Re: Chevy - overall thoughts on the 327?

Page 1 of 2  
what's the bore and stroke on the 5.4 ?
the 'old 327' (60's) was 4.000 x 3.25
I'd bet the 'new 327' is probably 3.8-something by 3.5-something...........making it a low-revving dog

have

are
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
well if ya mean the 5.3 this is the first one i have had, my last trk had the 4.8 BUt my last trk was also a 2 wd where as my trk now if a z71. but i think mine is powerful enough, i mean i dont haul or tow with mine, i just have always owned truck.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Chevy is listing it as a 327. Are you sure it's 325? Did you get that from the 5300, because the engine is actually 5328 cc's.
http://www.new-cars.com/2003/chevrolet/chevy-silverado-specs.html Displacement (cu in / cc) 327 / 5328 Bore & stroke (in / mm) 3.78 x 3.62 / 96 x 92
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message\...

from
Do the math.....
Cubic Inches .7854 x number of cylinders x Stroke x Bore x Bore
I get 324.9 CID
Dave

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

My owners manual references it as a 325. BTW, the link you provided doesn't seem to be from GM.
Should cuts in

calculation?
I think that would only affect compression ratio.
Dave

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But we are still back to the original question: Why does my car seem so weak? I swear it seems way slower than my trucks with the 350.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

because it's a 'small bore/ long stroke engine' 3.78 x 3.62, as opposed to the 350 which is a large bore / short stroke 4.00 x 3.48
SBLS engines run at lower RPM, produce more torque in the lower RPM range, and LBSS engines are higher-revving, with HP produced at higher PRM
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The reason your avalanche has a 5.3 in it is that GM retired the 5.7 (all of the old school S/B chevies, actually) from all but industrial off-road service back in '00. the 5.3 would be it's functional equivalent in the lineup (the 4.8 would be the 5.0/305 and the 8.1/496 would be the 7.4/454, the 6.0 would be the equiv of the long dead 400). I do agree w/ Gary, the rear-end gear will make or break the truck for towing/offroad.
wrote in message

to
range,
wheeling
Avalanche
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You might want to fire your classroom, if in fact they told you that an LT1, LS1 or LS6 had a 4 inch bore and 4 inch stroke. :-)
They gave you the bore/stroke for the L31 (which is in my Yukon and Suburban though)
LS1 (my 1998 and 2001 C5 Coupes) 346 ci 3.905 Bore X 3.622 Stroke
LS6 ( 2003 Z06) 346 ci 3.905 Bore X 3.622 Stroke
LT1 (my 1988 C4 Vette Coupe) 346 ci 3.905 Bore X 3.622 Stroke
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

IIRC.
WHAT ?
bore x bore x 0.7854 x # cylinders x stroke is what he posted
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Gary,
I hope you do not mind my $.02 worth. You are completely right, as every Chevy book has always had this formula for figuring CID. I have no idea why there is an argument over rounding up or down, although as long as I remember the big three have always round up. I guess it would look weird to round down. I believe the 400 cid small block is one of the very few that is rounded down, but it is not like we are talking huge differences in cid.
While everyone is talking new compared to old, any idea why Chevy builds a 8.1 liter when they have had the 502 crate motor for a few years now? I was thinking maybe they were looking at wanting to make the engine as square as possible (i.e. bore and stroke close to each other). Just a thought. Have a good one.
--
Regards,
Chuck
78' Chevy 1 Ton 4X4 Van
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well here are my thoughts on the 5.3 liter engine, my last two trucks were a 98 Z71 4x4 with 5.7 liter, was a pig on gas and had average power and acceleration, towing power was average, next vehicle was a 2000 Sierra with 5.3, fuel economy was noticably better towing about the same, acceleration noticably better than the 5.7, now I have a brand new, chevy avalanche with the 5.3 and I have noticed that the acceleration is not nearly as good as the Sierra but I am hoping that it is just break in, towing is about the same, ride is 100% better. I have heard that the Avalanche is sitting on a Burb frame, don't know if that is true but could be the reason why it feels so much better. I also heard that the Avalanche is a much heavier vehicle which could explain the reason for not as good acceleration. Just my 2 cents worth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

a
with
with
feels
cents
Did I shoot myself in the foot by throwing in Mobil 1 at 2,500 miles? Like you, my acceleration is not as good as my 5.7's. Perhaps I am just noticing something that is the same in the other vehicles but was missed. My biggest beef about the Avalanche is on the highway - I really have to get deep into the pedal to hold speed going up a minor hill.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Read his post again, Gary. He did not post the bore/stroke for the LT1, LS1, or LS6; which is *EXACTLY* the motors I listed. Actually, no need to google - here is the original statement, and his response:
*****************************************************************

You might want to fire your classroom, if in fact they told you that an LT1, LS1 or LS6 had a 4 inch bore and 4 inch stroke. :-)
They gave you the bore/stroke for the L31 (which is in my Yukon and Suburban though)
LS1 (my 1998 and 2001 C5 Coupes) 346 ci 3.905 Bore X 3.622 Stroke
LS6 ( 2003 Z06) 346 ci 3.905 Bore X 3.622 Stroke
LT1 (my 1988 C4 Vette Coupe) 346 ci 3.905 Bore X 3.622 Stroke
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
well, a '350 Chevy' is 4.000 x 3.480, has been since the late 60's
that's what he referred to, and that's what his formula was calculating
any questions ?
wrote in message

need
IIRC.
Suburban
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My question would be related to him posting the L31 engine bore/stroke when I explicitely stated LT1, LS1, LS6. You will notice in my response (had you read it) that I told him that he gave the bore/stroke for the L31 and not the LT1, LS1 or LS6. Any questions? You seem to be attempting to start a confrontation - is that a correct assumption, Gary?

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes. Why can't you read? I did not question his math; but in fact I questioned why he used the specs of an L31 when I *EXPLICITELY* stated LT1, LS1 or LS6.
What part of the following question do you seem to not understand: "... my Chevies with 350's (LT1, LS1, and LS6) are only 348 ci, IIRC."
What part of "(LT1, LS1, and LS6)" are you not able to grasp?!?!?!?
Why do you want contfrontation? Do you not get enough attention at home?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

vehicles
For someone that does not care (and has no value to add to the conversation); you sure are trolling and humping my leg with every post. How many killfiles are you in, Gary? I do not find it necessary to list vehicles to make you feel bad about your lot in life - that's for you to work out - all I mentioned was that Chevy calls the 350 / 5.7 in some of my vehicles incorrectly - they are 346's.

The only error is that you seem to think an LS1, LT1, and LS6 are 350 ci.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

effort
list
4"
no, the error was yours
telling the other person that his math was wrong, that he claimed the engine(s) under discussion had a 4" stroke
I can re-post the part where you said that, if you'd like, since you found it necessary to snip it out
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I fixed it for you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.