| From | Message |
Magnum93
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/24/2004
17:36:47
|
 Subject: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
Hey guys, My friend just got a 91 Regular Cab Silverado with a 305 in it. How much power does this engine have?(Hp and torque, 0-60, etc.) How does it compare to my club cab 93 Dak with a 5.2 liter?
|
GraphiteDak
GenIII
 
4/24/2004
18:34:04
|  RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
318 all the way.
Those silver dollar piston 305's got sh*t for torque. Especially a PRE VORTEC
|
WipLash
R/T
4/24/2004
21:41:35
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
You got that 305 covered. Back when I had my 93 CC 5.2L my best friend had a 92 Silver RC 5.7L 5spd and I could beat him anytime, anywhere at any speed. Then he traded it in for a 95 Silver CC 5.7L automatic and I really could make that thing look bad. It was pathetic! The same truck with a 305 doesn't stand a chance. He will be swapping that 305 out for a 454 after you make his Cheby look bad.
|
RAMDAKOTA
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/24/2004
22:32:26
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
That 305 should be rated somewhere around 210HP/300TQ. These engines varied from 170hp to 230hp depending on application and vehicle trim. Anyway, you can see it's not that different from the 5.2.
The main reason you should go quicker is because your truck weighs less. Somewhere around 500lbs less. Hard to say without knowing more about the vehicles. So not because the 318 is all that much better, because it's not.
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/24/2004
22:41:02
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
The 318 is much better if for no other reason than it has a much better rod ratio, which makes it rev-happy. The 305 pales in comparison.
|
RAMDAKOTA
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/24/2004
23:06:08
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
Rev happy LOL! I don't know about you but I don't consider 4700RPM "Rev happy". The 305 makes peak HP at the same RPM 4400.
Yeah "Rev happy" that's why Mopar discontinued PCM because people are blowing up their 318s reving them up to 5500RPM in tow. LOL that's "Rev Happy"? YEAH, SO happy to reach 5500RPM it BLOWS its Load!
|
Bowtie-ZL1
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/24/2004
23:10:08
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
The 305 is hindered by its small bore (3.736") it has a 1.64 rod/stroke ratio do most SBC's. SBC's can be rev happy, I have owned several that would rev to 7000 in the blink of an eye and do it all day long.
The 318 has a larger bore (3.910?) but it has a shorter stroke when compared to the 305. The chevy's longer stroke will produce more torque with other factors being equal, but since the bore is so small on the 305 the Chyrsler will be able to get more air and exert pressure on more surface area of the piston, thus offsetting the torque loss of the shorter stroke.
Then add in the longer rod which increases dwell time of the piston at TDC and BDC, increases piston speed, and reduces frictional loses due to less side loading and on paper you have a better engine by Chyrsler.
Rod length is not the only factor that affects being able to rev quickly, the major factor is rotating mass. the heavier the components the slower the reaction.
|
318
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/25/2004
01:27:17
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
The 318 will smoke that 305. Enough said.
|
janesy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/25/2004
16:44:56
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
My company truck is a 91 305 cheby, and my truck 93 318 dak, ran circles around it when it was all stock.
It's a complete joke to compare the two. Even if it was a 91 350 there is no chance, aside from you dropping dead during the race, that the cheby will win.
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/25/2004
21:32:12
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
Not quite 'nuff said.
RAMDAKOTA: It appears you know much more about blowing loads than the actual physics and geometry of mechanical engineering. You should probably stick with the types of people that not only talk about things they'll never achieve, but also do not understand reasonably big words.
Bowtie: I didn't say all SBC weren't rev happy. The Ford 302 was a high-winder as well, short stroke and all (especially the Boss 302). Now, this is not a racecar meeting on absolute minimum weight reciprocating mass. We're talking about production engines, and all told, the differences in reciprocating weight are gonna be pretty close between the two in question, and I seem to recall that I said "if for no other reason," meaning that was a major reason, but there might be others. Oh, and while I'm on it, let's discuss the 305's inability to breathe. You stated this was due to a small bore. This is laughable. The reason, which also affects the same era, and earlier 350's is the shrouding of the intake valve. This was addressed in later versions by angling the valve to something more like the LA Mopar heads that have been around for 40 years now. This allows the valves to open on the centerline of the bore, thus, even a 318 can handle up to a 2.08 valve with unobstructed flow. That's not a typo. Bore notching is required to clear the valve, but flow is not limited by shrouding. So, a 2.02 valve is a breeze. Because of this, even the 3.61 bore of the 273 was NOT a problem. In fact, the hi-po version would bury the tach (hydraulic lifters) redlining at 6500rpm. Oh, same rod length as the 318/340. And one other thing. You DID NOT rev your Chevy engines to 7000rpm with hydraulic lifters, which means solid lifters, a screamin-ass cam, and other speed equipment. As I said, we're not talking about race-prep engines.
I keep forgetting people seem to focus on one aspect of a term. Being rev happy doesn't exclusively mean stratospheric redlines. My reference was more towards the eagerness to rev quickly to whatever redline it is capable of. To use Bowtie's phrase, all things being equal, the better rod ratio belongs to the 318...in the area of 1.80, and that makes for a quicker rev capability.
|
Bowtie-ZL1
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/25/2004
22:09:41
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
i was not trying to start a pissing contest with you.
You paraphrased and repeated a lot of what I posted and added some ideas so we are BOTH thinking along the same lines.
the valve angles of the tradtional SBC's are sh|t, that coupled with the small bore, long stroke of the 305 are the reasons why it can't rev quick. The valve shrouding on a 305 occurs because of the bore. In order to use 1.94 Intake valve, the valve centerines have to change.
oh and 7000 rpm was achieved with hydraulic lifters--- variable duration hydraulic lifters-- I have used Rhoads and Comp cams version and both will go 7000. Oh not really a radical cam-- usually around 230 intake @.050 with 108-110 LSA's far from a race engine.
Like I said I do not want a pissing contest, I am a Dodge owner, that is why I am here. I am not waving the Chevy banner. Why do you think I bought a Dak an not a Silverado? From the time I started wrenching on my first car (1970 Pontiac LeMans with a Chevy 350) I was a Chevy guy. I have owned Chevy's, a Ford, A mercury, A Chrysler, An Oldsmoblie, A Pontiac, A toyota, A mazda, and a freaking honda. I like to work on my hobby cars (1984 ElCamino and a 1992 Camaro) but that is because I know the drivetrains and the systems those cars have.
If I were still a chevy guy do you think I would have bought my Dakota?
Oh I know my nick is misleading, but it is a legenadry muscle car engine-- All Aluminum BBC 427CID that only made it into a few cars (I think 2 camaros and 3 vettes- I could be wrong on the numbers)
|
Magnum93
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/25/2004
22:20:17
|  RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
WOW!!! Thanks a lot for the info! By the way, the engines are both completely stock, except for the fact that the 305 has dual exhuast, but nothing to worry about there!
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/26/2004
00:14:24
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
First of all, I'm not assaulting your Chevy-inspired screen name. Doesn't matter to me. My paraphrasing was part of my dispelling of your statements. You stated the small bore of the 305 hindered breathing. I countered with the even smaller bore of the 273, and it breathes because it has a better head design.
Now you state these variable duration lifters rev higher than others, but that's not what they're for. The do not fully pump up fully til greater rpm's are achieved, thus simulating a milder cam at low rpm for better streetability in a hot cam, rather marginal for street duty at best.
You stated they'd rev to 7000 rpm and do it "all day." The CompCams catalog states, "This lifter should not be run for extended periods on the street." Hmm. And while Rhoades lifters were for the street, they didn't run to 7 thou.
For kicks, I looked for a cam of the specs you mentioned. 230 intake at .050, etc. You remember. 110 degree lobe sep. CompCams makes one for Chevy. States "Great for Street Machines. In 396-402 use 2500 stall, lower gears. Rough idle." Imagine this in a 305. Streetable? Sounds barely streetable in a 396. RPM operating range, by the way, is listed as 2000-6000 rpm. Not 7000. 6000rpm. In fact, I do see a couple hydraulic grinds rated to 7 grand, and they specify ProMagnum lifters, which are not a variable bleed rate lifter. These hydraulics are specifically designed to not float valves at 7 grand. This is not accomplished with variable bleed rates, but they do have a higher single bleed rate, along with precision lightweight internals. They are referenced for cams that have durations in the 250 degree range at .050, and their descriptions start with "Race only." Like I said.
Contest? What contest?
Have a nice day now, ye'hear?
|
5.2 owner
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/26/2004
01:26:08
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
Screw the reasons of bore, stroke, rev speed, and oll the other crap! The 91' 305 is a worthless pile of throttle body injected garbage. The 93 318's are multi port injected, and with the exhaust manifolds on the 92 and 93, you should be beating cc R/T's! Will a 305 powered chevy be a problem? Yes, It will be in your way, going too damn slow, blocking your view, and smelling up the place! As soon as you get a dotted line, crack the whip on that 318, merge into the left lane, and watch a chevy dissapear in your rearview!
|
RAMDAKOTA
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/26/2004
03:26:18
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
gen1dak, don't be such an a$$. You can talk all day about the internal parts of the two engines. Details about how they achieve those HP ratings doesn't really mean much. They still produce ABOUT the same amount of power stock. I'm not promoting 305s either. I don't like Chevy's in general. I just like reality. He didn't want to know what would happen if they both wasted a lot of money building up their engines.
The difference between the 2 vehicles is power to weight ratio. When comparing the two vehicles the Dakota's lighter weight is the main advantage in a race. Since, both engines make about the same power stock.
As far as, which engine I would rather build for more power? Neither! I don't waste my money building ancient technology pushrod engines. I put my (performance) money into my 280Z L28. Far superior engine to either of those 2 boat anchors. Please don't make me explain why. Because, if you don't know, then that explains your tiny PP attitude. You probably watch NASCAR too LMAO. Get out your tweezers and microscope the TIDE machines goin round in circles tonight YEEEE HAAAAWWWW!
|
wuss
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/26/2004
10:02:20
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
What, did he hit a nerve Ramdakota?
|
deerridge
GenIII
4/26/2004
10:46:53
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
Somebody nees to go check thier sources. My 92 Siverado 5.7 had 210HP/300ft. lbs. of torque. The smaller 305 was nowhere near that.
Real Horsepower
|
gen1dak
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/26/2004
12:23:43
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
Nothing like bringing a BB Gun to a Nuke war, as is the case with RAMDAKOTA. Your reply speaks volumes. I need not add anything.
|
mopar guy
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/26/2004
12:33:16
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
The dodge will win, simply because it is a MOPAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
RAMDAKOTA
Dodge Dakota
JOIN HERE
4/26/2004
12:34:29
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
Actually, I thought I would stoop to his level so he could understand. Not typically my style. But, sometimes you have to do that for people to understand you. LOL
Anyway, like I said the HP varies depending on application and trim level. If you go to this site:
http://www.internetautoguide.com
you can look at their reviews for 94 silverado truck and suburban. You will notice that the truck had the 210hp version of the 5.7 and the Suburban had 190hp (I think). The 5.7 Camaros had 245hp. I used the HP range of the 305s put in Camaros in 92. They did range from 170-230hp. Here is another page that lists all the available engines for Firebird/Camaro. I was unable to locate the exact specifications for every engine option on a silverado.
http://www.phy.duke.edu/~hartley/iroc/iroc_specs.html
If you scroll down near the bottom of the charts. You will see there is a 230hp/300TQ version of the 5.0=305 in 1992. It does show that the 305 was capeable of putting out the same amount of power as the newest version of the 318 (10hp more than 92 318). That was ten years ago!
I think that the internetautoguide.com rated the mpg for silverado with 5.7 at 14cty/18hwy. That's better than a new loaded (3.9 gears) Dakota) Again that was ten years ago! In a heavier truck to boot!
I suspect that if his friends truck has the 170hp version then it won't be necessary to see who is quicker. Just driving/riding in both it should be obvious that the silverado is heavier with 50 less HP. That should make for a huge difference in performance.
On a side note. Chevy's new 5.3 puts out 285hp/325TQ. Which is a far cry from the 230 that the 5.2 or 4.7 that Dodge has produced. It also gets 16CTY/20HWY in a 4300lb silverado which is mighty close to the 4X4 Dak's weight.
I'm not promoting Chevy. I am just not that impressed with the 318. I think that they are reliable. In that regard the 305 probably doesn't compare. But, the 318 is not anything special in the performance area IMO. If it performed like the 5.3 I mentioned I would think it's "the greatest thing since sliced bread". Although it doesn't, I still own one (318). Because, the Dakota is lighter than a full-size pickup the 318 is plenty adaquate for most anything. Not to mention it has a much smaller turning circle.
|
deerridge
GenIII
4/26/2004
14:35:29
| RE: Chevy 305 and Dak 318 comparison?
IP: Logged
Message:
The 5.7 I had in 92 had peak torque at around 2100 Rpm too. It would really pull but wasn't particularlly fast. A 5.7 set up for truck work isn't the same as the one in the Camaro, Vette or GTO for sure. My 92 would pull a 10000 lb trailer and I wouldn't even think of doing that with my 4.7 Dak even if it has does have more power and torque with my mods.
Real Horsepower
|
| | P 1 Next Page>> |
