Stock 327 vs 350 gas milage
08-29-2003, 02:08 PM
#1
Pro
Thread Starter
Stock 327 vs 350 gas milage
As its has been stated in another post, gas prices are on the rise. I'm still looking for my C3 and would like to know what the average gas mileage for a stock 327 as the 68's had compared to the 70-71's 350. Average highway and local. I am not looking for a hotrod just something to tool around town in or the occasionally road road trip, so I would like to get the best gas milage that I could. I would think the 327 would get better gas milage.
[Modified by C3RC, 7:08 PM 8/29/2003]
[Modified by C3RC, 7:08 PM 8/29/2003]
08-29-2003, 02:10 PM
#2
Melting Slicks
Re: Stock 327 vs 350 gas milage (C3RC)
The displacement of the engine (327 vs. 350) will play an insignificant role compared to the state of tune and the specs of how the motor was built (camshaft, heads, carb, etc). An L79 327 will use more gas than a base model 350. I would not use this as a criteria when deciding between a 68 and a later year.
Shannon
Shannon
08-29-2003, 02:16 PM
#3
Safety Car
Re: Stock 327 vs 350 gas milage (sb69coupe)
:iagree:
The old 327 gave little to no advantage over the 350 thats why it got axed. :smash:
Remember Fuel Injection and overdrive trannys are the ticket. :thumbs:
The old 327 gave little to no advantage over the 350 thats why it got axed. :smash:
Remember Fuel Injection and overdrive trannys are the ticket. :thumbs:
08-29-2003, 02:16 PM
#4
Pro
Thread Starter
Re: Stock 327 vs 350 gas milage (sb69coupe)
Thanks sb69 for the info. All I know at this point about the 68 that I'm looking at is that everything is stock.
08-29-2003, 02:21 PM
#6
Safety Car
Re: Stock 327 vs 350 gas milage (C3RC)
The fuel economy wouldn't be substantially different. But keep in mind that for '68 the 327 was a 350hp engine and would require 93 fuel to run with the high 11:1 compression. The base 350 for 1970 was lower compression engine, and even lower in '71 and on. So fuel economy might not vary much but price could.
08-29-2003, 03:09 PM
#7
Melting Slicks
Re: Stock 327 vs 350 gas milage (gerry72)
The fuel economy wouldn't be substantially different. But keep in mind that for '68 the 327 was a 350hp engine and would require 93 fuel to run with the high 11:1 compression.
Both engines will run better on 93 octane though....
08-29-2003, 03:32 PM
#8
Burning Brakes
Member Since: Jul 2001
Location: Ajax Ontario
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Stock 327 vs 350 gas milage (sb69coupe)
The fuel economy wouldn't be substantially different. But keep in mind that for '68 the 327 was a 350hp engine and would require 93 fuel to run with the high 11:1 compression.
The base 327 in '68 was a 300hp motor with 10.5:1 compression. The L79 was the 350hp motor, which was the optional hi-perf smallblock. Actually the base motor is more detonation prone than the hi-perf motor from '68 through '70. The L79 and L46 camshafts had significantly more overlap which reduced dynamic compression as compared to the relatively tame camshaft in the base 300hp motors for the same years.
Both engines will run better on 93 octane though....
The base 327 in '68 was a 300hp motor with 10.5:1 compression. The L79 was the 350hp motor, which was the optional hi-perf smallblock. Actually the base motor is more detonation prone than the hi-perf motor from '68 through '70. The L79 and L46 camshafts had significantly more overlap which reduced dynamic compression as compared to the relatively tame camshaft in the base 300hp motors for the same years.
Both engines will run better on 93 octane though....
My 327 is in "L79" trim, but with a slightly stronger cam (Xe262). Otherwise stock. Gas mileage is probably in the range of 16mpg on the highway (3.70 rear doesn't help...). I had mine rebuilt to about 10:1 comp. ratio and it runs fine on 91, but I tend to put Sunoco 94 in it.
I would guess they are probably equally good (or bad) in terms of mileage. Base motors will be more economical than the higher perf. versions of both displacement engines. The 350 (base and high perf) has same hp rating as noted above, but does have 20lbs more torque. "No replacement for displacement" as the saying goes!!
