A
Anonymous
Guest
How does a stock carby 250 crossflow compare to a stock 289 and or 302 V8? Anyone have any real world numbers?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Inspite of its bigger size and better rod and bore dimensions (for high rpm) the Mid seventys standard 302 V8 were supplied with exactly same carburation (twin strongberg) as the 250 2V and did identical quarter mile times 16.9 sec. Other latter test between the Crossflow and the 302 have very similar results.
Even the late 60s higher comp four barrel GT 302 Windors with about a 1000rpm higher torque peak could still only manage a .7 of a second difference 16.3 in quarter mile times over the 2V.
Regardless of all of this Ive been led to believe and am prepared to accept that with the right modifiaction a 302 with respond better and out perform a 250 2V or Crossflow. It is probably mostly due to the revebility (bore dimensions and rod ratio of these engines)
I have many copies of road tests ect to support my claims and regard the 250 2V and the Crossflow as terrific engines, within certain limitations. In other words it does what it does well but If I were to push the envelope too far on cam and RPM I would probably choose something else. Mind you, the 250s dont like high revs but at the same time they seem to take it well due to there inherent strength.
They are a conundrum, thats why I like em.
Cheers Tim
Even the late 60s higher comp four barrel GT 302 Windors with about a 1000rpm higher torque peak could still only manage a .7 of a second difference 16.3 in quarter mile times over the 2V.
Regardless of all of this Ive been led to believe and am prepared to accept that with the right modifiaction a 302 with respond better and out perform a 250 2V or Crossflow. It is probably mostly due to the revebility (bore dimensions and rod ratio of these engines)
I have many copies of road tests ect to support my claims and regard the 250 2V and the Crossflow as terrific engines, within certain limitations. In other words it does what it does well but If I were to push the envelope too far on cam and RPM I would probably choose something else. Mind you, the 250s dont like high revs but at the same time they seem to take it well due to there inherent strength.
They are a conundrum, thats why I like em.
Cheers Tim
A
Anonymous
Guest
I stumbled across a web site recently where they stated the HP (dynoe I presume) for the cam and engine package they were trying to sell.
The cam used in the package was a dual pattern 204/214 at 50 and they stated in the Crossflow it prduced 195hp which sounds correct. They said that the same cam in the W 302 produced another 25 hp (about 10%on the 250) and about another 20 HP on top of that in the C 302 (C has better heads).
Because the W 302 is more cam sensitive than the 250 I suspect (as would normally be the case) that its higher power would also be at higher rpm. The easy way to make up the loss of the 25hp gain the 302 has is to cam up the 250 a bit more to compensate. I cant say for certain but I think if this was done it would have similar power at similar rpm (maybe slightly less but very neglegable) . This rule would apply with camming for peak HP up to about 4800 rpm above that 250 has to compensate much more for its longer stroke and rods.
For practical street application this makes the 250 a great engine.
The cam used in the package was a dual pattern 204/214 at 50 and they stated in the Crossflow it prduced 195hp which sounds correct. They said that the same cam in the W 302 produced another 25 hp (about 10%on the 250) and about another 20 HP on top of that in the C 302 (C has better heads).
Because the W 302 is more cam sensitive than the 250 I suspect (as would normally be the case) that its higher power would also be at higher rpm. The easy way to make up the loss of the 25hp gain the 302 has is to cam up the 250 a bit more to compensate. I cant say for certain but I think if this was done it would have similar power at similar rpm (maybe slightly less but very neglegable) . This rule would apply with camming for peak HP up to about 4800 rpm above that 250 has to compensate much more for its longer stroke and rods.
For practical street application this makes the 250 a great engine.
My comments were based on a few things: 289 is basically pre-emissions. No EGR, air pumps, exhaust port bumps, etc. The 250 crossflow has EGR, retarded and mild cam (except EFI), asthmatic carb and lower CR (I think).
Modified, the 289 will always have readily available parts the 250 owners dream of affording. I like sixes as it makes a lot of service related stuff easy - oil filter changes, steering box adjustment, engine bay detailing... But for others, the eight is a real "must have" - good luck to 'em.
Adam.
Modified, the 289 will always have readily available parts the 250 owners dream of affording. I like sixes as it makes a lot of service related stuff easy - oil filter changes, steering box adjustment, engine bay detailing... But for others, the eight is a real "must have" - good luck to 'em.
Adam.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I also am partial to the six cylinder engine.
But I must admit the sound of the V8 engine is probably the best muffled or not.
Mainly not!
Noel
But I must admit the sound of the V8 engine is probably the best muffled or not.
Mainly not!
Noel