rsmith350 Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 The Ford guys started theirs so I figure I'll start this one for the Bowtie guys. There's been a few people that brought up 1.6 rockers and shorty headers, anyone else have some suggestions for cheap and powerful? (wow that's an oxymoron) I was thinking let the guys with TPI run larger runners or just expand the current ones with a cheap set of the Chrome spheres (tried not to say balls LOL) Not a cure all, but an option on our side of the fence. Who's next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camaro_1le Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 In talking Carolina Auto Masters on how to achieve the goals, the suggestion for the TPI motor is to run 350 short block (1 piece rear seal) with the 305 081 heads, LB9 cam and the stock TPI unit. There would have to be some computer tuning. But that is going to be a given for any change. Not counting labor, figure the 350 short block can be had for under $500. Just my input... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffburch Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 JP, I would'nt think that config would need a retune. jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 I posted this question on TGO http://www.thirdgen.org/techboard/tech-general-engine/483496-wanted-260hp-300tq-305-a.html?highlight= Only real insight I got was this... When I still ran my 305 with a 5-speed I had 252 RWHP and 317 RWTQ with this combination. I am sure other combinations of heads could give the same results. -350 Vortec heads -1098 felpro steel shim head gasket -SDPC intake manifold, TPIS large tube runners -ZZ-4 cam -Max headers and cat back exhaust -Stock chip worked fine -Stock 19 LB injectors worked fine -SLP cold air intake What about bigger injectors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camaro_1le Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 When I still ran my 305 with a 5-speed I had 252 RWHP and 317 RWTQ with this combination. I am sure other combinations of heads could give the same results. -350 Vortec heads -1098 felpro steel shim head gasket -SDPC intake manifold, TPIS large tube runners -ZZ-4 cam -Max headers and cat back exhaust -Stock chip worked fine -Stock 19 LB injectors worked fine -SLP cold air intake It was my understanding that getting the 350 Vortec heads to fit the 305 took a bunch of work. I had thought the Vortec heads might be a decent option too. Not sure how plentiful they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffburch Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Oh they're plentiful, it's just that if you retain the TPI you'll need a Edelbrock lower manifold made specifically for the TPI on those heads.. One thing leads to another. Hopefully, bolt ons (1.6 roller rockers, headers) are being tested on cars already making the 230/300 #'s. IMO bolt ons won't be enough. Then what? jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camaro_1le Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Oh they're plentiful, it's just that if you retain the TPI you'll need a Edelbrock lower manifold made specifically for the TPI on those heads.. One thing leads to another. Hopefully, bolt ons (1.6 roller rockers, headers) are being tested on cars already making the 230/300 #'s. IMO bolt ons won't be enough. Then what? jb The lower manifolds are not cheap. I priced one out a week or so ago, if I remember right, it was about $500. The head work to get the Vortec to work on the 305 was not going to be cheap either. I would hope the bolt ons would work, but few people I have spoken to think they will do anything much. The biggest concern I heard about the 350 bottom end was the compression with the 081 heads being around 10.1:1. Figure that can be addressed and some headers to tune. Personally, I would like to stay away from aftermarket headers. The stock manifolds provide enough flow restriction that you don't really have to worry about the system down stream. With headers, we are going to be doing a lot of tuning with the exhaust system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carson Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 I suggest test done on base line cars that make real world 220 HP and 275 TQ rather than 230 HP/300 TQ test cars ( which are rather rare out here ) the test need to shoot for higher than max numbers like 270HP/310TQ rather than fall short of the proposed target 260HP/300TQ easyier to restrict or add wieght that try ad find the missing HP+TQ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffburch Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 I agree JP, no money/time for all that crap. That C/R thing is a sticky wicket, good luck defining all the combo possibilities. jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cozog1548534733 Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Why not just allow 3G's to swap a LT1/LS1 in? Then you are just restricting the HP, not searching for it. Would be approx. the same cost, maybe? I mean how much is all this gonna cost (plus installation for some guys)?: -350 Vortec heads ($600) -1098 felpro steel shim head gasket ($75) -SDPC intake manifold, TPIS large tube runners ($300?) -ZZ-4 cam ($300?) -Max headers and cat back exhaust ($150 + $300?) -SLP cold air intake ($200?) So you're at ~$2k, with no labor charges? I would think a stock LT1 can be had used for the same money, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waco Racer Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Why not just allow 3G's to swap a LT1/LS1 in? Then you are just restricting the HP, not searching for it. Which transmission would you put behind it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camaro_1le Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Why not just allow 3G's to swap a LT1/LS1 in? Then you are just restricting the HP, not searching for it. Which transmission would you put behind it? If we are restricting the torque to 300, then the T5 would be the starting point. An upgrade would be a nice option (T56). But the T5 should not have an issue handling the 300 ft/lb of torque. I know mine is doing okay with the 232/305 numbers right now. Watch it grenade this weekend at VIR. It is not like we are doing power shifts. The most cost effective is a 350 in the cars. And it kind of stays with the spirit since you could get one in the third gen...the automatic is the spoiler to that line of reasoning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cozog1548534733 Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 The most cost effective is a 350 in the cars. And it kind of stays with the spirit since you could get one in the third gen...the automatic is the spoiler to that line of reasoning. That's what I'm saying. If you allow only a LT1 in 82-97 cars and LS1 in 98-02 cars, with 260/300, wouldn't that be much simpler to implement, maintain, manage and enforce? No fancy cams, intake or exhausts to replace, just a plain ol stock LT1/LS1. No boring, no headers, nothing but a air filter swap. And couldn't Mustangs do the same thing? Then you have like 2 STOCK engines max, instead of 3 base engines and swapping parts between them. I'm a HUGE fan of the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) philosophy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ginsberg Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 Why not just allow 3G's to swap a LT1/LS1 in? Then you are just restricting the HP, not searching for it. Would be approx. the same cost, maybe? I mean how much is all this gonna cost (plus installation for some guys)?: -350 Vortec heads ($600) -1098 felpro steel shim head gasket ($75) -SDPC intake manifold, TPIS large tube runners ($300?) -ZZ-4 cam ($300?) -Max headers and cat back exhaust ($150 + $300?) -SLP cold air intake ($200?) So you're at ~$2k, with no labor charges? I would think a stock LT1 can be had used for the same money, right? As a point of reference - that's about the same $$$ the 5.0L pushrod guys are spending on the Cobra/GT40 parts. And couldn't Mustangs do the same thing? Not really. A 351W can be installed in a Fox3 or SN95 chassis, but costs are daunting to say the least, not to mention the added weight to the nose of a chassis already hampered with significant Durante syndrome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 That's what I'm saying. If you allow only a LT1 in 82-97 cars and LS1 in 98-02 cars, with 260/300, wouldn't that be much simpler to implement, maintain, manage and enforce? No fancy cams, intake or exhausts to replace, just a plain ol stock LT1/LS1. No boring, no headers, nothing but a air filter swap. And couldn't Mustangs do the same thing? Then you have like 2 STOCK engines max, instead of 3 base engines and swapping parts between them. I'm a HUGE fan of the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) philosophy. True, but a 94 4th gen is currently allowed to swap in an LS1 for CMC2, correct? Why not allow LS1/T56 for all generations of camaros then? Then there wouldn't be a need to restrict it to 260, everyone will have 300hp. It's only 1 stock engine to maintain. Can't get much simpler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camaro_1le Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 I agree with the thought on the LT1 in a third gen. I spoke with a friend of mine when the announcement was made. His take, those are perfect LT1 numbers. It was a no brainer to allow the third gen to run an LT1. I think a straight LT1 swap is the most straight forward and has the same cost involved as trying to bastardize the 305 to make numbers. If we start to allow head and computer work to get the numbers, look out can of worms. We know what the LT1 puts to the wheels and what the torque curve is suppose to be. So what other downside to it? I just don't believe 1.6 rockers and headers will result in 30 more HP in a 305. I know my guy here in Durham, NC does not believe it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffburch Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 So what other downside to it? Availability? T56? ECM, harness, mounts, cross-member, OPTISPARK! jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 So what other downside to it? Aluminum headed, reverse flow small block chevys are getting very difficult ti find in Texas. Lloyd Elliot has scarfed up all the decent heads and intakes to do his magic porting. Six Speeds Inc has done about the same thing for T56s I know this is a 3rd gen thread, but Al and I discussed a while back about a "spec" head from a 3rd party, like Edlebrock, as a reasonable replacement head for an LT1. Remember, the production numbers for aluminum headed LT1s was rather limited. 94-97 F-Cars and 93-96 Vettes had similar heads. The 92 Vette and 93 Camaro heads are slightly different, more like an L98, I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comeback kid Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 "That's what I'm saying. If you allow only a LT1 in 82-97 cars and LS1 in 98-02 cars, with 260/300, wouldn't that be much simpler to implement, maintain, manage and enforce? No fancy cams, intake or exhausts to replace, just a plain ol stock LT1/LS1. No boring, no headers, nothing but a air filter swap. " Plus electrical swap, fuel pump swap, and depending on the specific model year of the F-Body, maybe a radiator swap. Oh, and maybe swaping ignition systems. LT1 is not a bad option if you are able to allow a carbed version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AThomas Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 So what other downside to it? Availability? T56? ECM, harness, mounts, cross-member, OPTISPARK! jb There's also the fact that I can't figure out how to bolt my carburetor to an LT1 intake. This is something that I found while looking for 305 info. Not an exact solution, but some food for thought: http://popularhotrodding.automotive.com/44779/0667-phrs-305-chevy-engine-blocks/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 lets not use the LS1 in a 94 f-body as a reason to allow LT1's in a 92 F-body. the 4th gen came w/ both LT1's and LS1's. it no different than 3rd gens coming w/ carb'ed 305's and TPI 305's. in 82 they were all carbed and in 92 they were all TPI. the fords have the same issue w/ the SN95 5.0 cars and the 4.6 cars. its not to say that what your asking isnt out of the question, but its not a valid reason for allowing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffburch Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Hello Mike Plum. Anything you can add would be appreciated. thx, jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug1548534725 Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 I just don't believe 1.6 rockers and headers will result in 30 more HP in a 305. I know my guy here in Durham, NC does not believe it. It seems like 260 is going to be at the top "heavy", meaning most people will probably be actually shooting for 250 hp at minimum weight. This is only 15 hp from my 235, and I think could easily be gotten from 1.6 rockers and headers. 230 -> 260 is going from the light side of the table to the heavy side, which I don't think is what most people will be doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffburch Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Ginsberg's video from Sear's indicated (to me) this not to be the case. Maybe they were AI cars jb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted July 22, 2008 Share Posted July 22, 2008 Hello Mike Plum.Anything you can add would be appreciated. thx, jb i pointed Mike to this thread and he asked me to let you guys know he will respond at his first chance on Tuesday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.