Daily a 350
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /o/ - Auto
You are currently reading a thread in /o/ - Auto
Could you make a 350 affordable to drive every day with efi and a custom mapping?
Define affordable to you.
For myself they're fine as they are
Sure, Never rev it above 1200 RPM... If you can't afford to drive it properly, get a smaller engine.
People that drive big engines slowly because they can't afford the gas are pieces of shit.
>>14117004
Everyone already knows I have a big dick no need to whip it out all the time
better than a 4.0 jeep
>>14116988
yeah sure
19+mpg isn't unreasonable for most setups
my old pickup with EFI on it gets around 21-23mpg just putting around town. pretty damn good for a 3/4ton truck.
edelbrock pro-flo system.
>>14117241
I call bullshit
>>14116988
I got 15 mpg on short trips with my old 350 tbi k1500. I imagine 20-25+ mpg would be easily attainable in a car on highway trips.
>>14117922
did you leave him a voicemail?
>>14117922
Roadkill claimed they got 18MPG highway on a bored out hemi gasser when they tuned it while driving. Was originally doing 8
>>14118146
Yep. In a Camaro or Corvette with an overdrive transmission 25+mpg on the highway is easy to get.
>>14118196
Was it in a 3/4 ton truck or a car? Cause trucks, especially older ones have the aerodynamics of a barn. I call bs on 20+ mpg
I daily a 454. It has a 42 gallon tank and the best MPG i've seen is 7.5. You be the judge ese.
>>14118280
I get around 22 in my 1/2 ton with the 4.3 tbi
>>14118374
Dual tanks?
I have the same style truck and it has a 34 gallon tank
>>14118445
Nah it's a 3/4 ton Suburban. Just one big ass tank.
Hektik Skidz are sketchy with a full tank because it's basically 350 pounds of gas hanging past the back axle.
>>14118280
I call BS on it too. My old Explorer with a SOHC 4L V6 got 18 mpg on the highway AT MAX. Average mpg with 13-15 mpg. I can't imagine an old, big American V8 getting better mileage than that.
>>14118280
Google blasphemi and then come and tell us about aerodynamic efficiency.
>>14119267
It's that magazine fag's gasser
what about it?
>>14119246
You also are underpowered and have a slushbox. A big powerful engine with efi and long as fuck overdrive gears is just puttering along at highway speeds barely using gas. It's the same way the previous Gen z06 could get near 30 mpg highway with a 7l engine
>>14119283
Its not ecominded at all, yet it has a massive hemi and still got over 18mpg with barn door aerodynamics
>>14119291
>says aero doesn't matter for mpgs
>uses a corvette as a good mpg example
c'mon, moron
>>14119302
Aero matters, weight matters, everything matters. What matters the most is being able to bramble along at low rpm with minimal throttle openings, which a powerful v8 with a good overdrive transmission allows you to do
>>14119298
at what speed?
I'm not looking anything up because fuck you
>>14119313
75-80 mph>>14119313
. Stop being a pleb and watch some beardy and baldy
My brother has an early 90's Chevy with the 350. It's his daily driving work truck, and often tows heavy trailers full of busted concrete and materials. A few times a year, my moms horse trailer, and several times a year, a small camping trailer w/ dirt bikes.
The engines fine. The tranny though.... Needs its own thread. 4L60's can be bought brand new from GM for a reason.
>>14119322
At some point it has to be more cost efficient to swap or rebuild with a built tranny. Is a 4l80 an easy swap or no? Weight is a lot though
>>14119319
http://www.hotrod.com/news/latest-roadkill-show-2600-miles-in-a-hemi-1955-chevy-gasser/
>17mpg
>a few times
>no speed mentioned
fuck you and fuck hotrod's hour long speed part vendor commercials
>>14119345
I'm still not even mad m8 :)
>535ci
>17mpg
>barn door aero
Shit is neat
>>14119364
You were still wrong, faggot
not that hard to get decent economy in steady cruising
>>14119322
I remember the axle swap being more difficult than the transmission, DESU. Here's the truck
>>14119329
woops, clicked wrong ######
>>14119393
>tfw want a rcsb 4x4 c/k10 super bad
>ultimate unicorn to find one with an sngine/tranny and no rust or horrendous body damage
Fug man. I'm jelly
>>14119372
:^)
>>14119197
Damn, that must be a bitch to fill from empty haha
I drove a 10mpg jeep around for like 3 years. but i live in CA and only drive 10 miles a day
>>14119246
>GUSY MUH SHITBRICK UNDERPOWERED EXPLODER DIDN'T GET GOOD GAS MILEAGE SO NOTHING WITH A BIGGER ENGINE CAN.
my dad has an 85 c10 longbed with a 350/th350/3.08 rear end and gets 19-20 out of it with a 4 barrel
>>14119372
stay mad nigger
>>14118392
Yeah, that's not a 3/4 ton with a 350. I get 25+ in my 2.3 ranger, but that's not what we're talking about is it?
>>14119411
>>14120162
>says dumb stuff
>gets called out
>"lol u mad"
>samefags
0/10
and your truck is garbage
ENGINE SIZE IS ALL THAT MATTERS FOR FUEL ECONOMY
>>14116988
>guise, instead of just getting a modern engine that gets good mpgs do you think i can spend lots of cash on an antique engine and get decent mpgs?
>>14116988
Yes. just make sure it's
1) low to the ground for aero
2) geared steeply for low RPM freeway cruise
3) using a decent set of heads (i.e. not smog era 76cc garbage; use vortec, camel-hump, or aftermarket aluminum.)
GM squeezed 23 freeway MPG out of full-size caprice wagons with TBI 350's in the late 80's/early 90's. 19 in full-size vans.
>>14121595
>Implying the I4 Ranger actually gets better gas mileage than the V6 or a V8 swap
>>14121736
The 3.0 is literal trash. Made barely any more power than the I4, but consumed a fuckton more gas.
The 4.0 made decent power but was also a gas hog. A 5.0 explorer swap will consume about as much as the 4.0 as long as you drive it the same, once you start using that vee ate power you shouldn't even pretend to care about mpg.
>>14117922
>>14118280
>>14119246
>>14119302
>>14119313
>>14119345
>>14119372
>>14121679
>being this upset over being wrong
I get 25-27 mpg out of my 82 C10 with a 305
>>14121736
I got 28mpg in my 03 ranger.
>caring about fuel economy
How pleb can you get?
>>14121806
>tfw you realize the SOHC 4.0 actually makes more power than the 5.0 or 4.6
>>14121859
No surprise there; the 305 was always an economy-focused engine. Long stroke, narrow bores, small valves, small chambers.
OP's asking about the 350 specifically, which complicates things.
>>14116988
Just get a Holley self learning EFI system.
Shit is cash yo.
>>14121872
Except it doesn't.
>get 26 mpg highway in my 3800
>replace factory airbox with cone filter kit
>get 29 mpg highway
It can't be that easy...
>>14121985
He was close. SOHC cologne 4.0 made 210hp in it's best configuration.
That's the same as the classic 4bbl 5.0 from the fox-bodies, but the 5.0 made it up to 215 with EFI in the SN95 mustangs.
The original mod 4.6 made 190, but it was up to 215 by the time the 4.6 showed up in the Mustang, and kept rising through the production run.
305 fag here... I get like 24 mpg hwy
Thinking of doing an engine swap down the line... Maybe an lq? They're way cheaper than ls blocks, and I hear you can make great hp for cheap with them.
>>14122048
Unless you actually want the weight reduction of the aluminum block, there is literally no reason to go with an "authentic" LS block; the LQ is the exact same thing cast in iron, accepts all the same parts, and is stronger. No one except nerds on the internet thinks that the LQ-series are not acceptable LSx family engines.
V & T VIN 4.8/5.3 LQ equipped GM vans, trucks, and Tahoes are showing up in self-serve junkyards pretty much all the time now; you can yank one from pick n' pull in full dress for around $200. But the real price of entry on these engines is the ignition controller and induction system; they're inherently distributorless and you can easily spend 2-3x as much on an ignition box as you spent on the junkyard engine itself, and then again another $400 or more on a simple 4bbl intake manifold.
People doing it "cheap" are using the factory EFI and computer. Which requires using a factory transmission or having the PCM reflashed.
>>14116988
Gas is like $1.60 right now. But my 350 with an Edelbrock carb can average about 17-18 mpg mix of city and highway. It has a small cam and only about 300 bhp. Third gen Camaro with 700R4 overdrive and 3.23 rear gear.
>>14121872
The sohc 4.0 is about 210 hp and 250 ft lbs of torque.
The 5.0 as installed in the explorer (the one that's easily swapped) makes 215 hp and 285 ft lbs of torque, and with aftermarket headers can push over 300, which is a ton in a small truck like a ranger.
>>14116988
Yes. Just get a real job, and stop working at McDonald's.
>>14122135
>>14122037
>25% more displacement
>2% more power
Why even bother? Why didn't Ford just make an 8 cylinder Cologne? Or an actual 8 cylinder SHO, rather than the abortion they shat out?
>>14122203
The 5.0 was an ancient pushrod dinosaur, and they did end up developing a new v8, the 4.6 modular.
The 5.0 made a whole heap more torque than the 4.0 v6, which is generally more useful in truck applications than high hp.
>>14122203
I never understood this either. Why didn't GM or Ford in the early 90s take their somewhat advanced for the time V6 with DOHC and add 2 extra cylinders to make a OHV V8 replacement. GM had a 3.4 V6 based DOHC V8 prototype that was 4.5 liters and made LS1 power.
>>14122132
Congrats you own my dream car
Only difference I might make would be a t56, but that's because I don't drag race
>>14122246
Yeah I went 700R4 for cost purposes. My car was a roller with no engine or trans when I bought it for $500. I put in a mild 350 that cost me $1k to build. The 700R4 was $500 with a converter and typical upgrades remanufactured from a local shop. I was looking at $1200 just for a LT1 T56 core that would need a rebuild, bellhousing, clutch, pedals and linkage, and shifter at additional cost.
Currently getting 15.6mpg over 1400 mile trip with an ls1. I drive like shit though
>>14122203
Because back when the 5.0 was making 215 hp, the 4.0 cologne was only making 155.
By the time the Cologne had all the updates it needed to hit 210 HP, you could buy a DOHC 4.6 making 290 hp.
Also peak torque on the old 5.0 was 300 lb-ft, and on the SOHC 4.0 was 260 lb-ft - both at the same RPM. There's a reason Explorers with the 4.0 got a transmission with an extra gear between the 5.0's 1 and 2.
>>14122241
Ford actually did this. The original modular v8 was based on the original duratec v6. In fact, when ford USA was putting together the 3.0 duratec for the 96 Taurus, it was internally referred to as the Modular V6.
GM on the other hand, had enough volume going that they could continue two distinct V8 engine lines; the DOHC V8's in the caddies and the pushrod 2-valve V8's in everything else.
The big reason that the major american companies didn't bother to do this, was that in the 90's most 4-valve-per-cylinder engines still had really crappy low-end torque, and so were completely unacceptable as truck engines until variable valve timing became cheap and mainstream in the '00s.
>>14122347
Yeah Ford thought the whole modular program of V6, V8, and V10 with a common design was going to be the manufacturing wave of the future and ahead of it's time in the car manufacturing world. Somehow they blew it and all of the economic analysts consider it a net loss now.
As for GM I feel like the lack of low end torque wasn't the 4 valve design as much as the small stroke and small overall displacement. They should have just went with 6.0 liter V8 with a 3.4 V6 DOHC design. Oh well at least we got the LSx which is a great hot rod engine because it's cheap, light and powerful. And now we'll get god tier direct injection versions that the hot rod community has already show can make huge power.
>>14122115
huh. thanks for the heads up, anon. I will definitely look into this then. There's no reason I should get ass raped 500 bucks for 70-80 pounds of weight reduction.
>>14122115
The 4.8 and 5.3 make good replacements for tired old 350s or 383s since they can make similar power to the small bore LS1. But if you really want to compete with the modern large bore LSx engines that can make 500+ hp with just a cam and headers like the LS3 you'll need to go with the 6.0 Vortec. Either way the Vortec engines are much much cheaper than even the LS1 which isn't that desirable and outdated now due to being small bore. Lately I've seen some LM4 which is the all aluminum 5.3 used in very limited applications go for under $1k complete ready to run with ECU. Those will make 425 hp with a cam and headers on a stock truck intake and heads. That's a killer price when I've seen LS1 still go for $2,500 on a pallet. And you're not skinking money into a SBC that will need aftermarket heads just to come close to that power reliably and it won't have reliable factory EFI or the same huge, cheap power potential.
>>14116988
What do you think they drove in the 70s? They drove carbs every day. Stop being such a cuck.
>>14120135
That's why you fill it from half.
It's not too bad though. I only have to drive to work once a week (other days I carpool with a friend), and I never drive that far anyways, so fuel economy isn't much of a concern really.
>>14122135
Engine torque is literally meaningless. Put in a peripheral ported 1 rotor Dorito and a 15:1 final drive and you'll have more torque at the wheels than a tractor.
>>14122583
It was never the engine that was modular. The name refers to the production facility, same as Ford's meaning convention has always been.
>>14122314
The 210 horsepower Cologne OHC was sold alongside a 205 horsepower modular V8 in the Explorer for a couple of years.
>>14123209
>It was never the engine that was modular. The name refers to the production facility, same as Ford's meaning convention has always been.
I know and it was a total bust for Ford financially.
>Engine torque is literally meaningless. Put in a peripheral ported 1 rotor Dorito and a 15:1 final drive and you'll have more torque at the wheels than a tractor.
Yeah, and you'll also be running at some ungodly high rpm and the transmission will have to be geared in the most retarded way.
Bouncing some pushrod pig iron off the 5k rev limiter because you need gear reduction is going to reduce its lifespan drastically.
>>14123209
>Engine torque is literally meaningless
Not when comparing two engines of similar HP output, at similar RPM.
Two engines with the same HP output - the one with higher torque will not need to be downshifted as frequently in driving, and will be able to tolerate wider ratio transmissions without bogging.
Both the 4.0 and the 5.0 are making the same power at peak. But when you grab the next gear and RPM falls to down around the torque peak, the 5.0 is pulling 20% harder.
Of course if everyone had a CVT or an ultra close ratio transmission, it wouldn't matter. Hence the 4.0 explorer needing a 5-speed automatic with close ratio 1-2-3 shifts for freeway merging, where the 5.0 explorer managed to make better 0-60 times with a wide ratio 4 speed. Even though it was a weaker engine if all you looked at was HP numbers.
>>14123582
Or to put it another way; you can use torque numbers to get an idea of how flat or peaky the HP curve is for an engine.
Two engines both making ~200 hp at ~5000 rpm,, but you don't have dyno curves for either? It's safe to assume the one with the higher torque rating has a wider, flatter powerband.
>>14116988
Not hard at all. Did so working part time and being a student. Yeah, I'd get ~13 city when I first got it and wanted to race WRXs and 240s. But 18mpg city wasn't that rare.
This was when gas was hitting $4/gallon in Texas.
If you get something that isn't a 4500lb Cadillac, the 350 should definitely be making at least 18 city if you're not trying to be a boy racer.
>>14123209
>engine torque is literally meaningless
Is that why my dad's diesel will outpull my big block with an 8k trailer even though I have 30 more hp?
>>14119246
I get 16-17 in my 350 suburban, shit isn't impossible. You fags just drive like maniacs
>>14123969
I should mention that it's 2wd with a 700r4 and 3.73 rear gears. I get where the 3/4 ton 4wd people are coming from with near single digit mileage.
>>14121859
i have a 305 in my lifted 86 k10 and it sucks for it. It gets decent mpg and if I only drove in town I might keep it but I do a lot of highway miles and it just sucks on the highway when it comes to picking up speed.
>>14123209
>The 210 horsepower Cologne OHC was sold alongside a 205 horsepower modular V8 in the Explorer for a couple of years.
Uhhh no...
there never was a modular V8 in the explorer with 205 HP.
The Windsor V8 302 made 215 HP along with the OHC 4.0 making 210.
>>14122674
At least you're in the states where gas is cheap
>>14125457
Unless you mean state as in country the national average is under $2 per gallon right now. And really unless you're driving something that gets single or low double digit mpgs as a fleet vehicle the amount extra you spend when gas is at $4 per gallon only hurts if you're really poor.
>>14125535
Yeah, by states I mean the United States of America.
July 2014 in Ontario, gas was about $5.50 a gallon.
Even still, gas is roughly $4 a gallon here.
If you have a 130 liter tank, that's about $117 to fill. In the States, that same fill-up would be as you said at under $2 a gallon, that's only like $60.
My point is that it doesn't really matter if you're really poor, it's not fun for anybody to have to fill-up, fleet vehicle or otherwise.
