283 Chevy Vs. 289 Ford Also SBC Vs. SBF
 

I would like the opinion on which is better even thought I prefer the SBC and the 283

Well, having grown up a Chevy guy, I gotta admit to liking the SBC, but you picked a heck of a place to post, (or you just trying to stir something up?). I've always thought that most SBF/SBC arguments were kinda apples to oranges in one way because for any given displacement other than 350/351, Fords are large bore/short stroke engines and Chevys are just the opposite. This gives 'em different characteristics. SBC's greatest advantage over a Ford is the interchangability between displacements/years. Fords have confused me on items such as the different engine families' bellhousing bolt patterns, flywheel balance, etc. This standardization is one major reason that Chevy parts are cheaper. On the performance side, everybody's gotta face that bone stock, original parts-wise, Chevy heads flow better. There are a lot of alternatives out there now to even that problem up. Ford guys love to compare the 5.0(302) to the 305. 305's are DECENT engines, but not really great performers, and the bore size limits you to small valves. It's also a long stroke engine, so it's got some bottom end torque, but runs out of steam fast. Dollar-for-dollar, a 302 can be built that'll smoke it. Having been on both sides of the aisle, and growing up with a brother who was a Ford guy always, I sometimes feel that I have a unique and relatively unbiased view. Chevy and Ford guys stick with "their own kind" (except for a few rare traitors such as myself). They swap stories of their victories and the opposite brand's POS engines. Truth is, both have champions and lemons. Anything made by humans is subject to failure. Both have built millions of great engines/cars. If they hadn't, they'd have gone out of business. My dad worked for Ford for 33 years. 25 of those years he drove GM cars. Why? He had some bad experiences with Fords years ago, and always good with GM stuff. (How my brother loved Fords so much, I can't figure). When Ford started some really good deals (A-plan, Z-plan) he bought another and has been buying them ever since. There's nothing wrong with brand loyalty, but don't let it blind you to the truth. As far as 283's and 289's, both are great engines. My earliest fascination with speed was as a little kid,riding in my brother's 271hp 289/3speed Mustang. SBF's are great engines.
I'd just rather WORK on a SBC ;-) (go ahead, flamers, say you HAVE to work on 'em more. I'll ignore it.)

The problem was that in the later mustang/camaro wars the guys were comaparing the 5.0/4.6 mustangs to the 350 camaros.. Apples to oranges, and the mustang still would keep up.

I was going to say that too, it was always more of a comparison between the 350 and the 302. Or the 4.6 vs the 5.7. I was always amazed at how a 302 mustang would go dead even with a 350 camaro. Sometimes winning, sometimes losing. But with a 50 cubic inch handicap at all times. Plus, a 5 liter Ford has got to be one of the nastiest sounding v-8's ever. Period.

I too have always like the SBC better than Fords offering. But this has to do with parts interchangability more than anything. I think having one block that can go from a 283 to a 400 is just a great design.

We have owned the following "small block V-8's" from the former "Big 3".

1957 Chevy car 283 - still have
1964 Chevy truck 283, mildly built up and transplanted into a 1971 Chevy C10
1966 Dodge B100 273
1987 Dodge B250 318 - still have
1974 Ford E-100 302
1994 Ford F-150 302 - still have

Except for the truck 283, they were all bone stock. That 283 and the 273 Dodge were rebuilt by me. None of the others were ever been opened up.

They are all strong, durable and relatively inefficient motive power. Most stories I read here about this engine was a POS or that one was terrific have nothing to do with the basic engine structure. Carb setups, compression ratios, emissions tuning and even the gearing (which has nothing to do with the engine itelf) make the difference in ones driving and ownership "satisfaction".

Both Dodges (smog-tuned 2-bbl Carters) and the 1974 Ford (Duraspark I + vacuum hose nightmare) suffered from crude emissions tuning issues. The 1994 Ford feels gutless at altitude. None of this can be blamed on the basic engine design.

Jim

The chebby 305 was a junk motor. IT was like the early 90* v6s. You either got a good one (which was really good) or a bad one (blown up at 30k). I unfortunately see a LOT of mid 80s to late 90s truck with 350s that smoke... We're talking oil smoke.. While on an older truck it's acceptable, but a '97 or '98 already smokin? It's not that old...

I had a 283 punched 30/1000 that came out of a Corvette that lived in my 34 Ford 5 window coupe. Highly modded it turned in the low 13's in the 1/4 mile. Not too amazing by todays standards but I have an attic full of trophys for the "D" gas class that I ran. The SBCs were cheap to get HP out of as parts were plentiful. I now have a 66 Mustang fastback with a numbers correct 289 Hipo. It seems to be a smaller engine sizewise but makes decent HP for what it is and considering that the correct gasoline is now $5.00 gallon, it doesn't see much activity now. Both engines make a good amount of HP for their size. Both have great records in being semi-indestructable. Either one is a major trip to work on, that is, if you like working on engines. The 289 will rap faster than a SBC but the SBC is easier to get more cheap power out of it. I don't think either one tops the other.

The Ford SB short block was clearly a superior design from an engineering stand point and this was proven over and over on the race track. Particularly Indy car, sports car Trans Am, and endurance racing in the late 60's and early 70's. Indy car motors such as the Drake Eagle, and The Foyt Coyotee were basically fairly stock 289 short blocks toppped off with exotic heads, overhead cams, and dual turbo's. Shelby's, and Boss Mustangs dominated their class's with 302's and 289's. Cobras won many races with 289's. However, the regular production small Ford's were handicapped by poorly breathing heads. When the 5.0liter HO took over the street scene from everybody in the late 80's and early 90's it was mainly because of improvements in breathing letting the other superlatives designed into the basic engine shine.

Just comparing the specs of 302 to the 350 shows why it takes 350 chevy inches to keep pace with 302 Ford inches:

Ford 289 rod ratio:1.84-15.7* rod angle@ 90* crank rotation
Ford 302 rod ratio:1.70-16.9* rod angle (it must be less than 17* in perfomance engines or it's a significant design flaw, effecting durability)
Typical riciprocating weight of FSB:872 grams
Bore-stroke ratio 70-75%
Piston speed at 6500RPM-3250fps

Chevy 350 rod ratio 1.63-rod angle 17.8*
Typical reciprocating weight of SBC:1068 grams
Bore-Stroke ratio 87% (350)
piston speed at 6500RPM-3775fps

The SBF complete engine typically is about 200lb's less weight than the typical SBC.

It's easy to see why the Ford is typically more durable as it maintains proven engineering dictums. Indeed I have seen SBC's torn down at 70,000 miles with significant piston skirt wear, ring wear, and cylinder ridges, while SBF's torn down at 200,000 miles typicaly shown very little wear in these areas. The SBC has a reputation of being hard on rods and rod bearings. SBF's seldom exhibit concern in this critical area.
Once you get the heads of the SBF sorted out, the SBC just can't catch up, cubic inch to cubic inch.

The 305 SBC is a dog because it uses the 350 crank and rods with a small bore. The crank assembly has the same problems of the 350. The small bore restricts valve area and has greater impedance to airflow.

You're pretty good at research but are leaving a lot of stuff out.


SBC's can be built with 6" rods which put the RR closer to that 1.7.


The SBF's share similar bore and strokes with the SBC with the less desirable larger mains.....are you intimating the 302 will also out gun a 351?

Your smaller bore theory has some credence..........BUT, the 305 was very comparable to the 302 as far as HP and torque numbers (actually a tad ahead) in the late 80's early 90's Camaro/Mustang wars. The 'stang won a lot of those shootouts because it was nearly 200 pounds lighter.


Check out the new SBC's..........even all the way up to 5.7 they have smaller bores than the old SBC........and there's no comparison in performance.

The mod motors compared to the old Ford iron also use smaller bores but have much better performance across the board than their predesessors.

I can't cover everthing comprehensively but I'm not leaving a lot of stuff out. I know that some smart chevy engine builders build 327's with long rods, but those are as rare as hens teeth. Most chevy guys are going to go to a 383 rather than go to true medium rod engine.

Ford has a larger bore 4.6 modular crate motor at 5 liters and it makes 400 hP without a power adder. The small bore, 4 valve, 4.6 can't do that. The larger valve area possible increases the potential air flow and therefore the amount of power potential. The recent trend toward squarer bores has to do with emissions. The new Vortec V8's are not actually an evolution of the classic SBC but are based on a never used V6 experimental design. The newer Chev motors out gun the old ones mainly because of the "catherdral heads" certianly not because of the slightly smaller bores. The interesting thing about about the new GM pushrod designs are that they resemble Ford pushrod designs overall, moreso than the original SBC. Whys that?

The 302 did usually outgun the 351w unless the 351w had superior heads and cam grinds, but the 302 can still rev higher and eventually make more horse power due to it's smaller bearing area. The stock SBF heads can't support a stock 302 much less a an additional .5 inches of stroke, but if you open up the breathing you can realize the potential of these engines.

Lets talk about how an equally built aluminum head 351w vs equally built aluminum head 350 chevy will do. I've never seen such SBC do as well, heads up.

Official tourqe and HP ratings aside the 305 simply wasn't in the same ball park as the 5.0Liter HO Ford. I was there. I know. The 305 didn't stand a chance and it wasn't just the weight of the cars. The difference was that huge. Heck the 350 F bodies couldn't beat em. Even the LT-1 didn't out gun the HO consistently. I put a 5.0 HO with GT40 iron heads on chassis dyno once, and there was several guys with chipped LT-1 F bodies fine tuning there cars that day. The 302 Ford was still putting more HP to the rear wheels. Those guys had sick looks on their faces.

We'll just agree to disagree.........you're comparing a 5.0 DOHC crate motor to a 4.6 production motor and touting more HP??? Ya think??? Nothing to do with the added displacement.

The larger bearings of a 351 does not decrease HP as much as it super heats the oil. I suppose the added friction robs a little power but you have 49 more cubes. The 347 stroker makes more HP than a 302 all else being equal and a 302 in theory should be able to rev higher there too.


It is known that the current SBC shares nothing with the old SBC........the only point being is heads or not, the smaller bore motors are making more HP. It's not just a simple "bigger valves make more power" and from your writings I know you realize that.

Emissions is the reason for the smaller bores.............BUT lower emisssions can go hand in hand with a more powerful more efficient powerplant. Flame travel, velocity, more complete burn etc........are more important than just the total amount of air you can move............this is the reason the Hemi and to a lesser extent the canted valve motors are not eficient street motors. (I'm not talking about the new psuedo hemi)

Most 4 valve heads, even with smaller bores, will flow waaay more than ever needed for insane peak HP..........it's at the lower RPM that you have to restrict airflow. Either in the intake tract like the old Cobras or with VVT.

I think you and I are more in agreement overall than not. Actually it's kind of nice to be able to disscuss these things with someone that has a deeper understanding of things like reciprocating geometry and combustion dynamics.

My point about the the 305's smaller bore was simply that by taking a 350 and reducing the bore size to create a smaller engine, you wind up restricting potential valve area, thereby taking away the one advantage the SBC had on the SBF. That advantage was better breathing potential through the stock head designs. The 305 HO certianly made less use of 5 liters compared to the 5.0 Ford despite more stroke. The 305 certianly wasn't employing any advanced combustion dynamics concepts for the time either.

Don't let anybody fool you into thinking that GM is the industry leader in terms of combustion dynamics with their Gen II small blocks. In fact GM is probably in last place when it comes to these matters today. Everyone else has moved on to even more advanced combustion chamber designs and/or multivalve technology. Indeed you could bolt some Trick Flow Twisted Wedge heads onto a 40 year old SBF and still have more advanced combustion dynamics than a Vortec 6000.

I'm not so sure that a high RPM 302 couldn't eventually eclipse a 347 stroker in terms of HP output. I have seen dyno data were 130,000 mile 5.0 HO short blocks get AFR heads bolted on and then they crank out 418HP on the dyno. This tells me the basic design has more HP potential than the typical SBC. This also tells me that the 302 is producing more HP per cubic inch than the typical Ford 347 stroker, probably because of the poor rod ratio of the 347. The 347 is already maxed out in terms of redline due to it's rod ratio and piston speed limitations. Not so with a 302. Put a bullet proof bottom end in the 302, after all a 289 can produce just as much HP as 429, but it will have to spin at a stataspheric rpm to do it.

I might add that longer rod ratio motors typically have flatter power curves over a much wider power band. Their is more area under curve so they may actually be producing much more in terms of absolute power despite lower tourqe and HP peaks.

P51D, thanks for putting into better words, what I have been trying to tell people about the 302.

Here's my last word to both of youz...........of course you may reply.

Let's say I give in and concede a power to cubic inch advantage with a 302. (I'm not, but let's say for arguments sake I am.)

The fact remains you don't see 302's in NASCAR.........you see 358's(351 based)

You don't see 302's even in 5.0 drag racing........they're all small journaled 351 based strokers.(and the MOD motors are really starting to make their mark also!!)

The fact remains....this one pains me the most......you don't see 302's in grass roots level racing at small tracks across the country. You either see the dominant, from a pure numbers stand point, 350 or an occasional 351.

So the fact is, if you make .000001 or greater HP per cube because you're spinning 10k, you are still giving up cubes and torque down low.

You keep bringing up these theoritical(sp?) 460 beating 302's in the HP wars........well the thing wouldn't make enough torque to move a radio flyer much less a full size truck(like Steve wants it to do)


And I still don't direspect the GM 305.......I raced my brother's convertible 5.0 against one a 1/2 dozen times.(the conv. weighed 150#'s more than a hatch) It was whomever got the best shifts down........and that dang Ford shifter was terrible at the 2-3 shift(even though both vehicles used T-5's at the time).........we both won 3!!!!

There is no replacement for displacement (except for more modern multi cam, multi valve heads) but all things being equal.........TFS/AFR/BRODIX/EDELBROCK etc heads...........I'll take the cubes thank you very much.