Thanks, everyone. Your personal experience and technical knowhow is exactly
what I was hoping for.
The reason I first thought about the 305 and the 700R4 is because my dad's
'84 1/2 ton has that combo with 200,000+ miles on it. The engine still has
plenty of poop and gets 20 mpg. The 700R4 automatic overdrive seems to work
with the 305's low end torque. His engine does ping more than I like, which
one of you guys mentioned. I'm assuming I can figure a way around that.
Harry
----- Original Message -----
From: <kpierce@copper.net>
To: Spencer <wits_end@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: OleTrucks mailing List <oletrucks@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [oletrucks] Smaller of the small blocks
> Ok. If the following has errors, someone correct me:
>
> 267 has 3.1 inch crankshaft stroke and 3.5 inch bore.
> 283 has 3 inch crankshaft stroke and 3.875 (3 7/8) inch bore.
> 302 has 3 inch crankshaft stroke and 4 inch bore.
> 305 has 3.48 inch crankshaft stroke and 3.736??? bore.
> 307 has 3.25 inch crankshaft stroke and 3.875 bore
> 327 has 3.25 inch crankshaft stroke and 4 inch bore
> 350 has 3.48 inch crankshaft stroke and 4 inch bore.
>
> Lets consider 4000 feet per minute as the practical limit of piston speed.
> First look at the 283 and 302 with the 3 inch stroke. Every revolution of
> the piston will be 6 inches. So at 8000 rpm, the pistons are traveling
> 8000*0.5 ft per minute which is 4000 feet per minute. Now consider the
305
> and 350 with approximately 3.5" stroke will reach 4000 feet per minute at
> 6897 rpm. The 327 will reach 4000 fpm at 7385 rpm.
>
> Incidentally, the ford 302 in mustang has 4 inch bore and 3 inch stroke
just
> like the 302 chevy had.
>
> What I am pointing out is that the engines with the shorter stroke are
> designed to rev higher. With 3.90:1 gears and no overdrive, one of the
> engines with short stroke will be more appropriate and under less strain.
> However, they will also have less torque at low rpm. The knock against
the
> 3.875" bore engines is that there is insufficient room around the valves
> for proper breathing. Consequently, no one uses 2.02 " intake valve on
> small bore engines. However, the 1.90 x 1.5 valve heads work fine with
the
> small bores, but have less potential for mega horsepower.
>
> Personally I am planning to rebuild a 283 for my '57. It will use
> compression about 9.5:1, 461 or 462 casting heads, and a roller camshaft
> from crane or compcams. Goal is 350 ft-lbs torque and 300 horsepower.
The
> 1961 283 rpo 354 achieve less torque but made 315 horsepower. With the
> camshaft advances made with roller cam grinds, I think my goals are
> reasonable.
>
> Back to your question regarding performance potential for the 283, 305 and
> 307? This is just my 2cents, but I'd say the rpm potential of the 283 and
> 307 are greater because of the shorter stroke than the 305. However, if
you
> plan on mild, low-rpm usage, the 305 might be best.
>
> There was a very interesting article in a recent Chevy High Performance on
a
> 327 buildup that made 408 horsepower at 5700 rpm using 9.1:1 compression
and
> a comp cams roller camshaft. I can scan it and forward if you are
> interested. Also, the "Chevelle" edition of Chevy High Performance
recently
> started an article on 283 in a chevelle wagon. I think the next issue is
> going to go into more detail about the 283.
>
> Finally, parts are going to be cheapest for the 305. Next cheapest might
be
> 307 because 350 pistons are same bore size. 283 parts are probably most
> expensive. Of course, the only parts that are unique are the pistons,
> rings, crankshafts. Most other stuff is same regardless of the engine
size.
>
> --- Original Message -----
> From: "Spencer" <wits_end@worldnet.att.net>
> To: <oletrucks@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 7:44 PM
> Subject: [oletrucks] Smaller of the small blocks
>
>
> > Hi, All. I recently picked up a 305 for my '55 1st Series Chevy, then
> began
> > wondering if it was the engine I really wanted. I'm planning on running
a
> > 700R4 tranny and the stock 3:90 rear end and definitely don't want a 350
> or
> > larger engine.
> >
> > My question is a litttle off topic. What are the performance
differences
> > between the 283, 305, and 307 small blocks? And wasn't there a 302?
> >
> > I'm mostly wondering what makes one engine or another better for a mild
> > buildup. I'm planning on a new cam, higher compression pistons,
manifold,
> > headers, etc. Nothing too high dollar.
> >
> > Thanks in advance, and thanks for all the other info I've learned from
> this
> > list.
> >
> > Harry
> > 1955 1st Series Chevy
> > Reno
> > oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
> oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
>
----- Original Message -----
From: <kpierce@copper.net>
To: Spencer <wits_end@worldnet.att.net>
Cc: OleTrucks mailing List <oletrucks@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [oletrucks] Smaller of the small blocks
> Ok. If the following has errors, someone correct me:
>
> 267 has 3.1 inch crankshaft stroke and 3.5 inch bore.
> 283 has 3 inch crankshaft stroke and 3.875 (3 7/8) inch bore.
> 302 has 3 inch crankshaft stroke and 4 inch bore.
> 305 has 3.48 inch crankshaft stroke and 3.736??? bore.
> 307 has 3.25 inch crankshaft stroke and 3.875 bore
> 327 has 3.25 inch crankshaft stroke and 4 inch bore
> 350 has 3.48 inch crankshaft stroke and 4 inch bore.
>
> Lets consider 4000 feet per minute as the practical limit of piston speed.
> First look at the 283 and 302 with the 3 inch stroke. Every revolution of
> the piston will be 6 inches. So at 8000 rpm, the pistons are traveling
> 8000*0.5 ft per minute which is 4000 feet per minute. Now consider the
305
> and 350 with approximately 3.5" stroke will reach 4000 feet per minute at
> 6897 rpm. The 327 will reach 4000 fpm at 7385 rpm.
>
> Incidentally, the ford 302 in mustang has 4 inch bore and 3 inch stroke
just
> like the 302 chevy had.
>
> What I am pointing out is that the engines with the shorter stroke are
> designed to rev higher. With 3.90:1 gears and no overdrive, one of the
> engines with short stroke will be more appropriate and under less strain.
> However, they will also have less torque at low rpm. The knock against
the
> 3.875" bore engines is that there is insufficient room around the valves
> for proper breathing. Consequently, no one uses 2.02 " intake valve on
> small bore engines. However, the 1.90 x 1.5 valve heads work fine with
the
> small bores, but have less potential for mega horsepower.
>
> Personally I am planning to rebuild a 283 for my '57. It will use
> compression about 9.5:1, 461 or 462 casting heads, and a roller camshaft
> from crane or compcams. Goal is 350 ft-lbs torque and 300 horsepower.
The
> 1961 283 rpo 354 achieve less torque but made 315 horsepower. With the
> camshaft advances made with roller cam grinds, I think my goals are
> reasonable.
>
> Back to your question regarding performance potential for the 283, 305 and
> 307? This is just my 2cents, but I'd say the rpm potential of the 283 and
> 307 are greater because of the shorter stroke than the 305. However, if
you
> plan on mild, low-rpm usage, the 305 might be best.
>
> There was a very interesting article in a recent Chevy High Performance on
a
> 327 buildup that made 408 horsepower at 5700 rpm using 9.1:1 compression
and
> a comp cams roller camshaft. I can scan it and forward if you are
> interested. Also, the "Chevelle" edition of Chevy High Performance
recently
> started an article on 283 in a chevelle wagon. I think the next issue is
> going to go into more detail about the 283.
>
> Finally, parts are going to be cheapest for the 305. Next cheapest might
be
> 307 because 350 pistons are same bore size. 283 parts are probably most
> expensive. Of course, the only parts that are unique are the pistons,
> rings, crankshafts. Most other stuff is same regardless of the engine
size.
>
> --- Original Message -----
> From: "Spencer" <wits_end@worldnet.att.net>
> To: <oletrucks@autox.team.net>
> Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 7:44 PM
> Subject: [oletrucks] Smaller of the small blocks
>
>
> > Hi, All. I recently picked up a 305 for my '55 1st Series Chevy, then
> began
> > wondering if it was the engine I really wanted. I'm planning on running
a
> > 700R4 tranny and the stock 3:90 rear end and definitely don't want a 350
> or
> > larger engine.
> >
> > My question is a litttle off topic. What are the performance
differences
> > between the 283, 305, and 307 small blocks? And wasn't there a 302?
> >
> > I'm mostly wondering what makes one engine or another better for a mild
> > buildup. I'm planning on a new cam, higher compression pistons,
manifold,
> > headers, etc. Nothing too high dollar.
> >
> > Thanks in advance, and thanks for all the other info I've learned from
> this
> > list.
> >
> > Harry
> > 1955 1st Series Chevy
> > Reno
> > oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
> oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959
|