He simply verified once again, what I learned as a 16y/o boy many years ago; If you want to win races and don't have all the money in the world, put your money in buying a big motor as opposed to building up a small block. However, very few things can warm my old heart like hearing the idle of double hump SBC heads on a 327 with a 108 General Kinetics or Crane(Blazer series) cam tickling the valves. Long live the small block.
I agree.. I had a choice to make for my 55 Handyman wagon.. the first choice was a stock 375hp396 or a friends 331 from his 1/4 mile 3 round,roundly,. My mechanic dad told me to use stock big block which was supposedly less hp, but that 396 smoked that 331(in a 70 Firebird) and keep me on the road in high school....
Great test as always but what people some times forget we dont race dynos, in a car on a 1/4 mile track 350-3.73 / 327-4.10 / 302-4.56 the times would be too close to call. With the more rpm you can run more gear witch ups the engines torque to the wheels witch moves the car. Again great test as usual pls dont stop.
True, that gearing would put the engine into its best power producing range, BUT real-life losses have a larger effect like crank train inertia, windage, bearing friction and same for gear train when using a high RPM engine.
I’m a Mopar guy. But my favorite Chevy engine is the 302. My second favorite is the 327. You tested my two favorite Chevy engines. I noticed that the compression has a lot of influence on torque and hp. Early model 327 when good gas was available to have higher compression. 69 was a year that compression was still high due to good gas. As we know after 71 the octain fell off and so did compression. Then as octain levels raised so did compression. Then hp levels rose again. We have 10:1 and greater compression today and we have na engines making good hp again.
Thanks Rich for posting these cool and informative videos. I can tell you that this is one of my favorite channels because you do the comparisons and you're not afraid to build up an engine that everyone says is crap...and you actually make it perform like the bigger badder engines!
The GM 302 was just a 327 with a 283 crankshaft. A "destroked" 327 basically, specifically produced for Trans am series road racing which was limited or restricted to 5.0 liters.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Way back when,,,,,,,,Racers ; bored the stout 283 blocks [283 bore was 3.875 ] .125 " over to 4 inch ; that gave exactly 301.44 cubes........Many crazy guys destroked the 3 inch crank to fall into ideal classes in Modified / Production classes.....Dem early 283 engines had steel cranks........
Thank you so much ! You explained these motors very plainly where anyone could understand ! You have alot of excellent knowledge ! Thank you and i' ll be looking for more of your videos !
We know that the 30/30 cam in the 302 did not make enough low end torque to make an automatic transmission an option. Automatics were an option on the 1970 LT-1, but would that have been possible with the 30/30? Can't imagine wanting an automatic anyway. I loved my '69 Z/28.
The '70 LT-1s ran a turbo 400 automatic which requires a whopping 48 hp to get it moving . The old Powerglides only need 16 HP to get going . Now you know why the ' glide became the darling of the drag strip .
I love your videos Richard. I watch all of them. I love the way that you control variables as much as is reasonable with all of your engine tests and share the raw data. Keep it up.
Hillbilly lore has it that the original LT1 dyno mule (the motor used to claim the 370hp number) was actually fitted with the 30/30 cam, but the LT1 cam (obviously) is what actually ended up in the production motors. Thank you for these dyno tests! Having these combos dyno'd in factory form is a godsend for cheap shits like me who don't feel like shelling out the cash for aftermarket heads and roller cams and such. These factory combo's are cheap and easy to build reliably (Well... Maybe not the DZ302...). Your dyno graphs are going into the brain compartment for future shenanigans!
great video! you could talk about fuel changes over the years, the watery alcohol over to rubber eating ethanol, and way back to the 60s making a 4 barrel sound off like a tuba in a concert hall.. but people get confused and even call a 305 a boat anchor to this day. Everyone thinks its about engine..."bigger the better". I am glad to be going on 50 years old, i watched 3 generations overlap. the big block is still not happy... they'd need a fuel all to themselves, and drag racers did that too.
In the 80's I was 20 and built a .40 over 350 block with a 327 crank, milodon drive, windage tray, 11-1 Pistons all the good stuff heads etc with a Crane Custom Grind solid cam .575x.300 intake and exhaust (4deg retardef) triple valve springs, balanced, o-ringed, Weiand Tunnelram with 2 660 center squirterswith 50cc pumps and a direct port 225 Nitrous. 4000 stall manual 400, 5:13 posi. Lifted the front wheels on my 72 Chevelle. ahh the good old days. lol now im old
interesting to see that the three SBC's all made basically the same peak power. I'm an RPM lover and its cool to see how the 302 made basically the same power as the 350 but a full 1000 rpm higher.
Same power? You're kidding right? Peak Horse power between the 3 is remarlably close. Yet power was nothing even remotely close. The real difference is found in the torque numbers and how wide the torque curve is. The 302 is best described as PEAKY in that you wait until it's spinning hard for the power, then a gear change happens and a lot of that peak power disappears as you wait for it to build again. Yes, the short stroke is fun to "spin" up but it's a far slower car that can't escape the lack of lower rpm power vs the bigger displacement 327 and 350 that don't lose as much power on each rpm drop as you shift gears. These are not engines with the same power, not even close. The head line grabbing peak power numbers don't tell the whole story. DZ302s only existed in the z/28s of '67-69 because the trans am rule book mandated it's size. On the street you face no such rules and in that you find why the 302 configured like this was never installed in any other Chevy of the day. It's a weak choice engine vs both the 327 that came before it and the 350 that came out in 1967 along side it.
@@Dogboy1960 Just change the transmission with a closer gearing to compensate for the higher rpm drop and diff relation because of the lower torque, shorter stroke are good for endurance racing.
You are doing a good thing with your comparisons. I taught performance engine machining and building along with dyno testing and tuning for 10 years, both engine and chassis dynos. We used an inertia chassis dyno, not the best but it worked good enough. It measured torque and calculated horse power and the time it took to get to our cut off speed was part of the HP calculation. We could always tell a high HP car by listening. Low HP cars took a long time to get to the speed figure. I have a video of a 4th generation Trans Am with a stroked LS and a 300hp nitrous system. It went from 55 to 120mph, in about 4 seconds with lots of tire smoke. This was a street car and I named the video Neck Snapping Acceleration
That was awesome. I would also love to see maybe similar ones like 289, 302, 351w or mopar 318 vs 360 383 vs 440. Another good one would be ford FE 352, 360, 390, and 427. Or ford 385 block 370, 429 and 460. I know that these are just wish lists but neat idea.
I have a large journal , Dart head, DZ in my garage that got hot and pushed a head gasket out. I love the engine but it's hard to spend money to refresh it when LS motors are so cheap to make more power with. I also have a LC9 all aluminum 5.3 and LQ4 6.0 sitting next to the DZ. Decisions, decisions.....
DZ probably can handle the revs more than others. For the ones like over revving lol I’m not a fan losing power by over revving lol A lot out there do that lol
@@Silkmaster4200 Based on Richard's dyno graphs, a properly built 327 can probably rev almost as high as a DZ. The combination of that and greater torque from its longer stroke would make it a pretty potent street motor.
I saw a similar test between a Pontiac 400 and 455. The results were similar. When built the same both engines had about the same peak horsepower but the 455 had way more torque and at a lower RPM. The peak power on the 455 was also at a slightly less RPM. About 400 RPM's if I remember the test correctly.
Once again you've done it another badass legendary video As I see it all these engines have the same specs overall the only difference will be the peak RPM point and the lower the RPM Peaks the higher the torque will be because also will be at a lower RPM these engines only flow about 605 CFMs......
I'm very surprised that when Chevy really started thinning out its passenger car V8 engine options around 1975-76, that GM didn't release a factory ca 380" 4V SB to replace the 350, 400 and 454, along with keeping the 305 a two barrel only.
@@joshfeister6566 I just learned awhile back that GM made a 4.3L v8 in the mid 90's. They basically made a 305 bore version of an LT1 and put a 3" stroke in it. Supposedly that crank will fit a gen 1 block with the 1 piece rear main. To be honest I'm a little more than tempted to build a 4.3 v8 for a nice daily driver/gas saver with the gen 1 sound 🤣
before i watch I want to say, this is a great video. These are questions in my head before you put it on video. I am building a 98 inch 1959 HD with the longest stroke you can put in 1959 cases. This gives me hope i made the right choice.
Great video! I was just searching for this yesterday. Now here it is. Your the man Richard! Thanks for your hard work and dedication. I know your having fun though.
Clearly the LS engines have raised the bar for power production in a package that beats all the old small block engines but with a smooth idle, good drivability and fuel mileage. And this is just the low end of the LS spectrum. Just what GM was trying to achieve when they designed them. Good test.
When they went for the Cross bolted deep skirt block and they separated the intake and exhaust ports just like the Ford FE and the Ford small block they made a great combination for making power. Can you imagine if they put NASCAR heads on the LS block how much more HP they could make? Fords ideas but Chevy put it all together.
In regards to the SBC, we have to remember cars at that time were not getting any lighter, yet people wanted them to go faster. Easiest way there was to increase stroke to provide much welcomed torque to get the beast off the line. The 302 was developed for the race circuit, not stoplight warriors with production cars. In a factory weight street car, I’ll take the 350 (or a 383) 10 times out of 10.
@@eflanagan1921 Also the AMC 304, was a destroked 343 block, to use the heads with the larger valves, that the 3.75 bore 290 block couldn't use. The Chevy 283, and Ford 289 already had 4 inch bores , while AMC designed their engines for torque, over horsepower, so a longer stroke, smaller bore, were used. The AMC 304 engine introduced in 1970, still had the 290's 3.75 bore, with a taller deck height, and longer stroke, as did the 360, which was destroked for use in the T/A series, because of its 4" bore.
We use to race dirt late models in NC in the 70's and you name it we tried it. Big block and small block both are great engines just to completely different animals. You lug a big block and turn a small block. But both will do the same thing and win races. We dropped a value on Friday night on a 427 and went to the shop and got a customers 327 that he left for over a year. Put the engine in the car at the shop and hooked everything up fon the way back to the track. Very interesting task. Had to change the car setup completely for the small block. Broke the track record in qualifying and won the race. It's just like females they all can do same things just a matter of taste.
Number of years ago I built an original LT-1 for my 70 1/2 RS Z/28. It was a .030" over 350 that was highly built. Can't remember the exact comp cam but it was solid flat tappet with a ton of lift and all the duration, 12.5 to 1 Speed Pro pistons, the whole assembly lightened, ported 461 fuelie heads that were angle-milled .060", Victor Jr. intake, Carb Shop 920 CFM carb as well as a few other mod, 1.6 rockers, passive pan evacuation system, electric cooling fan, MSD ignition, etc. Then Madcap Racing dyno'd it with no accessories and open long tube headers. It made an astounding, altitude corrected 594 hp @ 7400 rpm and 502 lb/ft tq at 5800 rpm. 4 spd. 4:56 axle with hard as a rock TA radials, full 2.5" exhaust. At Bandimere's drag strip, no burnout allowed (5800 ft altitude) only mod was removing the air cleaner, 12.58 sec. @111 mph Here's a link to a short video. Plus a little street racing vs a VR4 with bigger turbos. ruclips.net/video/LA64IGdbnSY/видео.html
Great vid I lived in Denver 25yrs I had a 78 Camaro w a 468 BB - I used to go to Bandimere w my buddies for test n tune n have some fun- I see your carb has the annular booster- with a high lift long duration cam the annular boosters really help w the carb signal vs a dog leg booster- I had a 604/612 lift solid lunati cam and I used an 850 w annular boosters- but your 350 flat out flies man- my 468 was fun but the best I ran was 13.01 @106 w street tires - not super fast but at that altitude it’s hard to go fast- I think your 350 would have been faster than my set up- that is a beautiful Camaro - mine was nothin fancy- take care
Would be cool to see the overlay of the curves between the gen 1 SBC muscle car engines compared to the gen 3/4 LS truck engines. 4.8 vs dz302, 5.3 vs 327, 6.0 vs 350, 6.2 vs 383. Great video!
I'd kind of like to see the overlay between the Gen 2 LT1 and the Gen 3 LS1, both have similar displacement and out of the box (96 LT4 vs 97 LS1) both had fairly close peak numbers.
@@Misterfairweather For some reason though, the LS1 F body was almost always half a second faster (usually more) than the LT1 F body. The LS1s almost always had around 300whp, the LT1s were around 275whp when we tested them back in the early 00s. Even my 98, the slowest of the LS1s put down more power with 2.73 gears and a stock auto than all the LT1s. The auto LS1s were a lot faster than the manuals, except for one who special ordered his Z28 without AC and manual everything, it was about 350lbs lighter than the other cars, and he was a small guy too. When I dragged one of my dinosaurs to the dyno and put down 520rwtq@3000 and 650rwtq @ 5000 on pump gas without a power adder (it was also down on power a bit due to bent valves from vandalism) the Cobra guys all said it was converter flash, could not possibly be how Pontiacs are with better heads.
I can't even Express how much info I've gained on the myths and the underappreciated engines he's tested. You've got legends falling to less appreciated engines. He's pretty much dropped what we've all thought and been told on its head.
Would love to see a test with a 383 vs 377 with same heads and camshaft and 383 vs 400 to see what the extra bore of the 400 would have on power and torque
@@Jontfs300 the 377 was better than 383 and 400?lam not arguing just curious as I already have most parts laying around for mild 377 build.would you know what issue of super Chevy? I remember a comparison in some mag between 377 and 383 but not results or any details.i thought 377 bore would have less valve shrouding would be advantage but unsure about torque loss of 3.48 stroke .I'd appreciate any further comment.
Cool video 👍 I still like the old school v8's , years ago I started having a SBC 350 build , it's a a 4 bolt main 350 an 010 block and had a large journal 327 crank and 327 race rods , not sure what brand and .030 over 327 pistons , the machinest decked the block , so it has a positive deck hight , but after I got married , it has sat unfinished , but I'm looking forward to getting it done to put in my 72 Nova
One of the most valuable metrics in my opinion is dollars per horsepower. I feel like a winner having a 300 horsepower small block in my daily driver that I have a whopping 300 dollars tied up in to.
Good video. Would have been interested to see the fuel consumption numbers that matched the power curves. Curious to see if they match the curves or if one motor makes more use of its fuel.
Chevy offered an automatic transmission behind the 370 hp 350 in the 70 Z28. This required a slight reduction in the exhaust duration. The added displacement and reduced duration worked well with the auto trans. No auto trans was offered with any other solid lifter small block, nor with the 350hp 327 hydraulic cam engine.
Like to see the old small block's with vortec heads. Keeping everything else the same with simple spring and retainer to valveguide clearance upgrade and a comparable intake.
@@ronnelson7828 I have a vortec headed 400, its a pooch, a leaking low powered slug, next week its getting pulled out the 88 C1500 and a 6.0 stuffed in its place.. The 71 vintage 400 Pontiac I had in the truck pulled much better, had more power everywhere, and used less gas. The 454 in the 76 C10 now is even more of a slug, the Pontiac was better in that truck too. Now maybe if you don't have the dished pistons, and you can run more cam than the vortec heads allow, the sbc will finally start making power farther up. I guess what you are used to and expect from an engine is what decides if you think its low powered or not. Why not just run the Pontiac in my trucks? Because I have a 72 Ventura I want to put the 400 in, and I need something to power the trucks so they are getting LS engines. That particular 400 has been in 8 vehicles I own, its sorta my baseline. I built it back in 1995, its gone 12s in a heavy car with a highway gear, and had 11:1 down to 7.8:1 compression. Its quite the mule. I could swap in one of the 455s, but there are cars those are destined for too. I just wish the parts for the LS engines weren't so damn spendy. Sure I can get the engines, heads, etc cheap as dirt, but performance parts like cams, headers, converters, etc, man that shit adds up fast. My Pontiac builds are less expensive than the chevy stuff, mostly because I need less aftermarket stuff to make them run hard, and I can use a stock converter with 2.56 to 3.42 gears behind a Pontiac... ya know what the car probably already has under it.
@Craig D I can do so much more with a Pontiac, for a lot less money, and finding a Caddy is a lot more difficult. Finding a 6.0 to stuff in a truck is super easy. Just buy the whole rusted out, beaten half to death 2500 silverado or a van and there ya go.
I would like to go back to the days of 427 CI engines making 425 HP getting 10MPG wouldn't that be great? Or you could buy a 302 ci making 450 HP and getting 20MPG, that really is better. Yes size does matter at the car shows, the racers are at the track with their little motors actually driving fast.
Richard, I really appreciate how you have shown a few times it doesn't matter whether it's by bore or displacement, by increasing either results are the same 👍👌
Not factory. Richard is correct. The 1970, 1971, and 1972 LT1's all used a cam specific to the LT1 instead of the older designed Duntov camshaft. The desire with the LT1 was better drivability, more torque, cleaner burning, and an engine that would work well with an automatic transmission which was a problem for the Duntov camshaft.
No... but close... The LT1 and 30-30 cam are the same except the LT1 version has 10 degrees less intake duration... '70 Corvette was to have a 30-30 cammed 370 HP LT1, but it was cancelled after the early sales literature was printed... everybody got the 360 HP... some early Corvette magazine test cars may have gotten the 30-30 cam... L79 cam was 221/221 - 222/222 durations... L46 224/224 durations
Magic in 3.25 stroke on oval tracks, a 327 with 450 hp will out run a 350 500hp engine, every time. Seen it over and over again, plus a 3.25 stroke vs 3.48 or 3.50 same cuin the 3.25 stroke will walk off and leave the longer stroke engine...seen it on the race tracks for 40 years. We don't race dyno charts we race on dirt tracks. I drove for years and a 3.25 inch motor is sweet, a 3 inch motor will give a 3.48 motor a run for it. These are full race motors with all the goodies in them.
Hey Rich, nice video. The Pontiac ran four had special heads. Those number 62 heads were basically the same as the conventional deport head and the ram three therefore you would get all of the torque but the ram air foreheads and cam will give you more RPMs as well, but great video
Is pretty interesting, the revs between peak torque and hp between the old and new engines. New engines all looked to be 1200 and the old engines more like 2000. Also the shift of torque peak compared to stroke length, the 5.3 and 6.0 with the same stroke made peak torque nearly exactly the same revs. As always thanks Richard for the great video!
In 1992 General Motors introduced the LT1. The 1970 is an LT-1 completely different engines. . GM dropped the - in 1992. I still have the short block 11 1/2-1 (71 I believe was 10-1) I ordered in 1974 with the Dontove 30/30 cam. With the short block I ordered the 202 angle plug heads. The Chevy parts manager helped me order and set it up. I can't remember the lash setting 26 or 28 and if the intake/exhaust were the same or staggered. Made a big change in the performance. It's what he ran in his 1970 1/2 Camaro Z28. I think I found the project to motivate me to put this together. So what would this old dinosaur's power be?
That is actually my era. I lived a mile from Fremont drag strip. I couldn't afford any of those cars with those engines but I rode in/raced all of em. First the 302.. My buddy just got back from a stint in the unpleasantness in south east asia. He had some money so off to Central Chevrolet he went for a brand new 69 Z 28 The car was an absolute beast... I remember the salesman saying something about 'off road only" In the trunk of that car was a cross ram 2 four setup and an in the box 'off road' cam. When I was in high school my dads buddy came to the house with a brand new vette ... it had the injected 327 and against my dads advise the guy let me drive it to get them some beer or something. That car was also very fast. Then... my best bud had a dad that was getting quite a collection of tri five Chevys including some nomads. He really did not care about Hp but he picked up a 56 Nomad somewhere. In primer... 4 speed And it sounded basd a$$ It had headers and... as it turned out... a crate 350 370 horse motor. But as we later found out... it had the 'off road' cam in it. We drove that car (which he just confiscated from pops) all over... Other than blowing rear ends it was relatively dependable and we actually never got beat in the thing. So this test is interesting to me since I thought all of em were pretty killer motors with much the same internals. years later I ended up putting a 302 Z28 clone motor in my 55 two seater Healey... Yeah... believe me I know.
Hot Rod did a 350 build called the 350 Chevy should have built a few years back, I think it was a 400 crank/350 block with longer ford 300 rods the results were interesting worth checking out
You can make a 427 ford in different ways. What I would like to see is, What 427 has the best power . I have seen 4.03 bore by 4.2 stroke 4.125 bore with 4 inch stroke and 4.2 bore and 3.85 stroke1 I would bet the biggest bore will make the most power!
I bored a 283 .o60 to 292 CI , 194 valves on power pack head old carter 4 barrel a RV cam it really pulled nice on mountain road in Colorado I pocket ported the power pack heads and matched intake ports to a low rise intake manafold with . 308 rear end and TH 350 that 63 step side hauled ass
I'm not a Chevy guy by any means, but from many years of racing experience my choice will always by a small journal 327 with a high flowing cylinder head and lot's of compression. It has the best rod length to stroke ratio and the best bore to stroke ratio of all sbc's for high rpm HP.
Even if you aren't a chevy man you have to realize they rule racing and will for a long time. Lots of stuff I hate about chevy but v8s damn sure isn't one. Even the non chevy vehicles I own have a v8 chevy of some kind in it. Just like the best hot rod rear end is a Ford 9 inch. They did that better
I’m a 327 guy too. My fave was a 060 over large journal,L79 cam ,bump heads with some work, snowflake intake with an AFB. Made 380 or so and pulled hard from off idle to 6200. It was in my 66 L79 Chevy 2 clone. Light and fast.
Oh and by the way, dude, I am a Blue Oval guy to my core. Therefore I have spent my life knowing and under standing, both the advantages, and disadvantages that the slowtie V8 brings to the table.
I had a 69 Camaro with a LT1 350 with the off road GM cam, other than a Edelbrock intake it was bone stock. It turned a rod bearing so I yanked it out of the car and replaced the crank as the rod was ok. Put the car all back together and it didn't have any power like it used to. So I thought I may have had the distributor in wrong. Nope not that at all. The crank I put in was a 327 crank!! No wonder it didn't have any power! It still had 110 lbs compression. So since this was my daily driver I just advanced the timing until it sounded better. Took it for a drive and no pinging sounds - more advance. I put a timing tape on and checked the timing - it was 55 degrees! So I then bought a MSD box for it and set it to 7000 cut out. Richard this was a ripper, with so low a compression it didn't take long to rev up that is why the MSD box. I drove it like that for another 2 years and thrashed it. It had a turbo 400 out of a 4 X 4 with a reverse valve body so it was really fun to drive. Our tuning tools back then was a timing light and a screw driver for jet changes. Keep those comparison videos coming.
This is a great video. All of these motors were impressive in their own right. Would have loved to see the L79 327 in this mix as well. I suspect with its slightly milder cam and smaller 585 cfm carb, it probably would have places somewhere between the 302 and L76 327.
Thanks for this excellent comparison. I was tempted to de-stroke my 327 until I saw this video. The 327 makes the horsepower and torque at a lower RPM which I think would make it more drive-able on the street and easier on the internal engine components (not having to rev to make the power). On another note, any thoughts on the old Edelbrock C3BX intake manifolds? How does it stack up against the factory intakes? I fixing to revive a small journal 327. It's .040 over. The piston are flat tops. The heads are 291 casting 2.02's. The cam is an Engle flat tappet hydraulic 267 duration, .460 lift. It was built back in the early 80's for my old rusty 1968 Chevelle (RIP). I plan on sticking it in a 1963 C-10 and want to go with a 700r4 and stall converter. 3:73 gears? Any thoughts? Thanks!
That is still a solid package you are describing, the 3.73 will work well with that 700r4. I agree you should consider upgrading to a Performer intake, dual plane probably best on the street, right?
@@richardholdener1727 thanks for the reply. I just bought a 350 4 bolt main made in Canada with the same casting numbers is the 1969-79 302 (3970010) that’s all the info I could find on it. I was thinking about putting a duntov cam in it but wondering if I’ll lose too much torque. Would you recommend a cam that would make my truck run like a Camaro? I plan on getting some vortec heads and retro fitting a roller cam. Also daily driving :) thanks again, love your content.
That's an interesting comparison. I would not have expected the 3 older engines to top out at the same horsepower. This may indicate that the engines are limited by the breathing of the heads/intake/carb/cam. With changes to those components you would expect the larger displacement to be capable of more peak horsepower. The LS engines are starting with better heads, maybe better intake, so bigger displacement still has some peak power advantage. Of course you demonstrated this when you did other tests with modifications to the 327. Another thing that I can't address- people used to talk about optimum ratio of bore to stroke. I don't know what the optimum number is but the 302 seems to be closer to it.
My favorite video so far. Perfectly shows an engine is just a big air pump. More displacement = more air flow at lower RPM = more power at lower RPM. We can clearly see the old engines are limited by air flow through the head by how the curves all converge in the right side of the graph. Just like everything in life engine building is a trade off. Do you want lots of torque for pulling a load or driving around town? Build the largest displacement engine with the longest stroke for 2500-5500RPM power. Want a racing high RPM engine? Build the shortest stroke with a wide bore to keep the piston speed low and make that same power but at 5000-8000RPM. All comes down to how you want the engine behavior to be. In this vein there is something around a 377ci de-stroked 400 small block that is a strange beast. That would be a neat comparison to a 383 stroker. I wonder if you can put a 4.8L crank in a 6.0L block and turn it to 9000rpm. Hmm...
I would like to talk to the engineers who designed the ls engines to find out how they figured out what bore and stroke to use you would think they would have used the same block and increase stroke again for the 6.0 but they went for bore and flow
No doubt. Wish instead of the 5.3L, they put the 4.8L crank into the 6L block. Maybe even made a 3” crank... added to the 6L block would have made an updated 302. Imagine if 98-02 Camaro’s had the option of a 5L 302 LS screamer in the Z28 and the LS1 in the SS.
@@stlchucko I had that idea for the l98 I was thinking about upping the stroke on the ls to about 3.75 if not 4 inches matching that of the bigblocks of yesteryear compare a 4 inch stroke last to a 454
So if the 302 chevy could get another 1000rpm it would be an absolute monster. I know for a fact that the 302 can definitely do 72-7500rpm and absolutely ruin big displacement motors and outrun them. Its a sewing machine. You can do it now but in 1969 that was a work of art
Yep. Back in the day, spring technology lacked, so cam lobe ramps had to be slow/mellow to avoid float. A modern solid flat tappet and springs added to otherwise stock 302 would see 8000 all day.
Drove my friend’s 69 z28 to my wedding. I can confirm it will go past 9k. Don’t know if the power is falling off up there but it felt like it was still pulling pretty hard
The 302 rules in a car with limited rear wheel wells , like an early Chevy II . A seven inch slick with no bottom end torque , and an engine that will buzz to 9000 rpm with the old Z optional cam . ( Last three digits of the part number are 140 ). This combo tends to give bigger , more powerful cars fits .
That's the same thing with the Ford 289, 302, and 351w engines. They all have a 4-inch bore but increased the stroke. This is what most manufacturers did.
I've got a little 307 that makes big blocks work to keep up. Bored over, domed pistons, 327 crank, 350 double hump heads, 3 angle valve job, port and polish, 750 double pumper and a big old cam. Never had it dynoed but it pulls hard
@@jasoncolyer6286 that's the best part, everyone talking shit but end up getting smoked by a boat anchor. They can keep the money it's more fun for me to watch them get pissed because a boat anchor just walked their big block 🤣
Another Great Video Sr. Thanks for all of the Great content you post i just fired my TT gen 1 sbc for the first time this weekend. I have not found a setup like i am running and was wanting to know if you have tested one like it. it is a Gen 1 forged 383 twin 60mm turbos running the holley dominator. for fuling i have MPFI for low boost and correction. I have the system setup to have an additional 4 injectors in my Terminator Stealth throttle body cycling in at 40% duty cycle of the main injectors to help cool the charge temps. This is the first boost build i have ever done and now i realize with honestly how little i know (It is easy to talk when it is another persons project but not so if it is yours) I would listen to comments from yourself and people that watch your videos. have you ever tested anything like what I am running?
You mention that the 327 and 302 are basically the same. Sharing cams, et cetera, and making the same output. The only difference besides displacement being the 3.0 stroke of the 302 (I don't remember and haven't gone back the video to find out if you tell the 327 stroke is 3.25) But you don't say why. Perhaps you didn't know that the 302 was created by Chevy so they could run Camaros in the Trans Am Racing Series to compete with Ford and Mopar. The size limit for the league was 5 liters (305 ci). Instead of completely designing, engineering, and everything else to make a new engine for the competition, they wisely put a crankshaft from a 283 into a 327 block. Voila, 4" bore and 3" stoke equals 302 cubic inch displacement, and being a naturally high RPM unit, ran like a bat out of hell.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
He simply verified once again, what I learned as a 16y/o boy many years ago; If you want to win races and don't have all the money in the world, put your money in buying a big motor as opposed to building up a small block. However, very few things can warm my old heart like hearing the idle of double hump SBC heads on a 327 with a 108 General Kinetics or Crane(Blazer series) cam tickling the valves. Long live the small block.
The old saying back then was the only substitute for cubic inches was cubic dollars.
I agree.. I had a choice to make for my 55 Handyman wagon.. the first choice was a stock 375hp396 or a friends 331 from his 1/4 mile 3 round,roundly,. My mechanic dad told me to use stock big block which was supposedly less hp, but that 396 smoked that 331(in a 70 Firebird) and keep me on the road in high school....
Great test as always but what people some times forget we dont race dynos, in a car on a 1/4 mile track 350-3.73 / 327-4.10 / 302-4.56 the times would be too close to call. With the more rpm you can run more gear witch ups the engines torque to the wheels witch moves the car. Again great test as usual pls dont stop.
This engine was developed for sports car racing
True, that gearing would put the engine into its best power producing range, BUT real-life losses have a larger effect like crank train inertia, windage, bearing friction and same for gear train when using a high RPM engine.
I’m a Mopar guy. But my favorite Chevy engine is the 302. My second favorite is the 327. You tested my two favorite Chevy engines. I noticed that the compression has a lot of influence on torque and hp. Early model 327 when good gas was available to have higher compression. 69 was a year that compression was still high due to good gas. As we know after 71 the octain fell off and so did compression. Then as octain levels raised so did compression. Then hp levels rose again. We have 10:1 and greater compression today and we have na engines making good hp again.
Thanks Rich for posting these cool and informative videos. I can tell you that this is one of my favorite channels because you do the comparisons and you're not afraid to build up an engine that everyone says is crap...and you actually make it perform like the bigger badder engines!
The GM 302 was just a 327 with a 283 crankshaft. A "destroked" 327 basically, specifically produced for Trans am series road racing which was limited or restricted to 5.0 liters.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Way back when,,,,,,,,Racers ; bored the stout 283 blocks [283 bore was 3.875 ] .125 " over to 4 inch ; that gave exactly 301.44 cubes........Many crazy guys destroked the 3 inch crank to fall into ideal classes in Modified / Production classes.....Dem early 283 engines had steel cranks........
Duh
@naughtmeenaym869 you're IQ is showing at a record low.
@JimmieCates nope , the 307 was the opposite deal . A 3.875 bore 283 block with a 3.25 stroke 327 crank .
Yeah, that's chevy for ya.
I guess the old saying still stands! “ THERES NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT”!! Great video keep them coming 👍🏻
Bore and stroke! Ain’t no joke!
The side-by-side comparisons are super informative!
Great video!
Thanks!
I am addicted to these presentations, just fantastic!
Thank you so much ! You explained these motors very plainly where anyone could understand ! You have alot of excellent knowledge ! Thank you and i' ll be looking for more of your videos !
We know that the 30/30 cam in the 302 did not make enough low end torque to make an automatic transmission an option. Automatics were an option on the 1970 LT-1, but would that have been possible with the 30/30? Can't imagine wanting an automatic anyway. I loved my '69 Z/28.
The '70 LT-1s ran a turbo 400 automatic which requires a whopping 48 hp to get it moving . The old Powerglides only need 16 HP to get going . Now you know why the ' glide became the darling of the drag strip .
Great video! Dig on the old vs new school stuff, its amazing how far cylinder head design has come.
I love your videos Richard. I watch all of them. I love the way that you control variables as much as is reasonable with all of your engine tests and share the raw data. Keep it up.
Hillbilly lore has it that the original LT1 dyno mule (the motor used to claim the 370hp number) was actually fitted with the 30/30 cam, but the LT1 cam (obviously) is what actually ended up in the production motors.
Thank you for these dyno tests! Having these combos dyno'd in factory form is a godsend for cheap shits like me who don't feel like shelling out the cash for aftermarket heads and roller cams and such. These factory combo's are cheap and easy to build reliably (Well... Maybe not the DZ302...). Your dyno graphs are going into the brain compartment for future shenanigans!
great video! you could talk about fuel changes over the years, the watery alcohol over to rubber eating ethanol, and way back to the 60s making a 4 barrel sound off like a tuba in a concert hall.. but people get confused and even call a 305 a boat anchor to this day. Everyone thinks its about engine..."bigger the better". I am glad to be going on 50 years old, i watched 3 generations overlap. the big block is still not happy... they'd need a fuel all to themselves, and drag racers did that too.
In the 80's I was 20 and built a .40 over 350 block with a 327 crank, milodon drive, windage tray, 11-1 Pistons all the good stuff heads etc with a Crane Custom Grind solid cam .575x.300 intake and exhaust (4deg retardef) triple valve springs, balanced, o-ringed, Weiand Tunnelram with 2 660 center squirterswith 50cc pumps and a direct port 225 Nitrous. 4000 stall manual 400, 5:13 posi. Lifted the front wheels on my 72 Chevelle. ahh the good old days. lol now im old
That's just a 327 with better parts and an over-bore. 327 and 350 have the same bore.
333 cubic inches .
interesting to see that the three SBC's all made basically the same peak power. I'm an RPM lover and its cool to see how the 302 made basically the same power as the 350 but a full 1000 rpm higher.
Same power? You're kidding right? Peak Horse power between the 3 is remarlably close. Yet power was nothing even remotely close. The real difference is found in the torque numbers and how wide the torque curve is. The 302 is best described as PEAKY in that you wait until it's spinning hard for the power, then a gear change happens and a lot of that peak power disappears as you wait for it to build again. Yes, the short stroke is fun to "spin" up but it's a far slower car that can't escape the lack of lower rpm power vs the bigger displacement 327 and 350 that don't lose as much power on each rpm drop as you shift gears. These are not engines with the same power, not even close. The head line grabbing peak power numbers don't tell the whole story. DZ302s only existed in the z/28s of '67-69 because the trans am rule book mandated it's size. On the street you face no such rules and in that you find why the 302 configured like this was never installed in any other Chevy of the day. It's a weak choice engine vs both the 327 that came before it and the 350 that came out in 1967 along side it.
@@Dogboy1960 reread what i wrote three years ago, i said "same peak power". weird to write a novel reply on some old comment years later dude
@@Dogboy1960 Just change the transmission with a closer gearing to compensate for the higher rpm drop and diff relation because of the lower torque, shorter stroke are good for endurance racing.
You are doing a good thing with your comparisons. I taught performance engine machining and building along with dyno testing and tuning for 10 years, both engine and chassis dynos. We used an inertia chassis dyno, not the best but it worked good enough. It measured torque and calculated horse power and the time it took to get to our cut off speed was part of the HP calculation. We could always tell a high HP car by listening. Low HP cars took a long time to get to the speed figure. I have a video of a 4th generation Trans Am with a stroked LS and a 300hp nitrous system. It went from 55 to 120mph, in about 4 seconds with lots of tire smoke. This was a street car and I named the video Neck Snapping Acceleration
no,you didnt..........
That was awesome. I would also love to see maybe similar ones like 289, 302, 351w or mopar 318 vs 360 383 vs 440. Another good one would be ford FE 352, 360, 390, and 427. Or ford 385 block 370, 429 and 460. I know that these are just wish lists but neat idea.
396 rat
I've always wanted to see a shootout between a 265 Chevy, a 273 Chrysler, and a 260 Ford...
If I could have any one it'd be the DZ for sure, small displacement V8s are my favorite
I was absolutely just about to post this same comment.
I have a large journal , Dart head, DZ in my garage that got hot and pushed a head gasket out. I love the engine but it's hard to spend money to refresh it when LS motors are so cheap to make more power with. I also have a LC9 all aluminum 5.3 and LQ4 6.0 sitting next to the DZ. Decisions, decisions.....
DZ probably can handle the revs more than others. For the ones like over revving lol I’m not a fan losing power by over revving lol A lot out there do that lol
@@Silkmaster4200 Based on Richard's dyno graphs, a properly built 327 can probably rev almost as high as a DZ. The combination of that and greater torque from its longer stroke would make it a pretty potent street motor.
@@bdd1469 I see what you mean, I don't know if I want to rebuild my 350 or just buy an LS3 that'd make more power, cheaper, and reliably
I saw a similar test between a Pontiac 400 and 455. The results were similar. When built the same both engines had about the same peak horsepower but the 455 had way more torque and at a lower RPM. The peak power on the 455 was also at a slightly less RPM. About 400 RPM's if I remember the test correctly.
Once again
you've done it
another badass legendary video
As I see it all these engines have the same specs overall the only difference will be the peak RPM point and the lower the RPM Peaks the higher the torque will be because also will be at a lower RPM these engines only flow about
605 CFMs......
Would have loved to see a 283 and a 383 stroker thrown in there as well. I mean we can totally predict the curves, but would have been cool to see.
The 302, 327 and 350 were chosen because they all have a 4" bore. The 283 doesn't
I'm very surprised that when Chevy really started thinning out its passenger car V8 engine options around 1975-76, that GM didn't release a factory ca 380" 4V SB to replace the 350, 400 and 454, along with keeping the 305 a two barrel only.
The 302 has the 283 crank correct?
Most people would make a dz 302 by using a 327 and throwing in 283 crank making it 302 ci
@@joshfeister6566 I just learned awhile back that GM made a 4.3L v8 in the mid 90's. They basically made a 305 bore version of an LT1 and put a 3" stroke in it. Supposedly that crank will fit a gen 1 block with the 1 piece rear main. To be honest I'm a little more than tempted to build a 4.3 v8 for a nice daily driver/gas saver with the gen 1 sound 🤣
Richard Holdener your making some great vidoes
You'RE
@@funfun8095 thanks I needed that
@@scottbrooklyn2995 Yes you did.
@@BuzzLOLOL this is crazy! My nicknames Buzz too but I really like them. Your the Bizzaro me!
As an Australian Ford guy I still found this massively informative and interesting.
Troy Thompson , it was informative and interesting because Frod is dull and boring
@@jimthomas777 very stupid comment. Cleveland kicks ass over any mouse.
Thank you.. good info. i am building a 1970 camaro and was torn over DZ and LT1...
lt1
Thanks for all your testing information. Love it
before i watch I want to say, this is a great video. These are questions in my head before you put it on video. I am building a 98 inch 1959 HD with the longest stroke you can put in 1959 cases. This gives me hope i made the right choice.
Great video! I was just searching for this yesterday. Now here it is. Your the man Richard! Thanks for your hard work and dedication. I know your having fun though.
We love watching your real world vids.
These videos are addicting, so much cool info, thanks for posting and keep it going!
What is this Super Chevy Showdown. Love those old magazines. I read those all the time before cell phones.
Clearly the LS engines have raised the bar for power production in a package that beats all the old small block engines but with a smooth idle, good drivability and fuel mileage. And this is just the low end of the LS spectrum. Just what GM was trying to achieve when they designed them. Good test.
When they went for the Cross bolted deep skirt block and they separated the intake and exhaust ports just like the Ford FE and the Ford small block they made a great combination for making power. Can you imagine if they put NASCAR heads on the LS block how much more HP they could make? Fords ideas but Chevy put it all together.
Gm didn't exactly design the LS, it's taken from other automakers designs
In regards to the SBC, we have to remember cars at that time were not getting any lighter, yet people wanted them to go faster. Easiest way there was to increase stroke to provide much welcomed torque to get the beast off the line.
The 302 was developed for the race circuit, not stoplight warriors with production cars. In a factory weight street car, I’ll take the 350 (or a 383) 10 times out of 10.
5.0 liters was max for SCCA or IMSA ? Chev DZ302, Ford Boss 302, Dodge T/A 303? and Pontiac 303 from destroked 400 ram air
@@eflanagan1921 Also the AMC 304, was a destroked 343 block, to use the heads with the larger valves, that the 3.75 bore 290 block couldn't use. The Chevy 283, and Ford 289 already had 4 inch bores , while AMC designed their engines for torque, over horsepower, so a longer stroke, smaller bore, were used. The AMC 304 engine introduced in 1970, still had the 290's 3.75 bore, with a taller deck height, and longer stroke, as did the 360, which was destroked for use in the T/A series, because of its 4" bore.
@@eflanagan19215 liters was the SCCA limit for their A sedan class, that the Trans Am series was based on. IMSA GTO allowed larger displacements.
We use to race dirt late models in NC in the 70's and you name it we tried it. Big block and small block both are great engines just to completely different animals. You lug a big block and turn a small block. But both will do the same thing and win races. We dropped a value on Friday night on a 427 and went to the shop and got a customers 327 that he left for over a year. Put the engine in the car at the shop and hooked everything up fon the way back to the track. Very interesting task. Had to change the car setup completely for the small block. Broke the track record in qualifying and won the race. It's just like females they all can do same things just a matter of taste.
Number of years ago I built an original LT-1 for my 70 1/2 RS Z/28. It was a .030" over 350 that was highly built. Can't remember the exact comp cam but it was solid flat tappet with a ton of lift and all the duration, 12.5 to 1 Speed Pro pistons, the whole assembly lightened, ported 461 fuelie heads that were angle-milled .060", Victor Jr. intake, Carb Shop 920 CFM carb as well as a few other mod, 1.6 rockers, passive pan evacuation system, electric cooling fan, MSD ignition, etc. Then Madcap Racing dyno'd it with no accessories and open long tube headers. It made an astounding, altitude corrected 594 hp @ 7400 rpm and 502 lb/ft tq at 5800 rpm. 4 spd. 4:56 axle with hard as a rock TA radials, full 2.5" exhaust. At Bandimere's drag strip, no burnout allowed (5800 ft altitude) only mod was removing the air cleaner, 12.58 sec. @111 mph
Here's a link to a short video. Plus a little street racing vs a VR4 with bigger turbos.
ruclips.net/video/LA64IGdbnSY/видео.html
Great vid I lived in Denver 25yrs I had a 78 Camaro w a 468 BB - I used to go to Bandimere w my buddies for test n tune n have some fun- I see your carb has the annular booster- with a high lift long duration cam the annular boosters really help w the carb signal vs a dog leg booster- I had a 604/612 lift solid lunati cam and I used an 850 w annular boosters- but your 350 flat out flies man- my 468 was fun but the best I ran was 13.01 @106 w street tires - not super fast but at that altitude it’s hard to go fast- I think your 350 would have been faster than my set up- that is a beautiful Camaro - mine was nothin fancy- take care
Nice story. Do you remember when we'd race next to I-70 on Stapleton Dr.? Really sad to see Bandimere close uh?
Always the stuff we wanna see.
Keep it up good sir
Another home run! Thanks Richard!
Would be cool to see the overlay of the curves between the gen 1 SBC muscle car engines compared to the gen 3/4 LS truck engines. 4.8 vs dz302, 5.3 vs 327, 6.0 vs 350, 6.2 vs 383. Great video!
That comparison would be awesome!
@@crw3673 And since he's already got the dyno runs logged as simple as just doing another commentary while showing them.
I'd kind of like to see the overlay between the Gen 2 LT1 and the Gen 3 LS1, both have similar displacement and out of the box (96 LT4 vs 97 LS1) both had fairly close peak numbers.
@@Misterfairweather For some reason though, the LS1 F body was almost always half a second faster (usually more) than the LT1 F body. The LS1s almost always had around 300whp, the LT1s were around 275whp when we tested them back in the early 00s. Even my 98, the slowest of the LS1s put down more power with 2.73 gears and a stock auto than all the LT1s.
The auto LS1s were a lot faster than the manuals, except for one who special ordered his Z28 without AC and manual everything, it was about 350lbs lighter than the other cars, and he was a small guy too. When I dragged one of my dinosaurs to the dyno and put down 520rwtq@3000 and 650rwtq @ 5000 on pump gas without a power adder (it was also down on power a bit due to bent valves from vandalism) the Cobra guys all said it was converter flash, could not possibly be how Pontiacs are with better heads.
Almost made same comment.
Love it man keep the uploads coming
This channel is gold ✨ underrated and underappreciated! Keep up the good work!
I can't even Express how much info I've gained on the myths and the underappreciated engines he's tested. You've got legends falling to less appreciated engines. He's pretty much dropped what we've all thought and been told on its head.
Richard as always I learned something from this video. Keep it up
Would love to see a test with a 383 vs 377 with same heads and camshaft and 383 vs 400 to see what the extra bore of the 400 would have on power and torque
Yes that I would love to see even if it were just 383 and 377
seconded I just commented on the 377 vs 383 comparison would be neat to see.
Super Chevy did it... the 400 small block destroked was more powerful. It’s an old issue
Mark Wallace 377-Destroked 400 was more potent
@@Jontfs300 the 377 was better than 383 and 400?lam not arguing just curious as I already have most parts laying around for mild 377 build.would you know what issue of super Chevy? I remember a comparison in some mag between 377 and 383 but not results or any details.i thought 377 bore would have less valve shrouding would be advantage but unsure about torque loss of 3.48 stroke .I'd appreciate any further comment.
Love your videos. They truly help me with my builds
Cool video 👍 I still like the old school v8's , years ago I started having a SBC 350 build , it's a a 4 bolt main 350 an 010 block and had a large journal 327 crank and 327 race rods , not sure what brand and .030 over 327 pistons , the machinest decked the block , so it has a positive deck hight , but after I got married , it has sat unfinished , but I'm looking forward to getting it done to put in my 72 Nova
Got the lt1 350 in my 57 Chevy cameo pickup
One of the most valuable metrics in my opinion is dollars per horsepower. I feel like a winner having a 300 horsepower small block in my daily driver that I have a whopping 300 dollars tied up in to.
Thank u for all your hard work
Good video. Would have been interested to see the fuel consumption numbers that matched the power curves. Curious to see if they match the curves or if one motor makes more use of its fuel.
Wow, nice upgrade on the acoustics! Thanks for anothe intresting video.
Be curious the numbers if these were dyno'd with exhaust manifolds Instead of headers 🤔
Love it Richard, keep up the good work.
Cheers
Great video and explanation of engine displacement and torque!!!!
Wow! Who knew that more displacement would yield more torque?
Displacement always makes more torque! No substitute for cubes.
Chevy offered an automatic transmission behind the 370 hp 350 in the 70 Z28. This required a slight reduction in the exhaust duration. The added displacement and reduced duration worked well with the auto trans. No auto trans was offered with any other solid lifter small block, nor with the 350hp 327 hydraulic cam engine.
Like to see the old small block's with vortec heads. Keeping everything else the same with simple spring and retainer to valveguide clearance upgrade and a comparable intake.
That would be a good comparision
@@scrappy7571 And put the 400 smallblock in there as well. More is always mo' betta'!
@@ronnelson7828 I agree, I'm a 400 guy
@@ronnelson7828 I have a vortec headed 400, its a pooch, a leaking low powered slug, next week its getting pulled out the 88 C1500 and a 6.0 stuffed in its place.. The 71 vintage 400 Pontiac I had in the truck pulled much better, had more power everywhere, and used less gas. The 454 in the 76 C10 now is even more of a slug, the Pontiac was better in that truck too. Now maybe if you don't have the dished pistons, and you can run more cam than the vortec heads allow, the sbc will finally start making power farther up. I guess what you are used to and expect from an engine is what decides if you think its low powered or not.
Why not just run the Pontiac in my trucks? Because I have a 72 Ventura I want to put the 400 in, and I need something to power the trucks so they are getting LS engines. That particular 400 has been in 8 vehicles I own, its sorta my baseline. I built it back in 1995, its gone 12s in a heavy car with a highway gear, and had 11:1 down to 7.8:1 compression. Its quite the mule. I could swap in one of the 455s, but there are cars those are destined for too.
I just wish the parts for the LS engines weren't so damn spendy. Sure I can get the engines, heads, etc cheap as dirt, but performance parts like cams, headers, converters, etc, man that shit adds up fast. My Pontiac builds are less expensive than the chevy stuff, mostly because I need less aftermarket stuff to make them run hard, and I can use a stock converter with 2.56 to 3.42 gears behind a Pontiac... ya know what the car probably already has under it.
@Craig D I can do so much more with a Pontiac, for a lot less money, and finding a Caddy is a lot more difficult. Finding a 6.0 to stuff in a truck is super easy. Just buy the whole rusted out, beaten half to death 2500 silverado or a van and there ya go.
You are correct- Duntov did many cams- I apologize and defer to your expertise. I really enjoy your videos!!
Even though little guys with little engines like to say otherwise.........SIZE MATTERS!
I would like to go back to the days of 427 CI engines making 425 HP getting 10MPG wouldn't that be great? Or you could buy a 302 ci making 450 HP and getting 20MPG, that really is better. Yes size does matter at the car shows, the racers are at the track with their little motors actually driving fast.
Richard, I really appreciate how you have shown a few times it doesn't matter whether it's by bore or displacement, by increasing either results are the same 👍👌
Harold Bettes and I had had a talk about you the other day, keep up the excellent work..........nice to see someone working!
6:06 Didn't the 70 LT1 come with the Duntov 30/30 Camshaft from the factory? My 71 LT1 came with one.
Not factory. Richard is correct. The 1970, 1971, and 1972 LT1's all used a cam specific to the LT1 instead of the older designed Duntov camshaft. The desire with the LT1 was better drivability, more torque, cleaner burning, and an engine that would work well with an automatic transmission which was a problem for the Duntov camshaft.
Michael King so should I keep the duntov ?!?
yes it did. the #151 cam came in the 327...it was 302 dur .447 lift...hydraulic. The 30 30 was mechanical with .030 valve lash.
No... but close... The LT1 and 30-30 cam are the same except the LT1 version has 10 degrees less intake duration... '70 Corvette was to have a 30-30 cammed 370 HP LT1, but it was cancelled after the early sales literature was printed... everybody got the 360 HP... some early Corvette magazine test cars may have gotten the 30-30 cam... L79 cam was 221/221 - 222/222 durations... L46 224/224 durations
Magic in 3.25 stroke on oval tracks, a 327 with 450 hp will out run a 350 500hp engine, every time. Seen it over and over again, plus a 3.25 stroke vs 3.48 or 3.50 same cuin the 3.25 stroke will walk off and leave the longer stroke engine...seen it on the race tracks for 40 years. We don't race dyno charts we race on dirt tracks. I drove for years and a 3.25 inch motor is sweet, a 3 inch motor will give a 3.48 motor a run for it. These are full race motors with all the goodies in them.
Hey Rich, nice video. The Pontiac ran four had special heads. Those number 62 heads were basically the same as the conventional deport head and the ram three therefore you would get all of the torque but the ram air foreheads and cam will give you more RPMs as well, but great video
Is pretty interesting, the revs between peak torque and hp between the old and new engines. New engines all looked to be 1200 and the old engines more like 2000. Also the shift of torque peak compared to stroke length, the 5.3 and 6.0 with the same stroke made peak torque nearly exactly the same revs.
As always thanks Richard for the great video!
I'm really glad you deviated from the ls motors for a while
Thank you for this video. I always glean some very useful information from your videos.
Great work with all the info Richard. I wish you had material on the bluboker mustang program.
I was waiting to see that "old vs new" overlay on the Dyno graph.
What about the awesome 283?
@@bigbluebrownbass love the 283's. So rev happy👍
@@bigbluebrownbass 0
@@bigbluebrownbass 0
@@bigbluebrownbass 0
In 1992 General Motors introduced the LT1. The 1970 is an LT-1 completely different engines. . GM dropped the - in 1992. I still have the short block 11 1/2-1 (71 I believe was 10-1) I ordered in 1974 with the Dontove 30/30 cam. With the short block I ordered the 202 angle plug heads. The Chevy parts manager helped me order and set it up. I can't remember the lash setting 26 or 28 and if the intake/exhaust were the same or staggered. Made a big change in the performance. It's what he ran in his 1970 1/2 Camaro Z28. I think I found the project to motivate me to put this together. So what would this old dinosaur's power be?
NA, no substitute for cubic inches. Thanks for all the great videos.
That is actually my era. I lived a mile from Fremont drag strip. I couldn't afford any of those cars with those engines but I rode in/raced all of em. First the 302.. My buddy just got back from a stint in the unpleasantness in south east asia. He had some money so off to Central Chevrolet he went for a brand new 69 Z 28 The car was an absolute beast... I remember the salesman saying something about 'off road only" In the trunk of that car was a cross ram 2 four setup and an in the box 'off road' cam. When I was in high school my dads buddy came to the house with a brand new vette ... it had the injected 327 and against my dads advise the guy let me drive it to get them some beer or something. That car was also very fast. Then... my best bud had a dad that was getting quite a collection of tri five Chevys including some nomads. He really did not care about Hp but he picked up a 56 Nomad somewhere. In primer... 4 speed And it sounded basd a$$ It had headers and... as it turned out... a crate 350 370 horse motor. But as we later found out... it had the 'off road' cam in it. We drove that car (which he just confiscated from pops) all over... Other than blowing rear ends it was relatively dependable and we actually never got beat in the thing. So this test is interesting to me since I thought all of em were pretty killer motors with much the same internals. years later I ended up putting a 302 Z28 clone motor in my 55 two seater Healey... Yeah... believe me I know.
Hot Rod did a 350 build called the 350 Chevy should have built a few years back, I think it was a 400 crank/350 block with longer ford 300 rods the results were interesting worth checking out
I've seen it
Loved it. I’d like to see a similar Ford compassion between 302, 331, 347 and 351, 408 and 427. Just a thought.
You can make a 427 ford in different ways. What I would like to see is, What 427 has the best power . I have seen 4.03 bore by 4.2 stroke 4.125 bore with 4 inch stroke and 4.2 bore and 3.85 stroke1 I would bet the biggest bore will make the most power!
Great comparison. Thanks for doing the work.
Very good video, enjoyed it greatly...love the 302DZ
Great video!
Glad you enjoyed it
Man this is a great video with a crazy amount of info.
the 302 is more fun - yes the bigger makes more usable power - but funwise a 302 with a manual gear is FUN
After seeing to great videos from this dude I have to subscribe. Nice helpful content.
Would've liked to have seen a 383-stroker (350) compared to the first 3 engines. I think 383-strokers are available as crate engines.
What about the 283? That engine is a legend in its own. That engine came in 2 ton trucks. It was a truly tough engine
Forget the 283 I want to see a 400💪
I bored a 283 .o60 to 292 CI , 194 valves on power pack head old carter 4 barrel a RV cam it really pulled nice on mountain road in Colorado I pocket ported the power pack heads and matched intake ports to a low rise intake manafold with . 308 rear end and TH 350 that 63 step side hauled ass
"RV Cam🙄
@@gteefxr3094 Definitely not "3/4" race cam, more like a"3/8" race cam ;)
There it is, this is great information. When I asked about the 383 this is what I was looking for. Your the man. Thank you
I'm not a Chevy guy by any means, but from many years of racing experience my choice will always by a small journal 327 with a high flowing cylinder head and lot's of compression. It has the best rod length to stroke ratio and the best bore to stroke ratio of all sbc's for high rpm HP.
Even if you aren't a chevy man you have to realize they rule racing and will for a long time. Lots of stuff I hate about chevy but v8s damn sure isn't one. Even the non chevy vehicles I own have a v8 chevy of some kind in it. Just like the best hot rod rear end is a Ford 9 inch. They did that better
I’m a 327 guy too. My fave was a 060 over large journal,L79 cam ,bump heads with some work, snowflake intake with an AFB. Made 380 or so and pulled hard from off idle to 6200. It was in my 66 L79 Chevy 2 clone. Light and fast.
@@brianveitenheimer4492 why? the large journal never makes more power, less parasitic friction from the small journal.
Oh and by the way, dude, I am a Blue Oval guy to my core. Therefore I have spent my life knowing and under standing, both the advantages, and disadvantages that the slowtie V8 brings to the table.
@@terraboundmisfit 350 block so I could have 4 bolt mains
Nice job here. L-78 L-72 LS-6 BBC comparable internals also, bore change for 396 - 427 is the same as 283 to 302.
Great comparisons.
Would love to see the old engines ran with some good flowing aluminum heads.
I've ran 288, 331, 355, 377, 400, and I think my favorite was the 355. I haven't ventured into the LS game yet. I'm rather old school.
What’s a 355 ?
350 bored .30
How was the 377
I'm A FORD guy.. but the little 283 was my favorite.. it was a screamer
Really good comparison video... Thank you very much.
I had a 69 Camaro with a LT1 350 with the off road GM cam, other than a Edelbrock intake it was bone stock. It turned a rod bearing so I yanked it out of the car and replaced the crank as the rod was ok. Put the car all back together and it didn't have any power like it used to. So I thought I may have had the distributor in wrong. Nope not that at all. The crank I put in was a 327 crank!! No wonder it didn't have any power! It still had 110 lbs compression. So since this was my daily driver I just advanced the timing until it sounded better. Took it for a drive and no pinging sounds - more advance. I put a timing tape on and checked the timing - it was 55 degrees! So I then bought a MSD box for it and set it to 7000 cut out. Richard this was a ripper, with so low a compression it didn't take long to rev up that is why the MSD box. I drove it like that for another 2 years and thrashed it. It had a turbo 400 out of a 4 X 4 with a reverse valve body so it was really fun to drive. Our tuning tools back then was a timing light and a screw driver for jet changes. Keep those comparison videos coming.
your best video ever !!!!! keep the good stuff
This is a great video. All of these motors were impressive in their own right. Would have loved to see the L79 327 in this mix as well. I suspect with its slightly milder cam and smaller 585 cfm carb, it probably would have places somewhere between the 302 and L76 327.
pleased watch the l79 video-it is up
Thanks for this excellent comparison. I was tempted to de-stroke my 327 until I saw this video. The 327 makes the horsepower and torque at a lower RPM which I think would make it more drive-able on the street and easier on the internal engine components (not having to rev to make the power). On another note, any thoughts on the old Edelbrock C3BX intake manifolds? How does it stack up against the factory intakes? I fixing to revive a small journal 327. It's .040 over. The piston are flat tops. The heads are 291 casting 2.02's. The cam is an Engle flat tappet hydraulic 267 duration, .460 lift. It was built back in the early 80's for my old rusty 1968 Chevelle (RIP). I plan on sticking it in a 1963 C-10 and want to go with a 700r4 and stall converter. 3:73 gears? Any thoughts? Thanks!
Intake manifolds have come a long way the newer manifolds are better than the old ones! Get one that is more up dated !
That is still a solid package you are describing, the 3.73 will work well with that 700r4. I agree you should consider upgrading to a Performer intake, dual plane probably best on the street, right?
@@jeffmooers2174 Yes. Street rod. Thanks!
I'd like to see a comparison of the same displacement using different rod lengths. Does that exist anywhere in your postings?
He you tested a 350 crank with a Duntov cam?
NOT AN LT1-OTHERS YES
@@richardholdener1727 thanks for the reply. I just bought a 350 4 bolt main made in Canada with the same casting numbers is the 1969-79 302 (3970010) that’s all the info I could find on it. I was thinking about putting a duntov cam in it but wondering if I’ll lose too much torque. Would you recommend a cam that would make my truck run like a Camaro? I plan on getting some vortec heads and retro fitting a roller cam. Also daily driving :) thanks again, love your content.
That's an interesting comparison. I would not have expected the 3 older engines to top out at the same horsepower. This may indicate that the engines are limited by the breathing of the heads/intake/carb/cam. With changes to those components you would expect the larger displacement to be capable of more peak horsepower. The LS engines are starting with better heads, maybe better intake, so bigger displacement still has some peak power advantage. Of course you demonstrated this when you did other tests with modifications to the 327.
Another thing that I can't address- people used to talk about optimum ratio of bore to stroke. I don't know what the optimum number is but the 302 seems to be closer to it.
My favorite video so far. Perfectly shows an engine is just a big air pump. More displacement = more air flow at lower RPM = more power at lower RPM. We can clearly see the old engines are limited by air flow through the head by how the curves all converge in the right side of the graph.
Just like everything in life engine building is a trade off. Do you want lots of torque for pulling a load or driving around town? Build the largest displacement engine with the longest stroke for 2500-5500RPM power. Want a racing high RPM engine? Build the shortest stroke with a wide bore to keep the piston speed low and make that same power but at 5000-8000RPM. All comes down to how you want the engine behavior to be.
In this vein there is something around a 377ci de-stroked 400 small block that is a strange beast. That would be a neat comparison to a 383 stroker.
I wonder if you can put a 4.8L crank in a 6.0L block and turn it to 9000rpm. Hmm...
You can turn any LS to 9000 RPM...Once!!!!!
I would like to talk to the engineers who designed the ls engines to find out how they figured out what bore and stroke to use you would think they would have used the same block and increase stroke again for the 6.0 but they went for bore and flow
Actually, the 6.0 has the same 4" bore as these 3 SBC do.
@@milojanis4901 I understand that I'm talking about the smaller ls engines
No doubt. Wish instead of the 5.3L, they put the 4.8L crank into the 6L block. Maybe even made a 3” crank... added to the 6L block would have made an updated 302.
Imagine if 98-02 Camaro’s had the option of a 5L 302 LS screamer in the Z28 and the LS1 in the SS.
@@stlchucko I had that idea for the l98 I was thinking about upping the stroke on the ls to about 3.75 if not 4 inches matching that of the bigblocks of yesteryear compare a 4 inch stroke last to a 454
If you scroll through his videos he did a destroker LS it was quite awesome
So if the 302 chevy could get another 1000rpm it would be an absolute monster. I know for a fact that the 302 can definitely do 72-7500rpm and absolutely ruin big displacement motors and outrun them. Its a sewing machine. You can do it now but in 1969 that was a work of art
Yea HP wise not torque wise lol. Torque moves the car not HP👍🏾
Yep. Back in the day, spring technology lacked, so cam lobe ramps had to be slow/mellow to avoid float. A modern solid flat tappet and springs added to otherwise stock 302 would see 8000 all day.
@@twotwocold No replacement for displacement.
Drove my friend’s 69 z28 to my wedding. I can confirm it will go past 9k. Don’t know if the power is falling off up there but it felt like it was still pulling pretty hard
The 302 rules in a car with limited rear wheel wells , like an early Chevy II . A seven inch slick with no bottom end torque , and an engine that will buzz to 9000 rpm with the old Z optional cam . ( Last three digits of the part number are 140 ). This combo tends to give bigger , more powerful cars fits .
That's the same thing with the Ford 289, 302, and 351w engines. They all have a 4-inch bore but increased the stroke. This is what most manufacturers did.
I've got a little 307 that makes big blocks work to keep up. Bored over, domed pistons, 327 crank, 350 double hump heads, 3 angle valve job, port and polish, 750 double pumper and a big old cam. Never had it dynoed but it pulls hard
307 was a boat anchor
@@jasoncolyer6286 that's the best part, everyone talking shit but end up getting smoked by a boat anchor. They can keep the money it's more fun for me to watch them get pissed because a boat anchor just walked their big block 🤣
Another Great Video Sr. Thanks for all of the Great content you post i just fired my TT gen 1 sbc for the first time this weekend. I have not found a setup like i am running and was wanting to know if you have tested one like it. it is a Gen 1 forged 383 twin 60mm turbos running the holley dominator. for fuling i have MPFI for low boost and correction. I have the system setup to have an additional 4 injectors in my Terminator Stealth throttle body cycling in at 40% duty cycle of the main injectors to help cool the charge temps. This is the first boost build i have ever done and now i realize with honestly how little i know (It is easy to talk when it is another persons project but not so if it is yours) I would listen to comments from yourself and people that watch your videos. have you ever tested anything like what I am running?
You mention that the 327 and 302 are basically the same. Sharing cams, et cetera, and making the same output. The only difference besides displacement being the 3.0 stroke of the 302 (I don't remember and haven't gone back the video to find out if you tell the 327 stroke is 3.25) But you don't say why. Perhaps you didn't know that the 302 was created by Chevy so they could run Camaros in the Trans Am Racing Series to compete with Ford and Mopar. The size limit for the league was 5 liters (305 ci). Instead of completely designing, engineering, and everything else to make a new engine for the competition, they wisely put a crankshaft from a 283 into a 327 block. Voila, 4" bore and 3" stoke equals 302 cubic inch displacement, and being a naturally high RPM unit, ran like a bat out of hell.
THAT WAS COVERED