").
I use VP C-11 in the race car now. Very expensive $$$$. Used to use C-12 but dyno testing showed 4-5 more horsepower with C-11. Just about everone in Stock Eliminator uses C-11 now. Slower burn rate. Don't have 600 hp at the rear wheels but do have 465HP in two of my Stock eliminator 302s. No trick parts. Stock rocker arms, .483" lift cam and no head porting or work. Stock carb, intake. 10.80s at 122 mph in good air. Car weights about 3250 lbs.
Jerry
Imagine what these engines would produce without the camshaft and porting limitations in his NHRA class....
I use VP C-11 in the race car now. Very expensive $$$$. Used to use C-12 but dyno testing showed 4-5 more horsepower with C-11. Just about everone in Stock Eliminator uses C-11 now. Slower burn rate. Don't have 600 hp at the rear wheels but do have 465HP in two of my Stock eliminator 302s. No trick parts. Stock rocker arms, .483" lift cam and no head porting or work. Stock carb, intake. 10.80s at 122 mph in good air. Car weights about 3250 lbs.
Jerry
Imagine what these engines would produce without the camshaft and porting limitations in his NHRA class....
07-08-2007, 12:28 PM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 287
Correct, I was.
That is all pretty impressive. Why is it that when any mag today tests a resto car built to the same specs, that none of them ever come close to touching anywhere near 13 seconds. I must admit, I am still extremely skeptical on this, after all I have read over the years to the contrary.
That is all pretty impressive. Why is it that when any mag today tests a resto car built to the same specs, that none of them ever come close to touching anywhere near 13 seconds. I must admit, I am still extremely skeptical on this, after all I have read over the years to the contrary.
Clyde
07-08-2007, 06:35 PM
#35
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: TX
Posts: 1,211
Class racing drag cars have completely blue printed engines to the nth degree. There is a lot of fudge factor in the factory specs. e.g. the typical chamber in a late 60s performance sbc head was the nominal 64cc. But Chevy spec for minimum volume was 61.2 cc. You better believe a Super Stock head was right at the limit. Same thing for the piston dome spec, right at the allowable limit. They would go thru dozens of head castings to find 2 with the best ports. etc, etc. And of course the cars themselves were completely set up for drag racing. So no way you can compare what typically rolled off the assembly line to a SS racer.
The typical 302 Z28 I saw running at OCIR (before they became trailer queens) was in the 14s. 13 seconds possible? Sure, with a good driver and a "goodie" example. Just like the typical 6 speed LS1 Z28 is a mid 13 second car with an average driver, but some can dip into the 12s with a good driver behind the wheel.
Bottom line... if someone with a 302 Z that is in the condition it rolled off the assembly line in offered to race my A4/2.73 Z for $$$, I'd have no problem taking the bet.
The typical 302 Z28 I saw running at OCIR (before they became trailer queens) was in the 14s. 13 seconds possible? Sure, with a good driver and a "goodie" example. Just like the typical 6 speed LS1 Z28 is a mid 13 second car with an average driver, but some can dip into the 12s with a good driver behind the wheel.
Bottom line... if someone with a 302 Z that is in the condition it rolled off the assembly line in offered to race my A4/2.73 Z for $$$, I'd have no problem taking the bet.
07-08-2007, 06:56 PM
#36
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: TX
Posts: 1,211
Results:
67 Z - 15.3 @ 93
97 Convertible - 14.7 @ 95
97 LT4 - 13.6 @ 105
They also quoted these times from March 67 & May 70 issues respectively:
67 Z - 14.9 @ 97
70 Z - 14.2 @ 100.3 (transmission type not listed)
.
Last edited by angel71rs; 07-08-2007 at 07:02 PM.
07-09-2007, 10:12 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
Last time I saw a 302 Z tested in a mag was October 96 issue of Car & Driver, still have it. It was a 67 vs 97 test, the 97s being an LT4 M6 version, and a convertible Z, A4/3.23s. The 67 was restored, with the engine machining attributed to Mancini Machine.
Results:
67 Z - 15.3 @ 93
97 Convertible - 14.7 @ 95
97 LT4 - 13.6 @ 105
They also quoted these times from March 67 & May 70 issues respectively:
67 Z - 14.9 @ 97
70 Z - 14.2 @ 100.3 (transmission type not listed)
.
Results:
67 Z - 15.3 @ 93
97 Convertible - 14.7 @ 95
97 LT4 - 13.6 @ 105
They also quoted these times from March 67 & May 70 issues respectively:
67 Z - 14.9 @ 97
70 Z - 14.2 @ 100.3 (transmission type not listed)
.
I think you're agreeing with me. Right?
Anyhow, you won't get good times out of a 302 unless you drive it like you hate it. That's the point I was trying to make to RussStang.
I've also read EVERY Z/28 road test as well, and 14 second runs were most common....which put them in with the top tier muscle cars of the time. But of course the Z/28's specialty wasn't simply going in a straight line. There were some low 15 second and high 13 second runs I've seen as outliers as well.
I'm not old enough to remember first hand what sort of street cred a 1st gen Z/28 had when new. But I'm old enough to remember what sort of street cred 1st gen Z/28's had when they were 6 or 7 year old used cars. And what they were, were, badass cars, which feared neither big block nor smallblock on the street.
Last edited by Z284ever; 07-09-2007 at 10:16 PM.
07-10-2007, 07:17 AM
#38
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earleville, MD
Posts: 182
Dyno numbers are showing up for the LS3 Vettes. 390 rwhp range stock. LG has a cam, exhaust and K&N car supposedly at 488 rwhp untuned. That is above DZ302 numbers and on pump gas, I.E. standard compression.
07-10-2007, 10:23 AM
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
That is all pretty impressive. Why is it that when any mag today tests a resto car built to the same specs, that none of them ever come close to touching anywhere near 13 seconds. I must admit, I am still extremely skeptical on this, after all I have read over the years to the contrary.
The thing that I find ironic as we look back at some of the numbers these magazines printed back in the day as gospel. Yet today we dispell what the same magazines print as garbage and inacurrate. Kind of funny when you think about it.
07-10-2007, 02:31 PM
#40
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: MD
Posts: 2,022
That 11 second 302 example you provided is complete crap. There have been 3rd gen Camaros powered by a 305 under nearly the same rules (stock displacement dimensions, stock casting unported heads, stock spec cam, etc etc) that have gone 10s and even 9s. So that must mean the almightly 305 is superior to the DZ302 right? Using any type of Top Stock, Pro Stock, Super Stock, Stock Eliminator etc as an example of a truly stock engine's capabilities is completely assinine. Go shoot yourself for doing so 
Chevrolet rated the single carb DZ302 at 290HP. They claimed with the dual carb setup and headers that it put down around 410HP the old fashioned way, with no accessories. 500HP!? I've heard of underrating engines - 410HP is a little hard to swallow over the 290HP rating, much less 500!
Bottom line, those cars stock went 15 flat in near ideal conditions. Throw on the dual carbs, headers, gears, and sticky tires and they went high 13s.
And the reason Chevrolet ditched the 302 program and went to the 350 was not due to any racing event. They wanted to offer the Z28 with an automatic transmission, and they claimed the 302 didn't have anywhere near enough torque to utilize the turbo hydramatics at the time, so they introduced more stroke.
Edit: There is a reason why all the Ford 5.0 guys who want to go fast on the 5.0L platform almost always end up stroking it to 331-347". The high revving small displacement engine just is not ideal for drag racing purposes.
Chevrolet rated the single carb DZ302 at 290HP. They claimed with the dual carb setup and headers that it put down around 410HP the old fashioned way, with no accessories. 500HP!?
I've heard of underrating engines - 410HP is a little hard to swallow over the 290HP rating, much less 500!Bottom line, those cars stock went 15 flat in near ideal conditions. Throw on the dual carbs, headers, gears, and sticky tires and they went high 13s.
And the reason Chevrolet ditched the 302 program and went to the 350 was not due to any racing event. They wanted to offer the Z28 with an automatic transmission, and they claimed the 302 didn't have anywhere near enough torque to utilize the turbo hydramatics at the time, so they introduced more stroke.
Edit: There is a reason why all the Ford 5.0 guys who want to go fast on the 5.0L platform almost always end up stroking it to 331-347". The high revving small displacement engine just is not ideal for drag racing purposes.
Last edited by Marc 85Z28; 07-10-2007 at 02:38 PM.
07-10-2007, 02:52 PM
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 9,710
That 11 second 302 example you provided is complete crap. There have been 3rd gen Camaros powered by a 305 under nearly the same rules (stock displacement dimensions, stock casting unported heads, stock spec cam, etc etc) that have gone 10s and even 9s. So that must mean the almightly 305 is superior to the DZ302 right? Using any type of Top Stock, Pro Stock, Super Stock, Stock Eliminator etc as an example of a truly stock engine's capabilities is completely assinine. Go shoot yourself for doing so
Chevrolet rated the single carb DZ302 at 290HP. They claimed with the dual carb setup and headers that it put down around 410HP the old fashioned way, with no accessories. 500HP!? I've heard of underrating engines - 410HP is a little hard to swallow over the 290HP rating, much less 500!
Bottom line, those cars stock went 15 flat in near ideal conditions. Throw on the dual carbs, headers, gears, and sticky tires and they went high 13s.
And the reason Chevrolet ditched the 302 program and went to the 350 was not due to any racing event. They wanted to offer the Z28 with an automatic transmission, and they claimed the 302 didn't have anywhere near enough torque to utilize the turbo hydramatics at the time, so they introduced more stroke.
Edit: There is a reason why all the Ford 5.0 guys who want to go fast on the 5.0L platform almost always end up stroking it to 331-347". The high revving small displacement engine just is not ideal for drag racing purposes.
Chevrolet rated the single carb DZ302 at 290HP. They claimed with the dual carb setup and headers that it put down around 410HP the old fashioned way, with no accessories. 500HP!?
I've heard of underrating engines - 410HP is a little hard to swallow over the 290HP rating, much less 500!Bottom line, those cars stock went 15 flat in near ideal conditions. Throw on the dual carbs, headers, gears, and sticky tires and they went high 13s.
And the reason Chevrolet ditched the 302 program and went to the 350 was not due to any racing event. They wanted to offer the Z28 with an automatic transmission, and they claimed the 302 didn't have anywhere near enough torque to utilize the turbo hydramatics at the time, so they introduced more stroke.
Edit: There is a reason why all the Ford 5.0 guys who want to go fast on the 5.0L platform almost always end up stroking it to 331-347". The high revving small displacement engine just is not ideal for drag racing purposes.
Please, anyone that starts chiming in that the 302 was only rated at 290hp and then says 410-500hp is crap is only showing their ignorance. FWIW even restored trans am Z/28s have been dynoed north of 400hp.
07-10-2007, 03:03 PM
#42
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Chicagoland IL
Posts: 16,179
And the reason Chevrolet ditched the 302 program and went to the 350 was not due to any racing event. They wanted to offer the Z28 with an automatic transmission, and they claimed the 302 didn't have anywhere near enough torque to utilize the turbo hydramatics at the time, so they introduced more stroke.
07-10-2007, 04:11 PM
#44
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: ..behind you with a butter knife
Posts: 977
Chevrolet rated the single carb DZ302 at 290HP. They claimed with the dual carb setup and headers that it put down around 410HP the old fashioned way, with no accessories. 500HP!? I've heard of underrating engines - 410HP is a little hard to swallow over the 290HP rating, much less 500!
Bottom line, those cars stock went 15 flat in near ideal conditions. Throw on the dual carbs, headers, gears, and sticky tires and they went high 13s.
And the reason Chevrolet ditched the 302 program and went to the 350 was not due to any racing event. They wanted to offer the Z28 with an automatic transmission, and they claimed the 302 didn't have anywhere near enough torque to utilize the turbo hydramatics at the time, so they introduced more stroke.
Edit: There is a reason why all the Ford 5.0 guys who want to go fast on the 5.0L platform almost always end up stroking it to 331-347". The high revving small displacement engine just is not ideal for drag racing purposes.
I've heard of underrating engines - 410HP is a little hard to swallow over the 290HP rating, much less 500!Bottom line, those cars stock went 15 flat in near ideal conditions. Throw on the dual carbs, headers, gears, and sticky tires and they went high 13s.
And the reason Chevrolet ditched the 302 program and went to the 350 was not due to any racing event. They wanted to offer the Z28 with an automatic transmission, and they claimed the 302 didn't have anywhere near enough torque to utilize the turbo hydramatics at the time, so they introduced more stroke.
Edit: There is a reason why all the Ford 5.0 guys who want to go fast on the 5.0L platform almost always end up stroking it to 331-347". The high revving small displacement engine just is not ideal for drag racing purposes.
mainly you..... call up Dave Strickler and tell him that his car with the stock 302ci engine will not go quicker then high 13's....hell or call him up and tell him you would like a heads up run with your 2000 TA
VIN number: 124378N411100
Build Date: 04A (first week of April)
Color: Corvette Bronze
Interior Code: 712, black standard
Car Shipper: Shipped on April 11, 1968 to Ammon R. Smith Auto Company, York, PA
Engine Data :Cubic Inches, 302
Cylinder heads: #3917291, completely stock, no porting allowed!
Stock rocker arms & valve springs
Intake: 302 aluminum intake, casting #3917610
Carburetor: Holley, #4053, 780 CFM 4bbl
Camshaft: Crane, .480 inches lift, 272 degrees duration, valve lash, .016-.016
Pistons: GM 302, .030" oversize
Horsepower 456 @7700rpm
Rear Tires 9" x 30.0" Hoosier's
Rear axle & ratio 12-bolt, 5.57 Richmond Pro Gears
Clutch 10 inch, three finger from Advance Clutch Technology
Shift Points 8200 RPM
BEST ET 10.80 @122.30mph
07-10-2007, 04:37 PM
#45
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 287
SparkZ28SS,
Doesn't matter what info you post, some of the naysayers will never believe that the 302 Z/28 engine was anything but a 290hp "low performance" high performance option. Having owned one new in 1969, I certainly agree with you and can tell you that I did not worry about going head to head with whatever car/engine combo I came up against on Friday and Saturday nights. Hell, many of my car payments were made with the profit from those encounters! And mine was not highly modified, just minor things like removal of smog pump, new Delco dual point distributor, re-jetting the stock Holley 780CFM carb, tube headers running into the factory chambered exhaust, etc. I had a lot of fun with that underpowered/under performing 302.
Clyde
Doesn't matter what info you post, some of the naysayers will never believe that the 302 Z/28 engine was anything but a 290hp "low performance" high performance option. Having owned one new in 1969, I certainly agree with you and can tell you that I did not worry about going head to head with whatever car/engine combo I came up against on Friday and Saturday nights. Hell, many of my car payments were made with the profit from those encounters! And mine was not highly modified, just minor things like removal of smog pump, new Delco dual point distributor, re-jetting the stock Holley 780CFM carb, tube headers running into the factory chambered exhaust, etc. I had a lot of fun with that underpowered/under performing 302.
Clyde