[Vintage Musclecar]

I started this build back in `09 and posted the build over on the Yenko site. It's essentially a R&D dyno mule for me, something to test out parts & ideas on. I just wrapped up the first phase of testing yesterday, and despite a few minor issues, it cranked out some pretty decent numbers.

There's way too much to cross-post on here, so here's the link:

302 SBC build

I'm already making plans for the next phase of this build, so there's plenty more to come.

 

[novaderrik]

i've thought about building a "new school" 302 using a 90's LT1 block with L99 crank and rods.. top it with some LT4 heads and the HOT cam and i bet it would be an absolute blast in a lighter car with 4.10 or deeper gears, and it would be built with parts straight from GM.

 

[Tom Mobley]

nice build Eric. I loved my 69 Z 302, still remember it fondly. Still the only engine I've ever owned that would run up to 7000 anytime. No special tuning or screwing around needed.

 

[malibuss427]

Cool build, nothing like a high winding small block.

 

[SMALLBLOC]

nice build Eric. I loved my 69 Z 302, still remember it fondly. Still the only engine I've ever owned that would run up to 7000 anytime. No special tuning or screwing around needed.[/QUOTE

hAD ONE IN MY '66 SS, shifted at 7500, fun motor.

 

[540Hotrod]

That's a sweet 'lil screamer! Sounds good!

Can you give any hints on the cam since you're going to try something else?

JIM

 

[dirtlips408]

Cool build!

I think a 302 with some AFR 180's and custom soild roller would be a blast. Then bolt it up to a T56 and 4.56 gears...

 

[jackie schmidt]

I'm not sure just how "old school" you are. All through the 50's and 60's, when we bored a 283 out to 4.00, we called it a 301. The term 302 was coined by GM when they did indeed destroke a 327 back to 3.00 and called it a 302.

Most of us old guys think they got it wrong.

But regardless, just seeing those "double humps" brings back a lot of memories. Especially the ones that dictated if you had solid lifters and a 283 or 301, you had better have a scatter shield, because the things would rev like a Dygrinder.

Keep us posted.

 

[Andy's Auto Repair]

Eric, cool build. Nothing so small should have that much powa!

 

[Vintage Musclecar]

Thanks guys

That's a sweet 'lil screamer! Sounds good!

Can you give any hints on the cam since you're going to try something else?

JIM

Jim;

Thanks :beers:

I still don't want to divulge cam specifics (don't know exactly how far off this one really is yet), but I'll say it's .700+ intake, .600+ exhaust, 300°+ intake, 310°+ exhaust, and with timing events that definitely did not agree with this combination (lol).

I'm not sure just how "old school" you are. All through the 50's and 60's, when we bored a 283 out to 4.00, we called it a 301. The term 302 was coined by GM when they did indeed destroke a 327 back to 3.00 and called it a 302.

Most of us old guys think they got it wrong.

But regardless, just seeing those "double humps" brings back a lot of memories. Especially the ones that dictated if you had solid lifters and a 283 or 301, you had better have a scatter shield, because the things would rev like a Dygrinder.

Keep us posted.

Jackie;

Rest assured, I am about as old-school as it gets. I love taking these parts everyone else considers "junk" and making big #'s with them. :thumbsup:

That said, there's no denying "new school" technology, and there ain't no rules saying you can't apply that technology to old school parts.

Eric, cool build. Nothing so small should have that much powa!

Andy;

We've barely scratched the surface at this point...there's plenty more left to come.

At this point, my biggest personal surprise was how well that lowly ol' 3310 stood up against that HP Holley (80496). The .bsfc was notably richer @ 5000 with the 3310 and that's where the HP made a bit more power than the 3310. Aside from that, it was dang near a wash.

Not too shabby for a carb that was thrown together from my "parts donor" pile. :thumbsup:

 

[Tom Mobley]

4.001 x 4.001 x .7854 x 3 x 8 = 301.77, close enough to 302 for me.

one of the best 3310-1 780's I ever had was built up from a bunch of parts carbs. that thing ran weekly on dirt here in Phx for over 15 years. can't even imagine how many cars/engines that thing has been on.

 

[VinceS427bb]

good build, lot's of details.

 

[Tod74]

I had a NOS 1178 302 crank that my father gave me....sold it on eBay for around a grand back in 2007.

 

[cstraub]

I did one of thes last year for a board member. It was a solid roller. They did not pull it past 6500 but it was still making power. It was 425HP at 6500. LIft was .580 and duration was in the 230 range. Sep was 110. Foxy did the intake and heads on this one.

Very nice build.

 

[Vintage Musclecar]

Thanks Chris.

PM coming your way.

 

[Tom Mobley]

1.64 HP/cu in, how cool is that?

 

[66sc]

But who sees 6500RPM?
For a race motor, there are probably better options.
For a street motor, there are probably better options.

So other than the number, what's the point?
GM went to the 350 when the rules changed. Think about it.

This is like people arguing about 327 vs 350. Popular opinion says the 327 revs better.
Well lots of people say the 283 revs better than the 327.

Not so many argue the 350 vs 383 I guess because the 350 was the workhorse and not the sexy engine.

Still, if going SBC, the old rule still applies: there's no substitute for cubic inches.

 

[YankeeRodder]

Always a favorite of mine, DZ 302 with m22. Shifting at 7500, jumping 2 feet to the side when you shift and not lifting, that is a sound and a feel to remember. You flat out bond with a ride like that. Like being part of the Borg! The collective!

 

[Xplantdad]

Great stuff Eric...:thumbsup:

 

[cheveslakr]

Very nice! My little vega wagon is slated for a high revvin' 302 soon, perfect timing for a little inspiration! Makes perfect sense for a street car, not too much power until you need it, then it's just a step away.