The most prolific Eco Engine

[darcane]

Originally Posted by diesel_john

Part of the problem with the economy of the small block chev. was what it was usually installed in. Even so, A vette will break 30mpg easy enough. Put an aluminum sbc in car no wider or higher than it is and the mileage will improve. Put a TDI QRSTUVW in a Silverado Quad Cab and see what the mileage is.

Never broke 30mpg in mine... but I did get 29mpg on a tank in my '94 Corvette. But that wasn't with the economical 305, that was a portly 350.

I guess the point I was trying to make is more of the fact that if you narrow the scope of what is allowed and you can make anything "the best" or "the most" and pat yourself on the back. The 305 definately falls into "eco engine" relative to other engines of the 1980's in the US and is far more prolific, but if you exclude it then, yes, the Fiat engine is probably on top.

Mike

[diesel_john]

my '92 LT1 had a 2.59 rear gear is probably why. i often wondered what my vw engine would do in the vett? probably better than in the rabbit body.

[NHRABill]

just a side note the SBC Block itself is physically the same other then slight casting changes and slight bore. It is the stroke that makes the cubic inch difference. So placing a SBC 400 crank in a 350 and some minor clearance to the cylinder skirts you get the popular 383 ci version that GM never made but you hear about often, there are many other proven combos from power but that is not the point of the thread. The 262, 265, 283, 302, 305, 307, 327, 350 and the 400 I believe were all branded Chevrolet's Small block from the early 50's till the early 2000's where Then they rewrote the Book.

If you want a cheap aluminum version source a 82 Camaro pace car they had a alum 305 as part of the package

For what they were they were average in economy for their applications. Pretty good with he right fuel injection setup the TPI of the mid 80's vaulted them from mid teens in mpg to the mid 20's despite the air pump and the other emission controls they were saddled with.

But to your point those detuned 305's could crank out 300,000 miles like clockwork rock solid reliable. I appreciate something that can take so much punishment and keep going. The amount of applications it had is a testament to its strength too bad they never tried to improve its economy.

[Frank Lee]

I read they did try *a lil bit* with the 262... the small size didn't really offer any benefits vs the bigger ones so that's why it's rare...

[NHRABill]

The 262 was a smog motor made in 75-76 only (I looked it up) the cat converter was mandated in 1975. I don't think they were trying to make a gas sipper they just destroked a 305 with a smaller crank to get the displacement wanting to pass emissions.

A friend of mine had one in his 75 Monza that is how I am familiar with it, we pulled it dropped in a mild home built 350 and he drove it for years till he sold it.

I also remember that it was one of the weakest SBChevys ever made believe me I know I have a 75 Corvette... Now that was a car begging to be tuned.

[vacationtime247]

Not sure there are any rules, but the 305 Chevy V8 an economical engine? Can't say I agree. Sure, they were installed in practically everything that Chevy put out from the 70's to the 90's. But the only car I can say they ever put them in that got decent gas mileage was the Trans Am firebird / Z-28 Camaro. Think most of that is due to the better aero on them combined with the overdrive. The Corvette didn't do horrible on gas, but it was a 350.
VT247

Originally Posted by darcane

What counts in your contest here?

For decades, the 305 small block Chevy V8 was considered the economical version of the SBC. I bet I could dig up over a hundred cars that engine was in over the years. Open it to SBCs in general, and you may be in the thousands of different cars (even motorcycles).

Mike

[vacationtime247]

By the end of their life, Chevy was trying for better MPG in their 305. Better fuel injection, Vortec heads, better timing, roller camshaft, electric fuel pump instead of mechanical, etc. These engines were installed in vans up to 2003 and still retained the Gen I characteristics.
VT247

Originally Posted by NHRABill

But to your point those detuned 305's could crank out 300,000 miles like clockwork rock solid reliable. I appreciate something that can take so much punishment and keep going. The amount of applications it had is a testament to its strength too bad they never tried to improve its economy.

[robchalmers]

The Concept of the games was to find an engine that had been in the most number of manufacturers and Cars while providing the best mpg and the lowest CO2.

leader so far is 32cars , 80+mpg and sub100 CO2 with the PSA 1.6

[dremd]

Originally Posted by diesel_john

Part of the problem with the economy of the small block chev. was what it was usually installed in. Even so, A vette will break 30mpg easy enough. Put an aluminum sbc in car no wider or higher than it is and the mileage will improve. Put a TDI QRSTUVW in a Silverado Quad Cab and see what the mileage is.

My SGII claimed that I got 31 mpg towing a trailer that a standard silverado would fit in (but 6' celling)+ some furniture (500~1000 lbs) Pulled around 65 mph 125 miles each way.
As always no claims to accuracy of SGII.

SBC isn't a terrible engine, nor is it the holy grail claimed by many.
I'd bet it holds the record for most models installed in. Even if we just did European we could get a dozen or so.
I also bet it holds record for most gallons of gasoline consumed by any 1 engine design.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by robchalmers

The Little Fiat 1.3 multijet!

As of recently, Fiat had already made 4.000.000 of them !

Fiat built 1.3 Multijet engine 4000000 - Smart Motorist