Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4 - Chevelle Tech
Chevelle Tech join team chevelle as a supporting member  
Chevelle Parts at SS396.com      
GROUND UP & SS396.com         
Official Sponsor of Team Chevelle
     

Auto Insurance

Chevelles.com is the premier Chevrolet Chevelle Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Performance Our High Performance area

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old Sep 2nd, 07, 4:00 PM
Augustboy2009 Augustboy2009 is offline
Senior Tech Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 1,068
Default Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4

Okay guys, I've been doing some searching on engines as far as gas mileage.

I'm planning my next project and really want a mileage friendly engine.

Heres the question; What engine will get better gas mileage with a 700R4 in a 1968 to 1972 El Camino. 283, 305, 327, 350?

I don't need a performance engine, just a daily driver that gets good gas mileage.

The engine must consist of a smooth running cam (hydraulic roller), a balanced rotating assembly, and small 1.94 heads for torque. (possibly E-tec heads).

Any opinions will help tremendously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2  
Old Sep 2nd, 07, 4:14 PM
pizzi-man pizzi-man is offline
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane California
Posts: 827
Default Re: Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4

use fuel injection and you should see a big improvement no matter which motor you use. I personally like the 95 LT1 set up I have with the 2004r. 18 mpg around town and 26 to 28 mpg on freeway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3  
Old Sep 2nd, 07, 4:30 PM
gnicholson gnicholson is offline
Senior Tech Team
Gary
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kansas City,Mo.
Posts: 2,394
Default Re: Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4

what the previous guy said would work well. if i were going to build an engine for a carb i would use a 283 or a 307 would work better i think for the increased low rpm torque. use a good q jet, stock manifold ,about 9 to 1 and a hyd flat tappet cam with about 256-260 adv. on 112. with proper tuning i think you could achieve 25 mpg at 65 mph
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4  
Old Sep 2nd, 07, 4:36 PM
pdq67 pdq67 is offline
Guest
Paul
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Columbia, MO, USA
Posts: 14,685
Thumbs up Re: Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4

I figure that a a stock, 195 2-barrel or 220Power Pack/283 w/ a stock 3-speed stick OD tranny will get about 25 mpg too w/ the correct rearend!

And imho, this is a great engine tranny combination for a DD!

You can't hardly run onna these into the ground, they are that tough!!!!

6500 rpm w/ either the stock, -929 like/if not cam or a Performer cam w/ the hy-lifters lashed out!!

Personally, I'd run this litttle Clevite solid lifter cam!!

PN 229-1998; 258/219/270/229, 114/110, .456"/.479" and need's .022" lash on both sides..

Should be a really mellow little cam!!

pdq67
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5  
Old Sep 2nd, 07, 5:32 PM
Robinls5 Robinls5 is offline
Senior Tech Team
Bob
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Jeannette Pa. near pittsburgh
Posts: 5,148
Default Re: Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4

I built a 70 Chevelle SS 454 Sta. Wagon, I drive it about 4-5000 miles a year. It has a LS-5 type 454--700R4--3:08 12 bolt. this year from Pittsburgh to Nashville Tn. (CB-07) on the interstate without the air on.
The 454 is turning 1950 RPMs at 75 MPH . I am getting 19.46 MPG. NOTE: with an Auto-Zone rebuilt Q-Jet. Big Cube engines, when you are rolling, do not work too hard. I believe a small block VS B.B. the big block will stay in fourth or loc-up longer than a small block due to the torque factor. J.M.O. Bob
__________________
70 SS 454 El Camino 07 AACA Grand National Winner-MCACN-GOLD-2013
70 SS 454 Station Wagon - Driver
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6  
Old Sep 2nd, 07, 7:59 PM
Greybeard Greybeard is offline
Tech Team
Mike
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Sequim, Washington
Posts: 664
Default Re: Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4

You might consider a '93-96 Caprice 4.3 V8. Known as an L99 or "baby" LT-1, it looks exactly like a LT-1, and uses the same EFI with smaller injectors. The Impala guys claim up to 30mpg, well, some claim more......you know how that works.

If you wanted, you could go carbed, but it's probably just as easy to use the EFI. Get the harness and ECM, and send it to these guys http://ls1wiring.com/. They can redo the harness and ECM to take out the "body control' systems for the price of a carb. You can find their specials on e-bay under "wiring harness".

I bought an engine with 26,000 miles for $400 complete with harness and ECM. $250 for the wiring and ECM mods, some orange paint, new flywheel and pilot shaft bearing and it's ready. These are seldom cars with abuse. Usually sold to older people and all with automatics. One problem for those guys who don't like long rods, these engines have'em. Find a 350 LT1 block, use the crank and rods from the L99 with 350 pistons and you've got an injected 302 if you like more power.
__________________
1937 Master DeLuxe 2dr sedan, 250 six with 2 deuces and split manifold
1966 El Camino, 250, stick N over
1966 Corvair Corsa, 455 Olds,
1972 Vega V8
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7  
Old Sep 2nd, 07, 9:02 PM
Augustboy2009 Augustboy2009 is offline
Senior Tech Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 1,068
Default Re: Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4

Interesting, The EFI set up sounds like a combo. I'll have to do my homework and read up on EFI stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8  
Old Sep 2nd, 07, 10:43 PM
fabio fabio is offline
Senior Tech Team
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: murrieta
Posts: 1,683
Default Re: Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4

I would say with the bigger 350 or 383 you would need less throttle to get the car moving. Then when you open that thing up it will run better than the smaller cubes. PLus you want something with decent torque so you won't have to downshift to maintain speeds when climbing little hills etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9  
Old Sep 2nd, 07, 11:33 PM
kirkwoodken kirkwoodken is offline
Senior Tech Team
Ken
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,531
Default Re: Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4

Chevy made a SB truck cam with about 173*@.050" duration with the last three part numbers of 906. It's high RPM limit was about 4500 RPM. Great torque and milage cam if you can find one. Made in the 60's. I'll see if I can find out more if you are interested.

As always, maybe you should give UDHarold a call.
__________________
kirkwoodken
406 SB, Original Bill Thomas '63 Rochester FI
AFR 210, Lunati 501C2LUN, 255/263@.050", .628"
10:1, TH400, 3.31's, 4400 SS

"Life is too short to not run a solid roller cam."
"Nothing is impossible; if you don't know what you're talking about."
Kirkwoodken
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10  
Old Sep 2nd, 07, 11:56 PM
Augustboy2009 Augustboy2009 is offline
Senior Tech Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 1,068
Default Re: Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4

Quote:
Originally Posted by fabio View Post
I would say with the bigger 350 or 383 you would need less throttle to get the car moving. Then when you open that thing up it will run better than the smaller cubes. PLus you want something with decent torque so you won't have to downshift to maintain speeds when climbing little hills etc.
Thats what I was kind of trying to determine. Is it better to go with a small motor with less of a stroke or go with a larger 350 size to allow the engine to obtain more torque requiring less throttle to get the car moving.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11  
Old Sep 3rd, 07, 12:06 AM
gnicholson gnicholson is offline
Senior Tech Team
Gary
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Kansas City,Mo.
Posts: 2,394
Default Re: Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4

i had a 283 in a 66 belair that was completely stock with a power glide. it had very good low rpm torque even with the high 1st gear. if you build the engine with the correct parts such as heads with the correct sized intake runners it will get better milage than a bigger engine and still run good .like i said earlier 25 maybe better on the highway. the late model fuel injected setups are intriguing but are more complicated and more expensive. how bout a new ls 2. 400 hp and 25 mpg 30 in a new vette
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12  
Old Sep 3rd, 07, 12:11 AM
Augustboy2009 Augustboy2009 is offline
Senior Tech Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Temecula, CA
Posts: 1,068
Default Re: Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4

Quote:
Originally Posted by gnicholson View Post
i had a 283 in a 66 belair that was completely stock with a power glide. it had very good low rpm torque even with the high 1st gear. if you build the engine with the correct parts such as heads with the correct sized intake runners it will get better milage than a bigger engine and still run good .like i said earlier 25 maybe better on the highway. the late model fuel injected setups are intriguing but are more complicated and more expensive. how bout a new ls 2. 400 hp and 25 mpg 30 in a new vette
Yeah, an LS 2 would be very nice but I'm sure they are pricey. Maybe when the time comes I can find decent LS 2 out of a wrecked car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #13  
Old Sep 3rd, 07, 9:59 AM
mnunn mnunn is offline
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 59
Default Re: Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4

While you're collecting opinions,

Since "performance" isn't a driving factor here, I'd think torque is the major consideration. As such I like the 305/EFI combo to go along with your TH700 tranny.

My reasoning is the 305 has more torque at lower RPMs than either the 283, 307, or 327 and less volume to try to fill with air and fuel for every revolution while still delivering enough horsepower to get you up a hill or two without needing to downshift. (Not that a 350 wont, it's just that if the smaller engine will, so why go bigger)

If you don't want the EFI "challenges", then a small Q-jet atop a "performer" manifold would IMO be the better induction choice. HEI at a minimum (and an MSD box if resources allow to promote complete combustion).


If you're planning to build the 305 yourself, then I'd choose pistons and cyl heads that'll work together to minimize any tendency to detonate on 87 Octane, and a cam with a wider LSA. 1.94 intakes are plenty big but I'd shy away from the 1.5 exhausts. The roller cam path you want allows you more airflow potential through the head while minimizing overlap. Regarding detonation, It'd be a bummer if you built this engine to save money and then had to pay 20 or 30 cents more per gallon for high test to stop the pinging.

Even without EFI I'm a strong advocate for putting an O2 sensor in the exhaust to watch what the A/F ratio is doing while driving. That'll enable you to jet the carb for optimal fuel mileage when cruising.

For a low RPM engine, I'd save my $ on balancing and spend it on a wide band O2 sensor and gauge, or a towing/RV style torque converter to minimize slippage until you reach lockup speed.

One final thought...Depending on the R&P ratio you have, with the TH700's 30% overdrive you can get too low on your Final Drive Ratio. If the street tires are normal diameter, I'd think 3.08's are about as steep as you'd want to go (thinking alternator and A/C RPMs here and potentially falling below the engine's natural torque curve). I like 3.55's behind a TH700 personally. You say it's a daily driver project. But you'll still need it to take off from a traffic light a little quicker than a city bus. So depending on the weight of the car, shoot for at least a 9.0 or better total mechanical ratio in low gear.

Just more food for thought.

Good luck.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #14  
Old Sep 3rd, 07, 1:33 PM
animal69 animal69 is offline
Lifetime Premium Member
Chris
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 4,313
Default Re: Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4

Have you considered a 305. An El Camino is a heavy vehicle and the 305 with it's 3.48" stroke would have more torque than a 283 (3" stroke) or a 307 (3.25" stroke). I had one in my '83 1/2 ton (3.42 posi with a 4 spd. OD manuel) and got very good milage (18-20mpg) when just cruising down the highway.
__________________

I never make mistakes, but on occasion I present myself with an opportunity to get very creative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #15  
Old Sep 3rd, 07, 2:12 PM
70 beater 70 beater is offline
Senior Tech Team
Jon
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: irving,texas
Posts: 1,073
Send a message via Yahoo to 70 beater
Default Re: Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4

Quote:
Originally Posted by mnunn View Post
One final thought...Depending on the R&P ratio you have, with the TH700's 30% overdrive you can get too low on your Final Drive Ratio. If the street tires are normal diameter, I'd think 3.08's are about as steep as you'd want to go (thinking alternator and A/C RPMs here and potentially falling below the engine's natural torque curve). I like 3.55's behind a TH700 personally. You say it's a daily driver project. But you'll still need it to take off from a traffic light a little quicker than a city bus. So depending on the weight of the car, shoot for at least a 9.0 or better total mechanical ratio in low gear.

Just more food for thought.

Good luck.
This is good info here,as well as everything else posted.I've got a mixed up combo,performance engine,heavy truck,stock converter 700r4 and 3.08 gears.Not a good set up,almost 80mph at 2000 rpm,way below where the engine starts getting into its' sweet spot,making for poor fuel economy in o.d. and lugs the engine down,does better in drive.I've got to change the torque converter and gear,at least gear at a minimum,to correct it,going to 4.11s.

For a DD build a good low rpm torque engine like these guys are saying.
__________________
Jon
North Texas Chevelles
70 Chevelle Melba Rust
glorified parts car
7.86 @91(1/8 w/sbc)
JAKESHOE TH 400
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply
Chevelle Tech > General Tech Area > Performance      Current Topic: Better gas mileage w/ a 283, 305, or 350 w/ 700R4
Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Chevelle Tech forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address. Note, you will be sent a confirmation request to this address.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 4:42 AM.


Is there a site like this for?    El Caminos Camaros Novas Impalas GTO Chevy Punch All Chevys

2009 Team Chevelle - AutoForums