THE 305 THREAD:

[Stewart G Griffin]

What happened was that the other thread about my fiasco was slightly taken off topic (mostly my fault), so i've decided that it's probably better to start a whole new one dealing with just the topic of the 305:

And another thing.  It baffles me that the 305's ever existed in the first place.  Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to simply use a 3" stroke to achieve 5.0L rather than cast a whole new block?  And why was 383 never offered as a factory engine?

i've declared my theories in the other post, but to reiterate/refresh:

1) i think they did that with the 302, but supposedly these don't have good low end torque, which is more important for street-type driving.  i mean can you imagine driving a station wagon with a 302?  Or a truck?   Also, i don't think it costs them (gm) that much to cast a different block.   305 is just more user friendly for the avg. driver and everyday type driving.

2) Again, in my opinion only due to fuel economy/ c.a.f.e. standards etc.  Of course Chrysler had a 383, so maybe my theory is bunk.

[eventhorizon66]

I say it would have been in GM's best interest to cast only one SBC block after they had a winner in 1967.  Naturally I am referring to the 350.  The intermediate cars would receive a 3" or 3.25" stroke, full size cars would get the 3.25" or 3.48" stroke, and trucks would get a 3.48" or 3.75".  It makes more sense to me.  And now that they are casting only one block, they can invest a little effort into a better cylinder head.  There is no reason why GM couldn't have made a head like the L31 Vortec head in the late 70's (or at least by the early 80's).  The demand for a more efficient head was certainly there.

In fact, scratch the idea about all the different strokes.  GM should have made the 350 displacement standard for all applications that required a V8 (and Buick 3.8's for everything else ).  And now that they are only making one block, crank, piston, rod, they can really focus on improving efficiency through better heads, induction, etc.  There, if I could go back in time and change SBC history, that's what I'd do.

[Donut]

I don't think Chevy knew what it was going to take to be "compliant" with as fast as regulations were changing (emissions, fuel economy) Why did we end up with the 350? What happened to the 283, 307, 327... What would sales have been like with Ford and Chrysler not being limited to 350cid?  Hind sight is almost always 20/20.

I can't recite bore and stroke combinations off the top of my head, but why would I want a 383 if I could have a 400?  You can't forget Joe-six-pack wants 8 cylinders in his truck, not 6 (unless their in-line).

Vortec heads (just got a pair myself) I think came about from r&d of the Bowtie/NASCAR heads.

I personally don't consider the 305 a "bad" engine, if i had one here I'd probably be running it.  If somebody gave me one, I don't think I'd throw it out of bed for eating crackers.

[Skunksmash]

Well I can say that all my chevy buddies despise the 305 for some reason. None of them will have anything to do with it, and they all only seem to have bad things to say about it. It has a bad reputation for some reason.

[jimbo]

Well I can say that all my chevy buddies despise the 305 for some reason. None of them will have anything to do with it, and they all only seem to have bad things to say about it. It has a bad reputation for some reason.

That small bore has given itself a bad name.  Especially when its up against fords's 4"+ bore 302.

[Lt.Del]

Well I can say that all my chevy buddies despise the 305 for some reason. None of them will have anything to do with it, and they all only seem to have bad things to say about it. It has a bad reputation for some reason.

That small bore has given itself a bad name.  Especially when its up against fords's 4"+ bore 302.

You know what Vile calls these engines, don't you? click here

[dumbucket1]

I find them to be very good engines. I have yet to have one let me down. The downside is they in my experience get the same gas mileage as a 350 with less power and torque

[zieg85]

I had a 82 several years back with a 305 that just ate a cam.  I replaced the cam with one of those slightly over-stock RV towing cams.  That engine was a dog before the cam and after it was replaced, and got terrible gas mileage 10-11.  I put a 350 in it with the same cam, carb, distributor and every other bolt on, night and day difference and mileage jumped up to around 16.  Had power to spin the rear tire with the 2.73 gear.  With the 305 you barely had to worry in wet weather.  Don't know why they were dogs but they were.  I had an old Chevelle with the 307 2bbl that ran good.

[Stewart G Griffin]

i'd have to somewhat agree:


i've just finally finished swapping in the "new" 305 to replace the damaged crate 350.

There is serious(more so than i had originally thought) and immediately noticeable lack of torque and power compared to the crate 350.  Not that i really care as i'm only using this for transportation, but i'm just saying.

i still like 305's though.

[jimbo]

This is a really good article on the little 305:

http://www.popularhotrodding.com/enginemasters/articles/chevrolet/0667_phrs_305_chevy_engine_blocks/dyno_testing.html

[Stewart G Griffin]

Just curious as to the feasiblity of putting a 6-71 blower on a stockish 305?

a) This might possibly be a way to instantly and relatively cheaply make a 305 into a decent performer.

b) It would put the 305 detractors to rest.

NOTE: limit boost to 7psi or under of course.

[jimbo]

Just curious as to the feasiblity of putting a 6-71 blower on a stockish 305?

a) This might possibly be a way to instantly and relatively cheaply make a 305 into a decent performer.

b) It would put the 305 detractors to rest.

NOTE: limit boost to 7psi or under of course.

Most certainly have the compression for it, lol.  No reason to severely limit boost, just make sure the fuel and timing are right. But it would probably last longer as a daily with the low boost.

[jimbo]

I wonder if the b&m 144 would fit under the hood.  I've always liked those little blowers.

[jimbo]

Unless you already have the 6-71, these seem like an economical alternative:
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/WND-6500-1/

[Captkaos]

The 144 will fit under the hood,  See here: http://forum.73-87chevytrucks.com/smforum/index.php?topic=12913.0