Blueprint 306 Bronco motor?

[Jaybr]

Anyone have any experience with this motor? Considering it for one or both of my broncos when the time comes.

https://blueprintengines.com/produc...-engine-small-block-ford-longblock-bp306maxct

There's a good write up here http://www.fourwheeler.com/how-to/engine/1809-blueprint-engines-306ci-bronco-edition-crate-engine/

And I found a Max Lider video talking about an engine they developed with Blueprint that I assume is this engine considering the part# has MAX in it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgI9LJy6Wjs

 

[chuckji]

I have the EFI version paired with an AX15. My Bronco is mainly a street driver.
Plenty of power for me - cruising at 70 mph, no problem at all.
Runs really cool so if you have AC and live in a hot climate, you shouldn’t have any overheating problems.

 

[Jaybr]

Chuck,

Did you get the Sniper EFI setup from them?

Glad to hear your happy with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chuckji]

Yes, dressed long block with EFI.
The guys at Maxlider are great. Give them a call and they'll answer any questions you have about the engine.

 

[Speedrdr]

I looked at a blueprint engine but found out I could get my roller motor (def was NOT the motor from the factory) rebuilt to a stroker 347(348?) and get extra ponies for the same $$$$, so that's the way I went.
Randy

 

[JefeAZ]

In the next year or two I plan on going the Blueprint route. Really tempted by the 347 but the 306 looks good enough for what I need. Not much price difference between them

 

[DirtDonk]

At 370bhp it's approaching three times the power of the original engine! It's literally double and then some (2.6x?), the original output of approx. 140bhp (based on the "net" rating in '72-'75 specs). With approx. 20% more torque too.

It's just gotta' be a noticeable improvement in most ways.
You can keep that in the back of your mind and use it when deciding whether the bigger motor is what you want/need.

Paul

 

[Speedrdr]

At 370bhp it's approaching three times the power of the original engine! It's literally double and then some (2.6x?), the original output of approx. 140bhp (based on the "net" rating in '72-'75 specs). With approx. 20% more torque too.

It's just gotta' be a noticeable improvement in most ways.
You can keep that in the back of your mind and use it when deciding whether the bigger motor is what you want/need.

Paul

Are you saying the Blueprint crate motor is 370 bbl? Better than what I was told, but then I'm sometimes easily confused. Lol
Randy

 

[Soylent]

Mine dyno'd at 385 bhp iirc and 365 tq.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[.94 OR]

What rpm does the power come on when driving it?

 

[DirtDonk]

I'm thinking it's kind of hard to tell. It's dyno tests stop at approx. 2500 rpm but above that it's a pretty flat torque curve and with that 300+ rating, I'm guessing it pulls pretty strong from idle.
At least compared to a stock engine, it's got more up top by far, but looks to have more than stock down low by a big margin as well.

Have you been driving yours fairly often Soylent and chuckji? What kind of power delivery to report?

Thanks!

Paul

 

[DirtDonk]

Are you saying the Blueprint crate motor is 370 bbl? Better than what I was told, but then I'm sometimes easily confused. Lol
Randy

I'm only rounding off numbers here, between what Blueprint claims (365) and what members here have on their dyno sheets (370 and 385 for example), or you could say I'm rounding off to the next even number.%)

The engine in question is "officially rated" at 365bhp (brake horsepower) but every engine can vary slightly even if built the same way on an assembly line. Even from the factory, so that 5hp difference in their advertising vs my statement is well within any variables. And from what others here on the forum have already stated the engines are actually making more power than advertised.
Which is a good way to do it actually. Better a customer finds theirs beats expectations, rather than falls short even by a coupe of numbers.

So yeah, since the assumption here is that all modern companies are using the current standard of NET horsepower instead of GROSS like they used to before 1972 then this engine has almost three times the original's 140bhp from the factory.
Now, I guess there's no law that says Blueprint has to test their engines with full accessories, so even if they're using GROSS numbers, that 365 (or 385 in the case of Soylent's build, that's still a fair bit above the Bronco's 205hp GROSS rating.

Paul

 

[AZMike75]

I went the blueprint 306 way and am happy with it thus far. Most of my issues with my build were installer *cough* caused..- mainly electrical and transmission controller related.

I’m still in the break in period with about 250 miles on it and other than switching plugs I’ve had no issues with the motor at all. The Holley Sniper was literally plug and play with no tuning required on my end- or at least thus far. With the 4R70W she is perfect at 70 mph with plenty of power for passing. Low end is night and day compared to the ol 302 and throttle response is fantastic with the sniper. Wife likes it because she doesn’t smell like “car” now when she drives it- another bonus! (She didn’t like the carb gas smell in the garage).

I would add that the tech support at blueprint was fantastic through the build when I had questions.

 

[DirtDonk]

Great to know AZMike. Thanks for the feedback.

Paul

 

[Jaybr]

Thanks for all of the responses, sounds like this motor would suit my needs well.

Wonder if they would give me a discount on 2


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[.94 OR]

I was checking out the tiny example dyno graphs on the BluePrint engines this morning.

Since most of us are concerned about low end torque I was looking at where the numbers started at 2400 rpms on the graph, peak torque/Hp, and pricing.

rated @2400 @Max R's output Price
306: HP370/Tq350 130H/280T 6000H/4500T $4200
302: 370/350 130/280 6000/4500 $5460
331: 375/390 160/340 5400/4000 $4500
347: 330/380 160/345 5600/2800 $4000
347: 400/415 170/370 5700/4200 $6700
306B: 365/365 145/320 5700/4200 $4280
(306Bronco)

Why would the first 347 not be a better torque engine since it develops the torque by 2800 and roughly similar dollars to the 306 Bronco engine?

 

[DirtDonk]

Good question. But, it's still possible that below that 2400rpm threshold the 347 drops off sooner than the 306 does. Or worded a different way, the decent torque numbers start sooner on the B engine.

Granted, that 2400 is still pretty low and gives a good indication of what to expect, but there could be a more precipitous drop-off below that for some engines.

Just a possibility anyway.

Paul

 

[Jaybr]

I also remember seeing something in the video about the bronco motor being developed to run cool in the bronco.

Is cooling the bigger motors a problem in the bronco?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nvrstuk]

Cooling "big" motors an issue??? Not when comparing the same block and only between a 306 and 347. I'd go 347 over a 306 for the longer rods/stroke. Do we have ANY idea what cam difference between the 2?

Who knows, maybe they are running the same cam and that's why the comparisons are so similar- which they shouldn't be...

SOOOoooo many variables with comparing dyno graphs and we know little to nothing about the specifics of each engine... or maybe I just didn't see it.

The more expensive 347 has much higher torque and HP numbers...obviously they have some "different parts" in there...

 

[68ford]

Brian, the bronco specific 306 cam is on a 114 lobe sep. Other 306 is on a 112. Bronco cam has a little less lift and duration, but I'm talking barely noticeable. Probably has great intake vacuum at idle, but the low end and mid-range torque I'm sure are weak. The heads and compression ratio are same as well. I don't think the Dyno results shown for the bronco engine are with that cam. 2 basically identical engines and cams besides lobe separation. The engine with tighter lobe separation will always make more torque and at a lower RPM.