Not sure whether post this one with the engine dept. or the tranny folks?! Can a 302 engine (which always came from the factory with a manual transmission) be mated with a TH350. Is there even a flex plate available that fits the 302? Or was it simply born to be a four banger?!!
302 automatic???
watzignition
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Joined
·
87 Posts
Not sure whether post this one with the engine dept. or the tranny folks?! Can a 302 engine (which always came from the factory with a manual transmission) be mated with a TH350. Is there even a flex plate available that fits the 302? Or was it simply born to be a four banger?!!
Joined
·
3,652 Posts
Sure it can. I even saw it done (the guy regretted it) in the mid 70's.
Just use a flex plate for a 350. Both engines were balance internally.
Not sure why you would want to.
Just use a flex plate for a 350. Both engines were balance internally.
Not sure why you would want to.
Remove the pilot bushing in the crankshaft.
Joined
·
27,011 Posts
The 302 is a small block as far as parts bolting up to it, so yes a Chevrolet TH350 automatic could be mated up to it. The issue is automatics are designed to shift at low rpm unless your foot is in it WOT and the 302 is not going to like it when you start out from a light in traffic and the trans goes into 2nd at 2000 rpm and drops to 1500 rpm and at 40 mph the trans wants to be in drive.
Crossmember is the same, as is the driveshaft and slip yoke if you use a T350. Flywheel as posted off any small block internal balance will work. Better buy a big stall converter, as you could probably Run faster than the 302 will accelerate from the stop.
Joined
·
8,305 Posts
there is another way to go about it and make a good combination- lower the compression a bit and put a smaller hydraulic cam in the 302 and run a stock converter.. Ford built millions of 302's starting in 1968 and ending in 1996 with the exact same bore and stroke- most of which ended up in 4500 pound cars and trucks with autos and 2.73 gears- so why couldn't a 302 Chevy do the same thing other than it being sacrilegious for some stupid reason?
Joined
·
6,338 Posts
Can't be any worse than a 327/210 powerglide 2.73 combination for acceleration.
The Furd 302 and Chevies little gem were two differant animals.
EXACTLY, the Ford windsor 289/302 had little tiny intake runners and small valves 1.78 Int X 1.45 ex, the Chevy 302 had 168.cc. runners and 2.02Int X 1.60 ex. The 302 Z with a auto will be a slug compared to any stock small block, either Chev or Ford. A big 780 cfm carb wont help it, and the camshaft had a lot to do with it also, it probably wont idle in gear with a stock converter. Putting a 3,000 stall converter and probably 4.56/4.88 gear in it would make it driveable.
Joined
·
27,011 Posts
Night and day, the 210hp 327 was low compression, different heads and cam and 2bbl carb. The power curve was completely different in the 2 engines. Acceleration isn't the issue, if the 327 shifted into drive at 2000 dropping the rpm to 1500 and you stepped on the gas the car would go as designed. To do that in a 302 the car would buck and sputter and with todays fuel it would ping and rattle like marbles in a can.
If you manually shifted the automatic and held the rpms up a bit it would be fine mated to the 302. That's not what an automatic is intended for though and to drop it in drive and go would not be fun.
Joined
·
8,305 Posts
yeah, and it's possible to make them into similar animals.. Ford had the Boss 302 for the high HP applications and the regular 302 for everything else.. you'd have to deviate less from stock to tame down a Chevy 302 than what Ford had to do to tame down the 302.
Chevy built millions of mild 283's with the 3" stroke crank that was used in the 302 and millions of mild 327's and 350's with the 4" bore block that was used in the 302, and there is no reason why someone couldn't build a mild 302 if they wanted to. the only reason Chevy never did was because they really didn't need a small displacement V8 other than the 307 that had just come out and they decided to go with the longer stoke/smaller bore combo when they came out with the 305.
The Boss 302 and Windsor 302 are 2 different animals. The Boss 302 NEVER came with a automatic either, it was a real lump as delivered because of the HUGE cylinder heads, ridiculous intake port size and the valve sizes where 2.23 X 1.71. The Intake Ports were too big, it had horrible torque and HP, worse than the Z28 302.
I agree if you wanted to build a mild 302 it might work better, but again the original 302 Chev cylinder heads/camshaft/carb would hinder a auto.
Joined
·
8,305 Posts
i just remembered something- i think Jeff Smith of Car Craft magazine had a mild 302 in his El Camino that knocked down close to 30mpg.. of course, it had a centrifugal supercharger on it for when he wanted to play..
Joined
·
87 Posts
Now I can rule that one out; never understood the dynamics. I definately don't intend to convert my automatic into a four banger to appease that winding little small block! "Sacrilegious!" ... I like that! Sort of like making a horse and an ox pull a cart together. It's not going to happen... didn't understand... thanks for the info guys. Greatly appreciated!
Well yes there is a flexplate for it, any 283, 307, 327, 350 flexplate is the same, including the 262, 267.
The 302 will work exactly like a 283 or 307 when the same heads, cam compression is used.
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
