When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
i remember an article in "camaro untold secrets" that had a dyno chart that said it produced 400hp @ 7k RPM. What parts would be needed to do this? And are stock 302's street friendly? :confused:
The 302 was created to comply with the Trans Am (the race series - not the car) maximum engine displacement requirements of 305 CID. It was created by putting a 283 crankshaft in a 327 block (4.00" bore x 3.00" stroke). It was rated at 290 horsepower but everything coming out of detroit back then was rated conservatively.
As far as being street friendly, there are better choices. The 302 was built to go around a track at 4,000 - 7,000 RPM. If the rules back then allowed for a larger engine, believe me, Chevrolet would have used it. You'd be better off with the torque of a 350 - 383 CI engine on a big block for the street.
Agree with Neo Fender. They can make good power, but at mega-rpm. Wasn't the factory redline at 7200 or 7600? I knew a guy who used to dragrace and he turned a lot higher than that. Given a choice you'd probably be happier with bigger displacement.
The factory redline of the 302 Z-28 engine was 6500 as on other solid lifter SBs, but, especially with open exhaust, the stock engine would make power until the the valves floated.
The Traco built 302s with the cross ram manifold and 140 cam made a claimed 440 HP at 7200, In the seventies, five liter F5000 engines with Kinsler injection and better heads made about 500 HP at 8000.
if i was gonna spend the money to make a screamer 302, I'd put it towards a screaming 377 (400 block with a 350 crank). you'd get a lot of the high reving characteristics, but gain 70 cu in. the extra displacement should add some much needed torque to keep a motor like this street-friendly.
again, they were under displacement restrictions, thus the small 302 displacement
Just speculation here, but couldn't you make a modern 302 by combining the crankshaft from a 1994-1996 4.3 liter, L99 (Baby LT-1 used in the Caprice) with an '92-'96 5.7 liter LT-1 block, rods, pistons and heads?
It would be interesting to see how a modern 302 with roller cam, reverse flow cooling, and fuel injection would perform vs. the old DZ 302.
Specifications
DZ-302 (4.000 bore) (3.00 stroke) (5.70 rod) (2.45 main journal) (2.10 rod journal)
L99.......(3.740 bore) (3.00 stroke) (5.94 rod) (2.45 main journal) (2.10 rod journal)
LT-1......(4.000 bore) (3.48 stroke) (5.70 rod) (2.45 main journal) (2.10 rod journal)
The '67 version was 2.30/2.00; '68 and '69 2.45/2.10.
The 302 really doesn't need the large jounals because with only a 1.5" crank throw the small journals provide plenty of journal overlap to maintain crankshaft stiffness.
Back in the seventies a lot of F5000 teams ran small bearing bottom ends because they have less friction. They shifted at 8000 to 8200 and engine reliabiltiy was very good.
My cousin had/has a 68 Z-28, that he bought new, in fact his mother ordered it for him in late '67 when he was in the Army (she drove that thing, for about 1000 miles to get in broke in for him, so it would be ready to rock when he got home...... I don't think the older woman ever had it above 2500 RPM :-). Anyway, he drag raced that car for several years, we had that engie apart many times, it is a small journal crank/2bolt main engine (he did install main studs, in hopes of strenghtening the 2 bolt setup.... ). It seen very hi RPM use, 8500+ on a regular bases, never had a bottom end problem (but it was percisely balanced, and clearances were maintained optimum).
That little 302 was well over 400HP, it ran in the mid 11's (it was .030 over), had tricked up heads, a solid roller, true 13:1, 2x660 holleys, etc., but the rods/crank/block/main caps were stock GM, the original parts. He still has the car, been parked in his garage for ~22 years.