Gearhead writers style

I was just reading a article at an gearhead site called Baddass.

Now the guy has good points but his writing is big is better as it is stronger, etc. but he writes more or less -- if you get a good strong small block, bolts, webs, etc., big is still better because I think it is.

In the past when there were only a handful of aftermarket items around writers would print articles that would say -- the small (255 Ford, 305 Chevy type) item is not very strong and has limits so we do not recommend dealing with these BUT IF you decide to anyway, here is how to get the most from the least.

Those type of articles seem to have gone away.

Is it the old school boys are gone, or they just do not want to deal with the hard school of knocks that gearheads used to have to deal with period?

Are saying such magazines today say 'the 305 Chevy isn't a very good base, so here is how to build the ultimate 350 instead.'?

That pretty much sums it up.

They will say the smaller engines are good for maybe low 400 hp, if you do it right,   but do as I say because you need 500 plus HP because I say so.

I think that is due to today's readers.  In my corner of the world people don't want to go 100% into something that only delivers 80% of whatever else was on the table.  They would sooner put 80% into the best option and get 70% if they know in the future they could get to 100% with the same project, if that makes sense?  There are guys that would take the 305 route in your example, but they are rare and ridiculed.  Most will take the 350 and either wait and wait and wait until they can afford to get it where they want it, or cheap out and nickel and dime a project into failure when they could have a built a solid 305, as an example.  I know guys that have been building their engine for years, just slowly collecting parts that make up the best combo, when they could have easily put together a solid budget option for 90% of the performance and be on the road last year.

The old maxim "do the best with what you got" doesn't exist much in more recent generations.  Everyone wants the best outcome, even if the difference is marginal, or if they have to wait for it.  When I read car forums, this is the impression I get .  So today's car guys don't care about low 400 now, they want the potential for 500+.  It's all a numbers/ego game.

Edited by Nathan, 11 May 2017 - 02:25.

An interesting example to me is the Ecoboost Ford Falcon. Same power, lighter, better fuel consumption than the i6 NA. Mind you I'd giggle my ass off if anyone ever guessed where most of the fuel saving came from, reputedly, and how many of the hot shot journos spotted it. Clue:none.

An interesting example to me is the Ecoboost Ford Falcon. Same power, lighter, better fuel consumption than the i6 NA. Mind you I'd giggle my ass off if anyone ever guessed where most of the fuel saving came from, reputedly, and how many of the hot shot journos spotted it. Clue:none.

Idle?

I see this as an offshoot of a "bigger is better" society as a whole. "Go big or go home," same deal.

I see it as a cause of spec car racing in sports and single seaters. 

An interesting example to me is the Ecoboost Ford Falcon. Same power, lighter, better fuel consumption than the i6 NA. Mind you I'd giggle my ass off if anyone ever guessed where most of the fuel saving came from, reputedly, and how many of the hot shot journos spotted it. 

Lean fuel ignition tricks.

I see it as a cause of spec car racing in sports and single seaters.

An interesting example to me is the Ecoboost Ford Falcon. Same power, lighter, better fuel consumption than the i6 NA. Mind you I'd giggle my ass off if anyone ever guessed where most of the fuel saving came from, reputedly, and how many of the hot shot journos spotted it. Clue:none.

pump the tires up to 50 psi 

I see this as an offshoot of a "bigger is better" society as a whole. "Go big or go home," same deal.

When I talk with big truck guys, they talk like they wouldn't have dared get a V6 for fear of being taunted as a big wuss. It all seems connected to the tough times we live in, and the ego boost a big motor gives to some who otherwise feel evermore insignificant and downtrodden.

I agree with you, but not on the truck part.

If I get a vehicle that will haul loads, I want one with an engine that will be under the least stress. In those situations it is far better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

Now with the HiPo engines, it is getting a bit silly.

I have always been one who likes big engines. I find the .5.30 bore center engines to be absolutely fascinating BUT when it comes to do the most with least for ANY reason, it is annoying that the -- OH you should not use that, you cannot get up to my standard if you just use that -- seems to be the attitude most often encountered.

The gent who ran a -- not sure what class it would be -- small aa fuel dragster with Daimler V8 was to me was extremely fascinating..

At the same time I find the turbo this, turbo that and turbo other thing to be extremely annoying.

-- My turbo whiz bang rigamajig can make just as much horsepower as Boss 302 blah, blah, blah -- yep and it cannot suffer any cooling snafus, or its hi-buck repair , a hot bitch to work on, and costs twice the price of simple push-rod HiPo V8 to build and run.at that HP level.

I put those in the same category and the writer who disses some one with simple four hundred some HP small block of any make, because he thinks they need a ultra-duty after market block, whiz bang cylinder heads and God only knows what else to meet his standards.

Edited by Bob Riebe, 12 May 2017 - 02:08.

There's a world of automobile engineering and production, and there's a world of auto enthusiasts. The automotive press speaks to the latter, not the former. There's some overlap, but less than one might think.

When I first really immersed myself in the world of automotive publications, after a few months I was asking myself, "My God, isn't there anyone here who knows about cars?" Then a few months after that, I realized we weren't in the business of making cars; we were making car magazines, and it was my skillset that needed some work. 

in the hot rod/performance portion of the car magazine biz, the real goal is selling the parts advertised in the pages, and the editorial content is essentially built around that. 

Totally lost me on the connection... :-)

Mea culpa. Competition in engine building and assembling the right parts is wonderful but very expensive. If you choose to race an obscure car with lots of potential, it will cost you a lot more than a BMW or Climax-engined racer.

Lets say that you want to compete in a 1 litre or so European saloon car -- in the day, you might have picked a Renault, Fiat, DKW, Saab. Brian Redman started his career in a Morris 1000 Traveller. Today, unless you have a BMC-engined car or a quick Ford Anglia you are likely to be at the back of the grid with nobody to race. Thus we have a historic spec series for Austin A30/A35s to keep costs down.

An interesting example to me is the Ecoboost Ford Falcon. Same power, lighter, better fuel consumption than the i6 NA. Mind you I'd giggle my ass off if anyone ever guessed where most of the fuel saving came from, reputedly, and how many of the hot shot journos spotted it. Clue:none.

Smaller antenna?

M

 

Lets say that you want to compete in a 1 litre or so European saloon car -- in the day, you might have picked a Renault, Fiat, DKW, Saab. Brian Redman started his career in a Morris 1000 Traveller. Today, unless you have a BMC-engined car or a quick Ford Anglia you are likely to be at the back of the grid with nobody to race. Thus we have a historic spec series for Austin A30/A35s to keep costs down.

Way back in the late eighties, I was at Road America speaking with some racing insiders, one had worked on the last ditch true Oldsmobile NASCAR stockcar, about how the SCCA allowing tube frame chassis in the Trans-Am had dumbed the series down to the lowest common denominator.

They agree with me with one saying one reason was probably the people with the task of building the race cars pissing and moaning about how hard it was for them to modify a production chassis into a decent race car.

One older gent said they whined like little children being told to do chores.

Very close to the right answer Mal. Most of the fuel saving for the ecoboost program came from fitting fuel economy tires. That is if you do the 4 tests I6 engine vs ecoboost, normal tires versus those tires, it is pretty clear where most of the benefit lies. In practice the ecoboost Falcon  did what it said on the box, better fuel economy, same performance (practically), reasonable towing performance. I guess we'll see about real life longevity, I'm in the camp that says these dual clutch automatic transmissions can be pretty amazing when new, but after 100000 km who knows? 

Edited by Greg Locock, 13 May 2017 - 08:01.

Very close to the right answer Mal. Most of the fuel saving for the ecoboost program came from fitting fuel economy tires. That is if you do the 4 tests I6 engine vs ecoboost, normal tires versus those tires, it is pretty clear where most of the benefit lies. In practice the ecoboost Falcon  did what it said on the box, better fuel economy, same performance (practically), reasonable towing performance. I guess we'll see about real life longevity, I'm in the camp that says these dual clutch automatic transmissions can be pretty amazing when new, but after 100000 km who knows? 

Greg I have just fitted bridgstone Ecopia tyres and I noticed that the fitters pumped them up to 40psi as opposed to the recommendation on the car door of 32 so I guessed that most of the fuel economy benefit came from the higher pressures .On mostly dirt roads the Tyre wear is pretty even and faster than if you drive on bitumen, because of the random higher stone peaks . so the tyre centers dont show as much wear 

I am just an old fart still in love with his old El falcon at 300,000 and still going strong 

The economy tires do need to run higher pressures- in fact regular tires are pretty happy to do so, it's just that the economy tires are designed specifically for it. One thing they often do is use fewer plies in the sidewall and a stiffer belt. There's an interesting scatter plot of rolling resistance vs handling goodness (I can't remember what they used as metrics, wet grip plus something else no doubt) Which demonstrated that newer technologies (and higher prices ) did give a benefit to both. A big change is due to using silica (or sand as it often known) to replace some of the carbon black in the compound.

Fashion.

The so called economy tyres are quite expensive and are not a performance orientated tyre. And the ride is less than satisfactory as well. As is the mileage also I am told.

I have driven a late turbo diesel Falcon and it did not inspire. Evidently it tows ok but the owner is scared by servicing costs. A LOT higher thn the six. He was pushed into the diesel by price [the only way they could move them] 

I am currently in the UK and driving a Kia Cee'D  GT which is a Kia Rio in Oz. Turbo diesel and 6 speed manual, you are forever changing gears. Drives ok and about 45mpg.

Typical renter, order one car and get another. I had ordered a Toyota petrol. Every car we have had is not what was ordered.

Coming from driving lazy sixes it is hard work but the price was right!

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 16 May 2017 - 13:48.

BTW, over inflating tyres is more dangerous than underinflation. My advice is read the manufacturers plate or handbook and add 4lb max. . Too much will cause the shocks to work far harder and the ride goes away. The shocks work harder, the car handle worse and the case will be more prone to fail.

Most of the time OEM pressures are best but no lower. Heavy loads obviously add air.

Tyre pressures regulate ride, adhesion, and also will throw more load back into the suspension,, the tyre IS part of the suspension 

I am currently in the UK and driving a Kia Cee'D  GT which is a Kia Rio in Oz. Turbo diesel and 6 speed manual, you are forever changing gears. Drives ok and about 45mpg.

Typical renter, order one car and get another. I had ordered a Toyota petrol. Every car we have had is not what was ordered.

Coming from driving lazy sixes it is hard work but the price was right!

Welcome to Britain, Lee.

In a petrol motor car, you'd have had different gear changes to cope with in UK traffic. Different, not necessarily better.

"turbo diesel Falcon"

Must have been an aftermarket donk. No diesel Falcons ever made it into production since 1990, if ever. 

You probably meant the ecoboost (usual fuel). The actual engines have a good reliability/warranty record so far, the transmissions (shared with the I6) are the most likely failure point.

Edited by Greg Locock, 16 May 2017 - 23:40.

Fashion.

this is an interesting read and a bit critical of the press 

http://www.realclear...ine_111937.html

He leads with a bit of a straw man argument, I doubt many people buy a $100000 car to save money. I think it's a bit harsh to blame the press, ultimately they can only write stuff that people will read, in much the same way that car companies can only build cars that real people want to buy, if they want to remain in business. I do know that super duper fuel economy models rarely sell well, which does tie up with the rest of his argument. 

Having said that, I think level 5 autonomous vehicles will remain a rarity for many years (Level 4 could happen quite soon), and fossil fuelled vehicles will still be the majority of sales in 2030, if only because the majority of the world will struggle to find a functioning 2 kW electrical supply. The market may well stratify with the cheap and expensive end being ICs and the middle being a mix of IC and EV. Ok that's about as useless as most predictions!

Greg thankyou for your analysis . I have traveled to the Philipines last year and 90% of the vehicles are motorbikes . Most certainly the spaghetti tangle of wires along the streets could not cope if even a small percentage of bikes were electric as there are regular weekly power outages now . Just counting the bikes parked I would say honda has 50% of the market with yamaha second some chinese bikes are making inroads. almost all hodas are 125 horizontal motors.Most of the trafic speed tootles along between 20 and 50 K, teenage boys excepted . so high torque at low revs is what is suited the honda is undersquare at 52mm bore 57mm stroke. got to go write more later    

Welcome to Britain, Lee.

 

In a petrol motor car, you'd have had different gear changes to cope with in UK traffic. Different, not necessarily better.

20mph is second gear, 30 third, 40 4th. 75mph on the motorway is about 2000rpm in 6th. Actually quite good now.

using BP fuel and the driveability has picked up no end, I think is must have had some crap stuff.

And 75mph on the Motorway means Benz, Bimmers, Audis etc go past 20mph plus faster and tradie vans 10mph. At least.

In Oz the Police would be having heart attacks and slamming them as hoons. I do feel they all need a good lie down!

Greg thankyou for your analysis . I have traveled to the Philipines last year and 90% of the vehicles are motorbikes . Most certainly the spaghetti tangle of wires along the streets could not cope if even a small percentage of bikes were electric as there are regular weekly power outages now . Just counting the bikes parked I would say honda has 50% of the market with yamaha second some chinese bikes are making inroads. almost all hodas are 125 horizontal motors.Most of the trafic speed tootles along between 20 and 50 K, teenage boys excepted . so high torque at low revs is what is suited the honda is undersquare at 52mm bore 57mm stroke. got to go write more later    

I was in Barcelona a month ago. 80% of the vehicles are scooters, all sizes and makes. And speeds!

Fashion.

As far as the original post goes, the 305 Chevy isn't a good engine for performance builds because it was never designed for that. Its long-stroke, small-bore design was intended to give V6 economy and emissions with a bit of V8 torque. A 302 Ford has much more potential as does a 302 Chevy. It's not the CID, it's the design. Why do you think Chevrolet put a 350 in the 80s IROC-Z instead of an upgraded 305?

As far as the original post goes, the 305 Chevy isn't a good engine for performance builds because it was never designed for that. Its long-stroke, small-bore design was intended to give V6 economy and emissions with a bit of V8 torque. A 302 Ford has much more potential as does a 302 Chevy. It's not the CID, it's the design. Why do you think Chevrolet put a 350 in the 80s IROC-Z instead of an upgraded 305?

Good by what parameters?

If some one , for any reason, wants to build 305 Chevy, 301 Pontiac, 215 Buick engine up, -- GOOD -- is what the person who wants the engine built wants, NOT what some one else who does not think it is a good idea because he would not do it wants.

Giving advice for money reasons when some one wants an engine to be built to a level that means failure is probably a when, not if, is fine but if some one for any reason wants to do it any way, the arrogant, I know better dweebs should just shut and show the person how to do it in the best manner possible, not start, -- Oh do not do that -- Oh you do not want  that -- I would not do that -- because they are full of themselves.

Good by what parameters?

If some one , for any reason, wants to build 305 Chevy, 301 Pontiac, 215 Buick engine up, -- GOOD -- is what the person who wants the engine built wants, NOT what some one else who does not think it is a good idea because he would not do it wants.

 

Giving advice for money reasons when some one wants an engine to be built to a level that means failure is probably a when, not if, is fine but if some one for any reason wants to do it any way, the arrogant, I know better dweebs should just shut and show the person how to do it in the best manner possible, not start, -- Oh do not do that -- Oh you do not want  that -- I would not do that -- because they are full of themselves.

"Good" by the fact that its small bore limits the size of its valves and it can be bored to only 316 CID. By all means, people should spend their money and time however they like. But money and time don't know the difference between being spent on an engine block with limited capabilities or one (302, 327, 350) with much greater possibilities.

And going back to the original post, a Chevrolet 302 (283 crank and heads in a 327 block) is smaller than a 305, so suggesting someone put his or her time and money toward a 302 instead of a 305 isn't saying "bigger is better," at least in terms of CID.

Fashion.

https://www.facebook...59916997602903/

http://www.brocksper...d=655&zoneid=25

http://www.motorcycl...ifications.html

https://www.youtube....h?v=fbHOT5YeiOo

there is a fashion trend happening here 

"Good" by the fact that its small bore limits the size of its valves and it can be bored to only 316 CID. By all means, people should spend their money and time however they like. But money and time don't know the difference between being spent on an engine block with limited capabilities or one (302, 327, 350) with much greater possibilities.

 

 

Good by the fact  to you, what I said is wrong when I started this thread, is the exact opinion you hold.

You have little respect for what the person with the engine wants, you believe in your world the only way it should be done is the way you think it should be done, any one thinking otherwise is wrong for thinking that way, therefore; they should be told they are wrong and shown the only proper way to do it.

This quote from the Jalopy Journal article is exactly what I am speaking about and you made the point for me.:

I'm not sure what's tougher, being a 305 Chevy, or being a 305 owner. It's all abuse and insults, and never any respect. Talk about building or hopping up a 305 and guys will generally shun you, or even boldly accuse you of being a fool. You'll hear, "Why mess with that junk motor? You're wasting your time."

http://www.crankshaf...hevy_305_engine

https://www.jalopyjo...e-likes.933682/

Edited by Bob Riebe, 27 May 2017 - 15:32.

As far as the original post goes, the 305 Chevy isn't a good engine for performance builds because it was never designed for that. Its long-stroke, small-bore design was intended to give V6 economy and emissions with a bit of V8 torque. A 302 Ford has much more potential as does a 302 Chevy. It's not the CID, it's the design. Why do you think Chevrolet put a 350 in the 80s IROC-Z instead of an upgraded 305?

And as a some time engine builder I will agree. You can improve the performance but buying a 350 is cheaper and makes far more grunt for a few less dollars.

Far more performance orientated pistons for the 4" engine and very few 'performance aftermarket heads as well.

Keep the crank and rods and external tin and use the rest as nostalgia! Of what Chevrolet got wrong.

And going back in history a FACTORY 302Chev was a 4" block with very good [for then] cylinder heads. No bottom end but turn it [very] hard and it will even now blow off anything 305. What was the Chev 5000 engine and Transam engine? It was a performance engine, not a half assed  'econo' engine.

In that case GM did what the hot rodders had done for a long time with the 283. But properly, especially the large journal block. Though many will attest that it revved a bit harder, but always hammered centre mains as the crank flexed. Still perfectly ok for a mild street engine ofcourse.

Edited by Lee Nicolle, 27 May 2017 - 19:36.