So who's ready for a twin-turbo, 10,000 rpm 3.0L V8 corvette?

[CAP1]

30 thousandths on both intake and exhaust?

 i forget what the specs were, as it was years ago. i do recall thagt they were set too tight. when i had looked up the specs back then, i seem to recall them being pretty big lash settings, compared to what i was used to working on. because of that, i waited, and left the car hanging on the lift over night, till i could get in touch with a local chevy racer that i've known for about 30 years. he verified the correct settings, and i set them.

 that thing was a friggin BEAST.

[RTHolmes]

narrow bore, long stroke, high rpm?

'scuse me?

Those 3 do not match.

There is a very real limit on how far/how fast you can sling a piston reliably.

If they want to build an rpm motor then it should be short stroke, large bore

thats what I was thinking, 10k from a production 3.0l+ long-stroke engine? not a chance.

and if its turbo'd, why bother with a 10k limit? you start getting serious frictional losses at those high speeds, plus much beefier valve springs required means even more losses. it would also probably require titanium pistons, con rods, valves, rockers etc etc - all very expensive. pretty sure you also run into problems with gas flow at high rpms with all the turbo plumbing in the way. theres good reasons why no one else makes a turbo'd 10k 3.2l V8 ... even the new McLaren's turbo 3.8l V8 redlines at 8k5.

a high revving engine for the vette seems out of character too (unless they can make the C7 ~1000Kg).

it just doesnt add up

[Big Rat]

I've already done a couple of transaxle repairs on the vette and it could really use some help in the final drive area.

The C6 stuff is much stronger and fits nicely inside.

I agree, the C5's tend to start tearing up the rear ends when over 500 rwhp (reason why slicks are staying off mine ). Fortunately the C6 is really more like a C5 1/2 since most of the important stuff swaps, similiar to the C2/C3.

 "i hafta admit though.....just as the camaro, and the mustang, the current generation of vettes are the first ones i've really liked since the 69 model year."

Cap quit snooping in my garage , the 69 BB vert is the wifey's favorite to drive.  I get a kick out of guys checking out my wife in that car, since you would never expect to see a chick driving a car like that, especially a 4spd one.

The last corvette engine rumor I heard was a 5.5L direct injection engine staying NA. 


 
BigRat

[icepac]

chevrolet took that cam from the fuel injected vette 327s that made 365 to 375hp and put it in a 327 block with a 283 crank for 1967 and a beefier block with thicker crank for 1968 and 1969.

It was called the duntov 30-30 because the valve lash was the same for both intake and exhaust.

It sounds like you had a genuine 302 engine with proper vintage parts because of the insufficient lash.

This happens when valve seat wear from unleaded gas run in early engines causes the decrease in valve lash with mileage rather than an increase.

This also happens in early z cars.

[CAP1]

chevrolet took that cam from the fuel injected vette 327s that made 365 to 375hp and put it in a 327 block with a 283 crank for 1967 and a beefier block with thicker crank for 1968 and 1969.

It was called the duntov 30-30 because the valve lash was the same for both intake and exhaust.

It sounds like you had a genuine 302 engine with proper vintage parts because of the insufficient lash.

This happens when valve seat wear from unleaded gas run in early engines causes the decrease in valve lash with mileage rather than an increase.

This also happens in early z cars.

 THIS car only had 49k original miles on it. i think the tight lash was more due to the previous owner.

[icepac]

The service interval is 12,000 miles.

If the engine is original, then the non-hardened valve seats will wear quickly running the unleaded gas they were not designed to run.

[morfiend]

The service interval is 12,000 miles.

If the engine is original, then the non-hardened valve seats will wear quickly running the unleaded gas they were not designed to run.

 I've heard of this issue with several of the old "muscle lumps",that 302 was a sweet little screamer,the 290 hp it was rated at came at what 4000 rpm?  It was years ago when I saw 1 on the dyno,maybe 71/72 and I dont recall the exact numbers but I was told the 290 hp was strictly use for insurance purposes!!!!



       

[CAP1]

 I've heard of this issue with several of the old "muscle lumps",that 302 was a sweet little screamer,the 290 hp it was rated at came at what 4000 rpm?  It was years ago when I saw 1 on the dyno,maybe 71/72 and I dont recall the exact numbers but I was told the 290 hp was strictly use for insurance purposes!!!!



       

from the feel of that car, i'd put the hp somewhere in the upper 300hp range, maybe even touching on 400hp. i'd venture that with traction(which the one i drove lacked), it would've been a low 13 second car, possibly high 12's with a good driver. was one of the smoothest shifting 4 speeds i'd ever driven too.

[morfiend]

 Cap,


   I dont think that 302 was built to do 1/4 mile runs,it was used in the TransAm series. IIRC it was GM's answer to the Boss 302 in the mustangs that were dominating in Trans Am. There's a reason it winds up so high,they only had 4 gears to make use of all that power and the tracks didnt have very long straight aways!



     

[CAP1]

Cap,


   I dont think that 302 was built to do 1/4 mile runs,it was used in the TransAm series. IIRC it was GM's answer to the Boss 302 in the mustangs that were dominating in Trans Am. There's a reason it winds up so high,they only had 4 gears to make use of all that power and the tracks didnt have very long straight aways!



     

i know what it was built for. in this case, it doesn't stop it from running a quick 1/4 mile. look at todays boss302. it was built to run the road courses. yet i've already seen one run 11 second 1/4 miles. stock.