It was a 302 they were developing for Trans-Am racing, it was going to use the Ram Air V top end IIRC. Shawn
Lots of guys hate on the 301, I have four T/A's, all with the Turbo 301 and haven't had an ounce of trouble. The fastest car in NHRA Stock Eliminator this year is a Turbo 301 Formula: Southwestern Int. Raceway in Tucson Az. during the Division 7 Lucas Oil Divisional, Chris Denton driving her 80 Turbo TransAm set the P/SA (P/stock automatic) with a 12.17 @ 109 mph. Yeah, 301's suck hard. Everyone hates on the Cheyv 307 but they're a decent motor. Problem with the Pontiacs is that Chevy guys drive them like Chevy motors and try to get 6000 rpm out of them when it's not necessary. The 301 has a goofy crank and it shouldn't ever be taken north of 5500 rpm but you never need to, the torque peak for the turbo motor is 345 ft/lb at 2000 rpm. Remember, these were late 70's, early 80's smogger motors, built for fuel economy and emissions standards. They ALL stunk pretty bad. The '77 is the worst 301 block, they had some machining problems early in the run and the motors didn't oil properly. It was all sorted by 1978. The 301 is also lighter than the SBC by 50 lbs. If you're ever out on the left coast I'll give you a ride in a 301T powered Turbo Trans Am that might change your mind. Shawn
And that's with stock small journal rods? Thanks for the info. I've been kicking around a stroker with one of my 265 blocks.
I just have a few thoughts on a vsbc (very small block chevy). To me I can't quite understand why you would want one. You talk to anyone who ran a 302 or a small cube engine in a racing class if they would run a bigger engine if they could? They would say hell ya!! I hear alot of talk about spinning these engines 9000 rpm. You know what it takes to spin an engine that kind of rpm and keep the valvetrain together? Cubic $$$$. Sure you can do it a few times in short burst now and then, but sooner or later your going to have the guts on the road about 50 yards behind the car. Through the years modern technology, the seat of the pants, and the neck has proven bigger=more power. So build the vsbc and rev it to the moon while a warmed over 350 blows by ya. Don't detune. Hotrod something. If you want to do something that's different take a small engine and stroke it, make it bigger, better. It's more fun that way. Economy? If you want to save $$$$ see what your parts bill will be. Price a 350 for parts, then peice together a kit for an oddball stroker. It would take years of driving a slug to pay for it. Then if you wanted to sell it you need to find a guy who is willing to step up and put a real engine in it. Sorry I just had to say it.
Not to get nit-picky, but the Ram Air small block built for Trans Am racing for '69 was technically a 303 c.i. motor .....head is full of all kinds of useless knowledge.
Bass, keep up the good work. I am putting an early Olds together the same way; as period correct as I can make it. Of course with an old Olds one doesn't have to many options. Is your cam duration 278 @ .050 or total? Please let us know how it runs.
I love what you are doing. The average Joe farm kid back in the late 50s early 60s did not have a lot of money to go out and simply buy a bigger motor or speed parts, they used parts that were available cheaply with a great deal of ingenuity to come up with a fast car. My Dad built a 265 for his 55 Chevy that was bored .125 that had milled heads and a three speed trans with a straight line shifter that he designed for much quicker throws. He was beat one time in 1962 at Mo-Kan Dragway, (and he was racing quit a bit), and was never beat on the street. No tachometer, as he says he could just "hear" when to shift, but he must have been turning 7,500 plus. What you are building is a link to the past and extremely cool. BlackCherry
Bass, I like those early engines, too. My 265.....'57 block,'56 Corvette heads, '58 Corvette intake and WCFB, 300/327 cam. I like it........revs pretty quick, cruises nicely and gets about 18 mpg. Although, I do have an early 327 block and a steel 283, maybe a clean-up bore to make a 311? Hmmmmm
http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/features/0503hpp_1969_pontiac_trans_am/index.html http://books.google.com/books?id=a6...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA82,M1 http://www.wallaceracing.com/enginetheory.htm http://www.highperformancepontiac.com/tech/hppp_0602_pontiac_camshaft_engineering/index.html
You are correct, it's no relation to the later 301 econo-motor. I hate the useless knowledge thing, it usually shoves out something more important! Shawn
My son and I would like to build a 181in sbc / 3.25 bore and 2.75 stroke blower engine for a lakester class at Bonneville. That should be one hi reving engine,
I just now came across this thread. I built a 314 for my e/mp camaro back in 70,, 3.08 stroke w/ 4.03 bore. The car had to weigh 3600 to pull the 11.5 lb per cube. ran 11.03 @ 123.6 mph. requires 552 hp. I ran against Lee Shepard driving for Rehr and Morrison in a 62 Chevvy ll stationwagon. Never beat them, but had lot of fun trying. They were the record holders with that wagon. I launched at 11,000 with a 40 lb flywheel into 2:66 1st gear mopar box and into a 6:17 rear dana 60. What a rush.
Sounds like a good time. We were just talking about small cubic inch engines today and David was telling me about a 310 they had built for their car in the early racing days. 3'' stroke, 4.030 bore with TRW pistons small journal block and they would deck the block .100 and mill .100 of the top of the pistons because they were so thick...the rest is top secret haha. -E.C.
Was the crank offset ground to arrive at the 3.08 or was it a custom made from one of the crank manufactuers? Sounds like it was a wild ride.
Wow! Sounds like a good time for sure. 278 advertised, 234 @ .050. Kind of small for a solid roller, but it's in a street car with relatively small valves and a fairly small cubic inch. Should still thump pretty good with the compression it's gonna have. The cam actually started life as an old Isky 550 Superleggera, but it had a flat lobe and needed to be freshened up. Ron Iskenderian talked me into a little smaller, more modern grind.
I was just reading about the motor they built for this car but it deosn't make sense. in a rod and custom article they state that it was a 265 block with a 5/8th's inch destroked crank used in that streamliner to make it 183 cubes. unfortunately that doesn't jive. 265 block is 3.75"x3" destroked 5/8's makes it into 3.75x2.375 which makes 209.8?? with a 3.5" bore it would come out to to the 183 cubes..... been looking at this a little wondering how you could get to 195 cubes in a sbc to stuff it in a midget if it would make any kind of power....
I'm pretty sure that's not what they were doing with a '56 block, although the cubes are close, this was someone I talked to on here in the last 3 or 4 years.
The short stroke gives them a slow rod speed because it doesnt travel as far in 1 revolution, which makes it easier to run rediculious RPMS without money, and with more RPM=more power with the right cam/intake, 'cuz thats more air getting run through. Also When you can blow a bottom end out of a small block 302 with power, do you really need any more inches??
That's an opinion. Because the 5.0 (aka 302) doesn't have any street cred at all. Yeah...they just don't go like a mother fucker at all.... The only meaningful difference between a 302 Chevy and a 302 Ford is heads, intake and cam. Aside from those neither holds any real advantage.
The Jalopy Journal
