torque: 292 v. 350 - The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network

galoolie · 08-20-2002, 11:33 PM

Anyone know which has more torque: 292 v. 350? How much and at what RPM? I need a temporary motor for my
72 3/4 4x4, and have a chance to install a cheap 292 but don't want to give up too much torque.
thanks,
Steve

trukman1 · 08-21-2002, 01:49 AM

Give up Torque? The 292 is king of torque over the 350...hp no...torque yes. I'll try to look up the actual figures but the 292 was within 30 lb. ft. of torque of the 454 in'77! This torque however comes in the low rpm range. If you want quick takeoffs, this probably isn't the engine you want but if you want raw torgue and can live with the slow takeoffs this is THE engine! Remember, the top choices for dump trucks years ago were the 427 and the 292. 'Nuff Said? Good Luck!

tom hand · 08-21-2002, 09:20 AM

As a general rule, on a mild street motor the torque ft lbs will be somewhere close to the cubic inches ussally a little less. Here is an page that has a 292 dyno test.

http://www.truckworld.com/How-To-Tec...-engine-3.html

**MikeB** · 08-21-2002, 09:48 AM

Peak torque is directly proportional to cubic inches. Without the benefit of specs, I would say a stock 292 makes maybe 270-290, whereas a stock 350 makes prox 330-350. Now, at low rpm, like around 2000, they may be very close, because the 292 may make peak torque at 2500 rpm, the 350 at 3500 rpm. I may run this on Desktop Dyno just for grins. I also have a 1969 Motors repair manual somewhere that lists the factory specs.

galoolie · 08-21-2002, 03:37 PM

Gentlemen,
Thanks for the replies. It sounds like the 292 is well suited for slow 4 wheeling. I wonder how the gas mileage
will compare?
Thanks again.

**MikeB** · 08-21-2002, 03:54 PM

Probably not that much better gas mileage with the 292. And you could probably build a 350 for less than a 292. Just about any part you can name is cheaper for the 350. But the big six would be kinda cool because it's different!

08-20-2002, 11:33 PM	#1
galoolie Registered User Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: Bend, Oregon Posts: 127	torque: 292 v. 350 Anyone know which has more torque: 292 v. 350? How much and at what RPM? I need a temporary motor for my 72 3/4 4x4, and have a chance to install a cheap 292 but don't want to give up too much torque. thanks, Steve __________________ Galoolie

08-21-2002, 01:49 AM	#2
trukman1 Registered User Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Beavercreek, Ohio 45431 Posts: 737	Torque yes, HP no... Give up Torque? The 292 is king of torque over the 350...hp no...torque yes. I'll try to look up the actual figures but the 292 was within 30 lb. ft. of torque of the 454 in'77! This torque however comes in the low rpm range. If you want quick takeoffs, this probably isn't the engine you want but if you want raw torgue and can live with the slow takeoffs this is THE engine! Remember, the top choices for dump trucks years ago were the 427 and the 292. 'Nuff Said? Good Luck!

08-21-2002, 09:20 AM	#3
tom hand CCRider Join Date: Feb 2000 Location: Olive Branch,MS,USA Posts: 2,232	As a general rule, on a mild street motor the torque ft lbs will be somewhere close to the cubic inches ussally a little less. Here is an page that has a 292 dyno test. http://www.truckworld.com/How-To-Tec...-engine-3.html __________________ 72 GMC Sierra SWB almost finished---- 84 Softail Olive Branch MS

08-21-2002, 09:48 AM	#4
MikeB Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: North Texas Posts: 3,411	Peak torque is directly proportional to cubic inches. Without the benefit of specs, I would say a stock 292 makes maybe 270-290, whereas a stock 350 makes prox 330-350. Now, at low rpm, like around 2000, they may be very close, because the 292 may make peak torque at 2500 rpm, the 350 at 3500 rpm. I may run this on Desktop Dyno just for grins. I also have a 1969 Motors repair manual somewhere that lists the factory specs. __________________ Mike 1969 C10 LWB -- owned for 34 years. 350/TH350, 3.08 posi, 1st Gen Vintage Air, AAW wiring harness, 5-lug conversion, 1985 spindles and brakes. 1982 C10 SWB -- sold 1981 C10 Silverado LWB -- sold, but wish I still had it! 1969 C10 (not the current one) that I bought in the early 1980s. Paid $1200; sold for $1500 a few years later. Just a hint at the appreciation that was coming. Retired as a factory automation products salesman. Worked part-time over the years for an engine builder and a classic car repair shop. Member here for 23 years! This is the very first car/truck Internet forum I joined. I still used a dial-up modem back then!

08-21-2002, 03:37 PM	#5
galoolie Registered User Join Date: Jan 2000 Location: Bend, Oregon Posts: 127	Gentlemen, Thanks for the replies. It sounds like the 292 is well suited for slow 4 wheeling. I wonder how the gas mileage will compare? Thanks again. __________________ Galoolie

08-21-2002, 03:54 PM	#6
MikeB Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: North Texas Posts: 3,411	Probably not that much better gas mileage with the 292. And you could probably build a 350 for less than a 292. Just about any part you can name is cheaper for the 350. But the big six would be kinda cool because it's different! __________________ Mike 1969 C10 LWB -- owned for 34 years. 350/TH350, 3.08 posi, 1st Gen Vintage Air, AAW wiring harness, 5-lug conversion, 1985 spindles and brakes. 1982 C10 SWB -- sold 1981 C10 Silverado LWB -- sold, but wish I still had it! 1969 C10 (not the current one) that I bought in the early 1980s. Paid $1200; sold for $1500 a few years later. Just a hint at the appreciation that was coming. Retired as a factory automation products salesman. Worked part-time over the years for an engine builder and a classic car repair shop. Member here for 23 years! This is the very first car/truck Internet forum I joined. I still used a dial-up modem back then!



Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.