Jeep Wrangler Forum

Jeep Wrangler Forum (http://www.wranglerforum.com/)
-   CJ General Discussion Forum (http://www.wranglerforum.com/f298/)
-   -   How do you feel about the 304 V8? (http://www.wranglerforum.com/f298/how-do-you-feel-about-the-304-v8-32197.html)

Jeepzcb09 06-18-2009 01:02 AM

How do you feel about the 304 V8?
 
Ive seen( on craigslist) a 1978 cj5 with a 304 and a 3 speed on 38 S.S's, and a 9in lift. Fiberglass tub, looks pretty nice. Iv never drove a 304 or a 3 speed can u give me some ideas on how the ride will be, MPG, is it a good buy and any other info.

4Jeepn 06-18-2009 10:26 AM

The engine is good... I would say I like the 258 more. However reading the spec's on the Jeep I would run from it.. 9" of lift and a fiberglass tub..scary...

jpdocdave 06-18-2009 12:29 PM

ya, the 304 is a good engine, reliable. but old, less horsepower than the 258 straight six.

Jeepzcb09 06-18-2009 02:08 PM

well i probubly wont get anyway i want more of a daily driver and im sure that one drives like a tank, thanks

dooder 06-22-2009 07:26 AM

I cant remember the bad old days when amc was around and 304's were on the street but regardless of that the 304 is still a v8 and has the potential for descent hp. I dont know the specs of it but unless there is a huge design flaw that engine should easily make alot more power when fueled and exhausted correctly over the straight six engine any day of the week.

jpdocdave 06-22-2009 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dooder (Post 390667)
I cant remember the bad old days when amc was around and 304's were on the street but regardless of that the 304 is still a v8 and has the potential for descent hp. I dont know the specs of it but unless there is a huge design flaw that engine should easily make alot more power when fueled and exhausted correctly over the straight six engine any day of the week.

really? :D 125 big ole horses, i think the 2.5 has about that.:D

The 304 used from '80-'81 in CJs, J-series pickups, and Wagoneers suffers in performance.
AMC 304 V8Bore x Stroke3.75" x 3.44"Displacement304(4.98L)Compression Ratio8.4:1Horsepower (net)125@3200Torque (net)220@2400Main Bearings5Valve ConfigurationOHVFuel2bbl

dooder 06-22-2009 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpdocdave (Post 390690)
really? :D 125 big ole horses, i think the 2.5 has about that.:D

The 304 used from '80-'81 in CJs, J-series pickups, and Wagoneers suffers in performance.
AMC 304 V8Bore x Stroke3.75" x 3.44"Displacement304(4.98L)Compression Ratio8.4:1Horsepower (net)125@3200Torque (net)220@2400Main Bearings5Valve ConfigurationOHVFuel2bbl

like i said, when fueled and exhausted correctly. we know the stock carbs are crap, the intakes are likely crap and the exhaust is likely very restrictive. that said a good carb and intake and a set of headers should release some of the "potential" hp. A near 5liter making 125 hp??? do you really think thats all that engine has to offer?
Not saying your wrong in stock vs stock but i was talking potential power.

jpdocdave 06-22-2009 01:48 PM

you can get more out of it, but not a ton, especially for the money. putting an exhaust and intake on it are not gonna give you 100 hp. its still a cool motor, reliable and sounds cool. but don't expect to win any races with it.

dooder 06-22-2009 02:43 PM

304
The 304 had a displacement of 303.92 CID (4,980.3 cc) which produced 210 hp (157 kW) in 1970-71 and was built starting in 1970.[1] Later models produced less power from the factory, going down yearly. 1972-78 models were rated at 150 hp (112 kW). It was rated at 130 hp (97 kW) in 1979, the last year it was installed in passenger cars, and 125 hp (93 kW) in 1980-81, the last years it was used in Jeep vehicles.

stock early models were at 210hp and around 300ftlbs, later lost power probably for emmisions. dumping emmision controls on newer ones and adding early intakes and exhaust should get around that of early models. i would guess using edelbrock intake, headers, and a good 4 barrel should see near 250hp. some higher compression pistons, larger valves, and ignition might get near the 1 hp per cube mark.

KicknJeep 06-23-2009 11:33 AM

my old 79 CJ5 had the 304 which when I had it rebuilt was bored 30 over and nothing else special and would smoke the rear tires (33" AT's). the last (79 CJ7) one I had 3 years ago had the Teamrush upgrade and tbi and will spin the 35" swampers. so not a bad little engine IMHO. but with that being said I still want a 401 darn it :D

dooder 06-23-2009 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KicknJeep (Post 391222)
but with that being said I still want a 401 darn it :D

theres A 401 for sale in philly craigslist:D

KicknJeep 06-23-2009 01:00 PM

Phiily isn't that in Canada or something....:rofl:

steamnsteel 06-24-2009 02:05 PM

My two cents......I had a 74 cj5 that I switched from the 258 to the 304 and the gains in torque were well worth the swap. My brother put a 360 in his cj7, more horsepower than the 304. Those 304's are great for lugging and low speed operation IMO and I would love to still have my cj, headers and chery bombs made for a real nice and unique sound.

I do remember something about the valves would burn on the back cylinders if your carb. was slightly lean on the jets, I think this only happened if you ran alot of high rpm's. Can't remember for sure, been too long ago. Now to swap av8 into my rubi......

KicknJeep 06-24-2009 02:11 PM

that's how my exhaust runs, in fender headers, straight pipes into cherry bombs and it sounds awsom :punk:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:15 AM.