CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 18, 2014, 04:34:56 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Forum registration problems: Make sure you enter your email correctly and you check your spam box first. *Then* email KurtS2@gmail for help.
107456 Posts in 12500 Topics by 4810 Members
Latest Member: rustoleumm
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  Restoration
| | |-+  302 head rebuild
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: 302 head rebuild  (Read 3592 times)
GaryL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 538


Marilyn and me

gandmal
View Profile Email
« on: November 20, 2005, 01:54:14 PM »

The heads are off due to excessive guide clearance on my new 200 mile rebuild (don't ask). I want to make sure they are excactly right this time. The valves and springs are originals. What should I replace these two items with for a stock rebuild. Just go with GM replacements? This is not a race car, just a cruiser. Thanks.
Logged

Gary

Lemans Blue X33. DZ, M20, manual steering. Only BU code rear end is original.
JohnZ
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 4155


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2005, 12:03:47 PM »

Assuming you're having new guides installed, your existing valves may be reusable if the stems don't show any wear and show proper guide clearance; if the stems are worn, aftermarket valves may be less costly than GM valves - I don't have those prices handy. The springs are still available from GM - P/N 3911068; they list for $6.70 each, jobber price $5.05, dealer cost $3.84. These springs are 80# closed and 200# open @ 1.25", and are correct for your car - you DON'T need any of the high-pressure aftermarket springs; all GM production solid-lifter small-block cams used the same grocery-getter springs as hydraulic cams did.  Smiley
Logged

'69 Z/28
Fathom Green
CRG
GaryL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 538


Marilyn and me

gandmal
View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2005, 04:48:13 PM »

Are the -142 springs OK? they ARE $3.95 EA.
Logged

Gary

Lemans Blue X33. DZ, M20, manual steering. Only BU code rear end is original.
JohnZ
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 4155


View Profile Email
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2005, 10:40:28 AM »

I wouldn't use them - the -142 springs were designed for use with the -140 "First-Design Off-Road" cam (the over-the-counter race cam for the Trans-Am Camaros), are higher pressure and .040" larger in diameter; they were never installed in any production engine. The 3911068 springs are the correct ones for your application, and are bulletproof.
Logged

'69 Z/28
Fathom Green
CRG
GaryL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 538


Marilyn and me

gandmal
View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2005, 05:53:01 PM »

Thanks for the straight scoop John!
Logged

Gary

Lemans Blue X33. DZ, M20, manual steering. Only BU code rear end is original.
lynnbilodeau
Member
***
Posts: 264


View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: July 04, 2012, 03:32:50 PM »

Resurrecting an old thread, but.... the 3911068 spring is still available.  Did the assy line springs on the 69 Z/28 have a white stripe painted down one side?

Fuzzy memories.....
Logged
lynnbilodeau
Member
***
Posts: 264


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2012, 07:18:12 PM »

Still a litlle confused.  Car Craft Dec. 69 article on how to Z/28 your 283 Chevy states the correct part number for the 302 valve springs was 3735381, also still available.   I know that magazine guys got a lot of facts incorrect.  Which spring is correct?   Anyone know the difference between the two? 
Logged
JohnZ
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 4155


View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: July 06, 2012, 11:05:28 AM »

Still a litlle confused.  Car Craft Dec. 69 article on how to Z/28 your 283 Chevy states the correct part number for the 302 valve springs was 3735381, also still available.   I know that magazine guys got a lot of facts incorrect.  Which spring is correct?   Anyone know the difference between the two? 

I don't recall the stripe color, but the GM #3911068 spring is EXACTLY the same as the Federal-Mogul/Speed-Pro #VS-677 spring (F-M makes them for GM); the F-M spring is about half the price of the GM spring, for the same identical part.
Logged

'69 Z/28
Fathom Green
CRG
lynnbilodeau
Member
***
Posts: 264


View Profile Email
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2012, 05:41:28 PM »

Thanks John.  Would you be comfortable running that spring with the Comp cams replacement cam that Jerry recommends for 302's?
Very close specs to the old 30 30 cam.

Car would not likely see over 6500 rpm and will have  a rev limiter set at 7000, just to be safe. 
Logged
JohnZ
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 4155


View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2012, 09:35:38 AM »

Thanks John.  Would you be comfortable running that spring with the Comp cams replacement cam that Jerry recommends for 302's?
Very close specs to the old 30 30 cam.

Car would not likely see over 6500 rpm and will have  a rev limiter set at 7000, just to be safe. 

You should ask Jerry - I'm not familiar with that cam; the only aftermarket "blueprint" cam I know of that's EXACTLY the same as the factory "30-30" cam is the Federal-Mogul/Speed-Pro #CS-118R (cam only) or #KC-118R (cam with lifters). GMPP also used to have a "30-30" cam & lifter kit (GM P/N 12364052) that was made for GM by Crane, and the cam only was Crane #967251.

The original GM cam had "soft-touch" lobe profiles which allowed use of the stock #3911068 springs, but most aftermarket versions were "improved" and required stronger springs, and they closed the intake valve earlier than the GM cam in the quest for more power, which made them more prone to detonation with the stock 11:1 static compression ratio.
Logged

'69 Z/28
Fathom Green
CRG
68Zproject
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1628



View Profile Email
« Reply #10 on: July 11, 2012, 01:52:28 PM »

The original GM cam had "soft-touch" lobe profiles which allowed use of the stock #3911068 springs, but most aftermarket versions were "improved" and required stronger springs, and they closed the intake valve earlier than the GM cam in the quest for more power, which made them more prone to detonation with the stock 11:1 static compression ratio.

I can vouch for that.
Logged

68Z28
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.087 seconds with 18 queries.