Alexander Bilan wrote in a message to Ken Thompson:
>    I disagree.  Are you comparing a smogged 305 vs. a built 350?  With
> equal
 AB> Yes. I had a partially smogged 305.  The semi-built 350 that
 AB> replaced it gets the same gas mileage.  And in my books, a
 AB> built engine gets less mpg than a stock engine.  
   That really depends, it could go either way.  I de-smogged a chevy 250, 
raised the compression, and installed a mild RV cam, and the mileage did 
improve (along with mid range power).
> conditions the 305 will bring much better gas mileage....that's why
> Chevy
 AB> Other chevy folk that I have talked with have the same
 AB> opinion of the 305s gas mileage as I do.   Its on par with a
 AB> 350. Especially when your driving it foot to the floor all
 AB> the time.  
   I grant you that, all bets are off when you are driving an engine WOT all 
the time.
> built it, and that's also why the 350 wasn't available in light duty
> trucks in the early 80's......fuel economy.
 AB> The 350 was available in the early '80s. It was an option in
 AB> my 1983 C10. I suspect you meant to say that it was not
 AB> offered as the base engine any longer.  =)
   Hmmm.  I swear I remember the 350 was dropped for a few years a option in 
the C10 light duty.  Apparently I am wrong about this.
 AB> But a word on these CAFE standards (mostly in regards to
 AB> trucks/vans), yes, give yourself a feather foot and lab
 AB> tests, smaller engines will get better fuel economy.
   I really haven't put much stock in CAFE or EPA or whomever.  I've just 
kept very careful gas records on the engines I've been around running the 
numbers on fuel economy.  It's always been the case on the engines I've 
observed that bigger cubes means more fuel consumption, unless the bigger 
engine was mated to a manual transmission or had a big time advantage on 
power to wieght ratio.  For this reason I always snicker when someone tells 
me their Chevy 350 makes 25 mpg on the road.  
 AB>  Thats
 AB> probably the biggest reason an anemic 4.3l v6 is the base
 AB> engine in 3/4 ton chevy vans now.  BUT in real life working
 AB> situations, these small engines arn't worth a hoot in
 AB> practicality and long term use.
   I gotta agree.  Anytime you put an undersized engine in a fleet 
application, it won't last as long as the larger sized engine would, and if 
you got your foot in the floor all the time, no fuel advantage would be 
realized either.
   Getting back to the original topic.  If I were considering a V8 powered 
p/u, I would probably opt for the 350, but I wouldn't kid myself about the 
fuel economy.  If I want fuel ecomomy in a half ton p/u, I'd get a 6 with a 
stick.
Ken T. 
--- timEd-B11
---------------