no more SMALL small blocks??????

[89IROC&RS]

seems like a step backwards to me. the LT1 conversion is only worth 8hp over a superram, and sacrifices nearly 30lbsft of torque, not to mention requires a helluvalot of modifications to make it work. its an interesting idea, but methinks ill pass on that one.

[351wStang]

Originally Posted by 89IROC&RS

oh and deadcarny, who said i was only takin it to 6k??? thats just the power peak, ill probly be shiftin at around 7 or 8k. trust me its being designed to rev. im using just about every trick in the book i know of.

Your cam will pretty much set your power band. Also once you start getting over about 7000 rpms you have to take oiling and the necesary spring pressures into effect. Once your motor starts turning that many revolutions you begin to need some stouter springs so you dont "float the valves." Also turning such a high rpm and running really strong springs are just asking to collapse hydraulic lifters. You may want to look into spray bar valves covers to be safe. Also 7k-8k rpms...not very easy to acheave on the street unless you are in 1st-2nd with 5.36 gears. I would consider a 6000 or 6500 power peak.
I dont mean to tell the mod what to do, you may know all of this. Just hate to see someone put a bunch of money into something that will turn into a pile of metal the first time they torque it up.

[Deadcarny]

Originally Posted by 89IROC&RS

seems like a step backwards to me. the LT1 conversion is only worth 8hp over a superram, and sacrifices nearly 30lbsft of torque, not to mention requires a helluvalot of modifications to make it work. its an interesting idea, but methinks ill pass on that one.

You are biuilding a short stroke motor for RPM capabilities, right? Torque is not made much at higher RPM's, and those RPM's are kinda wasted even on HP with the superram since it does not flow well at those RPM's. A superram does not flow well past 5k! The reason for the LT1 intake is to get more high RPM breathing. You lose a little PEAK torque, but you gain a much flatter curve that holds more torque for a longer period of time. This results in a better average torque and lowers ET's. Tom did not achieve this since the was not using a cam suited for this. He was using a cam that was matched to the Superram operating range. He ended up picking up a few mile per hour after some more tuning, all due to the extra RPM capability. If you are interested, I will get you his E mail address and you can ask him. He is VERY knowlegable on the alternatives for the 3rd gen cars (TPI, MiniRan, Stealth Ram, superram, LT1Intake, etc) since he has tried a few different ones. Right now he is installing a charger on the engine in the article, as originally planned (reason for the low numbers out of his setup). Car will be smoking when IT is done! here is his newest news on the car!

[89IROC&RS]

351wStang, very good points, trust me, this engine has been slowly evolving over the past 6 or 7 years on paper, ive been tweaking ideas, and ive pretty much put everything into concideration, ive got my bases covered, but that dosnt mean i have to show all my cards i mean there is a little mystery left to street racing after all my goal is to have the engine compartment look as stock as possible, obviously the superram intake wont help in that regard, but the car will basicly be a sleeper, only outside changes will be 17in chrome torque thrust II's, and 302 badging on a 1in cowl hood. only change inside the car will be a ratchet shifter, and a custom 8 speaker sound system. the drivetrain is where all the mods will be. but hopefully it will be pretty stealth. as far as reaching those engine speeds on the street, i dont plan to durring regular driving, just while im racing, and with the 700R4 getting up there isnt a problem. but when im done with it it will have 8 forward speeds and a lockup converter, so ill also have no problem cruising with good mileage basicly ill be able to cruise, at lower rpms than with the stock 2.73 rear end, even if i put 3.42 gears in it, or even 3.55 gears. with the 700's 3.06:1 first gear, and the way im building the engine, spinning it up will not be a problem.

Deadcarny - yeah i understand the point of the LT1 intake with its shorter runners, resonance tuning and all that. (aka ram charging) but i still dont think its worth the extra work involved, and also, the sacrifice of torque in the bottom end is a big deal yes the torque curve is peakier on the superram, but even so the entire curve is above the LT1 curve even as the SR curve is dropping, and then they drop together. but yes cam choice does play the key roll here, and i am currently working on my own design. baised off the original 30/30 cam used back in the day, but im modernizing and "tweaking" it a little to better match the more modern engine.

[balls_to_the_wall]

All I can is that I think that is going to be one hell of a engine and that car is gonna go like a bat outa hell

[CORE402]

Originally Posted by 89IROC&RS

302 was in the camaros alone from 1967 to 1969. It was a 350 block and a 283 crank, for a 4in bore and 3in stroke making 302cid.....

Just to be exact the first 302s were 327 blocks with 283 cranks cranks in them. Car and Driver said the engine was rated at 290hp but made more like 390hp. Personally I don't like the 302 cause of its lack of bottom end. The 302 would be fun for road racing, but I am into drag racing. I am what the aftermarket is looking for, I like the BIG inch small blocks like the Motown 454ci small block. Gotta have the torque. What do you think about those 1970 z28s? Those LT1 engines are awesome!

[CORE402]

You should put that 302 into a 1st gen while you're at it.

[Chevyracincamaro]

i have no idea what is going on, but i love it!!

[korndogg]

i thought a 327 was a 350 block?

[Deadcarny]

until I think 1986 all SBC used basically the same block. Mainly it was just the Bore and Stroke that were different. (400 Small Blocks were different though, they had siamese Cylinders and a few other things)

[89IROC&RS]

yeah the blocks were the same, but i think what core402 is talking about is the casting numbers, from one number to another number was designated to become this kind of engine, and such, but when they made the 302's they just grabbed em off the shelf. but yes, as far as the 350 to 327 blocks physical similarity, they were identical. oh and the LT-1 in 1970, very bad ass, you know why???? it was a stroked DZ302 same heads, same cam, same block, just put a 3.48in stroke crank in where the 3.00in stroke crank had been. at least thats my understanding of it.

[Rbraczyk]

I need a 350 to move my truck and get decent mileage. I thought about taking the motor out of my caddy and putting it in, but its too small. And I know allll about winding up an S2000, and lemme tell ya, when you wind it up, it go reaaaaal fast.

[CORE402]

Just being technical. The 327 and the 350 were the same after 67 when the 350 came out. Prior to 67, or some year, the 327 had the smaller mains. 350s and the later 327 had the medium journals, and in 1970 when the 400 came out it had the large main journals.