Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
how big is your budget for rebuilt or re-man engine and body and paint restoration.
the 81 were less desirable because of the anemic pontiac 301 and chevy 305 but the 6.6 in the early versions is a better way to go I mean for the price of restoring the 80-81 you could find a decent running 6.6 77-79 T/A for $5-6K
The 301 has a bad rap, but the 1 I pulled off the dyno today might change some minds. No, the stock crank was not used. But 389 crank was. With the 301 heads, ported by me, a mild cam 224/228 duration at .050" lift, 490" lift on both exhaust and intake valves, 421 hp. 439 lbs of torque. I think a revised LSA in the cam would make a cleaner power band tho. This 1 does have some strange dips at 2600 rpm, and 5500 rpm.
But the 301 was a better and more powerful engine than the 305.
Someone had put a late 70s year model 301 V8 in my old 69 Pontiac Safari wagon... it was a piece of crap engine... it clacked, missed and had water in the oil.
I think they are looking to have something with a 6-cylinder from what I gather... I would say that these had the 3.8L V6 from the factory as the base engine (at least it was according to the brochure), but I am sure an inline 6 would slip in here too since the older ones had the I6 as the base engine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12GO
The 301 has a bad rap, but the 1 I pulled off the dyno today might change some minds. No, the stock crank was not used. But 389 crank was. With the 301 heads, ported by me, a mild cam 224/228 duration at .050" lift, 490" lift on both exhaust and intake valves, 421 hp. 439 lbs of torque. I think a revised LSA in the cam would make a cleaner power band tho. This 1 does have some strange dips at 2600 rpm, and 5500 rpm.
But the 301 was a better and more powerful engine than the 305.
The 301 has a bad rap, but the 1 I pulled off the dyno today might change some minds. No, the stock crank was not used. But 389 crank was. With the 301 heads, ported by me, a mild cam 224/228 duration at .050" lift, 490" lift on both exhaust and intake valves, 421 hp. 439 lbs of torque. I think a revised LSA in the cam would make a cleaner power band tho. This 1 does have some strange dips at 2600 rpm, and 5500 rpm.
But the 301 was a better and more powerful engine than the 305.
why would you build up a 301 poncho? the 350 SBC is the way to go you can stroke it to 383 and have some serious torque and if you are a pontiac fan why not just do a 400 or 455. I mean those numbers can be had buy a mild tuned 350 with a good set of heads and those must be crank horsepower so to the wheels you are putting down in the 380-390HP range. I must say you have a diffrent way of going about building a motor and the heads are the bad mainly due to the restrictive heads with siamese ports where 4 cylinders shared 2 paths, the restrictive single plane intake manifold and the tiny valves and the block is pretty weak to top it off.
I think the poster wanted a car with a 6-cylinder.... according to another thread since its for a kid. I am guessing they are putting a 6-cylinder in this car?
I think the poster wanted a car with a 6-cylinder.... according to another thread since its for a kid. I am guessing they are putting a 6-cylinder in this car?
Yeah, my son wants to kill me. He so wants a V8, but we are putting a 3.8 in it.
why would you build up a 301 poncho? the 350 SBC is the way to go you can stroke it to 383 and have some serious torque and if you are a pontiac fan why not just do a 400 or 455. I mean those numbers can be had buy a mild tuned 350 with a good set of heads and those must be crank horsepower so to the wheels you are putting down in the 380-390HP range. I must say you have a diffrent way of going about building a motor and the heads are the bad mainly due to the restrictive heads with siamese ports where 4 cylinders shared 2 paths, the restrictive single plane intake manifold and the tiny valves and the block is pretty weak to top it off.
As a top Comp Eliminator engine builder said, "people have no clue the only issues with the 301 is the crankshaft." Let me give you a litte education; the head in sand attitude of "why not build a 400 or 455" is exactuly the reason so many "Pontiac" guys get beat. As for as the over rated chevy engine, why waste the money on it! Clearly you completely over look an aspect of the siamese ports that the 301 never had but the 305 chevy did have; reversion in the intake tract. Now look at the bore on the 301. it's a 4" bore.same as a 350 sbc, fords 302 and 351's, etc. Why does that matter? Because the Pontiac 301 has a taller deck height than the chevy or ford. You can put as long as a stroke crank into the 301 block as you can even the 455 blocks.
That's a possible 5" stroke! We have 1 with a 4.5" stroke that has been an abused test mule this year. oh, the 301 block? We sonic checked the 4 301 turbo blocks' cylinder walls and guess what? They were ok to bore to 4.280"! and 4.180 to 4.200" in the standard 301 blocks! Can't do that with a sbc of any sort related to stock bore centers! Oh the 383 sbc combo? why stop at 383? We can use a completely STOCK factory 326, 354, 389, 0r 400 crank in the 301 block with no clearence issues anywhere. Use a 6.135" rod, and there is an off the shelf piston thats perfect to achieve a zero deck hieght. Compared to the time it takes to build a 377-383-388 chevy, the Pontiac is a breeze.
Oh, did i tell you with the aluminum heads on the 301 test dyno mule, we made 604 hp, with 601 lb. ft. of torque. Yes, in a 301 based stock block.
This deal working with the 301 blocks is easier than building sbc's with 3.75" cranks and alot more power for same size cams used in both types of engines. Plus the Pontiac is a true street sweeper.After all, the head in the sand logic says you can't make true hp with a 301. oH ON A SIDE NOTE, A 377 SBC with the same size cam on the dyno, SR Torquer heads made 13 less hp, and 21 less lb. feet of torque compared to the 301 based Pontiac. So to your misguided assertion that a sbc is the way to go for a stroker 383 size engine, I say no it isn't. And the dyno says the same thing.
^^ Guess that explains the enormous popularity of the Pontiac engine vs the SBC .
The popularity of the sbc is from the tens of thousands of sbc buildups in magazines and the fact the aftermarket companies promote it so much, as it has been their bread and butter. Why? Because you have to build a sbc to keep up with everything else. Simple economics for them. I simply explained a way less traveled that yeilded good results, and it was actuly very cheap to do, even cheaper than the other small blocks out there. I have less than 2000 bucks in a 400+hp engine total! It cost more in machine work than parts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With the 301 heads, ported by me, a mild cam 224/228 duration at .050" lift, 490" lift on both exhaust and intake valves, 421 hp. 439 lbs of torque. I think a revised LSA in the cam would make a cleaner power band tho. This 1 does have some strange dips at 2600 rpm, and 5500 rpm.
