jrock4224 Posted October 4, 2012 Report Share Posted October 4, 2012 heres what i dont get the 283 was a pretty stout little motor how come the 305-307's were pfffttttt.... nuttins Quote Link to comment
DaBlist Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 Bore to stroke ratio. These are two valve motors and had small bore sizes for their displacement compared to 283, 327 etc. Small bores limits the valve size and this limits high rpm hp. We are talking NA motors here. 4 valve motors aren't as performance limited by small bore ratios and is why the Ford 4V 5.4 is considered a great performance motor. It has a crazy long stroke and torque for its size but can still breath at high rpm. Quote Link to comment
Rhapakatui Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 I don't know about chebies, but I do know that somewhere there is an engineer who can't stop giggling knowing that my crew is building a dozen of his dirty drawings. Quote Link to comment
blackwolf Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 oops Grooooose CPS?? yea i can weld better with a cutting torch and coat hanger lol Quote Link to comment
a.d._510_n_ok Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 in my youth (1980s) Chevy guys just wanted to everyone to forget about the gutless small block of 307 cubes. finding a '68 Chevelle still running it's original 307 is kinda like seeing your buddy's wife has a tramp stamp that says "PROPERTY OF THE 1989 DALLAS COWBOYS".....it's really funny to everyone except the dude who has to live with the God-awfulness of it. Quote Link to comment
datzenmike Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 307s were ok. Don't forget they were born in the middle of the muscle car era and they were kind of small, and I think only 2bbl. Also the 283 was rated by brake HP or without water pump, alternator, fan, muffler or any losses from auxiliary devices. Around this time it was switched to net HP or real world transmission and differential losses. The 283 was 185 HP but the 307 was 115???? Comparing apples to oranges. A 283's net HP was likely under 100 HP. Quote Link to comment
DaBlist Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 307s were ok. Don't forget they were born in the middle of the muscle car era and they were kind of small, and I think only 2bbl. Also the 283 was rated by brake HP or without water pump, alternator, fan, muffler or any losses from auxiliary devices. Around this time it was switched to net HP or real world transmission and differential losses. The 283 was 185 HP but the 307 was 115???? Comparing apples to oranges. A 283's net HP was likely under 100 HP. Because Chevy never offered a performace version of the 307 most thought it was a zero but if you stroke a 283 with a 327 crank you get the same thing and they thought you were a hero. Now it's all about Chevy LS motors and turbos. Quote Link to comment
jrock4224 Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 nothing like a v8 with l series hp numbers 1 Quote Link to comment
JoeCool Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 Because Chevy never offered a performance version of the 307 most thought it was a zero but if you stroke a 283 with a 327 crank you get the same thing and they thought you were a hero. Now it's all about Chevy LS motors and turbos. Biggest problem I have with the LS motor is it is UGLY AS SIN! Not to mention how expensive parts are for it. I prefer old school motors with less expensive parts that were beautiful works of art. Painted blocks, chrome valve covers and air cleaner, etc. ALL STOCK. Hell, even imports had nice looking engines. I was amazed when I cleaned my engine that the block was blue! Quote Link to comment
72240z Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 Lsx is def an ugly series but they are all biz and make power like nothing. I think it may be as refined as the amaerican ohc v8 may get Quote Link to comment
DAT510 Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 LT1 anybody? :lol: I like the throttle body. 1 Quote Link to comment
izzo Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 my dad had a 94 z28 with the Lt1 in it. That car was quick, stock. 1 Quote Link to comment
72240z Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 LT1 was a fine motor but the LS is an aluminum block and really light. the lsx is actually lighter then the datsun L 6 series. Thats pretty crazy. of the LT series the LT5 is by far my fav. Its prob my fav domestic v8 ever. With it didnt cost as much as a ferrari v8 lol. Quote Link to comment
JoeCool Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 Lsx is def an ugly series but they are all biz and make power like nothing. I think it may be as refined as the American ohc v8 may get No, the LS motor is still a pushrod. GM is all about ancient low tech. Refined my ass! Now for modern engines the Ford's are bad ass! And they look good! 5.0 L Coyote engine in the Mustang GT Ford Mustang GT 500 5.8L, 650hp... I want to make da sexytime! And it looks BEAUTIFUL! 1 Quote Link to comment
Farmer Joe Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 doesnt the pushrod LS9 have 640hp? Quote Link to comment
thisismatt Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 No, the LS motor is still a pushrod. GM is all about ancient low tech. Refined my ass! You do realize that overhead cam engines have been around for a century as well, right? There are pro's and con's to both types of engines. Pushrods and leaf springs, yet the corvette, for example, still makes awesome power and handles extremely well, all at a fraction of the cost for an equally performing competitor. Quote Link to comment
72240z Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 I meant ohv I know they are pushrod, which is why gm and others insists on using them in sports cars instead of more exotic motors like the LT5. pushrod lsx is light and compact relatively speaking. No one can argue with the results either. Push rod has a bad rep because its and old tech but compare it with the lsx lb for lb (literally and figuratively lol)with any newer tech new dohc v8s in the same price range and it does more then just hold its own in all areas. I like dohc too, prob more but that doesnt mean pushrod is shit lol. Like its been said both are their pros and cons. Ford has made a lot of headway with the dohc v8 platform for sure. I have liked their modular series since the get go. They really needed it too because if I may be so bold I think ford pushrods into the 80's 90's were garbage. Even my stock l24 and su's beat on windsor fox bodies, the built l28 now is like no contest. Granted there are a lot of combos and variables but still. GM hit the same low in the crossfire vette but they bumped back way quicker and stuck out ohv (for the most part lt5, northstar...). For ford the module series breathed new life into anything that god one imho. Now they are just ridiculous. Quote Link to comment
datzenmike Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 Small inline OHC 4s and 6s are easier to balance and you can engineer them to rev to the moon and make good power. Push rod V8 motors don't rev as well so just make them 6-7 liters and run to 6K to make the power and torque. Having rowed through the gears of a six speed Corvette you don't need to go past 6K. It's very impressive as it is. Quote Link to comment
JoeCool Posted October 5, 2012 Report Share Posted October 5, 2012 my dad had a 94 z28 with the Lt1 in it. That car was quick, stock. I had a 97 Firebird Formula with the LT1. That thing was a torque monster! Especially after all the mods I did. But like most GM cars it was poorly made and had lots of problems, so it had to go. Quote Link to comment
Z-train Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 I had a 97 Firebird Formula with the LT1. That thing was a torque monster! Especially after all the mods I did. But like most GM cars it was poorly made and had lots of problems, so it had to go. You should drive a Formula with a REAL Pontiac motor. Quote Link to comment
datzenmike Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 When I was in high school (maybe '64) a friend would borrow his dads '63 Pontiac and we'd drive to school in style. Even then they had 283 chev motors. Quote Link to comment
Royal Sierra Posted October 6, 2012 Report Share Posted October 6, 2012 I had an LT1 camaro. Cammed, stalled, shift kit. It was a beast of a car. Surprised I never got any tickets. I miss it. I remember doing cookies across the street from the high school in front of all the honda kids. Fun stuff.. Quote Link to comment
DatWifey Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 I'm not exactly sure what the hell this guy is going for, but it's ridiculous and looks like shit :sick: Quote Link to comment
jrock4224 Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 looks like he is mid customization when he had to report to work.... those headligts will be so bright with f/g resin over them...lol 2 Quote Link to comment
Rustina 510 Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 That's like mad max meets fnf Quote Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.