305 vs. 302: Budget Head Shootout - Engine Power S12, E3

I thought the Chevy's airflow would compensate for the compression loss.

Idk how they even got that low. The factory 305 vortecs have 9.4/5:1 With like an 11cc dish piston.
Even with a 64cc head it would be like 8.8:1.

@@kapler8550 They mentioned it, the head gasket needed for the vortec heads is thicker

@RunV5 i saw that. And i what i mean is, i dont understand why they had to go so thick.
There are factory 305 ho gaskets that are like .025” compressed
The gasket they used must have been like .040 or more with the pistons a few thousand in the hole.

@@ts302 That's the biggest myth in the industry, gains in power are only a fraction of headflow gains unless you up the cam. Meanwhile compression ratio changes power in a predictable fashion, regardless of head/cam/intake.

I think Richard Holdener, might have spelled that right, has done that on his channel if you want to check it out. I know he did a rebuild of the Boss 351, the HO 350, and the 340 HO. I won't spoil it for you if you haven't seen the results.

Richard holdener did that , of course the mopar came on top

​@@gordstigterhe clearly didn't use a 351 Cleveland

Anyone who knows anything about heads knows that 351c heads are FARRRRRRR superior to 360 and 350SBC heads.
Cleveland heads are even better than gt40 heads and vortecs

@austincassell4741 too expensive

Shouldnt be down compression with 059 heads as they're 58cc same as the old 305

@@jarvislarson6864 Yeah, they both have 58 cc chambers and the 305 has a longer stroke and bigger valves than the Ford 302, so what's going on.

I thought the ford would be in trouble when i saw the chevy flow numbers were 25-30 higher

​@@jarvislarson6864the aftermarket head gaskets are thicker than the original shim head gasket on the chevy. That's why compression went down on the chevy.

Yeah. Surprised they used 7733pt2 vs 7733sh1. Would have been closer to the same compression to stock.

To date, my favorite build is the one they did in the parking lot.

This videos ain’t cheap to do involves a lot of brands time consuming buying some stuff and some Mabe could be free by brands but a lot 𝖔𝖋 management with companies

If they have to repost old stuff to get ad money to keep new videos coming, I'll watch the ads and like it. That's how the bills get paid here. You're certainly free to stick some cash in an envelope and send it their way.

I always wanted to run 059s on a 355 for better tq and power within the rpm band of a dual plane. Sort of like running 706s on an LS1 or LQ4.

​@@hendo337Your heads have 1.84 intake valves and make more power on a 305 than heads with 1.94 valves.
Also Camel hump heads stopped Ronnie Sox dominating Prostock with his hemis and made 680 hp on the 331ci "Giant Killer"
That is why Camel Hump heads will always be cooler than Vortec heads.

@@bigboreracing356 Valve size doesn't count because that can be changed (it is the 059s 53-58 cc vs the CHs 64ish raising compression or requiring a custom piston on a 350) - but you are wrong, a 1.94 valve will make A LOT more power if used on a 305 with a racing goal of max RPM HP... but for a street or marine motor looking for a strong off idle torque the 1.84 is ideal for a 305. More power is always HP, but performance isn't- put that 331ci Giant Killer in an 8000 lb tow truck and ask me if it requires better performance. You are right though, even though Camel Humps suck by today's standards, they were introduced at a time without much competition- especially when considering factory parts. It is the nostalgia of a "has been" generation and numbers matching crowd that still considers them kewl, had 059s been available at the same time the valves would have been punched out, they would have been immensely hogged out (like the Camel Humps were for the Giant Killer,) and history would have been re-written. Finding or fabricating a matching intake (mounting design and cathedral port shape) would have been more of an issue. My point was that people think that 059s suck because they lack the 062s port design, which does suck... but a properly done up set of 059's would tear apart the camel humps (also lacking the 062s port design) strictly based on the LS style cathedral ports...

@@hendo337 I here you, but I feel the 062 Vortecs would still be better- you could replace the seats and run the 1.84 069 valves if wanted and even though flow is close 062s do flow a bit more. In my opinion, the justification for 059s is strictly for street and marine 305s wanting a low duration broad off idle torque band while still being able to utilize lift without introducing high compression and pump gas headaches. If I wanted a 305 strictly to rev for HP, I would use the 062's along with a custom piston to raise my compression up and shroud the cylinders for valve interference if needed. Now if you are talking about price per dollar I totally here you except fot that 059s have become quite expensive as they are not a dime a dozen in the junkyards anymore. But circa 2002 when they were still plentiful yea- 062 Vortec's were almost always yanked before a strolling junk yard junkie stumbled across them.
"Sort of like running 706s on an LS1 or LQ4" you just hit my sore spot with that comment. That is literally what I have been saying for years. We need a standard peanut port style head for the LQ4s, LQ9s, and L51s ect. This HP sells engines but low end, flat line on a graph torque wins fuel economy crap is really hurting "street truck performance." At least when you consider fuel economy and towing. I get so sick of people saying "it makes X amount of HP" and I always say "yeah, yeah and what RPM do you have to get to to use it? What RPM is that peek torque made at and what is your torque like between 800-2000 RPMs? My wife's 2013 Yukin XL with a 5.3/6L80E is getting quite a bit less mileage than my 86' Suburban did with a 350/700R4 (granted pump gas was better back then, but still.) Why? Because you could just tap the pedal on the off idle low torque producing 86' but the 13' requires revving to get anything done. Imagine the economy and additional low end torque my 86' 350 would have if left the long block same but was given the modern MPFI and extra gearing...

@@hendo337 And I just wanted to add GM was REALLY on track with the TPI... if it would have been used in truck applications with a duration around 190/210 and standard heads. Think about how torquey the lon runner TPI was, then consider how good mileage was, then consider how inefficient bank firing fuel injectors is. Now imagine that same TPI but used with a MPFI setup. Personally, I don't even think you need the cam and crank position sensors and cylinder per coil. Just a first design (or later model Corvette) TIP intake setup with injectors fired individually. I have always wanted to do that like running a third party Holley Commander to get it done but never got around to it. My 350 turned into a built 454, my G-Body is still running the custom tuned Computer Command Control feedback carburetor that I am nostalgic too, and my S10 still the HT3.4. My S10 is currently my only contender as I have the HT383 for it... but it is kinda a waste of that much torque in a super light S10. Granted, I would probably get great fuel economy, so I might do it, and it would look tits, but hooking up in the rain might really suck... I need another heavy vehicle.

The sad thing is we all knew what to expect there. They didn't have to build 2 engines twice to show that. All because they didn't want to go over budget $5 for steel headgaskets.

The problem is the Vortec heads and the old style pistons. The pistons for a 96+ engine are different to take advantage of the Vortec head's reshaped combustion chamber. For this video, you could get the compression back with different pistons or machine work on the heads, but then you blow the budget and the point of the test.

Waste of time because You already know the outcome.

Obviously people are to stewpid to use common sense and figure out the engines would have made the same power using the same compression ratio.
They were equal at 9 to 1 compression 🤦‍♂️

You would have to measure hp per cubic inch, but I’m in. I’d like to see whaat the AMC 304 could do. And if you wanted to do it right, bore it out .125” to get the factory specified maximum bore and you get 324 cubes. That’s would compare nicely with a bored 318! Let’s do this right guys!

Yes!! I would've loved to see that. 👍

Because we are the outcasts. Mopar or no car!

Ha ha ha

@@kennethcohagen3539 how high are you off huuffiing gas???? If we bore one block we gotta do them all.... hence they all have similar mods...........

I'd love to see them bump the compression and Dyno again. Interesting

@@michaelbrinks8089 You are right- but always remember that channels like Power Nation are a slave to the sponsors much like politicians are a slave to the PAC donors. The additional 36 ft lbs of torque is not the bad thing, it is the loss of torque below 2000 RPM that dynos do not show which is what gets a heavy vehicle moving and keeps fuel economy in check. Also, I don't think they realize that no one watching this who actually plays with "our engines" actually cares about high RPM HP. I speak as an experiences, well seasoned mechanic WHO HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE with this very issue- exhaust manifolds are your friend if your goal is low RPM torque and good fuel economy.
I will tell you what YOU WANT. A camshaft that has as much lift as your springs can support until about 4500-5000 RPMs. No less than .420 ish lift and no more than .500 ish lift. Here is the important part: DO NOT use a duration higher than about 190/200. The more you shift your duration up, the more you shift your power band up which kills off idle torque- unless if you use a high stall speed but then your fuel economy is out the door. LSA is also important, the lowest LSA number possible will give you the best low end torque- but keep in mind a low/tight LSA is generally not computer compatible (if your 89' still has a computer) and also a low/tight LSA hurts engine vacuum which will be a problem with power brakes boosters. If you can do a Hydroboost (power steering assisted brakes) that will help, but not really if you keep the computer.
You want to keep the computer because it self adjusts on the fly based on varying parameters whereas a non feedback throttle body or carburetor is "set." What is going to kill you on the cam swap is the tuning, especially if yours is a speed density instead of mass air flow. Until it is properly tuned, as in someone manipulating your PROM in real time using a laptop, you will more than likely end up with less off idle/cruising torque performance. It is worth driving it to someone reputable and paying them to tune it if you can't do it yourself. DO NOT trust a mail order tune other than if needed to initially get it up and running.
In my opinion, and I am a GM guy, the Ramjet 395 Cam (14097395) is the best aftermarket cam ever made for someone looking for low end grunt and fuel economy on a small block. Look up those specs, and either find a similar speced Ford cam or have one custom ground to those specs. You won't be disappointed. In Chevy language, the worse "entry level" cam you can use for your application would be the LT4 586 Hotcam (24502586.) Look up those specs and stay away from anything Ford with similar grinds. Crane used to make Extreme 4x4 off road cams (maybe they still do) that were made for our applications. Rock crawlers trying to push 5500 plus pounds up a vertical rock wall don't care about 6500 RPM, do they??
To summarize- do not exceed .200 duration whatever you do... and almost all cams are "HP Performance" driven vs low end or "Off-Idle Torque Performance" driven. Marine 302 cams would be a GREAT idea- check the specs. Keep in mind that marine applications generally had no EPA regulations pre-year 2000 and those are the specs that they knew were pushing the envelope but for continuous operation low end grunt which boats need.
And again, no headers. Not only will you trade some low end torque for high end HP, but you will have to deal with constant "header headaches" which is a real thing...

Did you not watch the video? Did you not see this 305 has flat top pistons with valve reliefs?
This 1984 305?
This 1984 305 with flat top pistons and 601 heads?
It's an L60 305 HO

@@1stamendmentsupporter A steel gasket would give the engine 9 to 1 compression.
You would still have to deck the block to get 9.5 to 1 compression which cost more money and time due to completely tearing down the engine cleaning the parts replacing worn bearings and rings (because it is convenient) trips to and from the machine shop, gas etc...
The easiest thing to do is put a thicker gasket on the Ford to lower the compression

Yes i noticed that. Ford Engine is in better health, also with a whole point of compression ratio. Maybe Chevrolet with a rebuild, or another block bored at standard the numbers improves. I am a SBC fan but this time Ford is superior.

That would have made for impressive peak HP and Torque numbers but a HORRIBLE torque curve... (unless if you are one of those Hemi type guys whop think peak HP and torque values are everything... *EDIT: Keep in mind they are doing these builds on stock bottom ends... ya tracking????

It's similar to the GT40, but probably not quite as good. I have a set on my 298

@my77stang what the fck🤣. A closed chamber Cleveland head will make gobs more power than a 40 or 40p dummy. It wouldn’t be remotely close.

@@RacingRon47you got a set? They are getting hard to find. I lost a set in a machine shop that was supposed to be reworking them. All they could find were open chamber heads. 8.5 compression and 8 mpg.

@@Axeman428 sue them??????

I was thinking the same thing but they would’ve had to use a custom intake and spin the 302 probably close to 7k. I think they were trying to stick to a certain budget

I use a set of power heads on mine 302 190 160 valves cast iron heads but they worked pretty good to me

The 305 Chevrolet is going to weigh the same as a 350 Chevrolet; same crankshaft and smaller bores. A 351 Ford Windsor is about the same size and weight as the Chevrolet small block, but a 302 is a very small engine block as it started out at 221 cubic inches.

305 was for the poor man yes! just like the 350! Rich man run ford or mopar lol

Idk why people don't like the 305, ford did great with the 302 for decades

@@austincassell4741 I am going to say, small bore means small valves which equals less airflow.

I have watched 302 ford's eat alot of bigger engines up in drag races. Never underestimate the small block ford.

I needed this info for my build, thank you!! Just curious, is that compressed thickness?

Ps outflow those 40s

@@GibbonsGarage ​​⁠small ex valves and ports were to bump lower end torque numbers for use in the heavy ass exploders. The regular 40’s should outperform the p’s in the mid to top end and peak numbers is what we’re looking for in the shootout right?

@@GibbonsGarage yep, more efficient chamber design for the win

307 has a 3.875" bore which unshrouds the heads much better. 307s are getting hard to find anymore certainly in ready to run condition stock bore size, they have been out of production since 1973. A 350 can be had for $250 so there isn't any reason no to use one, a 351w VS 350 is a way better comparison.

Exactly, if yo can get a 350 for $250-500 and 305 is a case of beer or maybe $100. Should be a roller cam 351w GT40P vs 350 Vortec.

A larger bore does make heads flow more, it unshrouds the valves.

Alot of people say the LS is a direct copy of the Windsor therefkre both engines will run the same.

If you're just getting started and want to play with nitrous, boost or something with an engine that is trash they arent a bad place to practice. Thats about it really.

Well go to the junkyard a buy a 5.0 last 10 yrs …… coyote engine…..10k
And a 6.0 Chevy and get back with me…….😂

@@299charlesBrand new crate gen 2 coyote cost 10k. Junkyard coyotes can be had for 800-1200. Stop huffing gasoline

A 350 can be had for what a roller 5.0HO can be had for if not less. Most performance parts for an SBC are cheaper. It's almost pontless to use the GT40P or Vortec heads when china aluminum heads sell for $580-630 complete, even the cheapest aluminum 175cc Ford or 195cc SBC head with enough cam and the right intake on a 350 or 351w is going to make well in excess of 400hp.

@@hendo337 People wanted to see how the best junkyard OEM iron heads performed on stock bottom end engines.
What part of that did you have trouble understanding we Todd.👎🏿

i paid $300 for a running 350 vortec....

And the chevy suffering with bad ring seal as witnessed by all the blow by.

Those cams were WAYYY too small they didn't even get close to 2hp per CFM of intake valve flow and single plane intakes don't benefit 5L engines with cams that small being revv'd to only 6000 either.

@maybe? but not in this case I can only speak for the ford with experience but the stock gt40p doesnt really flow past .550 lift you really arent gonna get that much out of it without porting what they managed here was respectable which sounds bad but thats how it is. the single plane could of just been a performer rpm air gap and been okay. however they dont even really offer many rollers past that lift for the 302 within their budget you have to get with a higher roller rocker or up the rocker ratio. you can go up in duration but its a 50oz external balance cast crank on im assuming stock rod bolts and not an optimized rod ratio.

Yeah, a mild SBC doesnt benefit from a single plane over a dual plane until well over 425-450hp and over 6700rpms. I have seen 351w builds that benefitted from a single plane with the same peak tq just shifted 500-700rpms higher and peak hp 30-50hp more at 1000+ more rpms.

That’s where the oil pump is

Exactly💯

Funny how everyone is pointing at the compression but nobody’s looking at the fact that the Chevy had a displacement advantage…

​@skipgumphrey9579 that's 3hp if making 1hp per cid maybe 5 tops....not the same as 1point of compression is worth avg 5% power increase (in this case about 15-18hp) so not a tit for tat square up

​@@jarvislarson6864but the chevy head flowed better than the ford.

@@motorsportfan they jus doin budget after market add ons

GM uses a very thing steel shim head gasket from the factory. People usually get pretty sketchy about reassembly with super thin .015 "steel shim gaskets on old motors. It may not really be a valid concern but I imagine that's part of the thought process here.

Also, there are 58cc Vortec heads available

No one ever gives the Cleveland any love 😢
It wouldn't have even been a competition if those heads came into play haha

They explained it perfectly and the lesson is plain to see. If you just want to bolt parts on, you need to be very aware of what you're doing. The Vortec heads came out in 1996 and were a significant improvement over the old pickup truck/van heads, but the pistons also had to change because of this exact problem in the video. Old SBC pistons and Vortec heads drop static compression. You either deck the heads or install a blower. Either way, the cost jumps considerably because in addition to the machine work, your valvetrain has to change as well.
Also, nobody really bothers with the 305 because the 350 was available and bolts right in. They're basically the same price from a yard or a reman company. Giving away 45cid is stupid if you don't have to do it. I'll bet if Ford made the 302 and the 351 identical externally the way GM did with the 305 and 350, the situation would be the same for Fords. The GM 305 is an underbored 350. The Ford 351w is a stroked 302. This means the Ford 351w block is an inch taller than the 302. The GM block is (externally) dimensionally identical between engines.

@@DriveCarToBar Mm my comment was in a joking manner - hence the laughing emoji. Yeah, I'm a Ford guy and like to get a dig in at Chevy whenever possible. I didn't ask for, nor do I need, a lengthy explanation of the differences between motors, heads, etc. You might want to move your comment to the main body so that more people will see it.

As a chevy dude, i dont care. I read your joke and saw it as a joke but when i saw your laughing emoji, somehow i took it to mean a more spiteful comment from you.
Either way, the ford is better for bolt-on only mods.​@flyinhawaiian9174

​@@flyinhawaiian9174 If you can not handle people replying to your comments maybe keep your mouth shut 😆🤣😆

@@DriveCarToBar 302 and 351 are interchangeable so i don't see what you're on about. if the vehicle had a 302 you can bolt a 351 in the same spot.

Make sure you build it with 13 to 1 compression and use 1.84 valves in fully ported 059 heads.