Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online!
Automotive Forums .com - the leading automotive community online! 
-
Latest | 0 Rplys
Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Engineering/Technical
Engineering/Technical Ask technical questions about cars. Do you know how a car engine works?
Closed Thread Show Printable Version Show Printable Version | Email this Page Email this Page | Subscription Subscribe to this Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-31-2004, 08:57 PM   #91
wedgemotor
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Posts: 84
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think most people would agree that new performance cars are far superior to old musclecars in terms of how they perform. This is where it ends. To fully understand this, you cannot deny that it has taken Detroit, and the world for that matter a long time to catch up to the engine performance of the 60's. It was a pinnacle time, in a different era. We are now in the midst of another performance generation albeit the cars are different, and they have to be. Musclecar's were the pinnacle of what detroit did before emission control. Obviously those cars are not going to put down the numbers today, and gasoline is different. To call these calls silly, I guess you are just not a fan, and that's ok. What can't be duplicated in today's performance cars is the rattle of the windows at high speeds, and the way your heart skips a beat when you down shift, (before the days when the computer tells you to downshift). The final thing that is the smell of CAM 2, the grabber blue paint, and the music of solid lifter canted valve SBF. That is why I don't think it's a silly thing.
wedgemotor is offline  
Old 12-31-2004, 09:11 PM   #92
soxs
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: the wack
Posts: 42
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I think your selling us old guys and our old muscle out there wedge...but i'm on my fourth ( i think) double wall banger Your car and mine will still horrify a 5.0 .....stock to stock......down the 1/4. And thats 35 years later....Happy New Year! If you have any pics of your Swinger pm me...would luv to see them.
soxs is offline  
Old 01-01-2005, 01:56 AM   #93
soxs
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: the wack
Posts: 42
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Odd you dont have a response to this post ya fuckin phony.
soxs is offline  
Old 01-01-2005, 02:03 AM   #94
BleedDodge
AF Enthusiast
 
BleedDodge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Riverton
Posts: 3,121
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Send a message via MSN to BleedDodge
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

Give him some time. Maybe he went someplace or something. You don't need to get mad.
__________________
My Mopars
BleedDodge is offline  
Old 01-01-2005, 02:27 AM   #95
wedgemotor
AF Regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Posts: 84
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
You know it's funny as I sit out here, that some people have to hate bash because I don't have an online photo. I don't have access I am overseas.-military
wedgemotor is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 10:45 AM   #96
vintage vic
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: rochester, New York
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

The Chevy Z-28 is the better car. It's design was for making multiple shifts
during high RPM, because thats what the trans am for which this car made, demanded. It's rpm can go higher than the 'Stang. Ive spoken to some owners who told me that they had shifted it to 15 grand, but that's mostly the exception, but its' why most owners dont have the original motor, it got blown high shifting, and those heads were not designed to breathe for high revvs. When I began looking for a z of my own in the late 70's, I rarely found one with a factory engine. They revved so high the gearheads blew them off the frame. That's why an original's cost is so high.
My thoughts about this are, that if they were designed with better breathing capacity that may not have happened.

So the shifts that made your speed were to be nothing less than 5 or 6 k, and thats how you got yout Z to scat, because it won't perform unless you high revv it. Remember this is not a high torque car. People who have lost street races in it lost because they never revved it to its comfort zone which was not less than 5-6 grand, where other cars redline.
The Z was designed as a racing car made specifically for the Trans am circuit, that GM sold exactly as is on the street: plain and simple. They loosed it on the public for high sales, and a success it was. A high torque engine was not its goal.
I beleive it was Mark Donahue that won the Trans AM using the Z in 68 and 69. Chevy lost in 67 i think.

If I remember my story right, the Boss 302 Mustang was a re designed chevy 302 hence its success as a race car. The designer for the Chevy 302 (can't recall his name) went over to Ford and gave them a re designed, same motor for the Boss. I'll be happy to be wrong since I'm not sure of the exactness of my story, but i think it's close. If anyone has something to add to this, feel free to share.
But in the end, the z 302 was a better motor, a stronger engine and had better shift zone during certain rpm's where the necessity demanded during the Trans Am race, unlike the Mustang. In the end, the Z28 is a better car all day long.

Last edited by vintage vic; 05-27-2009 at 01:04 PM. Reason: grammatical errors
vintage vic is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 12:59 PM   #97
MrPbody
AF -Advisor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chesterfield, Virginia
Posts: 2,549
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

Vic,

I haven't been following this thread. It seems ancient. And it's the two "little guys" battling it out for 2nd place... We ask that people don't open such old threads, but you would be most welcome to start up a new one!

In answer to one of your statements, there is no (NONE) relationship between the Ford 302 and the Chevy 302. The only similarity is the bore and stroke. The Chevy is 100% a "traditional" small block design. The Ford is a Cleveland with a shorter deck and shorter rods.

FWIW

Jim
MrPbody is offline  
Old 07-01-2009, 12:35 AM   #98
silverbullet404
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: covington, Georgia
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

I WAS THERE! Drags and Road Races. The most definitive anylisis of the '69 Z-28 was Hot Rod Magazine. They took the Z given to them to test drive directly to the dyno shop. It was absolutely 425 hp. Their take on the advertised ratings was strictly due to insurance costs.
On the Road Courses the Z was strong but the Mustangs were also tough contenders.
My home tracks are Road Atlanta and the drag circuits around Atlanta.
Now, this one pretty much ices it even against the BB Fords. The world's fastest stock (All GM Part Numbers) Z-28 Camero (1969) was turning in the sevens a few years ago.
I personally built the chevys with all stock parts that were turning over 165 mph on the road courses.
With those facts in mind, you can make your own decisions.
silverbullet404 is offline  
Old 10-01-2009, 05:31 PM   #99
Bossguy
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Carvel
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

As the owner of a 69 B2 I would like to chime in. First off, the 69 B2 was an answer to the HORRIBLE 68 outing Ford had with the tunnelport 302 experiment. It was a disaster. They had terrible breathing problems. They mated up the new and still in develpoment 351 Cleveland heads with the new strengthened 302 block. The result was a high winding small block.

As for the original question, In '69, Z28 did win. Ford failed to finish races in the end. In 1970 though, it was all B2's. With PJ and George Fohlmer at the wheels they were VERY hard to beat.

There is so much BAD information being spread here, my favorite though was the fellow posting that guys were shifting the Z28's at 15,000 rpm. Ya, right, ok.

I can take mine to 7k plus and have heard other guys on our website (www.boss302.com) that take thiers above 9k, but only very limited streatches.

In any event, I am proud to own a 69 B2 and would also love to own a 69 Z28. Again, do not put down or compare Drag times as these cars were simply made to road race. By the way, mine handles like no other 60's car that I own right now (and I do own quite a few) or that I have ever owned

Thank you
Bossguy is offline  
Old 10-02-2009, 07:57 AM   #100
MrPbody
AF -Advisor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chesterfield, Virginia
Posts: 2,549
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

Bossguy,

Yup, one would think a Z/28 or Boss 302 was a "giant killer", based on all the folklore. While both cars were very good in their class, they were no match for the larger-cubed muscle cars.

To put the "15,000 RPM" thing is perspective, there's a shop here in Richmond, famous for their Comp Eliminator small blocks. Chester Houghtaling is the man. His 290 CID Chevy makes over 800 HP with carbs and gasoline. He says: "If it "leaves" under 9,000, shut it down, it can't recover." It has a very narrow power band, 9K-11.5K. But it DOES make over 800! STRICTLY a drag racing engine. It's more like a 289 than any other, "spec" wise. 4" bore, 2 7/8" stroke. 18 deg. MONSTER heads, etc. Wild animal, but hardly a factory "design", and not suited for road racing.

Jim
MrPbody is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 02:03 AM   #101
SharonAnne
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

Regarding Trans Am titles; Mustang won in '66 & '67, Camaro in '68 & '69 (over Mustang by 1 point), and Mustang in 1970. Ford and Chevrolet pulled out of Trans Am racing at the end of the 1970 season. Factory backed AMC/Javelin won in 1971 with Penske/Donohue.

Regarding horsepower I suggest you look up the Hot Rod Magazine web page in the Technical section. Richard Holdener wrote an interesting article called Muscle Car Engine Shootout. Sorry, only Ford and Chevrolet need apply.
Duplicates of each engine were built. The exceptions from stock were that each used a Holley 750HP carb and 1 3/4" primary tube headers. The dynomometer at West Tech Performance in Mira Loma, CA was used.

Results were:

1965

L76 327 356hp@6,100 TQ369@4,100
Shelby 289 302hp@5,800 TQ310@4,600

1969

DZ302 356hp@6,700 TQ333@4,400
Boss302 372hp@6.800 TQ325@4,200 (Boss 302 made more TQ @3,000 than the DZ302)

1970

LT-1 353hp@5,600 TQ392@4,100
Cobra Jet 365hp@5,800 TQ379@3,80
351

1971

LT-1 359hp@5,900 TQ376@4,100 Compression ratio 9.0:1
Boss 351 383hp@6,100 TQ391@4,000 Compression ratio 11.0:1

The notations were also made in the article. So we can see that none of the 302s or the 350/351s made 400HP they were quite powerful and much more so than advertised. The L76 and Shelby 289 came up short but were still quite respectable. All engines made over 1hp/ci which was pretty hot for those days.

I will add my $4.63 worth ($0.02 adjusted for inflation). NO small block Ford/Chev/AMC/Dodge/Pontiac EVER made 15,000rpm. (bench racing excluded). While the 302s did not make big block torque, I think the level they did reach is very respectable for their displacement. I do believe the expectations from customers was very unrealistic. Geared appropriately and with proper off-the-line technique they were very fast, for their size.
Remember, when discussing N/A engines, there is no substitute for CUBIC INCHES.

Let the my-dog-is-bigger-than-your-dog bench racing resume.

Last edited by SharonAnne; 12-11-2009 at 02:21 AM. Reason: the engine/hp/tq graphs did not come out right
SharonAnne is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 02:06 AM   #102
SharonAnne
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

I had all of the years/engines/HP/TQ all laid out in a nice graph form and it did not translate when I submitted it. I tried to tidy it up by editing; three times I tried but to no avail. SORRY!
SharonAnne is offline  
Old 12-11-2009, 08:14 AM   #103
MrPbody
AF -Advisor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chesterfield, Virginia
Posts: 2,549
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

SharonAnne,

We appreciate the effort behind your research. There is one "fatal flaw" in the magazine articles. No "small block" was EVER in a muscle car. Pony cars (ALL of the marques being discussed in this thread) are a different "class" than muscle cars, regardless of what some "automotive journalist" wants you to believe. No matter how much "muscle" a Mustang or Camaro has, it will ALWAYS be a "pony car".

Also, when they (Hot Rod) limit the "applications" to only Ford and Chevy, they leave out too many other good ones. The Fords and Chevys won most of it WHILE there was "factory backing". When the corporate money "dried up", AMC, Chrysler AND Pontiac had their successes.

But hey, welcome to "our" world!!! Always room for another...

Jim
MrPbody is offline  
Old 12-27-2009, 05:13 PM   #104
SharonAnne
AF Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

Hi Jim!

I am confused by your comment about small blocks not being in 'muscle' cars. The engine results I posted were all used in the various commercial presentations of the Z and Boss cars with the exception of the 327 and 289.

The magazine restricting the 'marques' to Ford and Chev is not a problem. This thread IS Chev vs Ford, so, no problem.

Regarding how high an engine will rev we need to keep things in perspective. Drag race cars hit their rev limits for fractions of a second. Road race cars hit theirs over and over again for hours. The current NASCAR engines qualify as 'small blocks' since they are 358 cid. They rev to 8,000 and 9,000 rpm over and over again for long stretches on the tri-ovals.

The C6 Corvette 427s are no longer big blocks. At the 24 hours of LeMans they keep hitting the red line shift after shift for 24 hours. On what is left of the Mulsanne they hold red line for over 2 miles (iirc).

If you want to hit 15,000rpm you need to go the the tiny-blocks. The 500-650cc japanese motorcycles do rev that high, but don't ask them to do that for a 24hr race.
SharonAnne is offline  
Old 12-28-2009, 07:57 AM   #105
MrPbody
AF -Advisor
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chesterfield, Virginia
Posts: 2,549
Thanks: 0
Thanked 6 Times in 5 Posts
Re: 69' BOSS 302 VS Camaro Z28

SharonAnne,

Mustangs and Camaros are "out of place" in muscle car discussions. Read the "definition" of muscle car at the top of this forum. And no muscle car was ever delivered with a small block, regardless of "brand". "Never send a boy to do a MAN'S job..." Please excuse the "sexist" reference, no offense intended. It's just an "old saying" that fits.

And limiting the discussion to Ford and Chevy leaves out some of the BEST muscle cars... (:-

Jim
MrPbody is offline  
 
Closed Thread

POST REPLY TO THIS THREAD


Bookmarks
Go Back   Automotive Forums .com Car Chat > Engineering/Technical

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:50 AM.

Community Participation Guidelines | How to use your User Control Panel

Powered by: vBulletin | Copyright Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
 
 
no new posts