Your donations help keep this valuable resource free and growing. Thank you.
|
304 making 405 hp with modified 304 heads |
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Author | |
farna
Supporter of TheAMCForum Moderator Lost Dealership Project Joined: Jul/08/2007 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 19689 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: May/20/2020 at 10:09am |
For those who thought the 304 wasn't worth messing with... 405 hp @ 6700 rpm, 358 ft/lbs @ 5500 rpm. Not exactly a street motor at those rpm though! At 3900 rpm it's only masking 96 hp and 129 ft/lbs. Watch the video carefully! Hard to see the readouts, but the power and rpm levels I posted are close. I rounded to nearest 100 rpm and full hp/torque figures. Good small displacement drag race motor! |
|
Frank Swygert
|
|
PROSTOCKTOM
Supporter of TheAMCForum Joined: Jun/20/2010 Location: Indiana Status: Offline Points: 2458 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
That link is not working and you have to be a member of that group to see any content if it was.
Maybe you could copy and paste the text?
Tom |
|
Molnar Technologies Full Service Dealer - Crankshafts & Connecting Rods
1969 AMC Rambler Rouge Race Car 1974 AMC Hornet Hatchback, Wally Booth Outlaw Nostalgic Pro Stock Race Car Project |
|
304-dude
AMC Addicted Joined: Sep/29/2008 Location: Central Illinoi Status: Offline Points: 9082 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
That sorta like the 63 split window vette, that had a fuelie 327. The guy set it up to turn in the high limits. Did not get much power below 4K. The 304 has huge breathing capabilities with valve and head work for high RPM use. It has a good stroke for either turbo or supercharging, if wanting more power. For that to pan out, it would be setup more like a traco 304, just smaller bores, when competing with 5.0L class. Though the larger bore, like the boss 302, is how to get a quicker charge over the stock bore of a 304. Probably why it's dead below 3500 RPM. Bigger bore would bring in the RPM torque band a bit wider. Though you can always push the limits on a 304 over bore to some degree. Drop in a 343 crank for a shorter stroke and see how fast 8K comes in.
I never disliked the 304, but for street and occasional strip use, it takes a bit to keep up with all the bigger engines, even more so with aluminum engines being common now. Out classed by weight and electronic / hydraulic controlled timing curves. Does the mighty 304 in. |
|
71 Javelin SST body
390 69 crank, 70 block & heads NASCAR SB2 rods & pistons 78 Jeep TH400 w/ 2.76 Low 50/50 Ford-AMC Suspension 79 F150 rear & 8.8 axles Ford Racing 3.25 gears & 9" /w Detroit locker |
|
AlexK
AMC Apprentice Joined: Feb/19/2017 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 73 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Heavy 488
AMC Addicted Joined: Apr/27/2019 Location: In the Status: Offline Points: 3557 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
drop that one in a hole and backf fill it.
|
|
farna
Supporter of TheAMCForum Moderator Lost Dealership Project Joined: Jul/08/2007 Location: South Carolina Status: Offline Points: 19689 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Not a real practical build for sure...
|
|
Frank Swygert
|
|
Boris Badanov
AMC Addicted Joined: Dec/14/2013 Location: NH USA Status: Offline Points: 4210 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
IMO the 304 yields nothing to the Chevy 302 except weight.
|
|
Gremlin Dreams
|
|
PHAT69AMX
AMC Addicted Joined: Jul/07/2007 Location: West Virginia Status: Offline Points: 5926 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
AMC 304 = 540 pounds, and sbc 302 = 510 pounds ?
|
|
Boris Badanov
AMC Addicted Joined: Dec/14/2013 Location: NH USA Status: Offline Points: 4210 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
Ok, so the short block is a tad heavier than the Chevy
The crank is also heavier by 10 lbs~ The crank is longer with 4.75" bore spacing vs 4.4 for the Chevy. the 302 was internally balanced. The oil system in the Chevy may be the best of the small block wedge head engines. The intake valve angle is an old argument but the Chevy had a far better short turn radius in the intake. So I guess I may be wrong again... But reciprocating weight and oil system along with a far better intake for high engine speeds may be the reasons. But 50 lbs is still 50 lbs. |
|
Gremlin Dreams
|
|
Trader
AMC Addicted Joined: May/15/2018 Location: Ontario Status: Offline Points: 6909 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Weight of the rotating assembly has a lot to do with the "math" of an engine, but the rod length to stroke ratio, compression height, quench, intake, valve size ... change things significantly.
Take the latest build from pipefactory's build example - 1.74 rod to stroke ratio - almost perfect for an old 60's, 70's engine. 1.75 rod to stroke ratio being the best "math" wise on a 2 valve per cylinder engine. Not surprised at all with the results, given the reduced weight of the rotating assembly. The Chev 302 has better "math" then an AMC 304. A stock AMC 360 has better "math" then a stock 304 or 401. Unless you stroke or change it and get closer to the 1.75 ratio. Here just displacement rules between a 304 and 401! Old rule of there is nothing like displacement only goes so far before you loose the "math" battle". Boris is correct, a Chev 302 wins the math battle.
|
|
Post Reply | Page 123> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |