 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chevrolet / Chevrolet Trucks / September 2006305ci V8 vs. 292ci I6...just curious.
Hi... Recently, during some random reading done out of boredom, I became aware of the 292ci I6 engine that was available in Chevy full-size trucks back in the day. It appears that even the K5 Blazers were available with this engine. I'm just curious as to how it compares to a 305ci motor from the same series of vehicles. It's roughly the same displacement, minus 2 cylinders. I considered my 305 to be rather anemic in my Blazer, but was it any better or worse than the 292ci? I've heard that the I6's run smoother, something to do with inline configurations being better balanced. I have no practical reason to ask, I'm just...bored again ;-) Actually curious... ~jp Hey Jon- My Dad had a 292 in his 1977 3/4 ton. The engine was no screamer but had a ton torque on tap. We would regularily overload the truck with coal or wood- and it pulled like crazy. But the flip side it was a very thirsty for fuel engine. His next truck a 90, has a 305- maybe not a smooth- but similiar power in my opinion. M > Hi... > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > ~jp >Hey Jon- > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >His next truck a 90, has a 305- maybe not a smooth- but similiar power >in my opinion. You should have seen 292's in their prime from 1965 thru 1970 or so. They were real stump pullers and had good power to. Heck a 250 of the same time frame had more power than the later smogged 292. I had a 66 3/4 ton chevy in early 70's with a 250, a 4 speed and 4.57 gears. That thing would pull anything you hooked up to it. Trucks were trucks back then. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > You should have seen 292's in their prime from 1965 thru 1970 or so. > They were real stump pullers and had good power to. Heck a 250 of the > same time frame had more power than the later smogged 292. I had a 66 > 3/4 ton chevy in early 70's with a 250, a 4 speed and 4.57 gears. That > thing would pull anything you hooked up to it. > Trucks were trucks back then. AMEN!!! 292 all the way! Great bottom-end torque, very reliable, smooth runner, odd sound with louder exhaust, EASY to work on, good selection of performance mods, great room to work on except in the front for obvious reasons, will almost always make a good bit more TQ than HP with streetable mods... I have known 300HP/400ft/lb VERY streetable 292's doing allot of heavy working. I have no faith or trust in the power or reliability of 305's from allot of experience with them. Even the early Camaro/Firebird TPI 305's were nothing impressive. > Hi... > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > ~jp > 292 all the way! Great bottom-end torque, very reliable, smooth runner, odd > sound with louder exhaust, EASY to work on, good selection of performance [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > experience with them. Even the early Camaro/Firebird TPI 305's were nothing > impressive. I will agree the 292 is a pull the house down engine, gobs and gobs of torque, but then inline engines always produce good torque, always have. Down side is just like the ford 300 if it sees a fuel tanker it wants to nurse, due in part to its long stroke design. The only major difference between the 292 and the 230 is the stroke.. I think the 305 gets a lot of bad press. it is what it was, an entry level small v-8 engine. It wasn't going to pull like the 350, but it also would go further on a tank of gas. I think that's the real reason for the hammering it gets, it aint no 350. I got a thing for 283 engines, in a small light vehicle like a box nova or a Vega, its a terror, do a little work on it in the same body and its a rat slayer, put the same thing in a Impala, Chevelle, caprice, and it aint so hot. The advantage of a V design engine is more displacement in a smaller engine bay.. But there is more power waste in the v design, because the banks do fight themselves somewhat for lack of a better way to say it there is more rotational resistance. European ford tauras models and tanus (that one that never made it over here) used v-4 engines for a smaller engine bay with more displacement, and more passenger room in the same wheel base and over all dimensions. The Opel Rekord was about the same size as the Taurus, base engine a smaller inline 4 , but it would walk the dog on the ford, for that mater the ford escort with the 1100cc inline engine would beat up on the tanus with its 1800cc V-4. Both cars were slightly smaller than a box nova, about the size the 61-62 American Ford Falcon(the Rekord and Taurus). Whitelightning >Down side is >just like the ford 300 if it sees a fuel tanker it wants to nurse, due in >part to its long stroke design. The only major difference between the 292 >and the 230 is the stroke.. The stroke is not the cause of the poorer MPG it is the overall engine tune and low compression ratio that reduces thermodynamic efficency and increase gas usage. 6's of the 60's were pretty thrifty before emission controls hit them and the 250 and 292 got hit hard by them. (the old chysler 225 slant 6's were a bit of a stump puller too back then and smooth as silk and good on gas and they had a really long stroke too) The 230 and 250 share blocks but the 292 has a tall block and it is easy to spot because on the larger/taller valve lifter covers on side of engine as well as taller block. When I worked in construction back is 70's driving a dump truck frequently, I met the old retired man that used to do some contract hauling for 40/hr when we needed extra trucks on a job. He had a 1958 Chevy C60 single axle dump with a 261 and a 8 speed (4 x2) and it was cherry and not even rusted at all. He would haul 8 tons at a time and average around 8 to 10 MPG doing it (higher number on longer trips). It never seemed to lack power for what he did and was quiet to when he would roll up with its stock exhaust and engine was as smooth as could be too. They made some really great 6's back then and V8 only really took hold as base engines after emissions killed the 6's and bigger engines were needed for the same general level of power. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com >> for the same general level of power. I had forgotten about the deck height, that's how they gained clearance for the longer stroke.. And I wouldn't consider 10 mpg good. Look at Fords 300, it will out pull torque wise a 5.0 V-8, but burns way more gas doing it. Whitelightning > >> for the same general level of power. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Whitelightning I had a early 70's F-250 300 in six with a 4 speed manual trans. It was a great truck, lots of power, easy on gas. I loved it. So in 87 I bought a new F-150 with a 300 in six, HD 4 speed manual. It was a DOG. Was almost impossible to get rolling without zinging the throttle, got 15 MPG on the highway. Had it back to Ford a number of times and they kept telling me "they're all like that." They told me that was the first port injected six and Ford had no fix for the problems.I screwedd around with it for a while trying to figure out the problem with no luck, so I sold it. The gal I sold it to came back a few days later, the fuel tank switching valve went nuts and fuel was running out of one of the tanks. Ford had a recall on it but of course it did not cover the 87's. Did I mention the paint started falling off at about 1 year? Ford decided to re-paint it about six months after I sold it. Al >And I wouldn't consider 10 mpg good. Look at Fords 300, it will out pull >torque wise >a 5.0 V-8, but burns way more gas doing it. 8-10 MPG hauling a GVW of around 28K it really good MPG. the Ford 300 was a good engine too back then but I would have to side with the 292 because it had better top end power and did not run out of breath as quickly as the 300 did. V8's like the 289, 302 and 283 and such did not have the needed torque at lower RPM's but the had a 327 truck motor that did pretty good. Back in the 60's they used to put a data plate in the cab on inside kick panel (left side under dash) that used to stated net HP of engine option not gross HP ----------------- TheSnoMan.com What's the compression ratio of the 292, and would that low number make it an ideal candidate for forced induction? ~jp > The stroke is not the cause of the poorer MPG it is the overall engine > tune and low compression ratio that reduces thermodynamic efficency [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com >What's the compression ratio of the 292, and would that low number make >it an ideal candidate for forced induction? THe presmog ones were about 8.5 to one and the late smog motors were aaround 7.5 to one. Yes forced induction should work well with them. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com 400ft/lbs?!?!?! I need to know about this engine! ~jp > 292 all the way! Great bottom-end torque, very reliable, smooth runner, odd > sound with louder exhaust, EASY to work on, good selection of performance [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > experience with them. Even the early Camaro/Firebird TPI 305's were nothing > impressive. > 400ft/lbs?!?!?! I need to know about this engine! > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> experience with them. Even the early Camaro/Firebird TPI 305's were nothing >> impressive. Not real hard to build IF you can still find all the pieces. Clifford research has some really GOOD parts for the straight sixes that made some reliable power out of them. I built a 250 into a beast for in my old Nova and it embarrassed quite a few folks to be left behind by a puny 6 cylinder... The weak spot in it was the crankshaft. That got replaced with a billet steel part that could stand the pressure. When it finally got dyno'd I had almost 250 HP at the rear wheels. That was through a Powerglide and a 9" with 4:10 gears. You couldn't mistake it IF the hood was open. The factory didn't fit the 6 with 3, 2 barrel carbs or a split tri-y header with 4" collectors. Had a very distinct exhaust note. http://www.cliffordperformance.net/  SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York Any idea where peak torque was in that motor? I'm curious how much low-end it could make, and how difficult it'd be to make peak torque around 1800-2000rpm with such an engine. ~jp > Not real hard to build IF you can still find all the pieces. Clifford > research has some really GOOD parts for the straight sixes that made [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- > Any idea where peak torque was in that motor? I'm curious how much > low-end it could make, and how difficult it'd be to make peak torque [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups >> ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- The way it was set up I could turn the engine to almost 7K and the torque peak was around 4500. The 6 can be tuned across a wide power band. The 292 is a longer stroked version of the 250 and can accept many of the same parts. Real easy to make the torque peak lower than what I had, stock the peak was around 2K. I thought about putting a Paxton blower on mine. I would have had to drop the CR but that wouldn't be hard. SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York Well, I gotta say I'm liking the idea of this engine more and more. Since the Blazer has been redesignated as a "project" vehicle, I have room for experimentation and plenty of time to review all the options before making a decision. I don't want or need a screaming smallblock that revs high. I just want something that runs well on the street and has the power to pull a small camper or the occasional U-Haul trailer, and doesn't kill me on gas. The 292 sounds like it could be that engine. I'm much more concerned with torque than HP; specifically the highest torque possible at a lower RPM (preferably around the 2000rpm mark). Forced induction is very do-able, and I'd plan on rebuilding from the ground up anyway, so I could easily plan for a lower compression ratio. Plus I think I could finance much of this by selling off my 350...which technically is "fine", just not for a truck. Not to mention that the 305 actually ran better, and that from what everyone is saying, the 292 is better than the 305. I used to get around 17mpg on the interstate in the K5. I'd love to see that again. ~jp > The way it was set up I could turn the engine to almost 7K and the > torque peak was around 4500. The 6 can be tuned across a wide power [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups > ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- >I'm much more concerned with torque than HP; specifically the highest >torque possible at a lower RPM (preferably around the 2000rpm mark). >Forced induction is very do-able, and I'd plan on rebuilding from the >ground up anyway, so I could easily plan for a lower compression ratio. Consider this, the pre smog controlled 292's peaked their torque at about 1600 RPM so a stock 292 with a blower would be a real stump puller. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com Well then... In that case, considering that I have the smallest of full-sized Chevy trucks, I think that may be the route I take. I'd kinda been cooking up schemes about what I'd do if it were a project truck, and those things included weight reduction, by means of fiberglass hood and front fenders, and 86-ing the hard top in favor of a half-cab conversion or soft top. The "6" would probably do nicely in there, and I'm guessing it weighs less than a 350 :-) I am having a difficult time finding multiple performance parts for a 292. I'm sure it comes down to the way I'm searching. It's easy to type "small block chevy" into Google and get endless results. ~jp > Consider this, the pre smog controlled 292's peaked their torque at > about 1600 RPM so a stock 292 with a blower would be a real stump > puller. > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com > The "6" would probably do nicely in > there, and I'm guessing it weighs less than a 350 :-) I may be wrong, but I don't think it does weigh less. >I am having a difficult time finding multiple performance parts for a >292. I'm sure it comes down to the way I'm searching. It's easy to >type "small block chevy" into Google and get endless results. Any bolt on for a 230 or 250 will work. Not 235 or 261 part. Also the 292 is not light in weight and likely weighs about the same as a 350 but is a lot easier to work on and very excellant low RPM responce. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com Well right now I'm just trying to get a general estimate on cost of building one up. Of course, getting it in the truck will be another matter, but shouldn't be ridiculous seeing as how that engine was offered in that truck. I'm looking into cams, and I'm thinking of going with something with short duration and little overlap to get a good idle with low-end torque. Plus if I were to super/turbo charge anything, that cam would be a good choice far as I can tell. If I plan on doing that, I'll go ahead and plan on having around an 8:1 compression ratio. Know of any good sites that detail the specs on the I-6's? Like bore, stroke, compression, etc...? ~jp > Any bolt on for a 230 or 250 will work. Not 235 or 261 part. Also the > 292 is not light in weight and likely weighs about the same as a 350 > but is a lot easier to work on and very excellant low RPM responce. > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com > Well right now I'm just trying to get a general estimate on cost of > building one up. Of course, getting it in the truck will be another > matter, but shouldn't be ridiculous seeing as how that engine was > offered in that truck. Not to rain on your parade but a 350 will out pull a 292 six. And if you were to start hopping up the six it will cost more per HP gained than a V8. If you want a lot of low end grunt build a mild 383, 350 with a 400 crank, or find a stock 400. No matter what anyone here tells you, you will be miles ahead. There are lots of low buck 383 rotating assembles around. Lots of early big Chevy's have 400's, and they were in pickups till 79. No one mentioned this before but the 305 is anemic as produced. They, like most small blocks, come alive with a tiny bit of work. Cam, intake and headers will wake it up. It would cost a hell of a lot to get the same performance out of a 292. Change the pistons and heads and it will really wake up. Now you're in exotic territory for a 292:) Al Well...it's not about what will out-pull what... A Duramax would out-pull the 350, but I'm not going to install one. Since this is now my fun truck, and not my daily truck, I'm approaching it differently than I would've in the past. I will be upgrading some parts along the way, like axles for instance, but it's not going to be an offroad beast with 12" of lift, and it's not going to be a towing vehicle either. It'll probably get a few inches of lift and 33" or 35" tires max, and I plan on 86-ing the fiberglass top in lieu of a soft top for cruising up into the mountains on nice days. If I can find a dirt trail to get into, all the better, but I'm not interested in competitive off-roading or pulling super-heavy loads, nor the power levels required to do it. Not to mention, I like "different". K5's with 350's and 383's are all too common. Then you have the big-block crowd. I prefer to stand out in the crowd a bit. If you knew me personally, you wouldn't be surprised at all, LOL... And for the record, my 350 won't out-pull anything. Yes, that could be changed by swapping the cam, but I'm over it. I say bring on the 6. :-) ~jp > Not to rain on your parade but a 350 will out pull a 292 six. And if you > were to start hopping up the six it will cost more per HP gained than a V8. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Al >Not to rain on your parade but a 350 will out pull a 292 six. And if you >were to start hopping up the six it will cost more per HP gained than a V8. Not to rain on yours but a 350 is no match for a 292 below 2000 RPM or so and with a stick is would be a real stump puller with nearly full torque availble right off a idle. It has low RPM torque that will even rival some old diesels because you can pull it at 1000 RPM and it will do so strongly and smoothly. You would need a 400 small block or big block to match this low RPM torque and a lot more fuel too. Myself I would be tempted to build one up with 12 to 1 CR or so and run it on propane as it would make great power, get about the same MPG as gas on 8 to 1 and there would be no carb to flood out or starve out in any position off road. On top of all of this it would be basically a zero emission vehicle too. Propane has a octane of 110 plus and while you have to have a heavier tak to store it, it weighs less than gas (4lb vs 6.5) which offsets tank weight and it energy density per lb of fuel is actually a bit higher than gas too. (about 10% more). If you realy want to get wild, GM made some truck V6 from mid 60's thru early 70's in 305, 351, 401 and 478. THey all shared same block. THe 305 was used in GMC pickups through about 70 and the 351 was used in a few too. These were real stump pullers too. THe 401 and 478 was used in HD trucks and the 478 saw a lot of use in HD drumptrucks during that time and was a force to be reconned with as it made almost 450 ftlbs of torque at 1400 RPM in stock form. Check out link below and check out the 637 V8 and 702 V12 GM had. http://forum.snoman.com/viewtopic.php?t=80 ----------------- TheSnoMan.com I've considered the propane thing at times myself. It would be interesting if I were able to plan fuel stops ahead of time. Concerning RPM and torque... you're basically describing exactly what I'm looking for. At 80mph in OD, with 3.73 gears, I was right at 2000rpm. I don't need an engine that peaks above that, so again, it sound like the six is what I need. ~jp > Not to rain on yours but a 350 is no match for a 292 below 2000 RPM or > so and with a stick is would be a real stump puller with nearly full [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com > >Not to rain on your parade but a 350 will out pull a 292 six. And if you > >were to start hopping up the six it will cost more per HP gained than a V8. > > Not to rain on yours but a 350 is no match for a 292 below 2000 RPM or > so and with a stick is would be a real stump puller with nearly full > torque availble right off a idle. Sometimes I think you're smart, other times you astound me. You are ALWAYS preaching low rear end gears, now you're an advocate for lots of low end torque. Make up your mind:) Now how much money do you have to bet on what you just wrote? At 1999 RPM (That's under 2,000 right?) I have a thousand dollars that says a completely stock 350 will out pull a 292. How about it? Al I wish I had $1000 to bet...I would DEFINATLY put it on the I-6! >> >Not to rain on your parade but a 350 will out pull a 292 six. And if you >> >were to start hopping up the six it will cost more per HP gained than a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Al >Sometimes I think you're smart, other times you astound me. You are ALWAYS >preaching low rear end gears, now you're an advocate for lots of low end >torque. Make up your mind:) Now how much money do you have to bet on what >you just wrote? At 1999 RPM (That's under 2,000 right?) I have a thousand >dollars that says a completely stock 350 will out pull a 292. How about it? In a offroad machine you need good low RPM responce so that you do not have to wind it up to pull smoothly idling or have to slip the clutch a lot in a taller gear to keep engine from racing otherwise. What works towing and offroad is not that far apart in that you need to match your power curve to the load at hand. Most V8's (especailly small blocks that are setup for midrange and top end power do their best above 3000 RPM pulling hard while sixes are quite happy at 2000 RPM or less and were designed that way. Also you find me a stock 60 era 292 with a stick and a 350 with a stick and pull them at less than 2000 RPM and the 292 will smoke the 350, especailly at 1500 RPM and less. With automatic the results would be different depending on stall speed of converter but at low RPM the old 292 is awesome. I know I drove some of them when they were in their prime and they were is a leauge of their own at low RPM's with a stick. I would be taking your money. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com Is the low-end "torquey-ness" of the 292 attained by the long stroke?? (more leverage against the crank?) I found the specs on Chuck's Chevy Truck Pages and noticed that the stroke is 4.12" whereas the 454 has a 4" stroke, follow by 3.75" for the 400 SBC, and everything else is roughly close to 3.5". I can see where that would make a huge difference. ~jp > In a offroad machine you need good low RPM responce so that you do not > have to wind it up to pull smoothly idling or have to slip the clutch [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com > Is the low-end "torquey-ness" of the 292 attained by the long stroke?? > (more leverage against the crank?) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ~jp The longer the stroke the more torque you can make with a given bore size. Think about a wrench, the longer the wrench is the more torque you can apply with the same amount of force on the wrench. Tractor engines are another proof of concept item about longer throws creating torque. The other trade off is that the longer the stroke the lower the rpm ceiling is for an engine. Cargo ship engines create huge torque but they turn 250-500 rpm max. They also have strokes measured in feet... SignatureSteve W. Heh... Not 2 minutes after posting that, I had the exact same thought--that is, the wrench analogy, and how the throw affects leverage on the bolt being turned. Thanks... ~jp > The longer the stroke the more torque you can make with a given bore > size. Think about a wrench, the longer the wrench is the more torque you [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > torque but they turn 250-500 rpm max. They also have strokes measured in > feet... >Heh... Not 2 minutes after posting that, I had the exact same >thought--that is, the wrench analogy, and how the throw affects >leverage on the bolt being turned. True. Also the reason the block is taller is so they can use a long rod too to limit side forces on piston with a longer stroke. As you increase the stroke on SB you cannot realy use a longer rod without putting piston pin up higher which has its own problems too. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com Good deal... Well, I've been browsing eBay and Craigslist, haven't found any 292's locally, and haven't found a bare block. Found a few complete engines, but they aren't real close to me. I'm not ready to get one just yet anyhow. I need to do some things around the house to make room to work on all this stuff--when money and time finally permit that is. ~jp > True. Also the reason the block is taller is so they can use a long > rod too to limit side forces on piston with a longer stroke. As you > increase the stroke on SB you cannot realy use a longer rod without > putting piston pin up higher which has its own problems too. > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com > No matter what anyone here tells you, you will be miles > ahead. ...'cuz we all nuthin' but a bunch of idjuts and you iz the only smart one... > > No matter what anyone here tells you, you will be miles > > ahead. > > ...'cuz we all nuthin' but a bunch of idjuts and you iz the only smart > one... Well said, thanks. Al Well that reply proves the quality of your character! >> > No matter what anyone here tells you, you will be miles >> > ahead. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Al > Well that reply proves the quality of your character! Yes I'm good. Found our argument on the web. Enjoy: http://www.hotrodders.com/forum/inline-vs-v-26977-3.html You guys can find more and post the links. Was looking for a dyno sheet from a stock 292 six and could not find one. Lots of small block dyno sheets to compare if we can find a sheet on the six. Hard to find one that starts at 1,000 RPM. Al > Well then... In that case, considering that I have the smallest of > full-sized Chevy trucks, I think that may be the route I take. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > ~jp One weight reduction, aint going to happen with fiberglass panels stout enough to handle being an everyday driver. The Chevy 250 long block weighs 440 pounds, I would estimate another 50 pounds for the 292 because of the taller block, and a beefier crank, The small blocks with cast manifolds (intake and exhaust) weigh 575 pounds. Of course if you really really want something different, find a Jimmie 478 cid V-6 for it. 235 hp at 3,200 rpm, 440 ft/lb of torque at 1,400 rpm, and a "round" flywheel housing bolt pattern for use with truck trannies, like allisons. then there was the 351 cid V-6 that one 180 hp at 3,400 and 312 ft/lb torque at 1,800 to 2,200 rpm. Course you could go way off the deep end and try and find one of the Jimmie V-12s, which were basically two V-6s, and back in the early 60's they out pulled almost any diesel rig on the road http://www.6066gmctrucks.org/ is good page on these beasts. As for performance parts, there is only one place, CliffordPerformance.net. They wrote the book on 6=8.. 4 bbl manifolds, fuel injection, side draft webers, what's you choice? They build the best headers, damn things don't crack, don't warp and don't leak. They have cams, as well as blue printed heads. Old man Clifford tore the race tracks up with Hudsons, everyone for the them an L-6. Whitelightning I wish I had the blueprints on it... It was a while back... > 400ft/lbs?!?!?! I need to know about this engine! > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> nothing >> impressive. Cool article on rebuilding an I6 in case anyone's interested: http://www.truckworld.com/How-To-Tech/Chevrolet-Engine/Chevy-engine.html ~jp why hasn't anyone suggested a 455 if you want to be different. I had 70 442 that would smoke the tires at 60 mph just by dropping to third and nailing it. hell put a 4cylinder cummins in it Eh... a big block would be overkill for my application. I still want to be able to drive it on the street and not have to save up money for my weekend in the truck...LOL. There's enough big-block'd Chevy trucks on the road. ~jp > why hasn't anyone suggested a 455 if you want to be different. I had > 70 442 that would smoke the tires at 60 mph just by dropping to third > and nailing it. hell put a 4cylinder cummins in it Not that different...I have seen more than a few 455 Olds and Buicks in Trucks and SUV's. > why hasn't anyone suggested a 455 if you want to be different. I had 70 > 442 that would smoke the tires at 60 mph just by dropping to third and > nailing it. hell put a 4cylinder cummins in it Oh yeah... the Cummins 4BT was something I considered for about 5 minutes. While it would be cool, that may require a bit more fabrication than I am ready to deal with. But it *is* a cool idea... ~jp > why hasn't anyone suggested a 455 if you want to be different. I had > 70 442 that would smoke the tires at 60 mph just by dropping to third > and nailing it. hell put a 4cylinder cummins in it |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.