350 vs 350 - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 08-22-2002, 11:13 PM
E.T. divided by $ spent= Speed
 
Last photo:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYS america's unwiped butt
Age: 35
Posts: 1,858
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Post 350 vs 350

After months of scrounging and scrapeing I had to admit to my self that my new motor won't be done till winter.Now in it's most budget form.I'd like a comparison to my old motor.
The new motor is very basic,frugal,cheap if you will.It's a 350.
350 short block rebuilt to stock
(std bore)
dished pistons
Cam 218/224@050 .460/.480 110sep
Heads #882 1.94s milled .010 3angle valve job
.018 head gaskets

Old motor is 350.
Stock short block
dished pistons
Cam 214/224@050 .443/.465 112sep
Heads 305 w/ 1.84/1.50 3 angle

Both motors gotts da same stuffs.
Edelbrock performer intake
600cfm holley
1 5/8" headers
2 1/4" duels
Now how do you think the new motor will compair to the old one in terms of HP and torque.I'll be loseing compression for valve and slightly bigger cam.I figure the slightly higher lift and tighter lobe sep will make a hair more torque.

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 08-23-2002, 04:25 AM
Steve karch's Avatar
Member
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Age: 55
Posts: 414
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Post

Your new motor should be strong. The biggest restriction on your old motor was the heads. 305 heads may give more compression but just don't flow. The only change I'd make is to use a Performer RPM intake. I have the same basic setup up as your old motor but use stock 194/150 valve heads, 76 cc chambers and a Weiand Stealth. Its a strong runner and is very driveable and with the bigger cam in your new motor, and better heads you will have a strong runner. Torque may be a little weaker at lower rpm's but overall torque and hp will be higher
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 08-23-2002, 11:54 AM
bullheimer's Avatar
NEVER use credit cards!
 

Last journal entry: car with tt2's, (stockers going back on)
Last photo:
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: North of Seattle
Posts: 2,532
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
Post

i agree with steve. i think you will lose some low end torque but not too much and will gain top end. the cam grinds are almost identical so i don't think you'll see much difference other than you'll have a brand new engine that should be more fun to drive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 08-23-2002, 06:23 PM
E.T. divided by $ spent= Speed
 
Last photo:
Join Date: May 2002
Location: NYS america's unwiped butt
Age: 35
Posts: 1,858
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
Post

Kinda what I figured more overall torque HP but less low rpm torque.I picked that cam cause the tighter lobe sep and higher lift would make a little more torque.But I didn,t want to much duration cause of the low compression.Just wanted to run it by a few of you.
Now how about a 500hp NOS fogger w/ a 8-71 blower????A wee bit to much???
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 08-23-2002, 10:10 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 447
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
Red face

Sorry to tell you this, but Casting #882 (last three digits) cylinder heads are smog heads and are very prone to cracking. Also if you look at the exhaust crossover port you will find that they actually split and go to both center cylinder exhaust ports. This design makes the heads prone to run hot. This was good for increased engine tempatures for emissions and reduced hydrocarbons in the exhaust. However, this casting design is probably not very good for performance applications.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 08-24-2002, 11:46 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Caddo Gap,Ar
Posts: 9
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Cool

I agree with studebaker.The 882 heads are prone to crack & I never got any power out them low or top end.I also never had any problems with the 305 heads flow.Maybe you guys are puting more into your engines than I have.I always port my heads & have the valves cut out for 2.02.I also blend the bowls.That maybe the reason I dont have flow problems.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Engine posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.