Heater

This place needs a "Like" button.

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

This man speaks da troof
How not?? I ran one to 170k before I changed it for my 406 in my k5. In the end I wished I had left the 305 in it. Not for power but it got over 18mpg on the highway. Had another I beat the tar out of non stop.You almost could not kill them.
Depends on which test you look at......there are more than 1.

Besides the boss 302 was built in response to furd getting it's *** kicked by Chevy's 302. Gm exited that series and never finished their response....which was a splayed valve 302.

big hammer

the original boss 302 wasn't a very good engine.

snake95

Funny how Hio mentions more than one test This time. When I posted tests of f-bodies running 13.6-14.6 they were deemed invalid.

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...gine-shootout/

26 more degrees cam duration for the Z28 to make slightly more tq and less HP.

There are some other comparisons in that article that are neat, it's a good read. (You can't be a blind nuthugger to see how cool it is, though).

R6cowboy

iTrader: (3)

Fully forged rotating assembly, very strong heavy duty 4-bolt main block with high nickel content and thick cylinder walls, canted valve 275cfm flowing Cleveland heads, 10.5 compression, high-rise aluminum intake, solid roller cam, made 370-375hp at near 7000rpm.

In your opinion, how was it not a very good engine? What's your opinion of the DZ 302 in comparison?

Edit: in no way was the Boss 302 hands down better than the DZ 302. Performance wise, both engines were very close.

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

I'll tell you whats funny......how you mention the duration is more on the chevy 302 to try and skew ones opinion but fail to mention the furd having .029 more lift.

I always take more than 1 test into consideration. A 14.6 fcar (assuming 4gen) is just dumb and probably a typo. Erryone knows they were faster than that.

Good article though.

snake95

26 degrees more in duration makes a much more radical difference than .029 in lift. On a .500 lift cam with 1.6 rockers, you can switch to 1.7s and gain .031 in lift and notice ZERO difference in driveability. I know this because I did this exact thing on my old 95. Hell, how much more lift are you seeing at the valve from stock to your 1.8s?

Let's see an added 26 degrees in a cam make zero difference in drive-ability. Taking a 225 duration cam at .050 and making it a 251* cam at .050. Yeah, I'm sure they're the same thing

R6cowboy

iTrader: (3)

Not to mention the Ford 302 having much better cylinder heads. I agree if the Chevy's much larger cam duration is to be mentioned, then maybe point out the Ford engine having the superior heads also. Too avoid making it seemed skewed.

408-99-f

A relative of mine is a self proclaimed "ford fanatic" he has a boss 302 engine and doesn't use it in any of his builds because he says the blocks are prone to cracking, and keeps it as a investment. I have also read that in a article in a magazine? I dont know if there is any facts to this, maby some one who is more fimmilar knows better than I. Just what I have heard/read??

snake95

Good point, it's not really a fair comparison because of the inferior Chevy design.

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

My rockers took my stock cam lift from .551 to .583. I think both manufacturers used what they thought was best to meet their goals. The results ended up very close.
According to the numbers the furd heads seem to flow better. But the reality is in the power they both made that they were not as great as some think. Both of those engines in race form made 450+hp. So even at the upper end of there race spectrum the flow difference seem to have little effect.

I have even read/watched some say the chevy 302 out powered the boss. I'm sure either way it was close.

R6cowboy

iTrader: (3)

The factory Cleveland heads that came on the Boss 302 are certainly not like any good aftermarket piece, I've heard many act like they are though. But according to the numbers and facts, they definitely were a better head, in factory form that is, then Chevy's Fuelie head on the DZ302. As far as race form goes, that kinda throws how either head performed in factory form out the window don't ya think.

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

IDK....I think the results speak for them self. The facts and numbers put them very close in the power department. Close enough I can't deem the boss heads are any better. In the end you have to fill the cylinder to make power. I see no evidence power wise the boss head did any better job at that be damned the flow #'s.

AS far as race form goes you would think the "better" head the furd guys claim to be the boss head would make even more of a difference......of which we just don't see. No matter how you slice it.

big hammer

The boss 302 was a stupid lazy engine of mismatched parts.

R6cowboy

iTrader: (3)

Which just so happened to perform very well. Very strange coincidence indeed.

zz4camaro1980

I dont think people were buying the DZ302 for drivability.

Back to the op, I love me some 3rd gens. My first car was a 85 Camaro w/ 305 and 4bbl. Loved that thing and all its 160hp of fury! Bought it for $500 and could not break it.

snake95

My statement was explaining how .029 valve lift =/= same change as 26* duration.

Hammer's just trolling. No response necessary.

R6cowboy

iTrader: (3)

Fact is those specific Cleveland heads were indeed "better" than Chevy's Fuelie head. It's hilarious how you can never bring yourself to say that Ford had anything what-so-ever better than Chevy.

Hio, I want to ask you this. Did the DZ 302 have a better cam than the Boss 302?

snake95

^^^Of course not. When proof is right in front of him than the Chevy design is worse, it's all "Well, I saw 4 other tests and the results can go either way". When he has some article or evidence of the contrary, it's "These are just facts and you Ford guys don't like facts."

It's like clockwork.

big hammer

I bet the DZ had as much power, similar redline but a broader power band. How is that possible?