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....

No, its not.

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.

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.

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.

according to my insurance company it is a 'performance engine' becuase it has more then 140 HP.

lol...

Thats a good thing in my case. The insurance is pretty cheap on my car. Cheaper then my moms 4 cyl. car, even.

build around it and save up for a better engine, sig......

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

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.

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.

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.

stock, maybe back in it's day, but by today's standards, it sucks. That's why g0d invented nitrous hehe

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

by any means......no

I"ve seen my LO3 get 30+ miles a gallon many times. The best mpg being 32.5 mpg, which I was very happy with for my 200,000+ mile car. My wife's Grand Am's best is 37.5mpg. My 99 T/A's best is 32.8 mpg. The LS1 is light years ahead of the old LO3 in everything except economy. So I wouldn't say GM did all that bad in some respects with the LO3 using mid 80's technology.

thats probably a good point...i wonder what my 305 tbi got for mileage b4 i ripped it out...


Ty