How come the 350 chevy is still made?

[ARCOgraphite]

Until you’ve enjoyed a 1970 LT-1 Corvette…

Pretty rare engine. Solid cam right from the factory.
___________________________________

I mean you just see SBC EVERYWHERE they shouldn't be. Just YAWN.

I enjoyed my 350/ 350 I had in my 67 Chevy II, the Saginaw M26 wasn't too happy with abuse though.
I enjoyed my 327 in my '74 V8 Vega hooligan mobile - even that blew the THM350 case apart, lol.
Our shop just refreshed the transplanted Hi Po 283 in our "new" '55 shop truck, Even gave it a chevy cast iron 4bbl intake and a 500cfm AFB

Been doin' it for 1/2 a Century and still keepin' on ...

 

[The motor guy]

Wonder if the 5.3 has AFM in boat applications

 

[ragtoplvr]

Boat has expensive water jacket exhaust manifold that doesn't fit newer block.

That is why.

 

[OVERKILL]

You would want to swap a GM engine with gm transmission. I bet for a ranger there's some place that sells ranger to 350sbc and gm transmission adaptor mounts.
Most ford people don't even want to swap from one Ford V8 to a different ford V8, let alone go from a Ford 4cyl to a Ford V8.

Wut? The 302 is an excellent engine with a ton of aftermarket support, swapping a 302 into a Ranger is far easier (and far less vomit working its way up the back of my throat) than Bubba'ing an SBC in there.

The 302 fits in there because the 302 was available in the Explorer, which is the same chassis as the Ranger, so all the parts are already available.

 

[OVERKILL]

I mean you just see SBC EVERYWHERE they shouldn't be. Just YAWN.

Yup. Putting an SBC where it doesn't belong is a bit like taking a run at your half-wit cousin Patty because everybody knows she's easy. The only people who are going to like it are just as messed up as you are, everybody else is going to think you are.... *use your imagination*.

 

[350Rocket]

The 350 was used in all kinds of stuff. Still plenty out there that will need rebuilt or replaced eventully. I think many people that live in the rust belt forget that the west coast still has millions of 350's puttering around in rust free cars and trucks.

Chevy made a 262,265,267,283,302,305,307,327.350 and 400 cubic inch small blocks. Any of those can be replaced by any others as a direct bolt in

I live in the rust belt and just traded my 40 year old Caprice with the original 305 SBC a few years back in exchange for body work on my truck. I was going to LS swap it, then the guy who bought it was going to LS swap it...then his truck crapped out on his and he had to pull the caprice out part way through the winter and drive it to work. His horrible wife hated it and he sold it. I saw it for sale recently for $2300. I paid $1500 about 12 years ago now.

 

[emmett442]

Wut? The 302 is an excellent engine with a ton of aftermarket support, swapping a 302 into a Ranger is far easier (and far less vomit working its way up the back of my throat) than Bubba'ing an SBC in there.

The 302 fits in there because the 302 was available in the Explorer, which is the same chassis as the Ranger, so all the parts are already available.

302 is too displacement challenged for the cost to build when you can get a 350 for the same pri...er, cheaper. Especially after the 400hp or so mark.

350 guys won't look at a 305 either. Why bother?

I guess there's there's the 351, but it's far, far less available and affordable per *insert your metric here" than the 350.

302 is no 350. The topic is about how the 350 ended up on top by a long shot, because it did. Ford and Mopar guys will cry about it forever because somehow it means something to them.

 

[350Rocket]

302 is too displacement challenged for the cost to build when you can get a 350 for the same pri...er, cheaper. Especially after the 400hp or so mark.

350 guys won't look at a 305 either. Why bother?

I guess there's there's the 351, but it's far, far less available and affordable per *insert your metric here" than the 350.

302 is no 350. The topic is about how the 350 ended up on top by a long shot, because it did. Ford and Mopar guys will cry about it forever because somehow it means something to them.

302 is much more of a performance engine than the 305 was...305 was built as an economy version of the 350.
Why would you go to the trouble to convert a Ford to a gm engine when either one can put out a reasonable amount of power for the weight of a ranger? I'm more of a gm guy than a Ford guy but this just doesn't make sense.

 

[emmett442]

302 is much more of a performance engine than the 305 was..

I'm what way? Plenty of low compression, open chamber, small valve 302s from the same era that need the same help as the 305.

At least you start with 50 more cubes and a still a infinite aftermarket support with a 350.

Bonus: you get better transmission options along with it.

Not saying that a 350 swap always makes sense, but many times it does. Especially if it's what you have in hand, which is how a lot of these swaps go.

No way I'd bail on a 350 to use a 302, don't care what badge is on the grill. What does the 302 do better that would warrant that?

 

[350Rocket]

I'm what way? Plenty of low compression, open chamber, small valve 302s from the same era that need the same help as the 305.

At least you start with 50 more cubes and a still a infinite aftermarket support with a 350.

Bonus: you get better transmission options along with it.

Not saying that a 350 swap always makes sense, but many times it does. Especially if it's what you have in hand, which is how a lot of these swaps go.

No way I'd bail on a 350 to use a 302, don't care what badge is on the grill. What does the 302 do better that would warrant that?

I guess just the very first thing to start with would be the bore/stroke ratio...

Better flowing heads on the performance versions of the 302.

There is lots of aftermarket support for the 302 since it was a performance engine unlike the 305. And I've owned several 305's, one which worked great for what it was, the rest were just underpowered but indestructible engines that got decent fuel mileage.

But that's not the case for the 302 and I'm sure others will agree with me. Sounds like you need to do some research.

These comments were to do with converting a Ranger to a Chevy engine. A lot of work to gain what? As mentioned by overkill..a factory option came with a 302 so the swap becomes much easier. It would be pretty silly to swap a Chevy 350 in unless you already have a built one or you just want people to look at your truck and gag. Lol.

 

[emmett442]

I guess just the very first thing to start with would be the bore/stroke ratio...

Better flowing heads on the performance versions of the 302.

There is lots of aftermarket support for the 302 since it was a performance engine unlike the 305. And I've owned several 305's, one which worked great for what it was, the rest were just underpowered but indestructible engines that got decent fuel mileage.

But that's not the case for the 302 and I'm sure others will agree with me. Sounds like you need to do some research.

These comments were to do with converting a Ranger to a Chevy engine. A lot of work to gain what? As mentioned by overkill..a factory option came with a 302 so the swap becomes much easier. It would be pretty silly to swap a Chevy 350 in unless you already have a built one or you just want people to look at your truck and gag. Lol.

And if we start having these discussions, one just goes 350.

We've come full circle.

302 vs 305 stock config is relatively the same performance, but no one cares about that.

 

[OVERKILL]

302 is too displacement challenged for the cost to build when you can get a 350 for the same pri...er, cheaper. Especially after the 400hp or so mark.

400HP? The clowns putting an SBC in a Ranger are shoving in a 165HP 305 2BBL that breaths like it has emphysema with a dead-tired 700R4 behind it that you can make a coffee before it slides into the next gear. It's being done because they get off on pissing people off by doing it, not because the power ceiling is a legitimate concern.

The 302 is a drop-in for the Ranger, the SBC isn't. An S-Trimmed HCI 302 will easily make >500 to the tires before you run out of factory block, which, in a Ranger, is totally useless, so crowing about "muh 400HP SBC" misses the point by a country mile.

 

[OVERKILL]

No way I'd bail on a 350 to use a 302, don't care what badge is on the grill. What does the 302 do better that would warrant that?

Bolts right in because it was available in the same friggin' chassis?

 

[OVERKILL]

302 vs 305 stock config is relatively the same performance, but no one cares about that.

302 has 4" bores, the 305 doesn't, so head selection is massively greater for the 302. Most aftermarket SBC heads are designed for the 4" bore 350, so they won't work on the 305. Ergo, the 305 is castrated right out of the box, the 302 is simply lower displacement.

Lots of aftermarket stuff for the 302, problem with going with the 351W is the higher deck height limits intake selection, though a 408W isn't an uncommon build, but would be a bit more expensive to put together than say a 383 SBC.

 

[OVERKILL]

I guess just the very first thing to start with would be the bore/stroke ratio...

Better flowing heads on the performance versions of the 302.

There is lots of aftermarket support for the 302 since it was a performance engine unlike the 305. And I've owned several 305's, one which worked great for what it was, the rest were just underpowered but indestructible engines that got decent fuel mileage.

But that's not the case for the 302 and I'm sure others will agree with me. Sounds like you need to do some research.

These comments were to do with converting a Ranger to a Chevy engine. A lot of work to gain what? As mentioned by overkill..a factory option came with a 302 so the swap becomes much easier. It would be pretty silly to swap a Chevy 350 in unless you already have a built one or you just want people to look at your truck and gag. Lol.

Yup, a bolt-on 302 with boost is barely streetable in a Fox, I can't even imagine one in a Ranger.

Get a junkyard 302 , ECM and harness out of an Explorer and put the TFS kit on it, boom, you have 432HP. It's a bolt-in for the Ranger.

 

[350Rocket]

And if we start having these discussions, one just goes 350.

We've come full circle.

302 vs 305 stock config is relatively the same performance, but no one cares about that.

So you give up and admit your wrong yet? Nevermind, I'm guessing you've never before admitted to being wrong.

 

[OVERKILL]

The topic is about how the 350 ended up on top by a long shot, because it did.

The post of mine you quoted is about putting a V8 in a Ranger, for which the 302 is the obvious choice, since it was factory available in that chassis and you can use everything including the ECM, engine mounts and wiring harness out of a donor Explorer. Putting a 350 in it would be utterly moronic if your goal was a streetable V8 swap with everything still working for a reasonable amount time and money.

Of course 350 for a S10 or S15 is a no-brainer (though I know of a few that ended up with 305's...).

I've done a 302HO swap into an originally I6 equipped F-250 using an '86 Mustang ECM and harness and motor mounts from the wreckers. Whole project probably cost me less than $500.00.

Also, GM isn't the only one still offering old school (SBC) crate motors. Ford sells a wide array of SBF Windsor crate engines. 302-based builds going right up to 363ci and 507HP and 351W-based builds going right up to 460ci and 575HP.

 

[Lawnman23]

350 guys won't look at a 305 either. Why bother?

 

[OVERKILL]

GM/Chevy

https://www.chevrolet.com/performance-parts/crate-engines/small-block-engine/350-ho

View attachment 232830

Yup, Ford also sells these, and for aluminum-headed versions, they are quite similar in price (looks like Ford doesn't offer a fully dressed 351W, just 302-based):

 

[Rmay635703]

400HP? The clowns putting an SBC in a Ranger are shoving in a 165HP 305 2BBL that breaths like it has emphysema with a dead-tired 700R4 behind it that you can make a coffee before it slides into the next gear. It's being done because they get off on pissing people off by doing it, not because the power ceiling is a legitimate concern.

The 302 is a drop-in for the Ranger, the SBC isn't. An S-Trimmed HCI 302 will easily make >500 to the tires before you run out of factory block, which, in a Ranger, is totally useless, so crowing about "muh 400HP SBC" misses the point by a country mile.

That’s why we put 120hp c-code 6.2 diesel’s in everything. That and with a manual you can pull -30-40mpg if you have it in a smaller or car like vehicle