fl327 Posted December 12, 2001 Share Posted December 12, 2001 changed my mind , theres no replacement for displacement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DRK Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 I am new to this board, but have a BSME and took an internal combustion engines class my senior year. What about using a 350 with 6" rods? Probe makes pistons for this combination It would net a rod ratio of 1.71, which is not to much less than the 327 ratio of 1.75. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyvette Posted January 1, 2002 Share Posted January 1, 2002 I think you guys are looking at this wrong! I used to hang out with a few of the guys that built those trans am 302 engines for the nostalgia trans am races they run , well to make a long story short there was some (non-standard non-spec engines) and not one team that I ever heard about chose to build a cheater 327 engine! they ALL BUILT 355 cid(4.030 x 3.5") or 377cid (4.155 x 3.5") or 352cid (4.155x 3.25") engines when winning not the rules mattered! so just as info the 327 was not the first choice of knowledgeable racers when winning was the important thing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavyZ Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 This has been a VERY interesting thread, and through all the engine combos I keep running around in my mind, for the money:value ratio, it seems that a long rod 355 may be my ticket, even with forced induction. The other motor choice would be a 383 due to the plentiful availability of the parts. Decisions, decisions... Thanks, Grumpyvette for the wake up call. Davy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fl327 Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 there is no replacement for displacement, none. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueovalz Posted January 2, 2002 Share Posted January 2, 2002 Well, I've watched this string with fascination, being I have destroked my 302 (Ford, mind you) back to the 289 configuration, and Grumpy has probably put the entire string into crystal clear focus with his last post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 10, 2002 Share Posted January 10, 2002 quote: Originally posted by 283z: 302 i think its ideal for a 240z, might want a little more for a 280z(C.I. that is) more low speed torque. my 2380lb 240 would leave me at 2500 with the 8 cyl and the fact that you can use a t5 and save the moola and weight and complexity of the t56! works for me!! set of pistons only 800 bucks Bad Idea. I built up one of these for a 67 Camaro. Guess what? My friends 350 Camaro, similarly built, would smoke it. There comes a point when adding stroke isn't worth it, but 350s are really strong motors. Giving up the cubic inches in this case is just a bad idea. Sure, the bottom end on a 302 will rev a litlle higher than a 350, but the valvetrain will cause you grief way before the bottom end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grumpyvette Posted January 10, 2002 Share Posted January 10, 2002 just one more piece of info , did you ever notice that the ford guys have a nice high rpm 302(5 liter ) and the first thing they do when they want big hp numbers is........come on think about it...........they STROKE IT TO 347 CID to get more torque and displacement if you want to build a kick ass engine the things that are most important are GREAT FLOWING HEADS,large displacement, quality parts that are ALL MATCHED TO THE RPM RANGE YOUR GOING TO RUN THE ENGINE IN! heres some good starting parts,and info http://www.strokermotor.com/ http://www.racepartsstore.com/rotating.html http://www.airflowresearch.com/chevy_dyno.htm http://www.canfieldheads.com/sbc.html http://www.trickflow.com/ http://www.ryanscarpage.50megs.com/headcombos.html AND NOTICE THAT ALL THE BIG HP NUMBERS ARE FROM THE LARGER DISPLACEMENT ENGINES LIKE 383-406 cid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim240z Posted January 10, 2002 Share Posted January 10, 2002 The saying: "There's no replacement for displacement" was coined for a good reason...I agree with Grumpy here....cubes are king!! Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 10, 2002 Share Posted January 10, 2002 From what I remember about those early 302 motors and including the 300 cubic inch nailhead Buick: it was near impossible to move forward in the seat while accelerating from 50 to 80 mph with the pedal to the metal. I would not hesitate to put the high performance Buick nail head (or a 302) in a z but they quit making the nailhead in 1965.Actually the little nailhead with 4bbl got about 12 miles to the gallon in town and around 20 to the gallon at 80mph.The nail head was a swappers dream because they were so narrow with straight up valve covers... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted January 14, 2002 Share Posted January 14, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Tim240Z: The saying: "There's no replacement for displacement" was coined for a good reason...I agree with Grumpy here....cubes are king!! Tim I don't think they were arguing that it would make more power, merely that it would fit the more natural powerband of the 240 better. While it might not be as powerful, it may be more enjoyable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.