People don't know what's under their hood.

The common BS of the time was that Chevrolet had so many unused 327 crankshafts and 283 blocks that they created the 307 for base V8 applications.
I had a '68 Impala with a 307 and heard the same thing far too many times from 1978 to 1984.

I did wonder why GM created the 305 (an underbored 350) when they had only retired the 307 a few years before. (I think the 307 was used in the Nova as late as 1973.)

For whatever reason, people love to hate the 307.
 
I sold used cars for about six months years ago and not one single person ever opened the hood to look at anything or even check to see if anyone had ever changed the oil. I sold five or so a week so it was quite a few cars.

I once looked at a used chevy coupe and when I opened the hood to check the oil etc. it looked like it had never been changed. The owner though I was nuts for checking.
As usual, I'm the exception. Looked at a used 2006 Mazda5 in 2013, and of course popped the hood. There was no oil on the dipstick. I test drove it and liked it, but decided not to buy it.

We bought a 2009 a couple of months later, and it's been good.
 
As usual, I'm the exception. Looked at a used 2006 Mazda5 in 2013, and of course popped the hood. There was no oil on the dipstick.
Every used car I look at for myself, family members or friends gets a thorough engine look over, and listen while running. Dudes at the dealership think I'm crazy when I look down the oil fill cap hole with a strong LED flashlight looking for oil deposits, lol.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a Chevy guy, but the I think that the 262 lasted a few years in the late 70's. I believe that appeared in the Monza. The 267 came shortly afterwards and was used in Camaro's and some others. Smallest bore of any version with a 350 crankshaft. I believe emissions troubles killed both of them.

Yes, the 302 was the engine of the Z-28 Camaro. I seem to recall that it was a homologation engine to allow GM to compete in the very popular Trans Am racing of the time. Perhaps a 305 ci. displacement limit? Chrysler cooked up a 305 ci. version of their 340 six-pack engine for the same purpose. I'm not sure if Chrysler ever sold any of them to the public, however. The common BS of the time was that Chevrolet had so many unused 327 crankshafts and 283 blocks that they created the 307 for base V8 applications.
The 302 was the 327 block with the short stroke 283 crank, resulting in a 302 cubic inch screamer. It was rated at 290 hp and 290 pound feet of torque, at 4,200 rpm. Maybe, but the engine would rev to 7,000 rpm with headers. 400 hp easy... The power band really came on from 3.500 all the way up.
 
I had a '68 Impala with a 307 and heard the same thing far too many times from 1978 to 1984.

I did wonder why GM created the 305 (an underbored 350) when they had only retired the 307 a few years before. (I think the 307 was used in the Nova as late as 1973.)

For whatever reason, people love to hate the 307.

I suppose that the 307 was the Rodney Dangerfield of Chevy V8's. I never owned one but drove and rode in a number of them. Good low end torque for the displacement due to the long stroke. Not much of a top end but who cares for sedan duties. I believe they had some reputation for decent fuel mileage.

The 305 had the terrible reputation for rapid camshaft wear, etc. in its early years.
 
I saw a lady in a Subaru wagon having trouble with the gas pump and noticed she was trying to pump diesel in her car. I was on the other side of the pump and said to her, “uh, ma’am, the gasoline is the other nozzle, that one is diesel”. Glad the diesel nozzle doesn’t fit in or this would probably happen more often 😳

The pump looked like this type View attachment 109997

Subaru driver? Not surprised.
 
I had a '68 Impala with a 307 and heard the same thing far too many times from 1978 to 1984.

I did wonder why GM created the 305 (an underbored 350) when they had only retired the 307 a few years before. (I think the 307 was used in the Nova as late as 1973.)

For whatever reason, people love to hate the 307.
Well… a 130-ish HP V8 in a full-size car is kinda hard to get excited about 😂

I never really bothered to learn about Chevys smaller than 350, but sometimes there are advancements (especially in that era) in head design for efficiency or emissions that leads to new engines that appear similar. The LS series was absolutely dominating V8s and Chevy went ahead and designed the LTs because of direct injection & other advancements.

It’s nearly the same where, a few years ago, the German Engineering Borg determined that 500cc cylinders and nearly square bore & stroke delivers optimal combustion with minimal mechanical losses for the cylinder size. It’s why over the past few years we’ve seen so many 2.0L 4-cyls & 3.0L V6s from Deutschland, and then top them with two turbos to generate relatively huge power with a nearly optimized ICE 😎
 
I suppose that the 307 was the Rodney Dangerfield of Chevy V8's. I never owned one but drove and rode in a number of them. Good low end torque for the displacement due to the long stroke. Not much of a top end but who cares for sedan duties. I believe they had some reputation for decent fuel mileage.

The 305 had the terrible reputation for rapid camshaft wear, etc. in its early years.
The 305 had small bores, which meant head upgrades were limited, quite unlike its main competitor, the 302 SBF, which had the same 4" bore as the 350SBC and 351W/C.
 
I had a '68 Impala with a 307 and heard the same thing far too many times from 1978 to 1984.

I did wonder why GM created the 305 (an underbored 350) when they had only retired the 307 a few years before. (I think the 307 was used in the Nova as late as 1973.)

For whatever reason, people love to hate the 307.
An Olds version of the 307 was used well into the 80's, we had an '86 Olds Wagon with the 307. It was underwhelming compared to a fuellie 302 Ford, but I suppose it got the job done.
 
Well… a 130-ish HP V8 in a full-size car is kinda hard to get excited about 😂

I never really bothered to learn about Chevys smaller than 350, but sometimes there are advancements (especially in that era) in head design for efficiency or emissions that leads to new engines that appear similar. The LS series was absolutely dominating V8s and Chevy went ahead and designed the LTs because of direct injection & other advancements.

It’s nearly the same where, a few years ago, the German Engineering Borg determined that 500cc cylinders and nearly square bore & stroke delivers optimal combustion with minimal mechanical losses for the cylinder size. It’s why over the past few years we’ve seen so many 2.0L 4-cyls & 3.0L V6s from Deutschland, and then top them with two turbos to generate relatively huge power with a nearly optimized ICE 😎
The 307 was rated at 195 HP, although that was under the old system (gross vs. net?).

It's always surprising to me how light those old cars were for their size. I just found a site that listed the curb weight at 3690# (though that was for the 6-banger and manual transmission - say 3800# for the 307/PG)?

Interesting to hear about the German engineering conclusions. I'd heard that it was a tradeoff between thermal efficiency (and thus fuel consumption) and top end (and thus power).

The theory is that a narrow bore results in less surface area for a given displacement, and thus better thermal efficiency.

However, to achieve the same displacement then requires a longer stroke, which limits the maximum piston speed and results in more reciprocating mass.

As well, a narrow bore limits the size of the valves, and therefore limits how well the engine can breathe.

My 307 was hard on gas (rare to break 20 MPG Imperial on the highway) whereas I remember a couple of delighted 305 owners claiming 26 MPG Imperial, which was very good for the day.

But that's not apples-to-apples either - my 307 was old and tired, running in a big car, and coupled to a Powerglide; the 305s were in Novas or Camaros, and would have been paired with 3-speed TH transmissions.

The 307's 3.875" bore would have certainly allowed for better breathing than the 305's 3.736". Remember that the valve area increases with the square of the diameter.

The 307's stroke (3.25") was significantly shorter than the 305's (3.48").

I'd love to see a controlled comparison of these two engines (i.e. installed in two identical cars).

So back to the Germans - looks like they figured a square (bore = stroke) is the best compromise, and get around the valve size with forced induction. Makes sense, and it seems many other manufacturers are now going that way.
 
This forum population is WAY more geeky than the average public, so that reaction is unsurprising to me, most folks don't care if it 'goes' 'cause of Tinkerbell waiving her magic wand under there. Most folks only notice those 'bits' they easily see and interact with, not the buried power train stuff, if it 'goes' OK, sounds OK, mileage OK...they're OK.
We're geeky here? You don't say! 😉
 
The 302 was the 327 block with the short stroke 283 crank, resulting in a 302 cubic inch screamer. It was rated at 290 hp and 290 pound feet of torque, at 4,200 rpm. Maybe, but the engine would rev to 7,000 rpm with headers. 400 hp easy... The power band really came on from 3.500 all the way up.
Doug, my church youth group leader c. 1977/78 drove a '68 Malibu and an older Austin Mini. Very good guy. We used to talk cars, and he would reminisce fondly about his departed '69 Camaro with the rare 302.
 
Was at a Costco gas station the other day and the guy in front of me had a new MB GLC SUV. I asked him whether he had a 4cy or 6 cyl under the hood. He had no clue and acted as if he never even thought about it. He took a couple of guesses mentioning both. He was a retired older gentleman, not stupid. Said it was the best car he ever owned.
How prevalent do you think this is?? I was pretty surprised by his reaction.
BMW allegedly did survey of car owners and a majority had no idea if their car was RWD or FWD.
 
This thread is funny. Sometimes it isn't a matter of what is under the hood, it could be what is under the car! Yeah rattling off some specialized specs on something doesn't mean you know what is under the hood. And no matter what the engine or prime mover is there, it still needs to be a way to transfer the motion from it to the wheels, that is just as important as dumping fuel into a hole to make that roundy round. And like some have posted here, do you know what is inside your refrigerator? Do you know what is in a sewing machine? Or the post here that mentioned, your pc processor, or what is inside the micro processor in your PC or Mac or what ever you use? Mainly it all depends if you have an interest in it or a need to know, as in maybe there is a problem etc.
How many here know how to knit? How many here know how to make paint? Or even cook, all good things to know.
Do any of you know how your body works and how the bad vegitable oils affect it? Too much bragging about thinking you know whats under the hood.
If you don't understand all the science involved with "whats under the hood" then you may also not know for sure. Just saying
Not knowing what is under the hood, does not mean that person is some sort of idiot.
 
I saw a lady in a Subaru wagon having trouble with the gas pump and noticed she was trying to pump diesel in her car. I was on the other side of the pump and said to her, “uh, ma’am, the gasoline is the other nozzle, that one is diesel”. Glad the diesel nozzle doesn’t fit in or this would probably happen more often 😳

The pump looked like this type View attachment 109997
I always wonder, is the diesel spout bigger so it won't fit into gas port? If so does that mean people can accidentally put gasoline into diesel tank?
 
Back
Top