Is our stock 305 TBI really considered a performance engine?
Is our stock 305 TBI really considered a performance engine?
Just curious...what do you people think?
Since my engine also has about 120k on it I was thinking that it may have also lost some compression....
Since my engine also has about 120k on it I was thinking that it may have also lost some compression....
Last edited by vrooom305; Jun 19, 2003 at 09:27 PM.
Supreme Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
From: Cypress,Tx
Car: 89 Camaro RS
Engine: 350 carbed now
Transmission: World Class T5
Axle/Gears: Peg Leg w/ 3.73's
No way, the lo3 is not a performence engine by any means , you need to ditch it. My friend has a 89 firebird with an L03 and about $2000 into it, and when I first put the 350 into my 89 rs completly stock I would tare him up anytime we raced. Now I have done alot more to it and i just make him look ridiculous.If you look at anyone who has modified there lo3 youll see that there arent many breaking better than high 14's and that is fine if its what you want but in my book thats not real performence.
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
From: Tulsa, Oklahoma
Car: 90 Camaro RS
Engine: 305 TBI
Transmission: 700R4
Performance is an extremely loose term:
On one hand, it's fuel economy perfrormance is decent. And with the 2.73 gears and over-drive it'll really be a decent road-tripper.
Then theres go fast performance. Eh, its not the worst thing in the world, but there are an incredible amount of better options. But take a look around, don't take other peoples word on what a performance combination is.
On one hand, it's fuel economy perfrormance is decent. And with the 2.73 gears and over-drive it'll really be a decent road-tripper.
Then theres go fast performance. Eh, its not the worst thing in the world, but there are an incredible amount of better options. But take a look around, don't take other peoples word on what a performance combination is.
Supreme Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,418
Likes: 1
From: Morris, IL
Car: '91 t-top RS; '91 hrdtp Z28
Engine: LO3;383tpi
Transmission: 700r4;very nice 700r4
Axle/Gears: 4.10 zt posi, 3.70 auburn
The way I approached the L03 was to build around it, i.e. gears, tranny, suspension and chassis mods, and any thing that could be transfered to a new engine like ignition, underdrive pullies, and maybe even intake manifold. The engine is not performance, but there is much to gain that will compliment a new engine, or if you decide to keep the L03 and replace the cam, intake, and heads.
Supreme Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 6,577
Likes: 0
From: Portland, OR www.cascadecrew.org
Car: 1990 Camaro RS
Engine: Juiced 5.0 TBI - 300rwhp
Transmission: T5
Axle/Gears: 3.42 Eaton Posi, 10 Bolt
according to my insurance company it is a 'performance engine' becuase it has more then 140 HP.
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,962
Likes: 5
From: Moorestown, NJ
Car: 88 Camaro SC
Engine: SFI'd 350
Transmission: TKO 500
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt w/ 3.23's
lol...
Thats a good thing in my case. The insurance is pretty cheap on my car. Cheaper then my moms 4 cyl. car, even.
Thats a good thing in my case. The insurance is pretty cheap on my car. Cheaper then my moms 4 cyl. car, even.
Trending Topics
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
From: Stafford CT
Car: 1988 Camaro SC
Engine: LT1 SBC
Transmission: LT1 T56
Axle/Gears: 3.73 Moser 12 Bolt
Chevy tried a bunch of ways to squeeze economy out of the SBC. They had the 283, the 307, the 305, the 265...it goes on and on but the bottom line is, all of those (with the exception with a few 283's that could be bored out to 4in bore) are junk. Big bore - Smaller stroke is the best combination. NEVER the opposite. Just my thoughts.
Ty
Ty
Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
From: Randleman,nc
Car: 87 BUICK GN
Engine: 3.8 TURBO
Transmission: 200R4
hey 355z
hey 355z
it's not all that bad with a long stroke small bore. if that was the case why did chevy get rid of the 350 to the 5.3?
you look at about all the new engine from gm there all are long stroke small bore.
with a long stroke you can make more torque and not have to turn it over 5k
yes i like a big bore engines too. but the small bore is not all that bad.
it's not all that bad with a long stroke small bore. if that was the case why did chevy get rid of the 350 to the 5.3?
you look at about all the new engine from gm there all are long stroke small bore.
with a long stroke you can make more torque and not have to turn it over 5k
yes i like a big bore engines too. but the small bore is not all that bad.
Supreme Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,962
Likes: 5
From: Moorestown, NJ
Car: 88 Camaro SC
Engine: SFI'd 350
Transmission: TKO 500
Axle/Gears: 9-bolt w/ 3.23's
heh... the 4 holer vtec in the accords is like that the thing has like a 3.65" stroke and its got a mains girdle and all so it can wind up to 6500.
Supreme Member




Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 806
From: Park City, UT
Car: '92 Corvette, '89 1/2-a-'Vette
Engine: LT1, L400
Transmission: ZF6, T5
Axle/Gears: 3.45, 3.31
No way is it a performance engine
Not when stock, full sized, 4x4 PICK UP TRUCKS can beat it!! lol. I just ran my '96 1500 x-cab, 4x4 at the track last week, ran a 16.5 at 86....at 4500' elevation. The first thing I thought when I saw my time slip was, "Man, that would beat any stock TBI F-bod!" Any car that gets beaten by that, doesn't have a "performance engine".
As for Fuel economy "performance" first off it isn't an economy car, but even at that, it isn't that great; my girl friend has a '95 1500 x-cab, 4x4 with the LO3, and she gets 17 mpg. Not bad for a full sized 4x4, but my vortec powered truck (same configuration), with 85 more hp gets over 20.
IMO, the LO3 is an out-dated, economy engine; Economy being for GM when they produced it.
As for Fuel economy "performance" first off it isn't an economy car, but even at that, it isn't that great; my girl friend has a '95 1500 x-cab, 4x4 with the LO3, and she gets 17 mpg. Not bad for a full sized 4x4, but my vortec powered truck (same configuration), with 85 more hp gets over 20.
IMO, the LO3 is an out-dated, economy engine; Economy being for GM when they produced it.
Last edited by Tom 400 CFI; Jun 20, 2003 at 11:28 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 627
Likes: 0
From: Stafford CT
Car: 1988 Camaro SC
Engine: LT1 SBC
Transmission: LT1 T56
Axle/Gears: 3.73 Moser 12 Bolt
Scooby man - yeah, small bore isn't a horrible thing when its not *too small*, but in the case of a 305 or any of those smog monsters, chevy went tooooo far. lol
Ty
Ty
Senior Member

Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 682
Likes: 24
From: MidWest
Car: 91 RS/ 99 T/A/ 72 Vette/ 02 Z28
Engine: LSx/ Dart400
Transmission: M6/ M6/ TH400/ 4L60E
Axle/Gears: 4.10's / 3.08/ 2.73
Re: No way is it a performance engine
Originally posted by Tom 400 CFI
IMO, the LO3 is an out-dated, economy engine; Economy being for GM when they produced it.
IMO, the LO3 is an out-dated, economy engine; Economy being for GM when they produced it.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post




