350 - 270 Combo Horsepower - Page 2

rick winchester · 06-16-2015, 10:15 AM

Yes that's what I mean. If I remember right Cal Method ran that engine in a 71 Camaro years ago.He is one of best out here at making one run and changed for a reason. If you look at the class guide you can run 0/sa with a 350/270 @40 lbs lighter than you have to weigh in K/sa with a 402/300/315. I am not cutting your combo because anyone that can run under the index impresses me and that's not easy with anything. If you want to stay in K/sa you can make your car a Nomad 2 seat wagon @585 lbs.lighter than the 402. Its not going to be easy with any engine,but I know I would rather have the 350. Good luck. Rick.

njk53 · 06-16-2015, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rick winchester

Yes that's what I mean. If I remember right Cal Method ran that engine in a 71 Camaro years ago.He is one of best out here at making one run and changed for a reason. If you look at the class guide you can run 0/sa with a 350/270 @40 lbs lighter than you have to weigh in K/sa with a 402/300/315. I am not cutting your combo because anyone that can run under the index impresses me and that's not easy with anything. If you want to stay in K/sa you can make your car a Nomad 2 seat wagon @585 lbs.lighter than the 402. Its not going to be easy with any engine,but I know I would rather have the 350. Good luck. Rick.

I think the main problem with the 402 in our 71 wagon is the intake manifold. Our current engine builder said the manifold is the limiting factor for making good power with that engine. I would love to stay in K/SA (because I have 2 engines and parts to boot) but, I also want to be somewhat competetive within my own class. Currently I am not anywhere near what other K stockers are running. The car itself is a good car hooks good, drives straight, and is an easy car to drive. I'd would like to keep it even if I have to go to a different engine combo.

Mark Yacavone · 06-16-2015, 03:03 PM

(1970) 350, 2bbl, R/SA Not much more weight .
Not many heads up runs that you couldn't handle in Div 3

K/SA is a bad place to be if you can't run at least 11.80.

Tim Lisson · 06-17-2015, 11:59 AM

I ran the 402 combo in my 72. Sent several cams through it but it was never really steller. Granted, there is much better camshaft technology today that may make it worth while if you really don't want to change combos. If memeory serves me correct, my best et was 11:27 @ 117.01 in H weight, in great air. The intake is restrictive and very low. The ports actually turn up to the intake ports.

Tim

impstocker · 06-17-2015, 12:41 PM

I ran a 396/325 combo and will be running the same motor in my 65 Impala. I thought it ran pretty good pushing my 4100 lbs 68 Impala to 11.70's . Checking out the specs compared to the 402/315 they are pretty close except I run 290 heads which have a little more intake port volume. Cam intake lift same at .398 but more for 402 on exhaust at .430 Then I did notice the intake manifold for the 402 really a "low riser" compared to the 396/325 which is a more of a "high riser" design. Makes sense than that manifold is the problem. Just wanted to throw my thoughts in.

Will Lamprecht

ron mattson · 06-17-2015, 09:47 PM

The 402 isn't even in the same zip code as the 350/270
Approx .25 to .30 slower apples to apples!!!

njk53 · 06-18-2015, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone

(1970) 350, 2bbl, R/SA Not much more weight .
Not many heads up runs that you couldn't handle in Div 3

K/SA is a bad place to be if you can't run at least 11.80.

I agree with you on your statement that if I can't run 11.80 I am in a bad place. Unfortunately, I am almost .4 off of that. That's why we are looking at the 350-270. The 350-270 combo would put us in M/N/O. That is why I am trying to get information as to how much power the 350-270 combo can potentially make to sand help us make a decision if that would be a good combo for our car. As I said, the car itself is not a bad car, it is just the HP - Weight ratio that is lacking merit.

Joe DeMarzo · 06-18-2015, 03:55 PM

NJK53, I think Jim said it earlier (I agree) that you would need to get 400 plus out of the 350/270 to be competitive. Probably put you in the upper/middle of the pack if everything else is right.

njk53 · 06-19-2015, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe DeMarzo

NJK53, I think Jim said it earlier (I agree) that you would need to get 400 plus out of the 350/270 to be competitive. Probably put you in the upper/middle of the pack if everything else is right.

Joe, all I need is someone who has built and/or run the 350-270 combo say the 350-270 combo can make 400 HP plus with this engine.

Greg Reimer 7376 · 06-19-2015, 09:46 AM

I managed to make 360 horsepower at the flywheel(mathematically derived, not actually dyno horsepower), with a 68 327/250 horse engine. That one has only 8.5 to 1 compression,has small valve heads, and has a shorter stroke. The 350 should make a lot more torque, has way better ports and valve sizes, and it should be good for over 400 horsepower if it's a good one. The size and weight of a wagon is the biggest thing that has to overcome. It's been done. If the big block is really your preference, Herman Chapman had a 402 Chevelle wagon in Super Stock(no manifold restriction,open season on camshaft selection), maybe that would be an option.

06-16-2015, 10:15 AM	#11
rick winchester Member Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: cincinnati ohio Posts: 208 Likes: 293 Liked 195 Times in 33 Posts	Re: 350 - 270 Combo Horsepower Yes that's what I mean. If I remember right Cal Method ran that engine in a 71 Camaro years ago.He is one of best out here at making one run and changed for a reason. If you look at the class guide you can run 0/sa with a 350/270 @40 lbs lighter than you have to weigh in K/sa with a 402/300/315. I am not cutting your combo because anyone that can run under the index impresses me and that's not easy with anything. If you want to stay in K/sa you can make your car a Nomad 2 seat wagon @585 lbs.lighter than the 402. Its not going to be easy with any engine,but I know I would rather have the 350. Good luck. Rick. __________________ Rick Winchester Stk 3277 Last edited by rick winchester; 06-16-2015 at 10:17 AM. Reason: spelling

06-16-2015, 03:03 PM	#13
Mark Yacavone Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Miles From Nowhere Posts: 7,802 Likes: 2,891 Liked 5,097 Times in 1,943 Posts	Re: 350 - 270 Combo Horsepower (1970) 350, 2bbl, R/SA Not much more weight . Not many heads up runs that you couldn't handle in Div 3 K/SA is a bad place to be if you can't run at least 11.80. __________________ "We are lucky we don't get as much Government as we pay for." Will Rogers

06-17-2015, 11:59 AM	#14
Tim Lisson Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Solon Springs, WI Posts: 166 Likes: 0 Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Re: 350 - 270 Combo Horsepower I ran the 402 combo in my 72. Sent several cams through it but it was never really steller. Granted, there is much better camshaft technology today that may make it worth while if you really don't want to change combos. If memeory serves me correct, my best et was 11:27 @ 117.01 in H weight, in great air. The intake is restrictive and very low. The ports actually turn up to the intake ports. Tim

06-17-2015, 12:41 PM	#15
impstocker Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Wingdale, NY Posts: 302 Likes: 27 Liked 53 Times in 16 Posts	Re: 350 - 270 Combo Horsepower I ran a 396/325 combo and will be running the same motor in my 65 Impala. I thought it ran pretty good pushing my 4100 lbs 68 Impala to 11.70's . Checking out the specs compared to the 402/315 they are pretty close except I run 290 heads which have a little more intake port volume. Cam intake lift same at .398 but more for 402 on exhaust at .430 Then I did notice the intake manifold for the 402 really a "low riser" compared to the 396/325 which is a more of a "high riser" design. Makes sense than that manifold is the problem. Just wanted to throw my thoughts in. Will Lamprecht

06-17-2015, 09:47 PM	#16
ron mattson Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: cloquet mn Posts: 465 Likes: 17 Liked 66 Times in 29 Posts	Re: 350 - 270 Combo Horsepower The 402 isn't even in the same zip code as the 350/270 Approx .25 to .30 slower apples to apples!!! __________________ Ron Mattson 5015 STK

06-18-2015, 03:55 PM	#18
Joe DeMarzo Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Mahopac, NY Posts: 666 Likes: 48 Liked 113 Times in 9 Posts	Re: 350 - 270 Combo Horsepower NJK53, I think Jim said it earlier (I agree) that you would need to get 400 plus out of the 350/270 to be competitive. Probably put you in the upper/middle of the pack if everything else is right. __________________ Joe DeMarzo 1317 STK

06-19-2015, 09:46 AM	#20
Greg Reimer 7376 VIP Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Glendora,Calif. Posts: 1,133 Likes: 172 Liked 702 Times in 217 Posts	Re: 350 - 270 Combo Horsepower I managed to make 360 horsepower at the flywheel(mathematically derived, not actually dyno horsepower), with a 68 327/250 horse engine. That one has only 8.5 to 1 compression,has small valve heads, and has a shorter stroke. The 350 should make a lot more torque, has way better ports and valve sizes, and it should be good for over 400 horsepower if it's a good one. The size and weight of a wagon is the biggest thing that has to overcome. It's been done. If the big block is really your preference, Herman Chapman had a 402 Chevelle wagon in Super Stock(no manifold restriction,open season on camshaft selection), maybe that would be an option.