Re: Chevy - overall thoughts on the 327?

Page 2 of 2  
you lose, asshole
wrote in message


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

And you top post, leg hump, and troll; loser. Which is more despicable on Usenet, loser? Shame on you, loser.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
aawwwwww................whassamatter, little one ?
did hobbsey get all embarrassed and wet himself when I showed where he screwed the pooch ?
does it hurt hobbsey's tender widdle feelings to have his major fuck-up exposed ?
does it crush poor little hobbsey's ego to point out that he's a post-snipping, content-forging asshole ?
tough shit, boy, if you want to run with the big dogs, be prepared to have a major chunk bitten outa your ass when you expose it for all the world to see
goodbye, LOSER
wrote in message ...

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

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<blah blah>
Oh look. I have a 12 year old pet. What do I feed it?
Here is a biscuit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

350 CID 4" bore 3.48" stroke 4 X 4 is bore squared X .7854 is something to do with pi but I can't remember what X 8 is the number of cylinders X 3.48 is the stroke
4 X 4 X 0.7854 X 8 X 3.48 = 349.848576
-- Regards Gordie
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
5.3..........sorry

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

That's what I meant, too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message..

5.4?? actually 5.3 327?? actually 325 Seems like you don't know much about the engine that you're running down. My previous two new trucks were a Chevy with a 350 and a Dodge with a 360 and my current GMC 5.3 is noticeably more powerful than either of them. It also gets much better mileage. Wait till it's broken in, then see what you think.
Dave
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I apparently know more than you - I called it a 327 and not a 325. :-)
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

On paper my 03 327 has more HP and torque than my 00 Yukon 350 or 99 Suburban 350; but my Avalanche is quite a bit slower than either of those two.

Definitely gets about the same gas mileage. About 14.6 over the first 5,000 miles for the 03 Avalanche (90% highway miles). My Suburban does about 16 on the highway (give or take).

That could take forever - I am using Mobil 1 in the vehicle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
hobbes,
CID = # of cyl X .7854 X Bore X Bore X Stroke
8 X .7854 X 3.78 X 3.78 X 3.62 = 324.99 Cu. in.
-Bret
the formula came from the back of Edelbrock's catalog.
wrote in message

down.
360
5,000
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The GM 5.3/327 is 285 HP, 325 lb-ft. bore and stroke is 3.78 x 3.62
Mine runs strongly, so I don't think I have a lame motor; but it's just gutless. I have to mash the accelerator to the floor just for it to hold 80 on the highway if I am going up an incline. BTW, I keep it in 4 auto, so all power should be going to the rear wheels. My Suburban and Yukon with the 350 have markedly more acceleration, IMHO. Now before you tell me the 350 is a more powerful motor; the GM 5.7/350 is 255 HP and 335 lb-ft; which is about the same animal as the 327. And my Burb and Yukon probably weigh more than the Avalanche, so you would think that the Avalanche would perform much better than the Burb.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
3.78 x 3.62 ???????
jesus, mary, and joseph, that's worse than I thought
hells bells, the Olds 307 was 3.800 by 3.38, and it was a 'Grandma's Car' engine
wrote in message...

80
so
lb-ft;
probably
would
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
yep, and the old 327 had 1.8:1 bore/stroke ratio which is ideal
--
714 Sandpile,
The Mad Dog wavin' good bye
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I personally feel that a b/s ratio of 4/3, as in the Ford 302 or GM's short-lived 302, is the ideal
look at all the 2.5 L 4-cylinders running around...1/2 of a '302'

engines
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.