Not common at all. To the best of my knowledge it only came in '67-'69 Z/28 Camaros.
Can you tell a difference between a 305 and 350
- Thread starter ram_man
- Start date
- Status
Guys, great discussion so far - very enjoyable reading, and lots of good memories.
I don't recall Chrysler ever making anything right around 300 CI. Their small blocks back in the day jumped from 273 CID to 318 CID.
I remember a couple of people having the new 305 back in '78, one in a Nova, and the other in a Camaro. Both reported 26 MPG (Imperial) on the highway, which was stunning for that era. At the time I was running a '68 Impala with a 307, which wouldn't often break 20 MPG (Imperial). The 305 seemed to be light years ahead. (The 307 was another engine that didn't get much respect; it had the bore of a 283 (3.875") and the stroke of a 327 (3.25")).
The 305 was not a high-revving engine. It was undersquare (bore = 3.736", stroke = 3.48"), but not by much.
The Chevy 302 was a screamer; it had the same bore (4.000") and stroke (3.000") as the Ford 302, but had a much higher compression ratio. (11:1?)
I don't recall Chrysler ever making anything right around 300 CI. Their small blocks back in the day jumped from 273 CID to 318 CID.
I remember a couple of people having the new 305 back in '78, one in a Nova, and the other in a Camaro. Both reported 26 MPG (Imperial) on the highway, which was stunning for that era. At the time I was running a '68 Impala with a 307, which wouldn't often break 20 MPG (Imperial). The 305 seemed to be light years ahead. (The 307 was another engine that didn't get much respect; it had the bore of a 283 (3.875") and the stroke of a 327 (3.25")).
The 305 was not a high-revving engine. It was undersquare (bore = 3.736", stroke = 3.48"), but not by much.
The Chevy 302 was a screamer; it had the same bore (4.000") and stroke (3.000") as the Ford 302, but had a much higher compression ratio. (11:1?)
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by Number_35
Guys, great discussion so far - very enjoyable reading, and lots of good memories.
I don't recall Chrysler ever making anything right around 300 CI. Their small blocks back in the day jumped from 273 CID to 318 CID.
I remember a couple of people having the new 305 back in '78, one in a Nova, and the other in a Camaro. Both reported 26 MPG (Imperial) on the highway, which was stunning for that era. At the time I was running a '68 Impala with a 307, which wouldn't often break 20 MPG (Imperial). The 305 seemed to be light years ahead. (The 307 was another engine that didn't get much respect; it had the bore of a 283 (3.875") and the stroke of a 327 (3.25")).
The 305 was not a high-revving engine. It was undersquare (bore = 3.736", stroke = 3.48"), but not by much.
The Chevy 302 was a screamer; it had the same bore (4.000") and stroke (3.000") as the Ford 302, but had a much higher compression ratio. (11:1?)
The 305's small bore meant valve size limitations and shrouding with greatly limited performance potential for a 2V pushrod engine.
Regarding the Chevy 302 and the Ford 302, the Chevy 302 was 11:1, its competitor the Ford BOSS 302 was 10.5:1, so while the Chevy was indeed higher compression, it wasn't "much" higher.
Guys, great discussion so far - very enjoyable reading, and lots of good memories.
I don't recall Chrysler ever making anything right around 300 CI. Their small blocks back in the day jumped from 273 CID to 318 CID.
I remember a couple of people having the new 305 back in '78, one in a Nova, and the other in a Camaro. Both reported 26 MPG (Imperial) on the highway, which was stunning for that era. At the time I was running a '68 Impala with a 307, which wouldn't often break 20 MPG (Imperial). The 305 seemed to be light years ahead. (The 307 was another engine that didn't get much respect; it had the bore of a 283 (3.875") and the stroke of a 327 (3.25")).
The 305 was not a high-revving engine. It was undersquare (bore = 3.736", stroke = 3.48"), but not by much.
The Chevy 302 was a screamer; it had the same bore (4.000") and stroke (3.000") as the Ford 302, but had a much higher compression ratio. (11:1?)
The 305's small bore meant valve size limitations and shrouding with greatly limited performance potential for a 2V pushrod engine.
Regarding the Chevy 302 and the Ford 302, the Chevy 302 was 11:1, its competitor the Ford BOSS 302 was 10.5:1, so while the Chevy was indeed higher compression, it wasn't "much" higher.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
Don't forget the Chevy DZ 302, a world class performance engine for it's time.
Yet never became common
IIRC, wasn't the 302 Chevy a 283 crank in a 327 block? Of course its Ford competition was the BOSS 302, which was a big 'ol set of deep-breathing Cleveland heads on a Windsor block. Also as rare as hens teeth nowadays.
Yeah, the 302 Chevy was a 283 crank in a 327 block. It was never meant to become common; it was created so GM could contest the TransAm series, so it was built in limited quantity to meet homologation requirements.
The also-unloved 307 was a 327 crank in a 283 block.
The 305 was a de-bored 350. I don't totally disrespect the 305; the high compression L69 in the 1983 Camaro was the first engine to have respectable performance in the post-emissions control era. And the TPI 305 was every bit the match for Ford's port-injected 302 of the mid-80's. The 262 and 267 are my least favorite of the Chevy small-blocks.
Pontiac's 301 was also 4.00" bore x 3.00" stroke.
Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
Don't forget the Chevy DZ 302, a world class performance engine for it's time.
Yet never became common
Yeah, the 302 Chevy was a 283 crank in a 327 block. It was never meant to become common; it was created so GM could contest the TransAm series, so it was built in limited quantity to meet homologation requirements.
The also-unloved 307 was a 327 crank in a 283 block.
The 305 was a de-bored 350. I don't totally disrespect the 305; the high compression L69 in the 1983 Camaro was the first engine to have respectable performance in the post-emissions control era. And the TPI 305 was every bit the match for Ford's port-injected 302 of the mid-80's. The 262 and 267 are my least favorite of the Chevy small-blocks.
Pontiac's 301 was also 4.00" bore x 3.00" stroke.
Last edited:
In boats it's a 50 hp increase going from the 305 to the 350. So all things being equal yeah, you'd notice a difference IF you drove the 305 first.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by A_Harman
The 305 was a de-bored 350. I don't totally disrespect the 305; the high compression L69 in the 1983 Camaro was the first engine to have respectable performance in the post-emissions control era. And the TPI 305 was every bit the match for Ford's port-injected 302 of the mid-80's. The 262 and 267 are my least favorite of the Chevy small-blocks.
Pontiac's 301 was also 4.00" bore x 3.00" stroke.
Yeah, stock-for-stock, but you could do heads/cam/intake on the 302, whereas the 305 had extremely limited head selection due to the smaller bore, and you couldn't go with big valves. That's why the 302 is still being hopped up, the 305 never gained a following because it lacked significant potential to do anything with
The BOSS 302 was the competitor to the DZ 302. However, nothing was stopping GM from coming out with a tamer mass produced 302, that's what my
was about. They had an opportunity and instead, went with the 305.
The 305 was a de-bored 350. I don't totally disrespect the 305; the high compression L69 in the 1983 Camaro was the first engine to have respectable performance in the post-emissions control era. And the TPI 305 was every bit the match for Ford's port-injected 302 of the mid-80's. The 262 and 267 are my least favorite of the Chevy small-blocks.
Pontiac's 301 was also 4.00" bore x 3.00" stroke.
Yeah, stock-for-stock, but you could do heads/cam/intake on the 302, whereas the 305 had extremely limited head selection due to the smaller bore, and you couldn't go with big valves. That's why the 302 is still being hopped up, the 305 never gained a following because it lacked significant potential to do anything with
The BOSS 302 was the competitor to the DZ 302. However, nothing was stopping GM from coming out with a tamer mass produced 302, that's what my
I wouldn't mind finding an old GMC truck with a 305 V6.
I owned a 92 GMC C1500 with a 305... Driving around town or passing on the highway were fine. Plenty of torque!
I do believe that a 350 would do better when hauling or towing... I never did any of that. Or perhaps in a heavier 4x4 extended cab vs a regular cab 2wd... Anyway, as a daily driver or commuter they are solid engines. Don't hate on the 305s LOL!
I do believe that a 350 would do better when hauling or towing... I never did any of that. Or perhaps in a heavier 4x4 extended cab vs a regular cab 2wd... Anyway, as a daily driver or commuter they are solid engines. Don't hate on the 305s LOL!
Originally Posted by A_Harman
Originally Posted by 02SE
I wouldn't mind finding an old GMC truck with a 305 V6.
I have a 305 V6 sitting in my garage!
I hope you have a use for it.
I'm thinking one in a '66 4wd would be fun to drive around a bit.
Something like this:
Originally Posted by 02SE
I wouldn't mind finding an old GMC truck with a 305 V6.
I have a 305 V6 sitting in my garage!
I hope you have a use for it.
I'm thinking one in a '66 4wd would be fun to drive around a bit.
Something like this:
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by A_Harman
Originally Posted by 02SE
I wouldn't mind finding an old GMC truck with a 305 V6.
I have a 305 V6 sitting in my garage!
I hope you have a use for it.
I'm thinking one in a '66 4wd would be fun to drive around a bit.
Something like this:
I bought it as a parts engine to complete the stroked 478 V6 that I have been working on for many years. I got it for $100 out of a junkyard in Wisconsin. I don't have any plans for the 305 past that.
Originally Posted by A_Harman
Originally Posted by 02SE
I wouldn't mind finding an old GMC truck with a 305 V6.
I have a 305 V6 sitting in my garage!
I hope you have a use for it.
I'm thinking one in a '66 4wd would be fun to drive around a bit.
Something like this:
I bought it as a parts engine to complete the stroked 478 V6 that I have been working on for many years. I got it for $100 out of a junkyard in Wisconsin. I don't have any plans for the 305 past that.
Originally Posted by A_Harman
I bought it as a parts engine to complete the stroked 478 V6 that I have been working on for many years. I got it for $100 out of a junkyard in Wisconsin. I don't have any plans for the 305 past that.
I occasionally watch these videos. I think it might be some sort of sickness...
Anyway, this truck originally had a 305, then a 401, and finally the 478. I don't know the man. I just admire his truck.
I bought it as a parts engine to complete the stroked 478 V6 that I have been working on for many years. I got it for $100 out of a junkyard in Wisconsin. I don't have any plans for the 305 past that.
I occasionally watch these videos. I think it might be some sort of sickness...
Anyway, this truck originally had a 305, then a 401, and finally the 478. I don't know the man. I just admire his truck.
Originally Posted by 02SE
Originally Posted by A_Harman
I bought it as a parts engine to complete the stroked 478 V6 that I have been working on for many years. I got it for $100 out of a junkyard in Wisconsin. I don't have any plans for the 305 past that.
I occasionally watch these videos. I think it might be some sort of sickness...
Anyway, this truck originally had a 305, then a 401, and finally the 478. I don't know the man. I just admire his truck.
Here's a video showing a 305E at a truck pull:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DilrEf0g0Uw
Originally Posted by A_Harman
I bought it as a parts engine to complete the stroked 478 V6 that I have been working on for many years. I got it for $100 out of a junkyard in Wisconsin. I don't have any plans for the 305 past that.
I occasionally watch these videos. I think it might be some sort of sickness...
Anyway, this truck originally had a 305, then a 401, and finally the 478. I don't know the man. I just admire his truck.
Here's a video showing a 305E at a truck pull:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DilrEf0g0Uw
Originally Posted by A_Harman
Here's a video showing a 305E at a truck pull:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DilrEf0g0Uw
That's the same truck from the first video I posted. It's nice to hear it run, but if it were mine, I don't think I could bring myself to subject that clean old truck to that.
Here's a video showing a 305E at a truck pull:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DilrEf0g0Uw
That's the same truck from the first video I posted. It's nice to hear it run, but if it were mine, I don't think I could bring myself to subject that clean old truck to that.
- Status
Similar threads
