so, i'm thinking about an engine build....

[OldSub]

I had a bone stock 65 283 that would deliver over 25 mpg on a trip.

What was that in, and what transmission and rear gears was it using?  That sounds promising!

65 Biscayne, powerglide, 308 gear. 2GC carb.

Well that makes my 25 mpg '57 wagon seem possible...  Thanks!

[tomslik]

well sum, i know what you're saying BUT using that logic tells me i shoul be building a stroked 400 sbc .............

Yep,   .  I think the 350 just ended up being a good size motor all around.

............keep in mind it's a smaller (and lighter)car than your wagon (and i LIKE that wagon, what happened to it?) and i was thinking 305 VORTEC heads.............

Once up to speed on the interstate the weight hardly plays into the mileage.  It is all about aero then.  


well, i know at 110 it got pretty lite in the rear


bought the wagon for I think $200 with the un-smart idea of using the chassis under my pickup.  It drove terrible, but then I found out that the gal that owned it had radials and bias plys mixed in different sizes and found out about sub-framing a vehicle and went that route with the pickup.  Meanwhile my computer business grew and I needed something for the service guys to drive and there was that wagon.  I did some really lousy body work on it and had it painted and used it like that for a couple years with the business.  Sold the business and sold the wagon to a friend in Moab for $1600 and he used it to haul his "Thrifty Nickel" newspapers around until he no longer wanted it and wanted to sell it back to me for $1200.  While I was thinking that over he loaned it to his daughter in Salt Lake and it was stolen never to be seen again.  Strange ending.

...............as far as "shrouding" the valves, i never had that problem with the last 283 i built but it was .060 over...and they weren't 2.02 intakes either............

Did you get in there and watch the air flow while it was running  


nope,but it hauled asss and had a nice even burn across the pistons

..............oh yeah,when i had the cpe running last with 3.25 gears and a 350sbc/400 turbo it got 10 mpg.
changed it out to a 700 and it got.....

drum roll, please....

10 mpg................

Did you ever shift it out of 3rd   ,


yeah, and it was a total pig to drive.
never did hook up the converter, it would have made it even worseI'd better get out of here.........btw my heads that I think are 305's are the old style, but you could still have them, just promise not to throw them at me   ,



ya know they'd work but depending on chamber size, they WOULD bump up thew comprssion...
Sum

[/i]

[tomslik]

I'm trying to wring more MPG  (who isn't these days) out of my 283'd `63 C-10. I'm not stuck on the notion of period correctness but I like the small displacement. The plan is to put a T5 in place of the 3spd stick and adapt the TBI components from a 305. I read that the stock TBI intake leaves a lot to be desired so I'm going to try the throttle body on my Edelbrock Performer (dual plane 4bbl) with a homemade adapter. Eventually 350 Vortec heads after a .040 or more overbore and a cam change. I've heard the 305 Vortec heads don't have the good flow characteristics of the 350's.

well, i don't know BUT they may work better for this app than 350's

btw, edelbrock makes the correct intke for what i want to do so rather than having a bunch of mismatched adapters...



As I understand it you'll get the best MPG when the engine's peak efficiecny RPM coincides with your normal, average, usual cruising speed. So, cam matched to gearing is critical.

absolutly!
that's why my lunati cam didn't like the 700....
now, if i would have dropped down to 4.10's in the rear, my milage probably would have been better....

[Mac]

I've heard the 305 Vortec heads don't have the good flow characteristics of the 350's.

well, i don't know BUT they may work better for this app than 350's

btw, edelbrock makes the correct intke for what i want to do so rather than having a bunch of mismatched adapters...[/i]

Do you like the 305 heads because they'll raise compression, having smaller chambers? I guess they also have smaller runners than the 350 version meaning not great flowing in the way it's usually desired but good for intake velocity, playing to the low down torque, MPG strategy.

I'm already running the Eddy Perf intake so I just thought an adapter would only act as a sort of TB spacer. :oops:  Got enough Scot (no not scotch) in my blood that I'm always mindful of the budget.  

[Bill Adkins]

If what you are after is power and economy the best way is to buy a late model power train with all electronics from a wrecked car. Technology is whats making all the combos work today. Port fuel injection coupled with variable cam timing and electronic :?  ignition sequencing not to mention variable length runner manifolding. Thats where the numbers are at these days. Its a matter of cubic dollars invested in a project. I would probably use the older technology as I enjoy the way we did it yrs ago a lot more. And dont forget turbocharging as an option, a mildly built engine that can get down when asked. Economy and power when needed. Just a thought.
Bill

[rumrumm]

I've heard the 305 Vortec heads don't have the good flow characteristics of the 350's.

well, i don't know BUT they may work better for this app than 350's

btw, edelbrock makes the correct intke for what i want to do so rather than having a bunch of mismatched adapters...[/i]

Do you like the 305 heads because they'll raise compression, having smaller chambers? I guess they also have smaller runners than the 350 version meaning not great flowing in the way it's usually desired but good for intake velocity, playing to the low down torque, MPG strategy.

I'm already running the Eddy Perf intake so I just thought an adapter would only act as a sort of TB spacer. :oops:  Got enough Scot (no not scotch) in my blood that I'm always mindful of the budget.  

The 305 heads have chambers close to the cc's of original 283 heads, and the chambers will not shroud the valves. Besides having a modern chamber and port design, they will flow much better than 283 heads while still keeping the air velocity efficient. 350 heads would be less efficient because the air velocity would be down due to the larger runners. You would notice a big difference in performance from idle to 3500 rpm, which is where you drive 95 per cent of the time.

[tomslik]

I've heard the 305 Vortec heads don't have the good flow characteristics of the 350's.

well, i don't know BUT they may work better for this app than 350's

btw, edelbrock makes the correct intke for what i want to do so rather than having a bunch of mismatched adapters...[/i]

Do you like the 305 heads because they'll raise compression, having smaller chambers? I guess they also have smaller runners than the 350 version meaning not great flowing in the way it's usually desired but good for intake velocity, playing to the low down torque, MPG strategy.

I'm already running the Eddy Perf intake so I just thought an adapter would only act as a sort of TB spacer. :oops:  Got enough Scot (no not scotch) in my blood that I'm always mindful of the budget.  

you'll find vortec intakes bolt up different than the old stuff.
didn't know if you knew....

[Mac]

you'll find vortec intakes bolt up different than the old stuff.
didn't know if you knew....

Yes, I know that when (if) I go Vortec it needs a manifold change.

Actually I have new Vortec 350 heads and the approp. Edel. manifold on my 383 stroker that's going in my Jag sedan project (built for low grunt too,  only way more). Considering 454 TBI stuff for that after breaking in with a carb.

[Crosley.In.AZ]

I recently sold a intake of the vortex bolt design , Edelbrock unit.

I have a set of TBI heads , only 7 k miles on them.. the design of head with a ramp thingy in the bowl area pocket.  they are not the hi perf vortex heads folks want.