Chevy 302

I agree completely, as do most here on the forum. This "discussion" has been going on for a few years. Nobody's opinion (or the facts) have changed, and doubt they will..... With all the good aftermarket heads and stroker kits available on the aftermarket now, I guess I'll keep spending my money on the big inch engines and the inherent low rpm torque advantages over the "screamers" and the high rpm.... Many years ago, we had to run the small inch screamers cuz that's about all that was available in small blocks, fortunately that is no longer the case. I like the nostalgia stuff as much as the next guy, but when the new big inch combinations can be built so economically and produce horsepower and torque numbers in excess of 400 without breaking the bank it just makes more sense to me to use the big inch stuff...

I'm with you Dave...it's an uphill battle for sure to try to argue against the cost effectiveness and power of a larger displacement small block vs a smaller one to end up with similar strong street/strip performance. That being said, the originator of this post(Burty) is a good friend of mine and we enjoy busting each others chops on this subject. He knows far more about engines than he lets on. And I'm sure he is fully aware that building a screamin' 302 doesn't make cost effective sense compared going bigger. H@(( he is running a VERY strong old school solid lifter 383 and he will have to give up much of its benefits to go so much smaller. To make a 302 run as fast at the track as what his current motor is CAPABLE of(it hasn't nearly run it's best yet, that thing slams into the 7200 chip like hitting a wall), I can only imagine what a 302's rotating assembly and valvetrain would have to endure to some insane rpm to compete with it! But he has always liked the idea of an old school high winding Bill Jenkins kind of baby small block animal. I have to admit, I like the attitude of it. I'll stick with 400 plus cube small blocks myself...taking the easier road. Call me a pansy!

George

Those are points well taken Dave. :)

I am nbot going to say "BUT" here. So it is mentioned that we like the nostalgia of the older cars. In my case I am fortunate to have a classic 302 Camaro. The way I look at it, it is not a car that I would drive all the time. I would just take it out on an occasional fine weekend, the same sort of thinking as would apply to a person who owned a boat, he uses it as a hobby or for his relaxation. How many people do you know drive thier boat to work? (OK commercial fishermen fall into this catagory :LOL: ) This does not just apply to to cars of course it applies to all things collectable, including planes, trains,,, yes people do collect them too and run them.
My second project is that Holden ute, coming along very nicely now, 383 Chevy, blower, auto and 9 inch. Totlly different motor, low rpm torque builder plenty of HP at low revs, and to be a fun machine to drive. Also as an advantage the bower will provide that shriek for the ears to feast on !!!!
So I suppose I could summarise all this by saying that you cannot really have a dual purpose vehicle, you build it for the job that it is best good at, then you pays your money and makes your choices. :HMMM: :HMMM: Well the factory dual purpous vehicles are $WD's so I will leave that for either another forum or somebody else. :whacked:

dave, i agree with you, if i could afford a set of brand new AFR's they would be on my car, but i cant so i dont. ive always wanted to build a 427 but i cant afford it so i stick with cheaper stuff.

Don't settle for a 427!!! Some of the really big inch aluminum blocks are starting to show up on the market, save your pennies and find one of them... Know what ya mean on the $$$$$, going to sell my '71 so I can throw a bunch of money at the Ranchero. Then sell both the Camaro's, and throw a bunch more money at the Ranchero. Totaled up "the list" the other day, only need to drop about another 30K in parts on it, and it should be close to done!!!!!:CRY: :CRY: :CRY: :CRY:

I.M.O.,it is all about make the most amount of hp and torque using the fewest amount of cycles.
You have all heard the old saying "BIGGER,BETTER,FASTER.

:HMMM: :HMMM: serious money

that would be great to see you get that done. your right, nothin like windin a chevy out to 7 grand

or 12k.........

I TOTALLY CONCUR W/JEDI MASTERS DAVE & ERIC
THERE IS NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT! MY RATTS TACK QWICKER THAN MOST BIKE ENGINES,THEY GO TO 8000RPM W/NO PROBLEM!ALL DAY[JUST IN CASE SOMBODYS TALKING S^@%] BUT THATS JUST THE WAY I BUILD THEM.W/ALL THE AVAILABLE TECK OUT NOW, THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO MAKE THAT A 302 PER SIDE. I HEARD THAT IN 2009 GM's LS LINE IS GOING TO COME OUT W/A 9LITER[544CI] DUAL OVERHEAD CAMed RATT W/A BLOWER IN THE VETTS & CAMAROS! THEN WE WILL SEE ABOUT WINDING SOME BIGINCH RPM [WSUP NOW RICEBOY TECH] NOT TO MANY PEOPLE KNOW THIS BUT WHEN ,THE LT5/ZR1 MOTOR FIRST CAME OUT IT WAS 427CI 4V/DOHC THE LT5 MADE 800HP STOCK FROM THE FACTORY! BUT @THE TIME THE MOTOR WAS SUPPOSEDLY TO HARD TO WORK ON & GM SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE D%^#$ AGAIN.THEY SHOULD'VE LEFT WELL ENOUGH ALONE;)

12 grand, what are you smokin? I think even the nextel guys would flinch at the thought of subjecting a sbc to 12,000 rpm. I can hear it explode from here!

George

In the '60s, one of my favorite classes was CC/Gas. It was typically populated with supercharged small displacement Chevies that would launch at 10,000, and shift at 12-12,500! Insane...but oh so cool sounding!

I used to accidentally run factory stock 327 shortblocks as high as 9,000. Never broke one!

9000 ON A 327 ?? HOW ACCIDENTAL WAS THAT ? Did you miss a shift or something.

Im Smoking The Compatiton Mostly But Befoe I Do That,! I Smoke The Back Tires, And Before I Do That I Smoke A Little Nitro W/15% Methonol And About 10gal. Of C-16! Kinda Takes THE Edge Off Ya Know/!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southerner

9000 ON A 327 ?? HOW ACCIDENTAL WAS THAT ? Did you miss a shift or something.

---

Yes! It's ancient technology to those who weren't building in the '60s and '70's. Most of my serious toys (including a '57 Bel Air, A '63 Nova, and many early Vettes) were solid lifter, high compression, small block, 4-speeds, which I tortured without pity. I would shift at 8,000-8,500, but as good as I was (in my own mind) I'd miss occasionally, and touch the 9,000 mark.

Never broke a 327, but we won't talk about clutches, and 10-bolt rears.

I tried to run my hipo 409's to 7500, but they were not happy about it, and always let me know immediately!

Those were good times though. :-) Today I like an automatic, and A/C.