Best engines

[ARCOgraphite]

I like the caddy 425 My father had one. Didnt this pig have the lowest output (HP per CU in) of any modern "performance" gasoline engine? The low stress should make it long lived though. The 305 is a grenade but has nice bore/stroke and makes good torque down low.

 

[lexus114]

I had the 305 Caprice motor in my 84 Z-28. It was ok, but not any thing to talk about. Should have taken my friends offer to run his 383 stroker motor while he is restoring his 71 Chevelle SS.

 

[OVERKILL]

The 305 had a good bore and stroke? It was essentially a castrated 350; the same stroke, but dealt the wicked hand of a crippled bore-size. This prevented the ability to fit any decent breathing heads to it, thus making it completely uncompetitive with it's intended competitor: Ford's 302, which was the complete opposite of the 305: big bore, short stroke.

The 305 was also a very long-lived engine because of this. It didn't make enough power to hurt itself, and subsequently there are PILES Of them in Chevy cars and trucks with MASSIVE mileage on them.

Essentially a small-bore 350; it should last easily as long as its 4" bore counterpart, if not longer due to the decreased power-output.

 

[calvin1]

I'll get flamed for this for sure but here goes ... any engine that has a belt as one of it's critical components gets a "yer doin' it wrong" from me. If an engine is durable only if I disassemble half the engine bay every 80-100k then I don't see the point. That's a pretty big exception when other engines last just as long minus this "feature". Oh yeah, and driving the water pump off that same belt? Whaaaat?

 

[lexus114]

I know where your commin from ! I hate those friggin belts!

 

[mechanicx]

Not the 305 is not oversquare enough myth again

. The 305 was never intended to be a high revving performance engine and didn't get much development towards that. But when it did get some in F-Bodys it made as much HP as the 302s of the era. Besides lots of stock engines are as near undersquare or more and many people stroke 350's. I think criticising the 305 because it is not the highest performance design is unfair in regard to being a good stock passenger car engine.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: calvin1
I'll get flamed for this for sure but here goes ... any engine that has a belt as one of it's critical components gets a "yer doin' it wrong" from me. If an engine is durable only if I disassemble half the engine bay every 80-100k then I don't see the point. That's a pretty big exception when other engines last just as long minus this "feature". Oh yeah, and driving the water pump off that same belt? Whaaaat?


Yeah I never could understand how Japanese engines requiring a timing belt (or engine destruction will follow) and probably a water pump, tensioner, and balancer shaft belt replacement and valve adjustments got such a pass and were considered most reliable.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx
Not the 305 is not oversquare enough myth again

. The 305 was never intended to be a high revving performance engine and didn't get much development towards that. But when it did get some in F-Bodys it made as much HP as the 302s of the era. Besides lots of stock engines are as near undersquare or more and many people stroke 350's. I think criticising the 305 because it is not the highest performance design is unfair in regard to being a good stock passenger car engine.


If you re-read what I wrote, I stated that it was an incredibly long-lasting engine (contrary to what ARCO posted). But it was never a good performance engine. And when fitted to the F-body, I do believe "performance" was the intended result. Something the 350 had no issue delivering on because of the 4" bore, which allowed for large-valve, heavy breathing heads. Something the 302 also benefited from.

We've hashed this over before. In GREAT detail. Stock for stock, the 305 wasn't much "worse" than the 302. In that sense you are correct. But I don't remember the last time I saw a stock Mustang OR Camaro from that era, and you sure as heck couldn't do the same "usual" modifications to the 305 that you could to the 302 or 350, which consisted of heads/cam/intake because the large valve heads don't fit on a 305!

I didn't state it was a bad engine. But I also don't think it had a "good" bore and stroke for a pushrod engine that was fitted to a performance car, nor do I think it was a "grenade" as ARCO put it, since I have seen PILES of them, abused like no other, still running, in spite of the owner's apparent efforts to kill them.

When I post about GM, it isn't always negative. This is in spite of your natural inclination to think so due to you riding the bowtie and myself surfing the blue oval.

 

[Frank D]

I'll throw the Nissan 1.6L Sentra motor and the 2.4L motor used in the Altima. Had 87 and 96 Sentras that I put a total of 600,000 miles on and a 97 Altima with about 280,000 miles on it when it was rear ended and totaled last year. Great, durable motors. Only thing done to any of them was routine maintenence including a timing belt on the 96.

 

[Steve S]

Fords 300ci 6 cyl!!

 

[Mokanic]

Originally Posted By: calvin1
I'll get flamed for this for sure but here goes ... any engine that has a belt as one of it's critical components gets a "yer doin' it wrong" from me. If an engine is durable only if I disassemble half the engine bay every 80-100k then I don't see the point. That's a pretty big exception when other engines last just as long minus this "feature". Oh yeah, and driving the water pump off that same belt? Whaaaat?

I could also sit here and list you a dozen engines that came with chain drives that could not last as long as their belt counterparts could. Just because an engine has a "steel chain' makes it far from durable but it certain can (in many cases) cost a great deal more to replace than a belt.Belts by nature reduce engine harmonics as well.

 

[addyguy]

Just to chime in....I'm getting good service out of my 2.2 OHV I-4 in my Cavalier, and I've know a lot of others who are, as well.

I'm still 'scarred' enough to not be able to see the Chev 305 as a reliable engine. Maybe later ones were, but the early ones (1977-1982) were just garbage.

I don't know if the problem on my dad's 1978 Malibu was a bad camshaft, but I know that it 'gummed up' SOOO badly with carbon that it barely ran for the last 1-2 years we had it. It did make it to 10 years, but the last couple were a nightmare.....

 

[lexus114]

76 was their fist year.

 

[CROWNVIC4LIFE]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL


I didn't state it was a bad engine. But I also don't think it had a "good" bore and stroke for a pushrod engine that was fitted to a performance car, nor do I think it was a "grenade" as ARCO put it, since I have seen PILES of them, abused like no other, still running, in spite of the owner's apparent efforts to kill them.


That's what I meant to say about the 305...It wasn't like the 350 but for my 77 Caprice it was good enough...I put 170K miles on it with nothing but basic maintenance.

The car costed me 4K bucks brand new right off the showroom floor and it was fully loaded...I did not think that was a bad deal at the time...The dealer was awesome also unlike the stealers we have today.

 

[GMFan]

The GM 4.2L Vortec 4200 Atlas I6 is great engine. GM was foolish not to put them in their pickups. They were used in the Chevy Trailblazer/Envoy. Smooth performance and decent gas mileage for the power. I believe Ward's had it on their top 10 engines for a year.

Although it has been establish that wear metals don't guarantee long engine life, these engines show very little wear in the used oil analysis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Atlas_engine (See Vortec 4200 LL8)

I will also second the GM 3800. My buddy drives a 2001 Pontiac Grand Prix with 180,000 miles on it and he has been anything but routine with his oil changes.

 

[addyguy]

Originally Posted By: lexus114
76 was their fist year.


Engine was developed in 1976, but you couldn't buy a vehicle with it installed until 1977. That's what I'm counting as the first year.

 

[addyguy]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
Originally Posted By: lexus114
76 was their fist year.


Engine was developed in 1976, but you couldn't buy a vehicle with it installed until 1977. That's what I'm counting as the first year.


I'm sorry, I stand corrected - you could get the 305 in vehicles in '76 - I thought it was more or less 'designed' for the newly downsized 1977 Impala.

 

[OilNerd]

Originally Posted By: Nyquist
I've seen several Ford 3.0L and GM 3.8L engines with well over 250,000 miles on them. The rust got to the body before the engine showed any signs of trouble.


Still running one of those trouble-free GM 3800's (Series I).

http://bobistheoilguy.com/forums/ubbthre...852#Post1927852

 

[Oldswagon]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
Originally Posted By: addyguy

76 was their fist year.


I'm sorry, I stand corrected - you could get the 305 in vehicles in '76 - I thought it was more or less 'designed' for the newly downsized 1977 Impala.


Yes, it was available in 1976, and it was created to replace the gap left when the 307 left the line-up after 1973. In 1976 it was available in cars including the Monza, Nova, Camaro, and Chevelle. It only became available in fullsize cars in 1977 (the 1976’s were too big for a 305).

As Overkill stated, the 305 was a poor performance engine because of the bore/stroke ratio. Stock for stock the 305 had similar power levels to the 302's, but there is no way a 305 can keep up with a 302 once mods are thrown at it. That is because this engine was developed in the mid-70's when the primary concerns were emissions and fuel economy. During this era as simple solution to this was to use a small bore and long stoke This was the opposite of the "performance" oriented short stroke engines that had been coming into play since the late 40's with the first OHV V8's.

The 302 on the otherhand was developed in the late 1960's when emissions were and fuel economy were lesser concern's and performance was still popular.

That said, we've had nothing but good luck with the 305's we've owned and same goes for 350's. We've also had good luck with 302's except for the one in our '79 Fairmont, but that car was a lemon (but I won’t chastise all 302’s). All three would make my list for durability.

 

[lexus114]

Originally Posted By: addyguy
Originally Posted By: addyguy
Originally Posted By: lexus114
76 was their fist year.


Engine was developed in 1976, but you couldn't buy a vehicle with it installed until 1977. That's what I'm counting as the first year.


I'm sorry, I stand corrected - you could get the 305 in vehicles in '76 - I thought it was more or less 'designed' for the newly downsized 1977 Impala.


A friend of mine (back in the day) had it in his 76 Nova. Nice car,but he couldnt keep the rear bolts that held the axle housing in place from breaking. It was the top of the line Nova,I forget what they called it. looked just like the Olds. Omega of that era.