305 vs 302 pt2!!!!11111!!!!
07-27-2017, 11:59 AM
#61
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you know how long I've been having my way with morons like you, online? You can NEVER get to me, little spermy. Sorry, won't EVER happen. Just like your car will NEVER be faster than mine. 
07-27-2017, 12:11 PM
#62
Staging Lane
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rent Free in Hio's Mind
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 35 Likes
on
30 Posts
Which is why you spend hours of your day trying to investigate me, posting pics of my house, my address, spamming my number on omegele, looking up people close to me 
Yeah, you do all that because I "don't get under your skin"
Checkmate.
Yeah, you do all that because I "don't get under your skin"
Checkmate.
07-27-2017, 12:17 PM
#63
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The timing is impeccable......I just walked out to the mailbox and, lo and behold, there's the new issue of Car Craft. Guess what one of their new build series is going to be ? If you guessed 305 vs. 302, you are correct. Right there on the cover it says "'80's time warp. Ford 302 vs. Chevy 305 shootout. Are we wasting our time?"
Sorry, but I had to LOL after seeing it.
Sorry, but I had to LOL after seeing it.
07-27-2017, 12:20 PM
#64
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can tell how far under your skin I truly am. I am the owner of you, fuckboy.
07-27-2017, 12:27 PM
#65
10 Second Club
iTrader: (8)
The timing is impeccable......I just walked out to the mailbox and, lo and behold, there's the new issue of Car Craft. Guess what one of their new build series is going to be ? If you guessed 305 vs. 302, you are correct. Right there on the cover it says "'80's time warp. Ford 302 vs. Chevy 305 shootout. Are we wasting our time?"
Sorry, but I had to LOL after seeing it.
Sorry, but I had to LOL after seeing it.
07-27-2017, 12:48 PM
#67
Wow, Jake is getting desperate LMAO. I'd keep an eye on that snake. This lonely little ****** has been know to say some pretty vile/threatening things to the wives of dudes that expose how vulnerable and pathetic he really is.
That said, I zero ***** how this clown tries to paint this picture. You have got under his fragile skin so hard, he's now going after family. ******* pitiful LMAO.
That said, I zero ***** how this clown tries to paint this picture. You have got under his fragile skin so hard, he's now going after family. ******* pitiful LMAO.
Last edited by Turdinator; 07-27-2017 at 12:56 PM.
07-27-2017, 01:14 PM
#68
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
The timing is impeccable......I just walked out to the mailbox and, lo and behold, there's the new issue of Car Craft. Guess what one of their new build series is going to be ? If you guessed 305 vs. 302, you are correct. Right there on the cover it says "'80's time warp. Ford 302 vs. Chevy 305 shootout. Are we wasting our time?"
Sorry, but I had to LOL after seeing it.
Sorry, but I had to LOL after seeing it.
07-27-2017, 02:03 PM
#69
Going off 1985, the 305C.I. TPI (LB9) engine produced a mere 215HP. A cam change in 1986 caused a drop in rated HP numbers and an increase in torque. The post-1985 cams became known as "peanut" cams in the LB9 cars. Only LB9/T5 cars with the dual exhaust option didn't get the peanut cam and made 230HP compared to the L98's 245HP. Some people on thirdgen.org reported bone stock dyno runs back in the day of around 185-189HP or so to the rear wheels.
For the Mustang, in 1985 the 302C.I. 4.999L engine cranked out a whopping 210HP at the same RPM range as the sad *** 305. By the end of the operational lifetime of the Foxbody, before the inbound SN95 cars came out the Mustang's 5.0L was pumping out only 225HP. Essentially, both engines had similar displacement and similar power numbers year by year.
I've owned a lot of these cars, and while the Mustang is lighter, there is something about the TPI cars of the 1985-1992 years. They make their torque in a very low RPM range (3200RPM according to the specs) and often feel faster than they really are. The LT1 even traded some of the L98's low end torque for better power in higher RPM ranges. LS1's by extension do the same thing. The Mustang supposedly ran around a 14.8 in the 1/4 mile. The Trans Am on the other hand was around 15.2@91MPH or thereabout according to the car magazines at the time. The Mustang is no doubt a lighter car which is the reason for this.
Despite the performance difference, I always preferred the F-bodies of the day over the Mustangs of the same time period.
For the Mustang, in 1985 the 302C.I. 4.999L engine cranked out a whopping 210HP at the same RPM range as the sad *** 305. By the end of the operational lifetime of the Foxbody, before the inbound SN95 cars came out the Mustang's 5.0L was pumping out only 225HP. Essentially, both engines had similar displacement and similar power numbers year by year.
I've owned a lot of these cars, and while the Mustang is lighter, there is something about the TPI cars of the 1985-1992 years. They make their torque in a very low RPM range (3200RPM according to the specs) and often feel faster than they really are. The LT1 even traded some of the L98's low end torque for better power in higher RPM ranges. LS1's by extension do the same thing. The Mustang supposedly ran around a 14.8 in the 1/4 mile. The Trans Am on the other hand was around 15.2@91MPH or thereabout according to the car magazines at the time. The Mustang is no doubt a lighter car which is the reason for this.
Despite the performance difference, I always preferred the F-bodies of the day over the Mustangs of the same time period.
07-27-2017, 02:10 PM
#70
Staging Lane
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Rent Free in Hio's Mind
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 35 Likes
on
30 Posts
....aaaaaaaaaaand then you compare 302 aftermarket to 305 (which essentially means you gotta swap engines for performance) and it becomes a no brainer, because who the **** keeps stock 15 second 210hp cars, stock, anyway? The 305 boreXstroke situation was a clusterfuck.
07-27-2017, 02:11 PM
#71
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 374
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07-27-2017, 02:46 PM
#73
That's what we always told anyone who had dreams of improving the 305 on Thirdgen.org.
07-27-2017, 02:46 PM
#74
Going off 1985, the 305C.I. TPI (LB9) engine produced a mere 215HP. A cam change in 1986 caused a drop in rated HP numbers and an increase in torque. The post-1985 cams became known as "peanut" cams in the LB9 cars. Only LB9/T5 cars with the dual exhaust option didn't get the peanut cam and made 230HP compared to the L98's 245HP. Some people on thirdgen.org reported bone stock dyno runs back in the day of around 185-189HP or so to the rear wheels.
For the Mustang, in 1985 the 302C.I. 4.999L engine cranked out a whopping 210HP at the same RPM range as the sad *** 305. By the end of the operational lifetime of the Foxbody, before the inbound SN95 cars came out the Mustang's 5.0L was pumping out only 225HP. Essentially, both engines had similar displacement and similar power numbers year by year.
I've owned a lot of these cars, and while the Mustang is lighter, there is something about the TPI cars of the 1985-1992 years. They make their torque in a very low RPM range (3200RPM according to the specs) and often feel faster than they really are. The LT1 even traded some of the L98's low end torque for better power in higher RPM ranges. LS1's by extension do the same thing. The Mustang supposedly ran around a 14.8 in the 1/4 mile. The Trans Am on the other hand was around 15.2@91MPH or thereabout according to the car magazines at the time. The Mustang is no doubt a lighter car which is the reason for this.
Despite the performance difference, I always preferred the F-bodies of the day over the Mustangs of the same time period.
For the Mustang, in 1985 the 302C.I. 4.999L engine cranked out a whopping 210HP at the same RPM range as the sad *** 305. By the end of the operational lifetime of the Foxbody, before the inbound SN95 cars came out the Mustang's 5.0L was pumping out only 225HP. Essentially, both engines had similar displacement and similar power numbers year by year.
I've owned a lot of these cars, and while the Mustang is lighter, there is something about the TPI cars of the 1985-1992 years. They make their torque in a very low RPM range (3200RPM according to the specs) and often feel faster than they really are. The LT1 even traded some of the L98's low end torque for better power in higher RPM ranges. LS1's by extension do the same thing. The Mustang supposedly ran around a 14.8 in the 1/4 mile. The Trans Am on the other hand was around 15.2@91MPH or thereabout according to the car magazines at the time. The Mustang is no doubt a lighter car which is the reason for this.
Despite the performance difference, I always preferred the F-bodies of the day over the Mustangs of the same time period.
I had a 350 Formula and a 92 LX5.0 at around same time. Fbomb out handled it and stopped better. Mustang way easier to make fast and better built. Heck there were tons of magazine devoted to the car. I did get a thrill blasting with the Formula though
07-27-2017, 02:48 PM
#75
7 Second Club
Jake be out creeping again?
Not surprised, he does that every time he's been made a fool of. (which is daily)
Where's Hio to suck Jake off over this?
#teamhakejioFTL
Not surprised, he does that every time he's been made a fool of. (which is daily)
Where's Hio to suck Jake off over this?
#teamhakejioFTL
07-27-2017, 05:16 PM
#77
10 Second Club
Thread Starter
Going off 1985, the 305C.I. TPI (LB9) engine produced a mere 215HP. A cam change in 1986 caused a drop in rated HP numbers and an increase in torque. The post-1985 cams became known as "peanut" cams in the LB9 cars. Only LB9/T5 cars with the dual exhaust option didn't get the peanut cam and made 230HP compared to the L98's 245HP. Some people on thirdgen.org reported bone stock dyno runs back in the day of around 185-189HP or so to the rear wheels.
For the Mustang, in 1985 the 302C.I. 4.999L engine cranked out a whopping 210HP at the same RPM range as the sad *** 305. By the end of the operational lifetime of the Foxbody, before the inbound SN95 cars came out the Mustang's 5.0L was pumping out only 225HP. Essentially, both engines had similar displacement and similar power numbers year by year.
I've owned a lot of these cars, and while the Mustang is lighter, there is something about the TPI cars of the 1985-1992 years. They make their torque in a very low RPM range (3200RPM according to the specs) and often feel faster than they really are. The LT1 even traded some of the L98's low end torque for better power in higher RPM ranges. LS1's by extension do the same thing. The Mustang supposedly ran around a 14.8 in the 1/4 mile. The Trans Am on the other hand was around 15.2@91MPH or thereabout according to the car magazines at the time. The Mustang is no doubt a lighter car which is the reason for this.
Despite the performance difference, I always preferred the F-bodies of the day over the Mustangs of the same time period.
For the Mustang, in 1985 the 302C.I. 4.999L engine cranked out a whopping 210HP at the same RPM range as the sad *** 305. By the end of the operational lifetime of the Foxbody, before the inbound SN95 cars came out the Mustang's 5.0L was pumping out only 225HP. Essentially, both engines had similar displacement and similar power numbers year by year.
I've owned a lot of these cars, and while the Mustang is lighter, there is something about the TPI cars of the 1985-1992 years. They make their torque in a very low RPM range (3200RPM according to the specs) and often feel faster than they really are. The LT1 even traded some of the L98's low end torque for better power in higher RPM ranges. LS1's by extension do the same thing. The Mustang supposedly ran around a 14.8 in the 1/4 mile. The Trans Am on the other hand was around 15.2@91MPH or thereabout according to the car magazines at the time. The Mustang is no doubt a lighter car which is the reason for this.
Despite the performance difference, I always preferred the F-bodies of the day over the Mustangs of the same time period.
07-27-2017, 05:43 PM
#78
TECH Enthusiast
No matter. No one back then cared for the 305. The Ford 5.0 responded so well. Only the 350 Chev, Buick intercooled stuff, or cyclone trucks were used for street racing.
If you had a 305 you were a loser or a cruiser
If you had a 305 you were a loser or a cruiser
07-28-2017, 08:20 AM
#79
The 305 and all versions of it were terrible.