Notice: We request that you don't just set up a new account at this time if you are a previous user.
If you used to be one of our moderators, please feel free to reach out to Chris via the facebook Outerlimits4x4 group and he will get you set back up with access should he need you.
Recovery:If you cannot access your old email address and don't remember your password, please click here to log a change of email address so you can do a password reset.

Why 350 Chev?

General Tech Talk

Moderators: toaddog, TWISTY, V8Patrol, Moderators

Posts: 403
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 3:46 pm
Location: vic

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by brentz »

crankycruiser wrote:
brentz wrote:As said a 350 chev is just a carbie ls1 there same just one injected one not the reason why they get put in is cause easy conversion no electrics to get wet while 4wding and there's still a huge range of parts available more than a ls1 most likely and all ya need to pass emissions is if it's older than the car have it on straight gas which most 4wders will like
we put a 350 in my old mans cruiser and we were gonna Go a Holden donk but got told from a few people that if ya need parts and ya stranded in middle of no where more chances of getting chev parts than anything

LOL at that comment!

LS is just like a 350? only in size mate. even an iron block LS isnt like a 350
I no motorwise there different but I ment as in size etc like bellhousing and ya engine mounts and all that sorta gear
brentz
TUF-60 starting build soon
Im here for the sausage!
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:25 pm
Location: next to a big hole in the ground

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by shortyq »

RED60 wrote:
nerida67 wrote:Red 60,
Yep your right ,my bad

A quick google search finds the answer
Oh the advantage of the web
No web from my end... I used to own one.. a 302 chev that is... but that's another story...
awsome mabe you can enlighten on the 396 sb
that red60 mentioned!
mmmm SAUSAGE
Im here for the sausage!
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:25 pm
Location: next to a big hole in the ground

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by shortyq »

Loanrangie wrote:
pozman wrote:
Zeyphly wrote:it probably would have been dedicated gas to pass emissions. Your GM ls1 is a chev motor they have just dropped the C as in general motors cheverolet and also general motors holden for gmh
if talking about GMC here, its actually general motors Canada, but yes its all gm
ozz wrote: maybe its the same people who put chev badges on holdens
man that shits me
GMC is not GM Canada, its general motors coach/truck division shortened to GMC.
actually its general motors company
mmmm SAUSAGE
ozz
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:19 am
Location: s/e melbourne

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by ozz »

I thought it was just GM?

GMC - general motors chevy
GMH - general motors holden
etc
Posts: 19062
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 11:39 pm
Location: In a horse near you

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by chimpboy »

I believe LoanRangie has it right. GM (and not GMC) is the accepted abbreviation for General Motors Company. GMC is a reference to their truck and coach division, which sold trucks that were similar to chevy trucks but were not chevy trucks.

GMH is General Motors Holden.

Yes it is a bit weird but that's what you get when things evolve organically over time instead of all being laid out at the start. That is my understanding anyway!
This is not legal advice.
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2006 8:40 pm
Location: Albany, WA

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by Kitika »

nerida67 wrote:The problem with the high tech or late model motors,
Sure they put out fair power (not torque) as compared to their replacements
But go stick a 100 KW odd four banger in a 3 tonne 4x4 as see how they go

Its not just the KW or HP figure you have to look at

Alot of new cars have 5-6 speeds to suit the power/torque curve of the motors
Cars of years ago had 2 speed autos and 3 speed manuals
Like comparing apples to oranges
The 100kw fourbanger will probably go just aswell as the bodgy old 6cyl diesels as they don't have much hp or torque. The newer motors like the ls1 run 6speed manuals to make them more driveable and to increase the fuel economy by dropping the revs right back when doing highway speeds. I reckon the ls1 in my cruiser would go quite well with a 3 speed manual but it'd be painful offroad and would suck through the juice as it'd be revving to much or to little. For example I drive around town in 3rd pretty much all the time and only have to change down to 2nd when taking off from a complete stop as it has the torque there. In the end there still isn't a replacement for displacement IMO and the new big motors like the LS and efi diesels make tuning that much more precise you can get huge amounts of power with good fuel economy and it is as easy as plugging it into a computer instead of having to pull carbies apart to change jets and using guess work.
More Suzuki parts going to the big Suzuki Heaven in the sky!
Posts: 1768
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:51 am
Location: Weipa

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by crankycruiser »

brentz wrote:
crankycruiser wrote:
brentz wrote:As said a 350 chev is just a carbie ls1 there same just one injected one not the reason why they get put in is cause easy conversion no electrics to get wet while 4wding and there's still a huge range of parts available more than a ls1 most likely and all ya need to pass emissions is if it's older than the car have it on straight gas which most 4wders will like
we put a 350 in my old mans cruiser and we were gonna Go a Holden donk but got told from a few people that if ya need parts and ya stranded in middle of no where more chances of getting chev parts than anything

LOL at that comment!

LS is just like a 350? only in size mate. even an iron block LS isnt like a 350
I no motorwise there different but I ment as in size etc like bellhousing and ya engine mounts and all that sorta gear

bellhousings are completly different, as are engine mounts.. a ls will not just drop in where a 350 is.
80 xtra cab
Supercharged LS1, Locked n shit

80 Wagon, TD Tourer, locked, Interco 35s, G turbo
Posts: 466
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:53 pm
Location: Pakenham, Victoria

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by HUSSLN »

ozz wrote: but it's a GM engine not chevy. I dont know
What do you think Chev is mate if it's not General Motors?
ozz
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 6:19 am
Location: s/e melbourne

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by ozz »

You could say the same about holden then couldnt you?
Posts: 1715
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: at my wits end

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by RED60 »

shortyq wrote:
RED60 wrote:
nerida67 wrote:Red 60,
Yep your right ,my bad

A quick google search finds the answer
Oh the advantage of the web
No web from my end... I used to own one.. a 302 chev that is... but that's another story...
awsome mabe you can enlighten on the 396 sb
that red60 mentioned!
I said 400..... from mem was 4.125" bore x 3.75" stroke.. thnk that comes to a whisker over 400 cubes...external dimensions were the same for all sbc as far as I know.....differences >>>> siamesed bores..... shorter rods..... think they had different sized mains and/or bigends.... came with crap heads... they were used in trucks a lot... didn't rev but could be made to go ok with mods... that's all I can remember about 'em ...
Show me the money..SHOW ME THE MONEY
Im here for the sausage!
Posts: 462
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:25 pm
Location: next to a big hole in the ground

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by shortyq »

RED60 wrote:
shortyq wrote:
RED60 wrote:
nerida67 wrote:Red 60,
Yep your right ,my bad

A quick google search finds the answer
Oh the advantage of the web
No web from my end... I used to own one.. a 302 chev that is... but that's another story...
awsome mabe you can enlighten on the 396 sb
that red60 mentioned!
I said 400..... from mem was 4.125" bore x 3.75" stroke.. thnk that comes to a whisker over 400 cubes...external dimensions were the same for all sbc as far as I know.....differences >>>> siamesed bores..... shorter rods..... think they had different sized mains and/or bigends.... came with crap heads... they were used in trucks a lot... didn't rev but could be made to go ok with mods... that's all I can remember about 'em ...
my bad, i meant nerida67!
396sb pfft, zarkus would roll in his grave!lol
mmmm SAUSAGE
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:03 pm
Location: QLD

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by nerida67 »

Maybe their wasnt a 396 small block
My bad
Considering i havent lived,breathed, or worked on anything GM or GMH or GMC for over 10-15 years
Memory can do things like that

But atleast i can admit MISTAKES
Sorry MR perfect
Posts: 2158
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:16 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by KiwiBacon »

Dooley wrote:What I don't get is the patrols with detroit diesels... I understand that it would be a much simpler and easier engine to work on.

But my quick google reasearch shows:

By numbers.

6.5L V8 Turbo (Detroit Diesel)

160 kW @ 3,200 rpm / 597 N·m @ 1,800 rpm

3.0L V6 Twin Turbo (Ford/Land Rover)

180 kW @ 4,000 rpm / 600 N·m @ 2,000 rpm

Factor in the detroit is a cast iron block and head, compared to compacted graphite iron block and alloy head. Not sure on actual weight...

I understand the detroit is probably a lot easier and simpler to work on and do a swap with, but you see enough ricers with all sorts of swaps so it would be possible, to me on paper it is a much better engine.
Another point that almost no-one considers is the efficiency of the engine they're putting in.
It can be hard to get absolute figures, but it's very easy to start comparing how many Nm/litre, higher specific torque gives a more efficient engine.

Why does this matter so much?
Lower fuel consumption.
More torque and power for the same engine size.
Lower heat rejection (don't need massive alloy radiators etc).

Those detroit 6.2 and 6.5 are terrible regarding efficiency. Like 30% less efficient than my 25 year old Isuzu diesel.
The result is diesel engines that are hard to keep cool and drink like petrols while going like old diesels.
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:13 pm
Location: Kiev

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by Mrowka »

Had a longish message which the Forums somehow ate. To summarize: you are wrong about the 302 small block, which was a very powerful little motor (350 bore and 283 stroke) mostly built for road-racing.

Still, a crap engine for a 4x4 since they have no low-end torque and were made to rev to the sky.
Jeeps wrote:[

Some of those smaller older V8's, there's not a lot of power output compared to modern engines. The 302, 305 & 307 V8's all put out less power & torque than my AMC 242 straight six. And now 20 years on the 242 is piddly compared to modern 4 cylinders :lol:

I remember back in the mid 90's when the XJ was introduced to australia and then the wrangler in 96/97 and everyone was raving about how much power those jeep engines put out, and that was because they were all used to toyota & nissan's engine power :rofl:


cheers
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:03 pm
Location: QLD

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by nerida67 »

Its very hard to compare older engines to newer
Especially when comparing HP/KW or N/m or Ft/lbs

Many of the older style motors didnt have stuff like
Injection,
electric fuel pumps,clutch fans,less restrictive exhausts ect
(all power hungry devices)
The old holden red motors (3.3l)came with a piddly little single barrell carb
(ride on mowers nearly have bigger ones)
Comparing the output of that to say a 6 cylinder with injection ect
Is not a fair comparison by a long shot
Yes engines have come along way in the years
But the combustion engine is not a highly efficient starting point
Posts: 2158
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:16 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by KiwiBacon »

nerida67 wrote:Yes engines have come along way in the years
But the combustion engine is not a highly efficient starting point
40+% from a decent diesel.
Interestingly enough, diesel efficiency hasn't really improved lately. Specific output has, emissions have, noise has, but peak efficiency on a good diesel motor then is pretty much the same as peak efficiency on a good diesel motor now.
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2010 8:22 pm
Location: Melbourne

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by KERMIE_308 »

youve all left out 1 of the main reasons why ppl put 350 chevs into 4WD's...

have any of you heard the beautiful sound of a 350 working its way through mud???????

shits all over any V6 Turbo or jap engine...
1974 FJ40 - 5ltr V8, 60 power steering, 60 diffs, 6" lift in total, twin air lockers, 37" TSL Boggers
Posts: 348
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 9:55 am
Location: Brisbane

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by VooDoo »

brentz wrote:As said a 350 chev is just a carbie ls1 there same just one injected one not the reason why they get put in is cause easy conversion no electrics to get wet while 4wding and there's still a huge range of parts available more than a ls1 most likely and all ya need to pass emissions is if it's older than the car have it on straight gas which most 4wders will like
we put a 350 in my old mans cruiser and we were gonna Go a Holden donk but got told from a few people that if ya need parts and ya stranded in middle of no where more chances of getting chev parts than anything
The only thing a 350 chev and a LS1 share is the bore spacing and the fact they are V8's. Its clear you dont know your V8's. There are more running LS1's in AU then 350 chev's and parts are very easy to get but rarely required. Bolt patterns are similar (not the same) and some gearboxes will fit both but not all. The biggest advantage is its efficiency and output is MUCH better than the 1st gen 350 (we are upto 4 generation LS series now). Its not impossible to put a LS1 into a 350 chev powered car but its not as simple as bolting it in.
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 2:03 pm
Location: QLD

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by nerida67 »

More LS1s than 350s in aus ?????
Thats a tuff call

20 odd years ago just about every 2nd holden was chev powered

The LS1s are certainly a step up,but alot prefer the old skool,simplicity of the ol 350s
Posts: 1288
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 5:09 pm
Location: Glass house sunny coast

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by purplebus »

I have an inj 454 going into my patrol at the moment... :cool: .
have a td42t for offroad but nothing..I mean NOTHING beats the exhaust note from a nice sweet v8.
only the first roll hurts, then its a ride..
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:13 pm
Location: Kiev

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by Mrowka »

Actually, there is a 396 Gen1 SBC. It is not a factory offering, but is a stroker 400 crank in a 350 block.

The 383 SBC is a standard 400 crank in 350 block, and it is also an aftermarket creation.
Posts: 66
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 9:27 pm
Location: newcastle

Re: Why 350 Chev?

Post by maxtrax »

I'v been in trucks for years and owned td42 GQ's aswell, the old school trucks have big motors with low power and so did the old GQ patrols. New trucks run smaller motors high psi and more power, as the same for patrols. Eg scania 16L turbo (8psi)v8 = 500 hp as compared to new truck running 12L turbo (15-18psi) 6 cyl. The v8 has done 2.5-3 millon klms up for a rebuild the 6 cyl at 3 millon klms on 2nd rebuild and tiered, and blown a few heads.

The old TD42 ute 1989 mod my farming unlce owns, tacho stopped working in 1994 at 380,000 something klms but is still running every day today. The 2.8L rodeo my mother inlaw ownes 1994 mod at 360,000 ? klms had a rebuild at 290,000 klms and is being replaced later this mounth.

A TB42, 45 is the same as the deisel motor but petrol, and have better power and rev. I have gone to a GU TB 45, micro tech LT10 computor and GQ 5spd knowing that i will be abell to source parts easy and have good power to play with and it all bolts up. And is for sale as I am looking for a SWB.
MAX TRAXION
0429-193238
Some where in the dust......
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 140 guests