What were the engine options for this car? I am thinking it came with a 302. Several people have told me 350. I have only seen the 302 version. Thanks
!969 Z28 Camero
- Thread starter flirish
- Start date
- Status
1969 was the last year for the 302. It was a fairly rare engine, only found in '67-'69 Z/28s. It was near the max displacement for the SCCA class the car raced in (very sucessfully, I might add). The next year the class displacement went up, hence the change to the 350. I am not aware of the 350 being available late in '69 in the Z/28, but it was common in the '69 SS models. 327s were never available in the Z.
The 302 engine started as a 327 block with a 283 crank. With a bore larger than the stroke, it was a high revving engine with quite a bit more horsepower the rating indicated. It was also pretty popular.
The 302 engine started as a 327 block with a 283 crank. With a bore larger than the stroke, it was a high revving engine with quite a bit more horsepower the rating indicated. It was also pretty popular.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The 302 had a great set of heads on it too.
It was competing with Ford's BOSS 302, both quite underrated engines in terms of power output, and both being quite fond of RPM.
It was competing with Ford's BOSS 302, both quite underrated engines in terms of power output, and both being quite fond of RPM.
The 302 was the only engine avialable in the 1967-69 Z/28 Camaro. This engine was rated at 290 gross HP, but was said to be underrated (and looking at the performance numbers, I would tend to agree). The 302 Chevy was produced from 1967-69 and was only offered in the Camro Z/28 (no other Chevrolets this engine).
The 350 small block was available from 1967 through the 1970's in all Camaros (and later in the 80's and 90's). These engines were much lower performance engines than the 302. For 1967 the 350 was only available in the Camaro, the rest of Chevy's line up got it in 1968.
When the new "1970 1/2" Camaro came out, the Z/28 came with the LT-1 350 engine, which was rated at more power than the 302, but didn't really perform much better. However, the LT-1 was more torquey and streetable engine, compared to the high RPM 302.
I agree with Overkill on the 302 Chevy and BOSS 302. Both engines were underratted, but were really high RPM screamers. Both the Z/28 and BOSS 302 were two of the best balanced muscle cars, offering great handling, brakes and straight line performance (for their time).
The 350 small block was available from 1967 through the 1970's in all Camaros (and later in the 80's and 90's). These engines were much lower performance engines than the 302. For 1967 the 350 was only available in the Camaro, the rest of Chevy's line up got it in 1968.
When the new "1970 1/2" Camaro came out, the Z/28 came with the LT-1 350 engine, which was rated at more power than the 302, but didn't really perform much better. However, the LT-1 was more torquey and streetable engine, compared to the high RPM 302.
I agree with Overkill on the 302 Chevy and BOSS 302. Both engines were underratted, but were really high RPM screamers. Both the Z/28 and BOSS 302 were two of the best balanced muscle cars, offering great handling, brakes and straight line performance (for their time).
Not many pepole remember that Chevy had a 302.
Originally Posted By: milwaukee
The the 302 came to production was for racing in the T/A series which had a CI maximum which I think was 307ci.
at the time, IIRC, the limit was 305cid. they did the 283 crank thing because it was the easiest solution, and did result in a nice combination.
The the 302 came to production was for racing in the T/A series which had a CI maximum which I think was 307ci.
at the time, IIRC, the limit was 305cid. they did the 283 crank thing because it was the easiest solution, and did result in a nice combination.
Originally Posted By: Chris142
Not many pepole remember that Chevy had a 302.
a fun quiz is 'how many different sizes did the original small block chevy come in from the factory?' bonus points if you can name all of them!
Not many pepole remember that Chevy had a 302.
a fun quiz is 'how many different sizes did the original small block chevy come in from the factory?' bonus points if you can name all of them!
I thought the limit was 5.0 Litres, but I could be mistaken.
Small Block Chevy's
262 - 3.67" x 3.10"
265 - 3.75" x 3.00"
267 - 3.50" x 3.48"
283 - 3.875" x 3.00"
302 - 4.00" x 3.00"
305 - 3.736" x 3.48"
307 - 3.875" x 3.25"
327 - 4.00" x 3.25"
350 - 4.00" x 3.48"
400 - 4.125" x 3.75"
And while never produced by a factory, there is also
383 - 4.03" x 3.75" (350 block .030 over, 400 crank)
377 - 4.03" x 3.48" (400 block .030 over, 350 crank)
Small Block Chevy's
262 - 3.67" x 3.10"
265 - 3.75" x 3.00"
267 - 3.50" x 3.48"
283 - 3.875" x 3.00"
302 - 4.00" x 3.00"
305 - 3.736" x 3.48"
307 - 3.875" x 3.25"
327 - 4.00" x 3.25"
350 - 4.00" x 3.48"
400 - 4.125" x 3.75"
And while never produced by a factory, there is also
383 - 4.03" x 3.75" (350 block .030 over, 400 crank)
377 - 4.03" x 3.48" (400 block .030 over, 350 crank)
Originally Posted By: Oldswagon
I thought the limit was 5.0 Litres, but I could be mistaken.
A liter is 61 cubic inches, so 305 ci would be the same.
I thought the limit was 5.0 Litres, but I could be mistaken.
A liter is 61 cubic inches, so 305 ci would be the same.
I realize that, but what I meant was I though that SCCA set the limit via metric displacement, not cubic inches. And I thought this limit was 5.0L (which would be close to 305 cu in).
Bonus points for anyone who can name the Pontiac engine used in T/A. Hint: it was not a production engine.
Bonus points for anyone who can name the Pontiac engine used in T/A. Hint: it was not a production engine.
Originally Posted By: Oldswagon
I realize that, but what I meant was I though that SCCA set the limit via metric displacement, not cubic inches. And I thought this limit was 5.0L (which would be close to 305 cu in).
Bonus points for anyone who can name the Pontiac engine used in T/A. Hint: it was not a production engine.
I think you are correct re metric displacement. Pontiac would have had to either destroke a production motor or use a Chevy.
I realize that, but what I meant was I though that SCCA set the limit via metric displacement, not cubic inches. And I thought this limit was 5.0L (which would be close to 305 cu in).
Bonus points for anyone who can name the Pontiac engine used in T/A. Hint: it was not a production engine.
I think you are correct re metric displacement. Pontiac would have had to either destroke a production motor or use a Chevy.
Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
Originally Posted By: Oldswagon
I realize that, but what I meant was I though that SCCA set the limit via metric displacement, not cubic inches. And I thought this limit was 5.0L (which would be close to 305 cu in).
Bonus points for anyone who can name the Pontiac engine used in T/A. Hint: it was not a production engine.
I think you are correct re metric displacement. Pontiac would have had to either destroke a production motor or use a Chevy.
Your right on both counts actually. Pontiac inistially raced with a loop hole and used a Chevrolet 302 in it's early T/A cars. Since at that time most Canadian built Pontiacs used Chevrolet V8's, they used a 302 Chevy in Canadian Firebird. However, since no Firebirds were actrually built in Canada, and all came with a Pontiac V8 (even those sold in Canada), it was a bit of cheating.
Pontiac did eventually develop it's own V8 for Trans AM, the 303 V8, which was a destroked 400. It had a 4.125" bore and a 2.8125" stroke. This engine was first used in the 1970 race season once the SCCA change the rules stating that the race engines didn't actually have to be produced by the manufacturer in regular production. This is why the 303 Pontiac never saw production, and why Chevrolet dumped the 302 for the more streetable 350 LT-1 in 1970. It also allowed Mopar to enter since they had no production engines in the 5.0L range.
Originally Posted By: Oldswagon
I realize that, but what I meant was I though that SCCA set the limit via metric displacement, not cubic inches. And I thought this limit was 5.0L (which would be close to 305 cu in).
Bonus points for anyone who can name the Pontiac engine used in T/A. Hint: it was not a production engine.
I think you are correct re metric displacement. Pontiac would have had to either destroke a production motor or use a Chevy.
Your right on both counts actually. Pontiac inistially raced with a loop hole and used a Chevrolet 302 in it's early T/A cars. Since at that time most Canadian built Pontiacs used Chevrolet V8's, they used a 302 Chevy in Canadian Firebird. However, since no Firebirds were actrually built in Canada, and all came with a Pontiac V8 (even those sold in Canada), it was a bit of cheating.
Pontiac did eventually develop it's own V8 for Trans AM, the 303 V8, which was a destroked 400. It had a 4.125" bore and a 2.8125" stroke. This engine was first used in the 1970 race season once the SCCA change the rules stating that the race engines didn't actually have to be produced by the manufacturer in regular production. This is why the 303 Pontiac never saw production, and why Chevrolet dumped the 302 for the more streetable 350 LT-1 in 1970. It also allowed Mopar to enter since they had no production engines in the 5.0L range.
Originally Posted By: Oldswagon
Pontiac did eventually develop it's own V8 for Trans AM, the 303 V8, which was a destroked 400.
Olds, thanks for the reminder. I knew those things at one time, but the details slip away. Funny how they get a little mushy as the years pass...
Pontiac did eventually develop it's own V8 for Trans AM, the 303 V8, which was a destroked 400.
Olds, thanks for the reminder. I knew those things at one time, but the details slip away. Funny how they get a little mushy as the years pass...
Originally Posted By: Oldswagon
I thought the limit was 5.0 Litres, but I could be mistaken.
Small Block Chevy's
262 - 3.67" x 3.10"
265 - 3.75" x 3.00"
267 - 3.50" x 3.48"
283 - 3.875" x 3.00"
302 - 4.00" x 3.00"
305 - 3.736" x 3.48"
307 - 3.875" x 3.25"
327 - 4.00" x 3.25"
350 - 4.00" x 3.48"
400 - 4.125" x 3.75"
And while never produced by a factory, there is also
383 - 4.03" x 3.75" (350 block .030 over, 400 crank)
377 - 4.03" x 3.48" (400 block .030 over, 350 crank)
334 - 305 block; 350 crank, OR the other way around, I'm not sure.
I thought the limit was 5.0 Litres, but I could be mistaken.
Small Block Chevy's
262 - 3.67" x 3.10"
265 - 3.75" x 3.00"
267 - 3.50" x 3.48"
283 - 3.875" x 3.00"
302 - 4.00" x 3.00"
305 - 3.736" x 3.48"
307 - 3.875" x 3.25"
327 - 4.00" x 3.25"
350 - 4.00" x 3.48"
400 - 4.125" x 3.75"
And while never produced by a factory, there is also
383 - 4.03" x 3.75" (350 block .030 over, 400 crank)
377 - 4.03" x 3.48" (400 block .030 over, 350 crank)
334 - 305 block; 350 crank, OR the other way around, I'm not sure.
Originally Posted By: addyguy
334 - 305 block; 350 crank, OR the other way around, I'm not sure.
Neither. 305 and 350 cranks are the same stroke, the only possible difference is in the balancing. Therefore, with those cranks, the block bore determines the displacement.
334 comes from a 305 block with a 400 crank, and probably an overbore.
334 - 305 block; 350 crank, OR the other way around, I'm not sure.
Neither. 305 and 350 cranks are the same stroke, the only possible difference is in the balancing. Therefore, with those cranks, the block bore determines the displacement.
334 comes from a 305 block with a 400 crank, and probably an overbore.
- Status
