Yellow Bullet Forums banner

41 - 60 of 127 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,536 Posts
Every one of these Boss 302 "ports are too big" rants inspires me to repeat this.

The single thing that wakes up the Boss 302 is the advance curve Ford published in the off-road tuning literature, the "Muscle Parts" books. They specified the spring part numbers and fortunately they were the same springs as in '65 and '66 300 HP 390 engines, so 50 years ago they were easy to get out of a distributor bone pile. I did this several times and guarantee it is the single thing that eliminates the Boss 302 "ports are too big" BS.

The carb jetting is in those books too. I recall it was up 2 # in the primary and some stagger in the secondary jets.

Advance curve Cliff notes are thus: 16 degrees initial until 1200 then up to 30 degrees at 2000 RPM then a slope to 40 degrees at 8000. This makes the Boss 302 have torque like it has another 100 cubic inches. I kid you not.

The all in at 2500 BS has too much timing for best torque in the lower RPM range when it is timed for best power at high RPM, too much advance kills the torque, ergo "the ports are so big it has no bottom end" BS.

I tuned probably a half-dozen of the stock production cars when they were near new and they all woke up bigly from just doing the distributor.

The simple key to success was in the Ford tuning advice and knowing how to use a distributor machine to calibrate an advance curve. Combine that with literacy sufficient to understand instructions and believe Ford knew how to tune their own engine, It was too easy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
694 Posts
2nd vid makes no sense to me. if you want to compare them with mods, then why not use the stock engine and just use similar bolt on's for both (carb, manifold, cam and headers). putting AFR 210's and a tunnel ram on the 302 voids this comparison IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,972 Posts
Would love to see both 302s , 351 Boss and the LT-1 Mod-maxed out with modern fuel and ignition delivery systems.
 

·
Dicking bimbos at home
Joined
·
14,512 Posts
You could build 2 sbc's for the cost of 1 boss.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk
Not really. CC 4V Cleveland heads, 289 rods, Boss 302 pistons,Track boss intake and a little machine work.
 

·
Denouned
Joined
·
1,185 Posts
Every one of these Boss 302 "ports are too big" rants inspires me to repeat this.

The single thing that wakes up the Boss 302 is the advance curve Ford published in the off-road tuning literature, the "Muscle Parts" books. They specified the spring part numbers and fortunately they were the same springs as in '65 and '66 300 HP 390 engines, so 50 years ago they were easy to get out of a distributor bone pile. I did this several times and guarantee it is the single thing that eliminates the Boss 302 "ports are too big" BS.

The carb jetting is in those books too. I recall it was up 2 # in the primary and some stagger in the secondary jets.

Advance curve Cliff notes are thus: 16 degrees initial until 1200 then up to 30 degrees at 2000 RPM then a slope to 40 degrees at 8000. This makes the Boss 302 have torque like it has another 100 cubic inches. I kid you not.

The all in at 2500 BS has too much timing for best torque in the lower RPM range when it is timed for best power at high RPM, too much advance kills the torque, ergo "the ports are so big it has no bottom end" BS.

I tuned probably a half-dozen of the stock production cars when they were near new and they all woke up bigly from just doing the distributor.

The simple key to success was in the Ford tuning advice and knowing how to use a distributor machine to calibrate an advance curve. Combine that with literacy sufficient to understand instructions and believe Ford knew how to tune their own engine, It was too easy.
I still work on distributors. It is hard to believe what a proper advance curve will do.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
I remember BITD looking at both a 69 Z-28 with stock 302 and a 67 SS with a 396, factory 325 hp? My insurance man at the time wouldn't touch the 396. He said get the 302.... I also test drove a 69 Boss 302. There was an envelope in the glove box full of receipts for basically a new engine. Pistons, crank, rods, something bad had happened to it. But in the end I couldn't come up with the around 2500 bucks they all were. I ended up with a grocery getter 69 Camaro for the 1000 that I could afford.

Anyway I very much enjoyed the video!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30,536 Posts
I still work on distributors. It is hard to believe what a proper advance curve will do.
It is amazing, isn't it?

The Allen machines are my favorite and I have one that looks the same as your pic but because it only goes up to 5000 RPM I more often use a Sun, mostly because it turns near 9000 and the curves for most race engines need to be accurate to above 8000. A pal of mine recently found himself a late '70s Allen that is an elaborate deal with built in amps for various electronic ignition distributors and turns over 10,000 RPM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,768 Posts
Not so fast. Those big heads combined with a big camshaft would have produced a 400hp engine at 6000+rpm but severely hampered street torque, which was weak anyway. Great big cams in little engines ain't where it's at on the street. These were both mid-14 second cars with mph in the high 90s, and 0-60 times in the high 6-low 7 second range. In other words, about as quick as a bone stock late model Honda Accord. Quick for the day and way cool (and way cool sounding!), but not really quick.

We've come a long way, baby.
He didn't say a big camshaft he said a cam to take advantage of the heads!!
 

·
Dicking bimbos at home
Joined
·
14,512 Posts
I remember BITD looking at both a 69 Z-28 with stock 302 and a 67 SS with a 396, factory 325 hp? My insurance man at the time wouldn't touch the 396. He said get the 302.... I also test drove a 69 Boss 302. There was an envelope in the glove box full of receipts for basically a new engine. Pistons, crank, rods, something bad had happened to it. But in the end I couldn't come up with the around 2500 bucks they all were. I ended up with a grocery getter 69 Camaro for the 1000 that I could afford.

Anyway I very much enjoyed the video!
69's had a skirt cracking issue exacerbated by unhooking the rev limiter.
 

·
Dicking bimbos at home
Joined
·
14,512 Posts
He didn't say a big camshaft he said a cam to take advantage of the heads!!
Iirc, they both made the same torque down low in the video in stock trim. Raise the compression a point and a half, install the big cam and the Ford would eat the Chevy's lunch and dinner, even in modified trim. I wouldn't even swap to the CHI stuff.
I'd like for Richard to do a comparison between the LS6 and a 429 SCJ.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,364 Posts
Iirc, they both made the same torque down low in the video in stock trim. Raise the compression a point and a half, install the big cam and the Ford would eat the Chevy's lunch and dinner, even in modified trim. I wouldn't even swap to the CHI stuff.
I'd like for Richard to do a comparison between the LS6 and a 429 SCJ.
Only in modified form does the Boss 429 shine.
Ford detuned it almost to death.
 

·
Dicking bimbos at home
Joined
·
14,512 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,996 Posts
I'm not believing some of this guys info? The stock vs stock test seems comparable yet from what others have posted who have also built stock DZ302, he is a bit higher on his number. Ok it could be his dyno or something else, so really the 10/12Hp difference over other dyno's could be just his deal. So both on there should be close.

But I watched his other video where he test this DZ302 vs 327 vs LT1 350. It just seems strange that the DZ is the only one on his pump that made MORE power than advertised, and by a good percentage too!! I have NEVER seen a 1970 LT1 dyno where the motor made less than 370 that they rated them in the Vette (10Hp more due to better manifold design). Hell the '69 Vette 350/350Hp motor usually comes in over 370 with manifolds? And it has the cast intake and smaller cam (the only differences between it and the 70 LT1).

Just something seems off to me? Just can't put my finger on what exactly it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,855 Posts
He absolutely has. I gave him some shit for his LS3 vs LS2 head comparison and got a lot of heat on the youtube comments for it. Not certain what exactly happened with the release of all of these videos but I think he is out of contract with some of the sponsors now or renegotiated his contract with MT. He seems way less biased about things these last few months.

My argument on the LS3 head (Rectangular Port) vs the Cathedral Port is that he and others in the comments were trying to say that LS3 intake manifold is the difference in the 20 hp and not the head. But the LS3 setup was down about 0.5-0.6 points on the compression ratio. If the LS3 heads were milled to maintain/equal the compression ratio of the cathedral port, you would see 35-50 hp difference. My theory on the bias from these older videos stems from the aftermarket companies which he likely had a contract with or through his employer Motor Trend were kinda forcing him to say the LS3 heads are not all that great. Why? Because GM released a factory cylinder head that destroyed all kinds of highly researched and developed aftermarket heads and that contract prevented him from telling the truth. If a set of $300-$750 used LS3/L92 heads would equal or beat a set of $2500+ after market heads, why would anyone spend the extra dough?
It's insane you can find L96 motor with less than 10,000 miles on them for about $2500, and people are still messing around with small blocks.
 

·
Long Live The King
Joined
·
100,237 Posts
Every one of these Boss 302 "ports are too big" rants inspires me to repeat this.

The single thing that wakes up the Boss 302 is the advance curve Ford published in the off-road tuning literature, the "Muscle Parts" books. They specified the spring part numbers and fortunately they were the same springs as in '65 and '66 300 HP 390 engines, so 50 years ago they were easy to get out of a distributor bone pile. I did this several times and guarantee it is the single thing that eliminates the Boss 302 "ports are too big" BS.

.
I have a few of those books. I thought I had some of that stuff scanned, but it looks like my photobucket account dumped a bunch of pictures .... dammit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,857 Posts
88094

Heres a non ported Cleveland of 357 cubes. 588 lift cam. 10:1,compression. Note the tq at first line 3000 rpm. Im not buying the lazy port for street theory!91 octane pump juice.
 

·
DamCoonass
Joined
·
14,698 Posts
View attachment 88094
Heres a non ported Cleveland of 357 cubes. 588 lift cam. 10:1,compression. Note the tq at first line 3000 rpm. Im not buying the lazy port for street theory!91 octane pump juice.
Looks exactly like one of my 10:1 357 sbc’s with way less head & a stock 600 dp.

Seems you could make more steam than that with those magical heads.
 
41 - 60 of 127 Posts
Top