91 blue bird

I am looking for information for a chev 302.

I am using a 638 block (4 inch bore, 4-bolt roller block with single rear seal) 88-92 vintage.

From what I've read sofar the L99 crank and rods will work with this block making a 302 so that is one way.

I've heard some of the new GM configurations are v8 with 3 inch cranks. Does anyone know if any other late model GM engines are single seal with 3 inch stroke ?


BB

Night rider327

iTrader: (13)

Here's what I know about the 3.00'' stroke engines

265 (1955-56)
283 (1957-67)
302 (1967) Last year in small journal

302 (1968-69) 68 1st year for large journal
264 gen II (1994-97)

All the above engines had 3.00'' strokes, all but the 264 gen II had 5.7'' rods, where the 264 has longer 5.94'' rods

The 264 gen II would be the ONLY engine with the 1 pc. rear main seal crank with a 3.00'' stroke

The 264 gen II has a cast crank

To make a 302 you need a 4.000'' bore and a 3.00'' stroke

ede

why would you want to go to the extra expense, effort, and time to build a v8 with less displacement?

Aron213

Im sure were going to hear the saying "to be different" just like everyone that wants to stroke a 305!

What this guy will find out is that the 302 is not what it was all hyped up about, they were dogs under 3000RPM (which most street motors operate at), finding pistons under an arm and a leg will be fun and if still planning on using F.I. tuning will be a new journey entirely.

91 blue bird

Say something original.

91 blue bird

Aron213 - I've built 327s, 305s, 350s and a 400. I am bored with 350s. Yawn. Maybe I'm a historian and like old engines ? Maybe I can't count higher than 302 ? Whats it to you ?

Dogs under 3000rpms ? You've driven a 302 powered Chevy right ?

PLEASE tell me you are not talking from hearsay ? No of course not.

PLEASE tell me what cam, intake, exhaust and gears you used with your DOG 302 under 3000rpm ?

PLEASE tell me you are not an arm chair racer who knows it all from what someone else said.

Night rider327 - thx for the input. Do you have any info on the late model GM cranks (truck ???) I am trying to find out if I have any other options than the L99 for single rear main seal and journal size. I was planning on using the L99 5.94 rods with LT4 pistons my engine shop says this will make for proper deck, clearance and CR.

85rocker

Man u are in the wrong place 91 Blue Bird alll these guys no bout is 350s. Ever seen a 5.0 do 12s on a 302 ! And Chevy caint ? wassup ? Bull

ede

what's original about a SBC?

CamaroFreak406

Orginal about a SBC? stock nothing. But building a 302 from a 350 block with LT-4 pistons and a 265 (L99 I was almost sure was a 265 not 264, but most definetly a 3" stroke). Now that is orginal.

91 Blue bird, good luck with the 302, let me know how the late model 302 turns out and I'll let you know how my Classic Iron 302 turns out (it's going into my '67 Camaro Sport Coupe) s/b fun.

Later, Garrett

Aron213

Well I wasnt blasting you but thats the way you take thing, lets look at what I do...

I probably build more HiPo motors in a week than you will in a life time. I have a 69 302 motor at the shop now.

Have I driven one?...No I have driven two. One had a single and the other had dual quads, both had 4 speeds. Both were stock cam and thru manifolds. And yes under 3000 rpm both of those cars were dogs to the point that from stop light to stop light they lacked. Now if I was to say take these cars to a road course where they could be opened up, hell maybe I would give them credit where do.
You might try thinking about this, if the 302 was such a great motor why did Chevy stop making them after 3 years, say that the rules changed in Trans Am and were allowed lager dispacement please, cause you know so much that, you being bored with a 350's and all should know how bad they suck and the 302 being so great they would run circles around those 350s, and why everybody is building 302 chevys these days, oh wait thier not.

If you want to impress people build a large displacement SBC

85 Rocker, Comparring the 302 Ford to the Chevy 302 is apples and oranges.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I had a "hybrid" 302 back in the early 70's - 327 block, 283 crank. .060"-over, so it was really a 310.7 CID.

No guts below 2500 RPMs with the 2.02/1.60 angle-plug heads & LT1 solid lifter cam, Torker single-plane intake. But, it sure was fun from 2500-6000 RPMs!

Of course, it would have been even more fun from 2500-6000 RPMs with a 3.48" stroke.

Pistons aren't that bad - Summit p/n TRW-L2210AF - only $50 or so more for a set than similar 350 pistons.

I'd think the hard part would be a crank, although you could use a two-piece seal adapter on the block.

Oh, still a little difficult to find a large-journal 3" crank.

If I had a 302 and 305 sitting side-by-side in the garage, both needing the same amount of work to get them running - no question which I'd run.

Of course, if I had a 302, 305, and 350 sitting side-by-side in the garage, there would be even less question which I'd run.

Night rider327

iTrader: (13)

Let's not get in the cube war yall, come on give us all a break here. If we all built the very common 355 or 383 it would be a boring and dull hobby. Let the man built what he wants.

I said in another post i'm a 327 fan. I should have said i'm a big bore short stroke fan. You give me 5 grand and a pick between a 302, 327, 305, 350, 383, 400 to build and i'll tell you right now it would be a tough debate between the 302 and 327 non of the others,

Aron213... If your doing your builds to impress people, then my friend your in the wrong hobby, but if you really wanna impress people you build a very high horsepower SMALL CUBE engine that out runs big blocks, and watch peoples faces when you telling them oh that it's just a little 302, little 327, etc.

Anybody with a fat wallet can build or buy a big cube engine and run fast times

91 blue bird...... I wish I had more info for you on the late model 3.00'' stroke cranks, but I don't. Only reason I knew about them was caused I used the 5.94'' rods from one once. I really deal with the pre 1980 engines myself bud

Guest

Lots of internet experts, as usual. Lets drop the whole name dropping, experience thing here because it serves no purpose. Everyone thinks they know better, fact is you guys arent working for race teams or you wouldnt have time to post here

I'm going to agree with what was said about 302's. Less low end torque than a comparably built larger cube engine, physically limited to it. You want to build one, thats entirely your choice. If you are looking for the most power, not the right choice. If you just want to build a 302 for whatever other reason except to be 'different', thats your choice and you have the info you need to build it I do believe. Make sure you get the right pistons and rods for that setup though, and check it twice. I also agree that building a 302 over a 305, 327, 350, 383, 400, or any other combination isnt 'different', they all look the same under the hood. you'll find a scarce few people that would be able to tell the difference, and in some cases its impossible. Only person that will know is you, so dont think everyone is going to be impressed with your 302 when they look under the hood, they wont know. Sorry if thats harsh, but thats reality. You'll have to stick a 302 badge on it... maybe a vintage one off a early Camaro would work well. Better than telling everyone what it really is, thats no fun.

91 blue bird

aron213, ede - ok, was harsh just got annoyed instead of answers to my question I got opinions on my choice. Just wanted some answers thats all.

I think I'll start another thread pros & cons of a 302. In the meantime aron213 if you are spending that much time building engines can you look up GEN II blocks to see which ones are using 3 inch stroke besides the L99 ?

BB

ede

blue there's nothing wrong with being differant, but i don't think any SBC is going to be much differant from another. i love 4 and 6 cylinder engines, try making HP with a 5hp briggs engine and keeping it togther. i have a pretty good handle on being differant spending more and getting less, but there is s degree of satisfaction in doing it.

Ian_F

I love the idea of building a 302. If I had enough money, I would definitly build one for my 76. All 91 blue bird wanted was to get some information on these high revvers. All some of you did was pick on him and tell him to build something else. 91 blue bird, you might find more info on these engines posting at www.nastyz28.com. I saked about them a while ago and they were very helpful.

AJ_92RS

Want to be different? Build a 4.125" bore with a 3" stroke for 325.4 ci.

Or how about a 3.5" bore with a 3.75" stroke for 288.6 ci.

Or better yet, a 3.5" bore with a 3" stroke for 230.9 ci. :sillylol:

Those would certainly be "different".

GM was forced to produce a small engine to compete in the Trans Am series. They didn't "choose" to make this engine. AAMOF, they only built it because they had the spare parts laying around to make it. (Imagine GM doing that? )

If you're gonna build a 302, build it to build it. Don't build it to try and be the "Under Dog". You remind me of the "I got 55hp per liter" 'tards. My B&S lawnmower makes more HP/liter than that. SO WHAT!!! WHO CARES???

Want to know the first thing that's gonna go through someone's mind IF you do happen to beat them and tell them you got a 302?
"Imagine if he would have put that effort into a bigger motor?"

A friend of mine put some time and effort to hop up his 305 to get his '87 Monte SS into the mid 13 second range. Know what he did next? Bought a 502 BBC.
Why? He said he didn't want to get a 350 because everyone else has one.
How many Chevys have I seen with 305s, 350s or 383s in them? A LOT!!
How many with 502s in them? Not many.
How many (besides a first 1st gen) with 302s in them? NONE!!!

I wonder why?

Guest

HITHERE'm pretty sure the L99 is the only newer engine with HITHERE 3" stroke. Only other option is an aftermarket crank, not an entirely bad idea if thats what you want to do. Most catalogs wont list it (like Summit, Jegs) but they are there, they just dont waste the print to advertise it.

Aron213

No problem man, We use HITHERE program at work called PROSIS that gives me specs on every engine made, Ill look but to the best of my knowledge the 265 is the only 1 piece rear seal crank with the 3.00 stroke.

91 blue bird

Re-read the posts AJ_92RS. Aron213 only suggested I might want to be different. I said nothing of the sort. Please do not confuse your "different" with my interest in a 302 project.

Not sure what your "under dog" is about I'll leave that to you and the chip on your shoulder, let me quote you "SO WHAT!!! WHO CARES??? ". Thx for the insight.

I think that if a 302 beats you probability is it will be a Ford what are you on about anyway ?

Also, I please do not lament about your friends and their engine building mishaps on this thread maybe go see a counselor instead (ROLL-EYES) ?

What an experience this has been. A guy I know raved about this site as the answer to all things Camaro and small block so I joined, made a post with a simple question about a project I am interested in and look at the trashing ? Is there some kind of etiquette rules here ? This hasn't happend on any other site I've been on I mean look at the question I asked how did it lead to all this nonsense directed at me this is what I asked ...

"I've heard some of the new GM configurations are v8 with 3 inch cranks. Does anyone know if any other late model GM engines are single seal with 3 inch stroke ?"

What is so offensive ?

???
BB

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I suppose we can get too nanny-like here. So many people make statements or ask questions that involve violating the laws of physics. Many others read too many magazines and don't spend any time under the hood, or have "heard" something from a guy who knows a guy that used to have...

Personally, I don't have funds to do something more than once, typically. I've still made some mistakes that I could have avoided had I sought advice here first. Overall, I've learned a great deal in the last three years hanging around this board. My vehicles are better off for it.

So, back to the beginning: What's your motivation for building this engine?

I personally promise not to flame your response, but if you ask for an opinion about your decision...

91 blue bird

I think you have to wear a flame retardant suit on this site.

It is not a money thing fortunately for me I made some useful decisions early on that now provide some financial freedoms. If I was cash strapped or budget driven then maybe it would be an issue, but I am neither, nor am I, as I stated earlier, interested in yet another 'cheap' 350.

Now because you ask... a buddy of mine is a Mustang guy, has been for about as long as I've been a Camaro guy. He's built 302s since the late 80s while I've built 305s, 327s (my favourite) and 350s and some others I've forgotten by now. His argument is something of the sort GM can only compete by cubes so recently I took him up on the challenge said OK, I'll build a Chev 302 and see how we compare. Now we all know there are several dozen factors involved (not just motor) determining who or what is fastest.... but all things being equal it seemed like a fun challenge so we made a couple of simple rules no adders, no juice and stock heads of the era (80's) and see where it ends up ? There is no rule book just a simple agreement between friends he is actually hoping to see a real performer outta my '302' his angle is if the Chev 302 does well it proves GM is idiots and Ford had it right. I figure if the Chev 302 performs then it is just another example of GM SBC being the best overall design.

CamaroFreak406

Well maybe you should have picked a different platform to take this challenge. Because the aftermarket scene for Ford 302's is huge and that's Ford's baby. Would it have been fair to do it on a 351 Modified vs. 350 Chev (Hell no the 350 would kill the 351 because of the aftermarket parts available for the 350).

But if it's what you want go for it (and hopefully the GM will win !!) But if not oh well.

Good Luck, Garrett

AJ_92RS

Nothing's offensive.

You got so caught up in the "reasons you shouldn't build a 302" that you overlooked the "reason you SHOULD build one".

Perhaps I can quote myself here......
Try not to be offended by that comment. It wasn't really aimed at you. Sorry......

It was aimed at all the "I'd love to be able to build a small engine and beat people with a 350" comments people have made in the past.

In my rapid reading, I saw Aron213's comment of "Im sure were going to hear the saying "to be different" just like everyone that wants to stroke a 305!" and I made the incorrect assumption that this was YOUR intention. Obviously it isn't and I appologize.

I guess what really tripped my trigger more than anything was this comment " I would definitly build one for my 76" made by Ian_F.

I hope you're not talking about a '76 F-body. A 302 will not do well in a 4000lb car.

Again...... sorry.

Sunoco#6

Here's what Vic Edelbrock run's in his 1st gen Camaro (from the Edelbrock web site):
The current 302 is a single-four barrel, solid-lifter motor with iron 492 64cc heads, 6-inch Carrillo rods, 12.5:1 pistons, an LA billet 4340 steel crank, a Performer RPM dual-plane intake, a Crane mechanical cam, Crane 1.6:1 roller rockers and an Edelbrock aluminum water pump. It makes 470 horsepower at 7500 rpm. Edelbrock plans to switch over to the dual-four barrel Edelbrock STR10 cross-ram intake in the near future. The 1-3/4 inch headers were fabricated by Doug Holmberg at DAH Header Works in Redondo Beach, California.

To bad you said heads from the eighties...the LS1 based 302 built a while back by Westech Automotive: 435hp @6000 rpm.

five7kid

iTrader: (14)

I still had my "hybrid" 302 when GM came out with the 305. I thought they got it backwards at the time. I understand their reasoning - doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Now that we know your motives, your restrictions, and that funds aren't one of the restrictions, I think we can get behind your project.

Sportsman II heads are "80's era". Go for a pair of them, I'd say.

What induction are you planning?

Keep us updated on the progress.

Oh, watch him very carefully and make sure he doesn't build a 347...

Aron213

Hey man, I looked for you today and the only 3.00 stroke I saw with a 1 piece rear seal is the "baby LT-1" 265 from GM. Im sure aftermarket has many but that is the only GM crank I saw for a newer block.

91 blue bird

AJ_92RS - apology graciously accepted thank-you.

Aron213 - thx for the update atleast I know some facts now, not really interested in after market pieces prefer GM if they will 'fit'.

Sunoco #6 - LS1 motors continually surprise with their potential they seem to have no end is it possible they will eventually be called the best Chev SB ever ?

CamaroFreak406 - the baddest sbc I ever saw was a 406 I think they can make pretzels out of 3rd gens. I agree the after market on Ford 302s is amazing and it should be they've been pop for about 20 years now. Here is something to consider -- my buddy's 5.0 has stock heads and I've never been impressed with stock Ford heads (other than the 'M' motors). I'm going to use slightly warmed up L98 heads its been awhile but some years back I read the stock L98s flowed significantly better than the stock 302s heads. Anyone know about that ?

five7kid - we agreed the heads would be factory castings (hey I could get a set of AFRs wouldn't be much of a race eh ?). I'll be using a mod'd TPI enough to peak around 6500rpms.

So what makes the Ford 302 so bad ? I plan on building a 4x3 motor with an LT4 HOT cam and some prep'd L98 heads. Exhaust will be first rate. When I compare my build sheet with his I have a little more cam (he's got a B303) and I have far more head flow. His setup peaks around 6500rpms so will mine. I'll have more power above 4000rpms (2.02/1.6) valves both will be full roller valve train. I've got better gearing. His car is lighter. Might get down to weight ? Alot depends on how well I can dial in the setup.

Guest

I wouldnt underestimate the Ford. I have a set of stock 91 heads on mine (stock as in... stock, never seen any sort of grinding bit) and while my car is a bit on the light side, I ran a tractionless mid 13@107.

Definitely post the results.

RB83L69

If you're stuck with "stock" heads, I'd recommend a set of 416 or 081 305 castings. Their chamber is smaller, so you'll be able to get more comrpession with a flat-top piston (far better than a domed setup when possible); and supposedly the have about the same amount of metal in all the right places to port out to about the same flow as double-humps or L98 heads.

Personally I don't have anything against the F*rd 302; it was their bread-and-butter powerplant for years. The single biggest advantage it has over the SBC is that there are only 4 head bolts around eachcylinder, rather than 5 like the SBC; the Chevy engineers apparently wanted to be sure there were enough, but it turns out in retrospect to be a bit excessive. With all those bolts, plus the push rods, there's not enough room for intake ports, given production tolerances in casting and machining. Of course, giving a set of heads a "hand" job gives you the opportunity ti work to much tighter tolerances.

Once you overcome that, there's little difference in the potential of the 2 motors. You can win, if you do a good job on the heads, and pick your other components (cam, intake, etc.) correctly.

BlackcamaroIROC

why would you be impressed by stock E7 ford heads? they were terrible. gains of up to 70HP can be had by simply by swapping over to a twisted wedge head on an otherwise stock motor. that's just how good a 302 is, ford or chevy. I say go for it, they aren't crappy motors by any means, if you build it right you can put many 350 and 383s to shame for the same amout of money invested. Bring the weight down to 3000 lbs (easy with a third gen), gear it after dyno tuning it (to see where your powerband is) and kick *** with a "5.0L camaro"

Guest

Why would you revive a long dead post?