I am going to be either rebuilding my 327 or putting a different motor in my '68 until I have the time and $$$$ to build my dream motor. I am looking into building a 302 because of the durability and decent gas mileage(EFI) of a smaller motor. Is there any reason I shouldn't build a 302? Also how hard is it to find a 283 crank and what needs to be done to convert my 327 to a 302? What modifications or additions should be done while biulding the motor to make better, stronger, faster?

------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The night-time is the right time

****James Bondo****
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just my opinion but making a 302 doesn't mean your going to have this high revving copy of a Z motor. Just like a 70 350 LT1 Corvette motor isn't the same as a Impala 350. You said you are looking into a 302 because of durability. A 302 is durable because of the parts that went into it, not because its a 302. I would redo the 327 you have. Any parts you would buy to make a durable 302 would make the 327 just as durable, without all the extra machine work$$$. I know you want smaller right now but the same parts that you would put into a 302 to make a 302 would make more power in the 327. There's no substitute for cubic inches. Did anyone ever say that before, sounds familiar. Maybe when you get into a real high revving race motor situation where things like stroke vs bore and conecting rod length etc come into play the 302 might be better. But probably not for what you want right now. Remember, Chevrolet didn't make the 302 because its the best motor combination out there, they did it because the cubic inch limit at the time (racing) was 305 and the 302 could be made with off the shelf parts (money saver). Don't remember what the limit was changed to in 70 (I think 360) but GM didn't keep the 302 and moved to a 350, closer to the limit. Back to that cubic inch thing. Sorry so long and I always wanted a 302, but not to build when I don't own the Z to go with it. Just my opinion. Besides nothing is worse than having a non Chevy guy tell you that your a idiot because Chevy never made a 302 and the early Z's came with 350's std and big block optional. Had to throw that in because I overheard a spectator telling a Z owner this at a swap meet last season

Advantages of the 302...
Will spin to 8000 rpm with no problem(if balanced and good rods, pistons, and bolts)

Disadvantages...
Special pistons, only two available, $5-600 a set...
needs to spin to 8000 to make any power...
no low end torque...
eats clutches for lunch, unless you run 4.10 or lower rear gears...
mileage is not any better than a comparable 350...
constantly spinning engine above 4000 in-town cruising to get car to move smoothly...
really has to have a 4-speed trans(see also-no low end torque)...
etc.etc.etc...
If I were to buy another Z, I would pull the 302, and change the shortblock to a 350 and use the same heads and valve covers, no one can tell the difference by looking. It will make it 500% easier to drive, also.

I thinks Dave is right. Everybody seems to like the Mystique and Aura of the 302. Who doesn't like the idea of a wicked small block that screams up to 8000 RPM? But, don't forget GM never intended this to be anything but a holmogated race motor. It's a great and essential centerpiece for any Z, but like Dave said, if you really want to drive the thing, pull the engine. Stuff something more street friendly in it's place. Pack it nicely in the corner with lots of lube and leave it there to be re-united with the car some other day. Which begs the question, do you really want to build a very expensive CLONE motor that isn't all that "streetable" to begin with?

------------------
Shawn Peterson
1969 Z28, 406SB


[This message has been edited by Shawn (edited 12-17-99).]

the 67 thru 69 302 had a 4" bore and a 3" stroke. Your 327 has a 4" bore and a 3.25" stroke. A 350 has a 4"bore and a 3.48 stroke.

An 80's 305 used a 3.48 stroke and a smaller bore. Somewhere around the mid 80's they went to a one piece rear seal and EXTERNAL balancing. The 302 developed nearly the same torque as a similar year 350 but less hp. I had an 85 302 with tuned port injection- 0 to 60 was about 7 seconds. My 89 350 Iroc was about 6 seconds.

Get a target 350 from chevy and put a mild cam in it. These engines run great, make good power, and are guaranteed for 50,000. miles.They usually cost less than a properly done rebuilt engine. The cam they come with is not bad, similar to a non smog 60's cam.

The best thing about a 350 is the torque. When you hit the gas it'll go right now, at any rpm. The 302 (67-69 type) has to rev up to make power. They would come on at 4500 rpm and the ignition (points) would break up at 6000 to 6500 rpm. the 302 needs low gears to work at all.

In 1969 I raced a 68 Z/28 with my 67 275hp 327 with 4 speed and 3.08 gears. we were about even, If I'd had the 3.73 gears he had I would have left him in the dust! I think all I had done to my car was re-curve the distributor. Later, I installed a 325 horse hydraulic cam. I still got good mileage and the car ran good.

David - Was the 302 below a typo?
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by davidpozzi:
An 80's 305 used a 3.48 stroke and a smaller bore. Somewhere around the mid 80's they went to a one piece rear seal and EXTERNAL balancing. The 302 developed nearly the same torque as a similar year 350 but less hp. I had an 85 302 with tuned port injection- 0 to 60 was about 7 seconds. My 89 350 Iroc was about 6 seconds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Back in '74-'75 my buddy's stock '68 302 Z28 saw 8,000 rpm all the time! No problems with his points...
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
The 302 (67-69 type) has to rev up to make power. They would come on at 4500 rpm and the ignition (points) would break up at 6000 to 6500 rpm. the 302 needs low gears to work at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the guy in the Z's driving skills were equal to yours (IMO) you would have been looking at his tail pipes!
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
In 1969 I raced a 68 Z/28 with my 67 275hp 327 with 4 speed and 3.08 gears. we were about even, If I'd had the 3.73 gears he had I would have left him in the dust! I think all I had done to my car was re-curve the distributor. Later, I installed a 325 horse hydraulic cam. I still got good mileage and the car ran good.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree a 350 would make a more streetable choice and personally would leave the 302's to the Z28's....

------------------
...DjD
69RS Ragtop
www.fbody.com/members/topless69 (http://www.fbody.com/members/topless69)

I vote for the 350. I have several Z28's and you have to do alot to them to make em move like you want. Yes they sound great but people read too much legendary stuff in the magazines. You could build a 350 and call it a 302.= sleeper.

I did make a typo in my origonal post. Here is the corrected version.

An 80's 305 used a 3.48 stroke and a smaller bore. Somewhere around the mid 80's they went to a one piece rear seal and EXTERNAL balancing. The 305 developed nearly the same torque as a similar year 350 but less hp. I had an 85 305 with tuned port injection- 0 to 60 was about 7 seconds. My 89 350 Iroc was about 6 seconds.

I would expect the valves to float with a stock 67-69 302 turning 8000rpm using factory springs.

The 68 Z/28 I raced had an advantage over me. I had the 4 speed saginaw trans and you cant shift them fast at all! But he may not have been revving it like he should have. I had a friend with a 69 302 with 4:10 gears and headers that would have run away from me. But I think a lot of totally stock 302's with a fiew miles on a tune up would be a close race for a 327 with equal gearing and a little sharp tuning.

327-cid Chevrolet block with a 283-cid Chevrolet crankshaft for a 4" x 3" stroke that yielded 302.3 cubic inches. I have a 283 engine in my camaro. I'm looking for a 396.

I had a 69 RS Z28 with 95000 miles on it, engine had never been apart. I added a Crossram and Chambered exhaust. It would wind to 8000 easily. I kept thinking something would come apart, finally changed out the orig. Nylon timing gears and chain. It was a slug off the line but once it got going it was fun.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clill:
I had a 69 RS Z28 with 95000 miles on it, engine had never been apart. I added a Crossram and Chambered exhaust. It would wind to 8000 easily. I kept thinking something would come apart, finally changed out the orig. Nylon timing gears and chain. It was a slug off the line but once it got going it was fun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've seen other guy's 302's shed the timing chain at 75000 miles. The plastic teeth go. Say, how did the crossram do? I've read that the crossram actually helps the engine develop more upper midrange torque. Did you notice any improvement around 4500?

That's exactly why I changed the chain and gears out. I new I was on borrowed time with them. 4500 is about exactly where it started to make real power, and kept pulling all the way through 8000. Just kept hopeing stuff would never fly through the hood. The guy I sold the car to still has it and the engine has still never been apart.

Everybody wants a 302, I know a guy about 25minutes from me that has several for sale.I looked at 3 he had down at the Moultrie , Ga. swap meet back around Thanksgiving. There were 2 '68 models, and a '69.
I have access to a complete DZ bottom end, it has been put in a '71 350 block.The original block didn't make it.It has the #1178 crank, pink rods, pop-ups.Also a couple of sets of heads, and several intakes are available. Anyone seen an O.T.C. intake for a 302, it has a different casting # from the others I have seen, I think it was a #116.If anyone needs parts, email me, I'll give you a price, and all the casting #'s info.

[This message has been edited by Doug Garland (edited 12-30-1999).]

Yo,

I would go 302! It's really not a matter of cubic inches cause Chevy squeezed more horses out of the 302 compared to the 350 or 327. They underated ti at 290 so they could get in the TA races. That's why it say " 290" but in DYNO tests it shows more like 426. Now you can squeeze whatever you want out of most anything but this was really cool if you think about it. 400+ horses out of the small 302 ( thought to be a Ford engine by all NON-Camaro people). Z28s are amazing cars mine is awesome I only wish that i could have more drive time with it. http://www.69zee.homestead.com/enter.html check her out! Nice car. Well follow your heart is all I can say to you. Mine says 302 seeing the awesome power. But follow your own. C ya later!

Cya!

69Z

------------------
69 Z28 RS. ORIGINAL window sticker. GM documentation from work being done. Replacement P.O.P from early 69. Fresh off RESTO. 500 miles since put on. NICE car! EMAIL me for PICS!

69Z (nike10622@msn.com)

Regarding the 302 gas milage.
&gt;&gt;I am looking into building a 302 because of the durability and decent gas mileage(EFI) of a smaller motor.&lt;&lt;
My 69 Z/28 with 3.73 gears makes my 86 3/4 ton Suburban with a 454 seem fuel efficient. If you keep your foot out of it(impossible for me to do)you might get 6 - 8 mpg on the freeway. On city streets you spend most of the time in 2nd and 3rd only get into 4th over 50mph. My 302 is alot of fun , but I wouldn't build a 302 if it's not a real Z/28.

68SS396 mentioned a change in the displacement limit for TRANS AM in 1970. My understanding was...displacement limit remained at 5 liters (305 CID) but they allowed DESTROKING an engine to attain the specified displacement. Chevy was building jillions of 350s in 1970 and the SCCA rule change allowed race teams the option of building a legal motor, without GM having to build a low volume special race motor.

It's easy to build a "301/302". Start with one early 327 small journal block, get a 283 small journal crank or a medium journal 327/350 block and a medium journal 283 crank, and a set of 11 to 1 slugs from TRW or somebody else. A pair of -291 2.02/1.60 valve heads, a Holley 300-36 with a 780 cfm 3310-1, one 30-30 Duntov that comes on at 4500rpm and a set of solids, a set of Hooker or Heddmann 1 5/8" four into one headers and "wrap it to the moon".
Nothing out of the ordinary at all.
My one and only 301 had a '55 265 crank, 283 rods, JC whitney .125" over 11 to 1 cast 283 domed pistons, 520 heads, an -097 little Duntov solid cam, an old used 327 block that I swear had .020" on the bores. My original SS350 Q-jet carb, intake and exhaust manifolds.
Darn thing used oil and wrapped like there was no tomorrow. It had three vibration frequencies that it used to go through as it rpm'd. It wasn't balanced and used to throw dampers until I got into safety wire.
About 35 to 3700rpm, 5000 to 5200rpm and around 6000rpm, above 6000rpm, she smoothed out and just kept going until my old points would give out. In fact I used to clean the plugs by putting it in second and holding her down about 2/3rd's throttle til she quit missing.
Now that I think back, it's a wonder the darn thing wasn't a gernade waiting to go off. I guess that it never really produced enough power to be self destructive. pdq67

Just my personal opinion. I've only owned two real cars, a 69 SS396 Chevelle and my 69 Z28. I wouldn't trade my Z, but it does like to drink the gas, 10mpg. And it really doesn't start to make power until the uppper RPM range. If it wasn't an original Z I'd stick with the 327. Just my opinion.
Thanks
MrG

My opinion, if the 327 is original, then rebuild it. If you want a fun motor in a car you intend to drive alot, get a crate "350" or even better, a "383"! You'll have gobs of low end torque, and it'll run on pump gas.

JD

Sureguy,
Regarding the 327. IF you want to save money I would build the 327 to the Corvette 327/365hp spec. This engine used the same 30-30 cam as the Z/28 11-1 pistons, 2.02 heads, etc. I ran this in my 65 corvette and it screamed. You would need to lower the compression to run on today's gas, but it could be done on a tight budget and provide alot of fun until you can afford something else.

I thought that I would revive this.

Whats the difference between a 365hp/327 Vette engine and a 302 Z-28 Camaro engine except for 25 cubic inches worth of stroke increase and ramhorn exhaust manifolds??? pdq67

The 327 had a longer stroke. For 69 the 302 block has 4 bolt mains, crank is forged steel, pink rods. Other than that not much.

u know ive sit here and read what everyone has to say about the 283,327,and the ever so famous 302dz me personaly would build the 302 not many of them left around here anymore and can u really give me a good (and i mean good) reason y that someone wouldnt want to build a 302 ive got all 3 of the famous sbc motors and the one i like the best is the 302 ive got one in a 92 s-10 and u couldnt ask for a better running trk runs 4.10s in a quarter mile the 327 gets it in about 5.00 and the 283 gets it in about 5.50 e.t.a.s and this is running in the same s-10
w/5-spped borg-warner and 3.53 rears under it i think u should build whatever motor u want its ur money dude hope u like witch everone u build

I love my high-winding '69 Z28 302, and accept its poor low-end torque because it's so much fun otherwise (and I have a thing about solid-lifter engines). In your situation, however, for a normally-driven street engine, I'd either rebuild the 327 or put a crate engine in it. The 302 isn't magic - it just fit the Trans-Am rules with off-the-shelf parts, and it was developed solely as a racing engine that would spend its whole life over 4000 rpm with no requirement for low-end torque, just exactly the opposite of what you want in a street engine.

------------------
JohnZ
'69 Z28 Fathom Green

I have never driven a 302, so heres a question.

What is the engine like at low RPMs. Does it lug like a 350 high RPM horse power maker, or is it smooth. That could be a deciding factor right there. If the motor runs smooth downstairs, you would think this would be a great street motor. Its nice to have a car that appears stock!

------------------
------------------
Mark

1992 Firebird 355/Six Speed
1991 RS 350 / 700-R4
1987 Toyota Pickup 383 / 500 + HP 10.963 @ 119.95 Slicks / 11.997 @ 114.23 Radials
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/~racer383/

Mark,
The 302 is and was a racing motor. It is only happy at full throttle and above 3000RPM. If you keep it above 3000RPM it is quick responsive and alot of fun to drive. In traffic it loads up and needs to be blown out before it is happy again.
Although it is a stock motor there is nothing stock about it. All parts are made to perform, 11:1 compression, holley 780, 202 fuelie heads, hi-rise aluminum manifold, steel crank, pink rods, solid racing cam, deep groove pullies, 6000RPM red line, dual exhaust, close ratio 4 speed, 3.73 12 bolt rear end, power disc brakes. The 302 will wind to 7000RPM all day, nothing else sounds like it. Nothing else performs like it. This is not to say a 327, 350 or what ever will not out perform it, the 302 has a unique torque curve that is night and day different from a 327 and 350. You wouldn't wind a 350 out to 4000RPM on a regular basis but you would with a 302, that's how you drive them. I hope this clears things up for you.

The 302 in my '56 Chev is backed by an automatic with high stall. This motor is definitely not a gas mileage motor (although I pulled 21mpg one time on a road trip doing 55mph the whole way). It has no bottom end torque to get rolling, can't spin the posi rear until I stall over 3500rpm. But on the freeway watch out, downshifts to 2nd gear at 80mph are awesome! It's like a rocket. My personal opinion, if you want gas mileage, build a 350, .030 over, 9.0 compression with a gas mileage cam (Comp 260 or 268). The low end torque is there to keep you cruising at low rpms. The 302 is good for smiles, but not for miles!

------------------
M. G. Bingham
SLC, UT
56 Chev 2dr 150 sedan
1965 Chev Malibu 2dr hdtp
1967 Chev Camaro

Hey how about a 377. They are a destroked 400 using a 350 crank and rods. All the bennies of a 302 but it has more cubes and torque. I have ran one in a 68 Camaro with 355 gears, the bottom end was a still a little on the weak side, but it did not give up anything in a race. It came on hard and reved to the moon, it did not break up until just before 7,000 RPM. With more cam and a better top end I have seen them go to 7,500 RPM and still have a fair bottom end. And the sound it's awasome, with flowmasters. You will turn some heads!!!

------------------
http://sites.netscape.net/1969ss/homepage

377 is a good motor, but a 383 prepped in the same fashion will beat it on the track. One of the rags just did a 377 VS 383 article and backed it up. Apparently, though a good high end motor, the 377 gives up to much early grunt to even things out. It was VERY close though. Would you notice the difference, no, probably not. With a 383 though, you do not have to contend with steam holes!

------------------
------------------
Mark

1992 Firebird 355/Six Speed
1991 RS 350 / 700-R4
1987 Toyota Pickup 383 / 500 + HP 10.963 @ 119.95 Slicks / 11.997 @ 114.23 Radials
http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/~racer383/

Nowadays, if you find a 302 car you wont beable to drive it. I did. 302, stock, in a 68 (clone).

I had heard all the hype,as did my buddy, who amassed the parts and put a nice mill together.

Slug. Mustangs ate him up without trying ( this was circa 1985). Pulled that puppy and sold it to someone more into show than go and used my L88. ( with some mods for street use).

Now theres a freight train. No probs with "ponies" anymore.

Strongly encourage you to ditch the 302 idea altogehter. I was not impressed at the least. Plus if you fit one with EFI and all that, you'll lose any capability of the 4000-7000 power band I think.

Ditto everyone elses advice. If its the matching 327, mothball it. Buy a 350. Cheap. Plentiful. Build it to mild LT1 specs and it'll waste 302s ( 10.25:1, COMP 270s, Z intake, 750, 202's, headers ).

Not trying to step on any toes, but I'm going to have to politely disagree with you 427L88. Now, I'm a big believer in no sub for cubic inches (I'm building a 496 for my chevelle http://www.camaros.net/forum/cool.gif ), but a few mods with the 302 can be very driveable and waste the horsestangs at the same time. The 302 in my '56 was used as a daily driver through 4 years of college. I had to put 76cc truck heads on the domed pistons to get the compression into normal fuel territory, but with the holley hi-rise dual plane and a Comp 280 cam, headers, and stall converter, the motor was very streetable (fired up first time everytime on those cold Utah winter mornings!) And freeway driving over 3500rpm's always made from some interesting road races in the shoebox! http://www.camaros.net/forum/biggrin.gif

------------------
Bing
1956 Chev 150 2dr sedan 302ci
1965 Chev Malibu 2dr hdtp 496ci
1967 Chev Camaro 327ci

This was certainly a timely discussion. I am considering pulling the 302 from my '68Z during the restoration in process and putting it in storage on a stand in my shop. Am considering using a goodwrench performance / crate engine as a driver. I like the 502 / 502 but want to limit modifications. Thoughts?

Yeh, let's compare a modified L88 to a 302, that makes alot of since.

If you are comparing a 377 to a 383 (377 destroked 400) 383 (stroked 350) you nned to dsecide what you want. The 377 gives you basicly unlimited RPM potential and makes a great street touring engine that performs well on the strip but not as good as combos. If your looking for stop light to stop light and strip duty a 383 with 5.7 rods is the way to go. Using the 400 rods on a 383 build up works just fine, but if your looking for performance with reliablitiy use the 5.7 rods. The stock 400 rods give the engine a balance that just is not quite right. Not saying they don't work and won't last many miles, I have built them with 400 rods many times, but 5.7 rods give the engine that solid feel. Like I was saying though you need to know what you want and how your going to use it before you spend the bucks.

------------------
http://sites.netscape.net/1969ss/homepage

IMHO, the 383/377 deal is in the gears.

The 383 has more low and midrange grunt whereas the 377 has more upper mid and top end grunt. That was proved in the article.

In fact, that WAS the point of the article!!!

I gota feeling that if both were geared so that each when shifted 200rpm after their hp peaks and would drop back to their torque peaks each shift, that it would da-n near be a tie. And probably the 377 would have the edge BECAUSE it would give away alittle grunt down low so it would get slightly better traction outta the hole if the same rubber was used.
pdq67

I have owned a 69 X77 z/28 since 1982, and just finished a restoration after 18 years( marrige, kids, mortgage). any way as for me there is nothing better than getting in my Z and letting it wind with the 4:10 rear gears.Other than a appetite for sunoco 110 from the local dirt track, I would not pull it out for any of the reasons mentioned. But than again it is not for the faint hearted,some drivers just can not bear the site of a tach needle pushing past 7000 rpm before you can say "it's a 302 what"?

Greetings to all. Writing to you from Greece. We love the auto products of your country, particularly CHEVROLET (USA#1). Hearing about the lore of the 60's muscles from visiting USA relatives and friends since childhood, I too have long desired to own an org. (as possible) 67-8 Z28. I am delighted to have found this tektalk, and to stand by and listen, with an occasional question would be an honor.
It appears that org. Z28 fever has spread to a global syndrome.
The appeal of this particular model is bottomless. The low volume enhances this, but makes it extremely unattainable, therefore very collectible, but since I have no blood links with any Onasis types, my investigation must be based upon fabriqacion of a, as you name it, "clone".
With the key words here being factory stock equipment, that a US manufacturer had produced a vehicle that performed with the finest Euro machines and within a 5lt.limit,
was and is a more than just noteworthy feat.
This deserves an international bravo. For those aware of the difference in US/EURO fuel prices that have been for quite some time now governing the design of engines toward efficiency, you can understand why the smaller displacement/higher power ratio holds an even higher status for us here. (By this I do not mean that one should pursue the construction of a 5lt. for its fuel efficiency, which we are aware is absurd. It is, rather, the boundless power contained in a relatively small displacment that narrows the gap between US and Euro engines that causes the stir here.)
Personally, it would be the reason for undertaking such a project.
I agree with all of the views regarding the application of the 5lt. and it seems they reflect from enthusiasts who have a clearer over all view of HP/CI ratio and the respect it commands, the reasons why the SCCA laid restrictive size rules and engineering format regulations, and finally that a true race does not end but rather begins at end of the 0-60 elapsed time standard which the advocates of large displacement are reffering to.
If we have no codes for camparison, how can we say that the twin turbine nitrous 501 ci Eldorado V8 powered Nash Metropolitan that smoked my Shelby 427 cobra was not a fair game?
Please do not misunderstand me, but this is after all, an analysis of the 302 and its purpose. In support of the use of the 302, I must add that, quite frankly, we find no allure in a large block Corvette that is merely few ten'ths of a second quicker to your older 0 to 60mph measurement and with a barely significant top speed difference than a 300sl of 182 ci's, six cilynders, and predating the former by more than a decade... we do how ever jump out of our seats when we spot a FI stingray of same vintage and know that it embodies all the elements of a sportscar because of the lighter engine, and will deliver an acceptable degree of handeling.
To sureguy I would say, for we share the dillema, your 68 is the right vintage to outfit with the rally sport front which gives a more integrated overall look on this year because of the abscence of the vent windows substituted by ventrilux and appears to fit the smooth city cruiser bill w/non Z motor theme better. Plus, the added weight of such options and others that make a comfort car would be less of an issue since she would not be out fitted as factory org. racer. I would say though, that this form of GT. type automobile is even better highlighted by GM's other maker Pontiac, in their Firebird model. Here, for the larger ci short distance marauder theme, the Formula and Trans-Am dress really say it better.
These would be alternatives to someone's primary goal of a true Z in the idiom that the Z28 was engineered for, and that astheticly, the Camaro's simple straight line styling was really commissioned to. This is the major reason for my pro 5lt. Z engine decision.
On the economy side? More feed back on pdq67's 265 crank shaft would be great. This is a point of interest for me also. Is this an even shorter stroke? Did you notice any economy differences? I beleive that today with 35 years passing scince the 302 there must be some real advances in efficiency made by reasearchers that do not radically deviate from the stock design.

by running an even shorter stroke, you can put in a longer rod to get more piston dwell at TDC which reduces the possibility for detonation/pre-ignition. That means you can run more compression to get even more horses per cube. Granted, the smaller engine even with higher compression probably wouldn't make as much power as a larger, similarly built engine, but it is a cool idea.

If you want to read an article about long rods and their benefits... like 11:1 compression on 87 octane with a very short cam that doesn't bleed off cylinder pressure... check out "the small block chevy should have built" under the AFR article archives at www.airflowresearch.com (http://www.airflowresearch.com)

Excellent article at the air research site. Thank you so much Mr. Boodlefoof. This is exactly the type of combination I would consider. The drivability of such an engine having that kind of gusto spells magic, especially at that kind of parts price. It is a definite contender as an all around Camaro engine, but please if you could give me an educated estimate as to the gross cost of contracting the few laboratories responsible for the machining and fitting of the various items necessary to a proper construct of that or a similar (perhaps smaller, Chevy small block, you would shed some in the tunnel.
Also, have you had or know of any personal experiences with these aluminum heads from AFR? What is the general word about this manufacturer on your USA routes?

The AFR heads are pretty much accepted as the best "out of the box" aftermarket cylinder head. They cost a pretty penny too, but their flow numbers are great. If you look at some of the other articles on the site you will see their potential.

I believe the parts costs in the article were around $3000 American. Having a shop build it with these supplied parts is another story. I don't know exactly how much they would charge you in Greece, but if you want to get it built in the U.S. and have it shipped overseas, that is possible and prices vary greatly. I don't have any particular engine builders in mind for you to contact here, but if you write a post about it, I am sure people will have ideas for you. Also, you could contact the companies mentioned in the articles and ask them about building an engine for you. Good luck.

The AFR heads are pretty much accepted as the best "out of the box" aftermarket cylinder head. They cost a pretty penny too, but their flow numbers are great. If you look at some of the other articles on the site you will see their potential.

I believe the parts costs in the article were around $3000 American. Having a shop build it with these supplied parts is another story. I don't know exactly how much they would charge you in Greece, but if you want to get it built in the U.S. and have it shipped overseas, that is possible and prices vary greatly. I don't have any particular engine builders in mind for you to contact here, but if you write a post about it, I am sure people will have ideas for you. Also, you could contact the companies mentioned in the articles and ask them about building an engine for you. Good luck.

well, I tried to post a reply a minute ago and it doesn't seem to be showing up...

Anyway, what I said was that the AFR heads are generally accepted as the best "out of the box" aftermarket head. Their flow is awesome. Look at some of the other articles in AFR's article archives and you will see what they can do.

About building the engine... The parts in the article added up to $3000 and that was a while ago. If you want to buy all the parts and build such a beast yourself, contact some aftermarket piston and rod companies and see what they have availible. Custom pieces like that are expensive though. If you want to have someone else build it and ship it to you, I would contact some of the engine builders who did the work on the engines in the articles on the AFR website. You could also post a topic asking for names of engine builders if you like.

To get back to Sureguys post. Years ago guys would buy 340hp Vette short blocks put a stock hydraulic cam in it and 283 PP heads on it. they would storm to 5000rpm and get great mileage. I have not tried the combo with garbage gas but it is an idea. It is sort of a 250hp 327 with more compression.

That is it then. Alas, if only my Greek bretheren mastorae were as adept with things involving mekanix here as they are with making pizza over there. Asking for a machining work for anything more complex than a key to your house would literally put you on an endangered species list as well.

The second part of your suggestion will have to be it then. And I assume it safer dealing with the same shops that executed the prototype specifications.
I believe that once determined as to which phase of realistic performance layout is siutable, I can then contact the channels mentioned and proceed with an inquiry of prices and payment plans and other informations. This has indeed been a refreshing exchange.
Thanks for the data Mr. B, and my raise in spirits. Good luck to you also.

just for the sake of arguing.WHY does every one think that 302 cubic inches wont come on strong and be unberable to drive? hello? he didn't say he was going to put the original cam back in,did he? of course it would be numb with the original cam,even the 327 would be numb with the same cam. the 302 can be made just as streetable as any other motor. toss in a cam around 208-212 @.050,some good heads,600 cfm vac,1 5/8 headers. i think we went off the track here somewhere. if the 302 would be a dog,then what so magical obout the 302 5.0 mustangs,how com they aren't numb? they seem to get 3 gears of rubber.can't be just becuase they are fuel injected,can it? fords 302 has the same bore and stroke as chevys does. now i'm not saying the 327 isn't the better choice,because on a budget it would make more power.but don't totally discurage some one for building the chevy 302,with the right parts it could be VERY fuel efficiant and be "torquey". i love the old DZ motor though. HAPPY STEAMING

All of you are overlooking the modern 302, based on the LT1 engine.

Start with an LT1. Pull the stock crank and rods and install crank and rods from the 4.3L L99 V8 used as the base engine in Caprices '94-'96. The crank is a cast 3.000" stroke unit, and the rods are 5.940", so that the 302 could use the stock LT1 pistons (with a lower CR obviously). Or custom pistons if you want. Top that short block off with LT4 heads and intake, LT4 HOT cam, or something more radical (hydraulic roller) and have a wild engine which also makes low RPM torque and can be driven on the street. If you want to go really wild, put a set of www.hotrocker.com (http://www.hotrocker.com) on it with a REALLY wild cam.

With a good ignition system, and 4.88 gears you'll scream that thing real fast and the gears will take care of the torque. You'll climb up a wall with 4.88's.
The key here is very good ignition!!!
Personally if you want RPMs and keep streetable torque think BBC, consider a 427 or 454 with a solid cam, even a 502, they are big engines but the bore/stroke ratio is good for a revver!

302...........i love mine

ScottB, the reason for the comparison between a 302 Z- engine and an L-88 is b/c each are factory purpose built race engines around the same design process! Big bore, short stroke, big cam and big heads and good compression!

camaero, the early first design 265 engine crank is just a 3.0" stroke crank that could be use in any small main block (2.30"m/2.0"r sizes). It is basically the same crank as the Z- engine crank unless the Z has the one really heavi-duty 3.0" forging that GM made back then! Mine came out of a '55 265 engine. The early 265 rods are skinny little buggers so I just found a set of good 283 rods and used them unbalanced with no rework to them at all because they are thicker and stronger.

pdq67

PDQ, move to jersey so we can do a team effort on some crazy high winding BBC project, crazy minds thing alike http://www.camaros.net/forum/wink.gif We can back it up with a Jerico and 5.14's http://www.camaros.net/forum/biggrin.gif

He, He!! Jersey.

I was there once at Naparano's salvage yard down by the docks below the interstate. I was hot gunite repairing a big box type aluminum sweat furnace!!

The TWO things that I remember about the trip was that, first, nobody spoke English and Second, the sidewalks got rolled up after 5:30PM or so and it was so rough, the Hookers didn't even come out!!!

Boy was I glad ta get home!

I do know that if you get out west away from the strip city on the coast, the state turns into a great big "farm" and is a whole lot like Missouri!! People were nice, though.

Yes, wish we were closer so we could play with our toys together CNC. pdq67

Hehe, i cant stand jersey either, eveyone's mean as hell in jersey, dont walk out in front of them like any other state, its asking for trouble http://www.camaros.net/forum/smile.gif
If i could i'd be packing up and moving out to one of those big farms you speak of http://www.camaros.net/forum/biggrin.gif Where we'd build BBC's all day.

[This message has been edited by CamaroNOTcamero (edited 07-12-2002).]