Aluminum 302

[Glenn B.]

Just a minor historical correction here: The Europeans didn't switch back to the small block in 1968 because they had a better engineering idea. The rules were changed and the big motors were outlawed after the two Ford Big Block wins in 1966 and 1967. It wasn't a matter of innovation. They had no choice.

In reading driver comparisons of the Mark I and Mark II cars, the Mark II was felt to be much easier to drive fast due to the torque curve and overall horsepower. The numbers speak for themselves:

LeMans 1966 Big Block: Winner total distance 4,843 km
Average speed 210.795 kmph

LeMans 1968 Small Block Winner total distance 4,453 km
Average speed 185.536 kmph

I get just as much fun, speed and excitement out of my 611hp/605ft lb FE motor with the accelerator at 3/4ths as a 302 will wound out to the maximum. I shift fewer times and can short shift easily, which results in less stress on my engine internals.

Before you dismiss this fact, consider that in 1968, when the 5 liter small block won, the competition was:

2nd place - Porsche 907 - 2 liter
3rd place - Porsche 908 - 3 liter
4th place - Alpha Romeo - 2 liter
5th place - Alpha Romeo - 2 liter
6th place - Alpha Romeo - 2 liter

So, even in 1968, the "Big Block" 5 liter won. Even today, Audi dominates with their turbo diesels and hybrids. Reading their driver impressions brings you back to same fact Ford discovered in 1966...the ease of driving a car fast with a large and long torque curve. Interesting that the output of the new Audi diesel engines (since 2006) put out numbers more like the 1966 MKIIs: 550-650hp and 600-770 ft. lbs of torque at a 5,000 rpm red line.

You can't beat a big "torquer" for speed and durability...Ford (in the US) first proved that and Audi continues to validate it.

 

[Keith]

I am pretty sure JWA have chosen the 'sorted' small block anyway despite any rule changes. I don't think the mkII program was well received here period.

By the by, I find the whole difference in philosophies fascinating, and hopefully the debate will rage on, but the world wide pendulum is finally (IMO) swinging towards lightness and rpms if you leave the cursed oil burners out of it.

As soon as CinC machines were perfected, higher stressed engines became a real alternative to 'lazy' power.

The Coyote is in big block territory at just 5 litres and has not even been fully exploited yet. I reckon you'll see 150 hp per litre out of that but you'll probably be twisting in to 9,000 rpm heaven!

The really sensible choice of a 427 or big block is in endurance racing so everything is less stressed for reliability - I see that - but my racer heart rejects it on principle.

Vive la difference!

 

[Sean]

Just a minor historical correction here: The Europeans didn't switch back to the small block in 1968 because they had a better engineering idea. The rules were changed and the big motors were outlawed after the two Ford Big Block wins in 1966 and 1967. It wasn't a matter of innovation. They had no choice.

In reading driver comparisons of the Mark I and Mark II cars, the Mark II was felt to be much easier to drive fast due to the torque curve and overall horsepower. The numbers speak for themselves:

LeMans 1966 Big Block: Winner total distance 4,843 km
Average speed 210.795 kmph

LeMans 1968 Small Block Winner total distance 4,453 km
Average speed 185.536 kmph

I get just as much fun, speed and excitement out of my 611hp/605ft lb FE motor with the accelerator at 3/4ths as a 302 will wound out to the maximum. I shift fewer times and can short shift easily, which results in less stress on my engine internals.

Before you dismiss this fact, consider that in 1968, when the 5 liter small block won, the competition was:

2nd place - Porsche 907 - 2 liter
3rd place - Porsche 908 - 3 liter
4th place - Alpha Romeo - 2 liter
5th place - Alpha Romeo - 2 liter
6th place - Alpha Romeo - 2 liter

So, even in 1968, the "Big Block" 5 liter won. Even today, Audi dominates with their turbo diesels and hybrids. Reading their driver impressions brings you back to same fact Ford discovered in 1966...the ease of driving a car fast with a large and long torque curve. Interesting that the output of the new Audi diesel engines (since 2006) put out numbers more like the 1966 MKIIs: 550-650hp and 600-770 ft. lbs of torque at a 5,000 rpm red line.

You can't beat a big "torquer" for speed and durability...Ford (in the US) first proved that and Audi continues to validate it.

Everything you say here is correct except for one thing. We dont race le-mans. Where I live a really really long track is 4 miles, most are more like 2 miles and you are unlikely to exceed 160-170 at best. So gearing and revs work. There are lots of bends to slow for, 150lbs less weight means brakes last longer and slow quicker, corner speeds are higher. Look at chevron B16 times which on most tracks ie those below 3 miles are significantly quicker than a Gt40, even though thy have only 250hp.

I guess it depends where you are running. Try beat a mtorcycle powered radical on most tracks. Yeah at Lemmans the spec needs are different, and there the 427 ruled. I also think the power difference between the boredmaxed 302 and a 351 based 427 is less of a gap than it was, between a 289 and a 427.

Look at some of those hyper cars, a veyron is relatively slow round a track because of its weight and size, whereas unstoppable on the open road. Atr atrck like LRP I bets a Gt3 porche with 450 ho smokes a 1000hp veyron.

Now maybe the extra 150lbs of a 351 motor is so overcone by the extra power that its still quicker on a 2 mile track, but to me, and I could be wrong, 500hp from a 302 motor is already going to be hard to fully depoly anywhere other than the one or two starights, and the lower weight is going to bring all types of dividends everywhere else, ie the ability to brake later and carry more speed throught he bends. But maybe in a Gt40 I am worng.

Somewhere ona Gt40 for the track there isa sweetspot between power and weigth tradeoffs. Maybe its with a 351 or maybe its with a 302. I just think, that you can max a 392 to be pretty close to a reasonably worked 351. yes the 302 will be more stressed and have less power, but the differences shoudl be made up in braking and corners.

One issue is very few peopel track their cars here, so there are not comparative track specs.

 

[Glenn B.]

It sounds line you want to build a more current race car configuration under a GT 40 body, rather than experience a close-to-period-correct GT 40 while on a track. No issues with that. Some old guys like me build GT40s, Lolas and McLarens to get as close to the original driving experience and sensation of the original car, not for lap times.

Of course a more modern sports racer can beat a GT 40. Most should achieve 1.5 to 2 times the corner speeds of a nearly half-century old race car just from improvements in mechanical and aero induced grip over the last 50 years. If the goal was to beat a Radical, I would just buy a faster Radical, get a good driving coach and try to convince Father Time to give me back 30 years to improve my reaction times to what they once were.
It all comes down to personal preference. That's why I have a big block GT40 and a Lola rather than a Formula Ford...torque is my addiction.

Side note: Audi recently won the ALMS race at the Circuit of the Americas with its 5,000 rpm torque monster...3.4 miles 20 turns with the longest straight of .62 miles. It was obvious that the torque advantage most dramatically effected acceleration at corner exit. With 20 corners per lap, that's where the advantage shone through...not on the straights. That car absolutely exploded out of corners. It's a bucket list item for me to get a ride in one.

 

[Mike]

Since you ask. Olthof told me he could run a 427 in his car because it was a Mk2 and early days, that a Mk1 cannot run a 351 block in historics. The other Mk1s are all running 302 blocks that race

Pretty sure that is incorrect. They were just at COTA last week what engine did the Gulf MkI have in it?

Have you ordered a chassis?

 

[Robert May Eng.]

I dont think any conclusions can be drawn from these comparisons. A very sorted factory Audi diesel LM car with a flappy paddle gearbox that has had millions of $ thrown at it would be a very hard act to follow, especially with a home grown kit car running a v8 ford and less than ideal transaxle. I see where you are coming from with the torque but I have witnessed 289 screaming ford engined cobra`s running rings round very sorted big block powered corvettes and the like. Its also difficult to get like for like comparisons for Lemans cars because the track layout like many famous racing circuits was always changing.

Le Mans 24 Hours news and history from 'Maison Blanche'

Bob

 

[Jac Mac]

Just some thoughts: Olthoff & other drivers who have been around for a long time have learnt to apply power gently, hence they dont regularly break trans/axles cv's etc, to win you have to finish, nothing new in that when you read where Bondurant & others could make the Collotti last with slower shifts.

You have to remember when comparing the Coyote to any of these aftermarket SBF builds that the coyote options are mainly complete 'crate' packages, I wonder what a 'Coyote' will cost in 10/15 years time if it goes thru the same evolution process where you can no longer buy the 'base' motor from Ford, but need aftermarket heads, cams , cranks, rods, pistons, blocks etc.

Dont know whether Sean intends running in historic type events, rules that might affect his engine choice, could be factor.

 

[Sean]

Pretty sure that is incorrect. They were just at COTA last week what engine did the Gulf MkI have in it?

Have you ordered a chassis?

Yes I have ordered a chassis and have the number.

As to motors I can only go on what the maestro himself told me.

 

[Keith]

Yes I have ordered a chassis and have the number.

As to motors I can only go on what the maestro himself told me.

:thumbsup:

 

[Sean]

It sounds line you want to build a more current race car configuration under a GT 40 body, rather than experience a close-to-period-correct GT 40 while on a track. No issues with that. Some old guys like me build GT40s, Lolas and McLarens to get as close to the original driving experience and sensation of the original car, not for lap times.

Of course a more modern sports racer can beat a GT 40. Most should achieve 1.5 to 2 times the corner speeds of a nearly half-century old race car just from improvements in mechanical and aero induced grip over the last 50 years. If the goal was to beat a Radical, I would just buy a faster Radical, get a good driving coach and try to convince Father Time to give me back 30 years to improve my reaction times to what they once were.
It all comes down to personal preference. That's why I have a big block GT40 and a Lola rather than a Formula Ford...torque is my addiction.

Side note: Audi recently won the ALMS race at the Circuit of the Americas with its 5,000 rpm torque monster...3.4 miles 20 turns with the longest straight of .62 miles. It was obvious that the torque advantage most dramatically effected acceleration at corner exit. With 20 corners per lap, that's where the advantage shone through...not on the straights. That car absolutely exploded out of corners. It's a bucket list item for me to get a ride in one.

Not looking for a current race car at all. Have driven, and crashed, aero tarck cars, that is alsmost a whole different sport.

I like a car with well sorted chassis and great mechanical grip. I love the sound of a V8 and also like a light car. Asthetics plays a role too. Put all that in a mix and a GT40 or T70 top the list. Looked at a new build Chevron B16 too, but the motors on those are hugely expensive last 50 hrs.

The Gt40 seems the sweet spot for me. Plenty of historic cars have survived which indiactes its a tough car, most reports say its an honest drive, pretty much all the pros enjoy driving it, the motor and various bits are robust and easy to keep, important as I do most of my own work.

Have had a great few fun years getting back into tracking(after racing single seaters and taking a break) with my lotus elise. The only other car really considdered was a 997.2 Gt3 porche as I love the way they drive, but these seem less robust and more expensiive to run, although prob half the price of a well built GT40. Plus I always wanted a Gt40 since I was a kid.

Lets see I am turningn 50 next year, if I dont do it now then when. I rememeber when the first era Gt40 came out in the late 80s thinkign this is the way to go, still have the article on the yellow car.

Hopefully I can get 10-15 trackdays per season in on the car, call it 2-3k miles. Keeping the lotus for small tracks. Maybe if time and opportunity permits I will historic race it, or maybe after a few years it will become primarily a street car. But its really for fun and speed.

Right now the plan is to track it, and maybe do some of those road rallies. There is one in texas hill country that I think a GT40 will be purrfect for.

My motto is, its not just how fast you go, but also how you go fast.

Saw a interview with Walter Rhol on the new paddleshift Gt3. When asked what his favorite car is he said his 73 Rs. His reasoning wa that in the newer car he is much faster but thinks to himself how great is this car, in the 73 Rs he thinks to himself how good do I have to be to go fast in this.

So yes a modern track car will be much faster in every way. I am more interested in really honing my craft, and having fun. If the greats could do it in a GT40 that says a lot.

On most track days I will be running with modern street cars(gt3's vettes etc) on track tires. My Gt40 should have a power to weigth advantage, can run great tires too and will have a more pure track suspension setup. Hopefully that allows me to become as quick or quicker than the moderns in the pack. I just dont have to run with all out track cars. My reseach of lap times indicates thata well driven and sorted Gt40 should be as quick or quicker than amodern street car on track.

My concerns with a Gt40 would be chassis dynamics, but people say its very good and brakes. Yeah the shift will be slow, and the aero is relatively poor, but on track where are you exceeding 160 anyway.

If for fun and experience, the yardstick is modern sortscars designed for the street that are runnign on track. Maybe I am wrong but I think a track optimised GT40 shoudl run just fine in that enviroment.

As to more power, my elsie has 195 hp and weight just over 1900lbs with fuel. Yes on the straights and comming out of some bends more power woudl make me faster. I can also say that trail braking and carrying speed through the bends and in many cases out of the bends, the little lotus already has more go than can be fully depolyed. The fastest peopel I know are not in the most powerful cars. I think to learn to drive GT40 properly is going to take years.

Yes anybody with reasonable skill and reflexes can go fast on the open road. On track though its a whole different ball game.

Now maybe I have the wrong idea, and aGT40 will feel like a lardy pig and too antique. But from what i have read, and looking at the Tiff needel video a GT40 has a really stiff tub and pretty good suspension by modern stanbdrds, its just very raw and unrefined, all of which should suit me well.

So does going aluminum block enhance the experience, or is it a bridge too far. and irrelvant.

 

[Mike]

There is one in texas hill country that I think a GT40 will be purrfect for.

So does going aluminum block enhance the experience, or is it a bridge too far. and irrelvant.

BBORR? Would love to do that and the Silver State.

Sounds to me like you know what you want. I say build it. If it doesn't work then cross that bridge when you get there and do something different. I didn't like my car being red. I spent a bunch of money and time making it white. I didn't like the brake reservoir and plumbing setup so I made my own. I have thought about a 331 swap and maybe when Jan/Feb comes around you will see a nice Roush 427 come up for sale. Do what you want... you're gonna anyway.

 

[Robert May Eng.]

I think the standard block with ali heads would get the job done. Good for 500hp and the money saved would put together a spare race engine. I am having second thoughts about using my svo iron block since I weighed it for the same reason, with the power levels I want to run the stock block will do.

Bob

 

[roaldin]

Alloy 8.2 works just fine.

You've thought it through, who cares if someone on the internet says you should have wooden pistons...?

I hate the internet...

Tim.

 

[Sean]

I think the standard block with ali heads would get the job done. Good for 500hp and the money saved would put together a spare race engine. I am having second thoughts about using my svo iron block since I weighed it for the same reason, with the power levels I want to run the stock block will do.

Bob

With the bore I have in mind a standard block wont work. I also hear they split in two roundthe 500 hp mark.

Its going to be a dart block for reasons of bore, robustness and longevity.

 

[Steve]

Dart Iron Eagle is a good block. Interestingly, there are some engine builders that favor the Boss block (which is cheaper). There are apparently either some oiling or cooling advantages. Regardless, both are solid choices and Dart aluminum is 3k more. Hopefully you have the block. Dart is slow as molasses and it took them 3 months to get me my heads. Nice heads though...