The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network







Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Go Back   The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network > General Truck Forums > Engine & Drivetrain

Web 67-72chevytrucks.com


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-01-2011, 07:13 PM   #1
Cdaddy731
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York, Texas (yes, its a real town)
Posts: 37
350 vs 366 performance?

Here's the deal, my father has two Chevy work trucks from the early 70's. Both are C60 or C70 trucks. One has a 350sbc and the other a 366bbc, I can have both engines for free and they both ran when parked a few years ago. I don't know anything about a 366 engine except that it was mainly used in school buses and dump trucks, or if its even worth pulling. So the question is, which engine should I go with and is a 366 worth building at all? I want to build a good performing street engine w some decent power to replace the ol 307 that is in my truck right now.
Thanks in advance and begin the schooling
NOW
Posted via Mobile Device
__________________
1969 Chevy C/10 Stepside
307-3 on the tree

www.GoZipTexas.com
Cdaddy731 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 07:17 PM   #2
Beat68CST
Registered User
 
Beat68CST's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Buckeye Arizona
Posts: 467
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

Get the BBC!

Just throw a bigger crank in it!
That'd be cool.
Beat68CST is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 07:21 PM   #3
PGSigns
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Hayes Va
Posts: 1,066
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

We built a 366 for a mud bogging truck about 20 years ago and got it to run well but all we used was the block and crank. Pound for pound the 350 is a better motor. Now if its a 427 truck motor you can make good power with it with a lot less work.
Jimmy
__________________
Good friends, good food and a hotrod what else do you need?
1966 BBW long fleet
1965 BBW short fleet getting a ground up rebuild and a LS swap
2003 3500 Duramax
2005 Ultra Classic
PGSigns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 07:27 PM   #4
haysonj
Senior Member
 
haysonj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Santa Maria, Ca.
Posts: 1,228
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

The 366 is a low torque engine and aren't good for anything except heavy hauling. I had one and the machinist told me to toss it.
__________________
69 Chevy 4x4 383 Power
haysonj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 07:36 PM   #5
Longhorn Man
its all about the +6 inches
 
Longhorn Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Hilliard Ohio
Posts: 82,729
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

350, hands down. You'll be told about making a mega cube BBC out of the 366, but it's just not worth it in all reality. LOTS of $$ to do it.
Longhorn Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 07:56 PM   #6
Cdaddy731
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York, Texas (yes, its a real town)
Posts: 37
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Longhorn Man View Post
350, hands down. You'll be told about making a mega cube BBC out of the 366, but it's just not worth it in all reality. LOTS of $$ to do it.
While the mega cube BBC sounds so awesome and appealing, I think it is unrealistic for what I want this truck to do. I'm not going to be drag racing it, ever, well maybe some light to light action but everybody does that haha At least it has a Holley 750 carb on it that was installed right before it was parked. Save me some money there
Posted via Mobile Device
__________________
1969 Chevy C/10 Stepside
307-3 on the tree

www.GoZipTexas.com
Cdaddy731 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 08:10 PM   #7
Willys47
Registered User
 
Willys47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Nanaimo B.C.
Posts: 532
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

because the motors were in a big truck would they both have steel cranks in them.The 366 what is the stroke on them are they the same as 396? just a bore change if so the crank may fit into a short deck block and make a real good strong bottomend.
__________________
I was hooked on these trucks since 1982 when I drove my budys fathers 1968 Custum GMC 396 automatic dana 60 rear with a power lock diff what a ride more fun then we will we can ever tell!!
Willys47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 08:22 PM   #8
stich626
Account Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: hingham ma
Posts: 1,718
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

I'd take the 366, add 454 peanut port heads, and different pistons to bring the compression up..
and gear the truck low,, like 2:50 low
stich626 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 08:28 PM   #9
STOCKISH
Formerly- 1972SuperCheyenne
 
STOCKISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Wake Forest NC
Posts: 5,408
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

I dont understand taking the 366 and adding the most restrictive BBC heads possible. Just build a .30 over 350(355) and add some stock Vortec heads and 4 barrel Vortec style intake, cam and headers. Then you'll have nearly 400 horses to play with. The 366 just isnt wort the money it'll take to make it worth the trouble/
__________________
--Josh

My Build Thread:
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...=1#post6395334

A good crossthread is better than Loctite any day.

Life is not about what you have, but who you have to share it with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by menace121978
its cool man. everyone likes a little ass... just not a dumb one or a smart one.
STOCKISH is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 08:45 PM   #10
stich626
Account Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: hingham ma
Posts: 1,718
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

WELL, WE'LL AGREE TO DISAGREE
you can have your 400 hp..
I'll take the 500 ft lb
stich626 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 08:52 PM   #11
1low
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Moyie Springs ID.
Posts: 160
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

Go with the 350 thats alot of weight for 16 cubes
1low is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 09:11 PM   #12
kwmech
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: grass valley calif
Posts: 3,181
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

Grab them both, part out the 366 to the machine shop in exchange for some 350 work or parts. Then what the machine shop doesn't want take to the recycle yard and cash in on the weight
kwmech is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 09:26 PM   #13
STOCKISH
Formerly- 1972SuperCheyenne
 
STOCKISH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Wake Forest NC
Posts: 5,408
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

500lb. ft will be awesome, that Vortec 355 can have nearly that as well. The 366 would be awesome if you want to use tour truck to pull a trailer or something, it's just not a performance engine. My old Cummins (Gen1) made over 700lb. ft. of torque, it was still slow!
__________________
--Josh

My Build Thread:
http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...=1#post6395334

A good crossthread is better than Loctite any day.

Life is not about what you have, but who you have to share it with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by menace121978
its cool man. everyone likes a little ass... just not a dumb one or a smart one.
STOCKISH is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 09:30 PM   #14
Cdaddy731
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York, Texas (yes, its a real town)
Posts: 37
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by kwmech View Post
Grab them both, part out the 366 to the machine shop in exchange for some 350 work or parts. Then what the machine shop doesn't want take to the recycle yard and cash in on the weight
You, my friend, just hit the nail on the head. That was my initial thought, but I wanted to see what the pros on here suggested.
Posted via Mobile Device
Posted via Mobile Device
__________________
1969 Chevy C/10 Stepside
307-3 on the tree

www.GoZipTexas.com
Cdaddy731 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 09:34 PM   #15
treveiger
Senior Member
 
treveiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 3,746
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

Wont parts for the 350 be more common and cheaper???
__________________
1969 Chevy c20(Miss Hackjob)

"For those of you who confuse horsepower with torque, horsepower is how fast you hit the wall;
torque is how far you shove it back on impact!"

"Being unattractive is just playing the dating game... on hard mode."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F5A5UcGtO0
treveiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 09:44 PM   #16
bigsnookmaster
Senior Member
 
bigsnookmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St.Petersburg,Fl
Posts: 1,258
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

Take the 350, and put a reasonable priced 383 kit in it. You'll be glad you did!
bigsnookmaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 11:42 PM   #17
ItsRandy
Registered User
 
ItsRandy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Grand Terrace, Ca.
Posts: 1,490
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

The 366 is a tall block\long stroke\small bore motor. I'm not sure how big you can bore it but for the cost of some machine work and pistons you could have a pretty big torque/hp motor. Some truck motors were 4 bolt main/steel crank motors. Tall deck intake manifolds are easier to find now and I think truck motors have floating wrist pins. Once you go big block you won't go back.
ItsRandy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2011, 06:33 AM   #18
MARKDTN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 1,046
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

366 has the same crank as a 396 and 427. It is steel and some of the best material made. But a 366 has a tiny bore, awful heads, and is a tall-deck to boot. Take the crank out and sell the rest for scrap. The intake, even though for a Holley, only fits a tall deck-and the Holley carb has a governor in it. The distributor is longer, the exhaust manifolds and accessories don't fit anything but a school bus or big truck, etc. Very little demand in my experience.

The 350 is better, but still old school 2-pc rear seal. I would use it. If you don't mind building something and doing a bit of horse trading; then pull the crank from the 366, sell the 350 running, buy a 454 with a bad crank, build a 427. Now you got power and torque.

Or sell both and/or parts and go buy something fuel injected that is wrecked and do a fuel injected swap. Camaro/Firebird (or Corvette) for Tuned-Port or LT1, Caprice for LT1, 96-99 truck for Vortec. That stuff is out there.
__________________
'83 K20-TPI
'79 C10-ex-diesel(SOLD)
'01 Tahoe DD
MARKDTN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2011, 08:49 AM   #19
Cdaddy731
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York, Texas (yes, its a real town)
Posts: 37
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

The idea of making a 427 is appealing. But this is my first build, and while learning quickly, I still have limited knowledge on engine building. Would the 427 slightly built be more expensive than a built 350? I, however, might have a way of trading for some machine shop work.
Posted via Mobile Device
__________________
1969 Chevy C/10 Stepside
307-3 on the tree

www.GoZipTexas.com
Cdaddy731 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2011, 10:56 PM   #20
Fullpower
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Homer, AK
Posts: 48
Thumbs up 350 > 366

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1low View Post
Go with the 350 thats alot of weight for 16 cubes
In this case, cubic inches per POUND are far more significANT than just gross displacement.
USE the 350.
Unless you intend to spend a giant heap of money building a big block, from the ground up, you will get FAR more performance per dollar, or per pound form the 350.
" The 366 is a waste of cast iron."
Fullpower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2011, 11:04 AM   #21
Cdaddy731
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York, Texas (yes, its a real town)
Posts: 37
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1972SuperCheyenne View Post
I dont understand taking the 366 and adding the most restrictive BBC heads possible. Just build a .30 over 350(355) and add some stock Vortec heads and 4 barrel Vortec style intake, cam and headers. Then you'll have nearly 400 horses to play with. The 366 just isnt wort the money it'll take to make it worth the trouble/
I believe the 350 is the route im going to take, and with this exact formula. Seems like a pretty cheap way to get ALOT more power than the exhausted lil 307 thats in it right now. Thanks for all of the help
__________________
1969 Chevy C/10 Stepside
307-3 on the tree

www.GoZipTexas.com
Cdaddy731 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2011, 01:00 PM   #22
ProStreet68SB
The Engine Whisperer
 
ProStreet68SB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Ohio
Posts: 762
Re: 350 vs 366 performance?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1972SuperCheyenne View Post
I dont understand taking the 366 and adding the most restrictive BBC heads possible. Just build a .30 over 350(355) and add some stock Vortec heads and 4 barrel Vortec style intake, cam and headers. Then you'll have nearly 400 horses to play with. The 366 just isnt wort the money it'll take to make it worth the trouble/
Peanut ports arent nearly as horrible as people think they are. It's been a few years since seeing it, but I remember a guy over on 454ss.com putting peanut ports on his BBC chevelle and take it into the 8s.




To the OP, 366s are absolute turds. The only tall deck motor worth owning is a 427 tall deck.
__________________
-Automatics win races, 6-speeds impress high school kids
-Save a tree, support your local dragstrip.
-"Failure - The Secret To Success, the idea is that you can fail 100 times as long as you can succeed once" -Takeo Fukui
columbuscarsandcoffee.net and on Facebook
ProStreet68SB is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1997-2013 67-72chevytrucks.com