Quote:
Originally posted by HiFlow5 0
The 305 is a junk motor. With it's long stroke and small bore, it takes the motor a while to wind up and make power, making the 302's shorter stroke and bigger bore far better at making power down low where it's needed.
|
I can see how that second part caused so much controversy. When typically a stroker motor will make more torque cause of it's longer stroke compared to it's stock version. I was simply refering to the two sources I had, that compared two motors of similar displacement, showing the 302 made more torque then the 305.
Source one; 83 Camaro 305, 190 bhp at 4800 rpms, with 240 lbs-ft at 3200 rpms. 83 Mustang 302, 175 bhp at 4000 rpms, with 245 lbs-ft at 2400 rpms.
Source two; 91 Z28 305, 205 hp at 4200 rpms, with 285 lbs-ft at 3200 rpms. 91 Mustang 302, 225 hp at 4200 rpms, with 300 lbs-ft at 3200 rpms.
Actually if you go to this site
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hartley/iroc/iroc_specs.html, and look at the torque for all the 305's, then reference the 302, you will see that the 305 in some cases makes the same amount of torque, and the rest of the time makes less torque then the 302.
Now I still feel that the 305's long stroke and small bore is a big disadvantage compared to the 302's shorter stroke and bigger bore. That should make the 302 rev quicker cause it's pistons has less area to travel in the cylinder bore, making power quicker. Also just a side note. I never refereed to stroker motors, or anything other then the 302 vs. the 305. These motors have a similar displacement in common, whereas stroking a motor will increase the displacement making for more torque and hp. Not to mention, that most, not all, but most stroker motors have been bored to compliment the longer stroke for more cubes.
1BAD305, I'm sorry if you thought that you ruffled my feathers, but that could be farther from the truth. you came here with an attitude, so expect some hostility back, it's just natural when debates get heated. Also if you had taken the time to read my site, you would have known that my 60 ft times were horrible due to the lack of traction, and that is the main reason why I only went 13.8 at 101 mph. not to mention that my motor combo was still new to me and I was still feeling things out and how to drive the car properly. One last thing, I never said you were lying about your track times. I just said your mph seemed slow, and then asked what elevation you were running at? Cause you know, different elevations will effect what your car runs.