 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / GMC Cars / November 2005Help: Chevy 305 and 350 build questions
The car: 1977 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, 305, automatic, 70K miles. Never wrecked, excellent body, frame, runs and drives as original. Burning oil (probably seals). Gentlemen, These are probably a stupid questions. I am new to Chevrolet. Only had 2 in my life, a 63 Corvair, and an 86 Astro 4.3L. I would like to keep this 305 block in the car because the number match. This is an original car. But, I want to rebuild the engine for good street performance (AND decent economy, currently 11-12 mpg). Most of the master engine overhaul kits I have found (so far) are for the 350. Example: JC Whitney has a complete kit for $151.99 http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/Product/tf-VehicleBrowse/s-10101/Pr-p_Product .CATENTRY_ID:2005487/showCustom-0/p-2005487/N-200730783+111+1977+600010813/c-101 14 1st basic question: is the 350 a bored out 305? Are the cranks the same? 2ond basic question: is trying to keep this block (and numbers matching thing) a waste of time? Should I throw it away and get a 350? Any experienced advice on Chevy hot rodding (on a budget) would be appreciated. TIA Bill I always thought the book "How to Hotrod Small Block Chevys," which has been around forever, was about the best all around book for what you're doing. I would put a very high priority on keeping the numbers-matching engine, although you could just get a 350 to put in the car while keeping the stock engine stored somewhere. Personally I've always thought the 305's were a pretty good engine when in good condition. I don't think they were known for being a gas hog of the calibre yours seems to be, though--something's wrong there. The smoking could just be valve guide seals, easy to check for that and they can be changed without tearing everything apart if you have the proper tool. Oh yeah, I remember seeing that book once. I will track one down. Thanks for the tip on the numbers. > I always thought the book "How to Hotrod Small Block Chevys," which >has been around forever, was about the best all around book for what [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >and they can be changed without tearing everything apart if you have the >proper tool. > The car: 1977 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, 305, automatic, 70K miles. > Never wrecked, excellent body, frame, runs and drives [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > TIA > Bill I had to search and see if 77 was the last year of the "real iron" or the first year of the plastic bumpers. You got the cool old iron. The 350 and 305 share almost every part except the pistons. You can't bore a 305 to 350 the cylinders aren't that thick. Cranks are the same. Same stroke. I used How to Rebuild your Small Block Chevy to build 4 motors. It takes you through teardown, reconditioning, and reassembly. You cant beat it. With the low mileage of your motor I would try just replacing the valve seals. It would be so much easier than rebuilding the whole thing. I hate to tell you but there is probably nothing you can do about the mileage. It is a big heavy car and not much you can do about that. I know it's not exactly an economy car, but eleven mpg still seems pretty darn low. I've had several full-size chevy pickups of the same vintage which would do better than that, 3/4 ton, 350 4bbl. > I know it's not exactly an economy car, but eleven mpg still seems > pretty darn low. > I've had several full-size chevy pickups of the same vintage which > would do better than that, 3/4 ton, 350 4bbl. I agree. I had a '74 Monte Carlo with the 350 engine, 4bbl & dual exhaust & I got close to 30 m.p.g. on highway trips. In '74, the Monte Carlo was considered an intermediate size vehicle, not a large one. It was also called a "personal luxury" car. I also agree with James on using "How to Hotrod Small Block Chevys" as a reference source. Here's one link where you can pick it up for $ 18.95. Hit on the link and then click on Page 5. It's the first item on Page 5. http://www.autobooks-aerobooks.com/framestuffer.htm?cars/gm1.asp~mainFrame >> I know it's not exactly an economy car, but eleven mpg still seems >> pretty darn low. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I agree. I had a '74 Monte Carlo with the 350 engine, 4bbl & dual exhaust > & I got close to 30 m.p.g. on highway trips. That was about the mileage a Pinto of that vintage got. A Monte Carlo of that year getting that kind of mileage would be nothing less than a miracle. >>> I know it's not exactly an economy car, but eleven mpg still seems >>> pretty darn low. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > A Monte Carlo of that year getting that kind of mileage > would be nothing less than a miracle. Absolutely. There just isn't any way. >>>> I know it's not exactly an economy car, but eleven mpg still seems >>>>pretty darn low. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Absolutely. There just isn't any way. I had a 73 Malibu SS 350 4 bbl & dual exhaust. Got 14.7 MPG doing a steady 55 on the NJ Turnpike, WVK > I had a 73 Malibu SS 350 4 bbl & dual exhaust. Got 14.7 MPG doing a > steady 55 on the NJ Turnpike, > > WVK *lol* That's too bad! You have our sympathy! Not many people would admit to owning what was arguably the ugliest Malibu ever built! >> I had a 73 Malibu SS 350 4 bbl & dual exhaust. Got 14.7 MPG doing a >> steady 55 on the NJ Turnpike, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > *lol* That's too bad! You have our sympathy! Not many people would admit > to owning what was arguably the ugliest Malibu ever built! Yes ugly and a dog, ended up with the ex wife. > That was about the mileage a Pinto of that vintage got. > A Monte Carlo of that year getting that kind of mileage > would be nothing less than a miracle. >Absolutely. There just isn't any way. > That is pure BS, 30 MPG on a trip with a Monte. You have very bad math > skills or wishfull thinking. I always find it fascinating that Bozo's like you three challenge someone's credibility without substantiating your comments. Scott, you are quoted as saying "I had to search and see if 77 was the last year of the "real iron" or the first year of the plastic bumpers." Funny how you had to look that up, yet you claim to know that my mileage figure is inaccurate. How did you become an expert on Monte Carlo's so quickly? So what was the mileage of the '74 Monte Carlo then Scott? Put up (with a credible source) or shut up Scott! I challenge you. You go on to say "It is a big heavy car and not much you can do about that." What was the car's weight Scott? What was the H.P. of the 350? What was the torque? Did the Car have a catalytic converter? Or did it still run unleaded fuel? gfulton & TheSnoman are simply jumping on the bandwagon, for no particular reason other than they doubt the veracity of my comments simply because they never owned a '74 Monte Carlo and they just don't know anything about it. They are speaking from simple ignorance of the issue and lack of knowledge and experience. They would have been better off remaining quiet and appearing stupid, than opening their mouths and removing all doubt. It's easy to flame someone when you weren't there and didn't do that. But it's quite another thing to support your cheap shots with credible evidence. So there you have it kiddies - put up or apologize and shut up, when you don't know what you're talking about! In conclusion, "I had a '74 Monte Carlo with the 350 engine, 4bbl & dual exhaust & I got close to 30 m.p.g. on highway trips." And that's a fact, so I know that it can't be proven wrong. Who's spewing "pure BS" now "TheSnoMan"? ;-) >Or did it still run unleaded fuel? Before the 3 stooges flame me again, that should have read "Or did it still run leaded fuel?" As a point of interest I still own a 1971 Pinto with nearly 330k on the clock. As to fuel mileage my 2005 Lincoln LS does as well on the highway as does the Pinto, around 27 MPG. Old cars can not come close to todays cars in terms of reliability, longevity, safety and fuel mileage. In the fifties the warranty was 30 days or 1,000 miles WOF. Oil needed to be changed every 1,000 miles, Plugs points, tires and shocks around 10,000 and the rings need to be changed at 50,000. Today oil changes are at 5,000 miles or six months and most any car from any manufacture will easily go 100K before needing to be tuned and they all will easily last to 200K or more given the proper preventive maintenance. ;) mike hunt >> That was about the mileage a Pinto of that vintage got. >> A Monte Carlo of that year getting that kind of mileage [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > on highway trips." And that's a fact, so I know that it can't be proven > wrong. Who's spewing "pure BS" now "TheSnoMan"? ;-) > As a point of interest I still own a 1971 Pinto with nearly 330k on the > clock. As to fuel mileage my 2005 Lincoln LS does as well on the highway [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > mike hunt Thanks for your knowledgeable input Mike. It's refreshing to see someone give another NG member the benefit of the doubt. I was po'd when the 3 guys ripped into me, but I knew why they were amazed at my claim and chose to rip me. I was going to wait until those other three called me a liar again, but given your politeness, I'll tip my hand now. As you can see from my I.P. address, I'm from Canada. Prior to converting to the dreaded metric system of measurement, Canada used the Imperial gallon at the gas pump. By comparison, the U.S. gallon was .8327 of an Imperial gallon. As I stated, my '74 Monte Carlo got close to 30 m.p.g. on longer trips. 30 miles per Imperial gallon equates to 24.981 miles per U.S. gallon. I told the truth from the outset, but the 3 guys who flamed me chose to do so, rather than try to understand why I got 30 m.p.g. To them I say "Things are not always what they seem". ;-) >> That was about the mileage a Pinto of that vintage got. >> A Monte Carlo of that year getting that kind of mileage >> would be nothing less than a miracle. > You go on to say "It is a big heavy car and not much you can do about > that." What was the car's weight Scott? What was the H.P. of the 350? What > was the torque? Did the Car have a catalytic converter? Or did it still > run unleaded fuel? It is up to you to prove it. I am not here making wild claims. Just for fun I am asking the owners of similar models at the Monte Carlo owners club what kind of mileage they get with their cars. Will post the replys here. >"Scott" <homealone.com> wrote in message news:11mrapbrt9cme18@corp.supernews.com... >> That was about the mileage a Pinto of that vintage got. >> A Monte Carlo of that year getting that kind of mileage >> would be nothing less than a miracle. >>"gfulton" <lbfulton@alltel.net> wrote in message news:c9c4f$436dac82$438cfe35$17674@ALLTEL.NET... >>Absolutely. There just isn't any way. >> That is pure BS, 30 MPG on a trip with a Monte. You have very bad math >> skills or wishfull thinking. >I always find it fascinating that Bozo's like you three challenge someone's >credibility without substantiating your comments. Scott, you are quoted as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Monte Carlo then Scott? Put up (with a credible source) or shut up Scott! I >challenge you. >You go on to say "It is a big heavy car and not much you can do about >that." What was the car's weight Scott? What was the H.P. of the 350? What >was the torque? Did the Car have a catalytic converter? Or did it still run >unleaded fuel? >gfulton & TheSnoman are simply jumping on the bandwagon, for no particular >reason other than they doubt the veracity of my comments simply because [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >it's quite another thing to support your cheap shots with credible >evidence. >So there you have it kiddies - put up or apologize and shut up, when you >don't know what you're talking about! In conclusion, "I had a '74 Monte >Carlo with the 350 engine, 4bbl & dual exhaust & I got close to 30 m.p.g. >on highway trips." And that's a fact, so I know that it can't be proven >wrong. Who's spewing "pure BS" now "TheSnoMan"? ;-) > It is up to you to prove it. I am not here making wild claims. > > Just for fun I am asking the owners of similar models at the Monte > Carlo owners club what kind of mileage they get with their cars. > > Will post the replys here. First of all Scot, your computer clock has the wrong time because your message above wasn't posted at 5:40PM. In keeping with your type of wild accusations, did you reset your clock, so that you could pretend that you wrote your response before reading my message at 5:10PM, in response to Mike Hunter? What a dumb-a.s move Scot! But then, it tells me the type of mentality we're dealing with here. ;-) To make you look even sillier, I will now repost the part of my 5:10PM message that you don't want to acknowledge: "Thanks for your knowledgeable input Mike. It's refreshing to see someone give another NG member the benefit of the doubt. I was po'd when the 3 guys ripped into me, but I knew why they were amazed at my claim and chose to rip me. I was going to wait until those other three called me a liar again, but given your politeness, I'll tip my hand now. As you can see from my I.P. address, I'm from Canada. Prior to converting to the dreaded metric system of measurement, Canada used the Imperial gallon at the gas pump. By comparison, the U.S. gallon was .8327 of an Imperial gallon. As I stated, my '74 Monte Carlo got close to 30 m.p.g. on longer trips. 30 miles per Imperial gallon equates to 24.981 miles per U.S. gallon. I told the truth from the outset, but the 3 guys who flamed me chose to do so, rather than try to understand why I got 30 m.p.g. To them I say "Things are not always what they seem". ;-) " Do you understand what's going on now Scot? Are you ready to admit that you were wrong? Be a man Scot - apologize for your mistake and let's get on with our lives. >>"Scott" <homealone.com> wrote in message > news:11mrapbrt9cme18@corp.supernews.com... [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > you were wrong? Be a man Scot - apologize for your mistake and let's get > on with our lives. Sure I understand. You posted your mileage in Canadian gallons instead of US gallons. How are we to know? I will apologize when hell freezes over. All I said was mileage you claimed would be a miracle and I was right. Now try to get a life. PS I have a hard time believing 25 mpg US on that boat also. > Sure I understand. You posted your mileage in Canadian gallons instead > of US gallons. How are we to know? Uh, because I'm from Canada. Duh! Why would someone from Canada post their mileage in U.S. gallons? Prior to metric conversion, I bought gas in Imperial gallons. (Not Canadian gallons!!!) Scott, it may be news to you, but this is an international NewsGroup, not a U.S. NewsGroup. That's how you're to know. > I will apologize when hell freezes over. All I said was mileage you > claimed > would be a miracle and I was right. Pride is a terrible thing Scott. No Scott, the mileage I posted was correct. The miracle is that you are actually too dumb to see that. You are wrong Scott. Hell just froze over. > Now try to get a life. Too proud to admit you were wrong Scott? Repeat after me Scott: "You were correct StingRay and I apologize." 'Nuff Said. > PS I have a hard time believing 25 mpg US on that boat also. Scott, please don't ask me to try rationalizing why you have a hard time believing it. I owned the car Scott and got around 30 m.p.g. It's a fact man. Get over it! ;-) P.S. Are you sure that you are thinking of the right car Scott? Because it really wasn't that big - it was an intermediate size car in its day. > > Sure I understand. You posted your mileage in Canadian gallons instead > > of US gallons. How are we to know? > > Uh, because I'm from Canada. Duh! Duh yourself. Here's what shows up in the headers: "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> Exactly what in that header denotes that you're posting from Canada? Get over yourself already. > Duh yourself. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Get over yourself already. aarcuda69062, it's sad really to see you demonstrate to the entire NewsGroup that you don't know how to access the full headers. Take a few lessons "already"! > > Duh yourself. > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > aarcuda69062, it's sad really to see you demonstrate to the entire NewsGroup > that you don't know how to access the full headers. Even more sad that -that- is what you believe. Where it gets totally pathetic is that you believe this to be some sort of vindication for your bull sh.t. lookee lookee, here's the headers; Path: newssvr33.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm06.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.ne ws.prodigy.com!newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.n ews.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.gig anews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.rogers.com!news.roger s.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 12:35:29 -0600 From: "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> Newsgroups: alt.autos.gm References: <11mr0hvnf6t4b7c@corp.supernews.com> <16843-436D86AC-169@storefull-3277.bay.webtv.net> <H4adnTgILZBkCfDeRVn-jQ@rogers.com> <11mrapbrt9cme18@corp.supernews.com> <QPadne9GU4LSzvPenZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@rogers.com> <11mt1jglc9vi047@corp.supernews.com> <x9GdnUHTDK18IvPeRVn-gQ@rogers.com> <11mtihjreg65250@corp.supernews.com> <lZGdnZor0p37U_PeRVn-pQ@rogers.com> <nonelson-55498E.08231007112005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com> Subject: Re: Chevy 305 and 350 build questions Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 13:35:40 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: <h86dnZishOrsA_LenZ2dnUVZ_tqdnZ2d@rogers.com> Lines: 17 NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.141.102.66 X-Trace: sv3-HGJIgEADCC0ykCZWGJWTdapVcJv0rnwTgId0NW2Bd/vEW0AkgJq0+am2tkCklZ WdB1qTUPBzueq9j8P!E6MEyb9Amu4zfHKNYRnH64z0zRiFe+PhxqBJ3asaRj/jQ+gc Czv8gtf8SC+SiddMWmsmV3/o0uqU!mgrrFkfsfA== X-Complaints-To: abuse@rogers.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@rogers.com X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: newsmst01b.news.prodigy.com alt.autos.gm:136655 > Take a few lessons "already"! Here's one for you; Not all news readers open full headers. Here's another; There -still- isn't any indication in [your] headers that you're posting from Canaduh. Lesson #3 You aren't important enough to justify opening full headers, which certainly appears to explain the confusion. > lookee lookee, here's the headers; You are so dumb man! You posted the I.S.P. number. Don't you know how to read it? >snip > > Here's one for you; > Not all news readers open full headers. You had the full headers. You just don't know how to read them. > Here's another; > There -still- isn't any indication in [your] headers that you're > posting from Canaduh. It's right there under your nose dumb-a.s! Do you need someone from "Canaduh" to show you how to read I.S.P.'s? Your slur against our country tells the entire NewsGroup a lot about you - redneck! You show us once again that the definition of "Duh" = "aarcuda69062" > Lesson #3 > You aren't important enough to justify opening full headers, > which certainly appears to explain the confusion. There is none so blind as he who will not see. Or in your case is too dumb to see! ;-) It's all there under your nose little man. Just as we all know that your I.S.P. is I.S.P. Southwestern Bell Internet Services, Address: 2701 W 15th St PMB 236 City: Plano StateProv: TX PostalCode: 75075 Country: US Have you figured it out yet, you poor excuse for a man? You are one sorry representative of an otherwise great country! Heh, heh! > > lookee lookee, here's the headers; > > You are so dumb man! You posted the I.S.P. number. Don't you know how to > read it? Why would anyone bother to memorize such minutia? Because some wet dream might post about the fuel mileage he got in his 1974 Monte-Hooptie? That might be the high point of -your- life, but certainly not anyone else's. > > Here's one for you; > > Not all news readers open full headers. > > You had the full headers. You just don't know how to read them. This is your ID that shows in the header: "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> It takes an entirely different menu command to open the full header to reveal the ISP. Not a question of who can and who can't read headers, it's a matter of how apparent it was or wasn't (it wasn't). > > Here's another; > > There -still- isn't any indication in [your] headers that you're > > posting from Canaduh. > > It's right there under your nose dumb-a.s! Actually, it wasn't, sh.t fer brains. It takes a separate menu command to open the full header to show your ISP. > Do you need someone from > "Canaduh" to show you how to read I.S.P.'s? You mean so we'll all know for sure whether you're talking about imperial gallons or not? <har> > Your slur against our country > tells the entire NewsGroup a lot about you - redneck! Hate to break it to you but the "redneck" comment merely shows how much you don't know about tracking down where a usenet post originated from. > You show us once again > that the definition of "Duh" = "aarcuda69062" So, according to you, we should all waste screen space, display full headers on the off chance that some self absorbed nimrod might be making claims about the fuel mileage he experienced based upon measurements done in imperial gallons. Again; <har> > > Lesson #3 > > You aren't important enough to justify opening full headers, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to see! ;-) It's all there under your nose little man. Just as we all know > that your I.S.P. is Oooo, he's going to show us how smart he is.... > I.S.P. Southwestern Bell Internet Services, > Address: 2701 W 15th St PMB 236 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Have you figured it out yet, you poor excuse for a man? You are one sorry > representative of an otherwise great country! Heh, heh! Yup, I've figured it out. I'm no where near Texas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Arkansas, or Kansas you techno-twit. I DO NOT do business nor -can- I do business with Southwestern Bell Internet Services (geographical impossibility), as a matter of fact genius, you're at least 1200 miles off. Here's a clue for ya: Southwestern Bell is a subsidiary of my parent ISP. Nice try, thanks for playing, you lose, to bad. "arsecuDUH" <nonelson@sbcglobal.net> once again showed his lack of compter savvy when he spewed in message news:nonelson-68D827.22082307112005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com... >> You are so dumb man! You posted the I.S.P. number. Don't you know how to >> read it? > > Why would anyone bother to memorize such minutia? Ooooh, minutia! We're truly impressed Bubba! > Because some wet dream might post about the fuel mileage he got > in his 1974 Monte-Hooptie? That might be the high point of > -your- life, but certainly not anyone else's. Bubba, if I may speak in your language, UR anus may be the center of your universe, but it's not ours. Although you have proven to be a perfect a**hole! ;-) >> You had the full headers. You just don't know how to read them. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > can't read headers, it's a matter of how apparent it was or > wasn't (it wasn't). Repeat after me Bubba - StingRay, I don't know how to track someone by their I.P. # and I'm too small a man to admit it. That's why I'm such a Bubba. >> It's right there under your nose dumb-a.s! > > Actually, it wasn't, sh.t fer brains. > It takes a separate menu command to open the full header to show > your ISP. Just admit you don't know how Bubba. It does not take "a separate menu command". That comment makes no sense whatsoever. >> Do you need someone from >> "Canaduh" to show you how to read I.S.P.'s? > > You mean so we'll all know for sure whether you're talking about > imperial gallons or not? > <har> Oh, I thought you said they were Canadian gallons before Bubba. Maybe you can learn. ;-) <har> >> Your slur against our country >> tells the entire NewsGroup a lot about you - redneck! > > Hate to break it to you but the "redneck" comment merely shows > how much you don't know about tracking down where a usenet post > originated from. Redneck has more to do with your boorish behaviour than your geographic location Bubba. >> You show us once again >> that the definition of "Duh" = "aarcuda69062" > > So, according to you, we should all waste screen space, display > full headers on the off chance that some self absorbed nimrod If you don't want to waste bandwidth Bubba, stop posting your arcane comments and hold your breath. > might be making claims about the fuel mileage he experienced > based upon measurements done in imperial gallons. It seems that you're still shocked to learn that there are some measurements in the world other than U.S. gallons.<har> > Again; > <har> >> There is none so blind as he who will not see. Or in your case is too >> dumb [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Oooo, he's going to show us how smart he is.... Oooo, Bubba's going to show us how dumb he is.... >> I.S.P. Southwestern Bell Internet Services, >> Address: 2701 W 15th St PMB 236 [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Southwestern Bell is a subsidiary of my parent ISP. > Nice try, thanks for playing, you lose, to bad. Bubba, you are truly as dumb as a stump. You've got it completely a.s-backwards. Your I.S.P., rback8b.milwwi, is a subsidiary of Southwestern Bell Internet Services and buys bandwidth from them. S.B. is your ultimate provider dumbass! You have once again proven that old adage "A little learning is a dangerous thing". <har> > > Why would anyone bother to memorize such minutia? > > Ooooh, minutia! We're truly impressed Bubba! That's a good thing stinkray, shame you couldn't achieve the same results for yourself earlier in the thread. > > Because some wet dream might post about the fuel mileage he got > > in his 1974 Monte-Hooptie? That might be the high point of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > universe, but it's not ours. Although you have proven to be a perfect > a**hole! ;-) Of course I have, what else would a reasonable person expect from someone such as yourself who needed to resort to derogatory comments so early in a discussion? > > This is your ID that shows in the header: > > "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > their I.P. # and I'm too small a man to admit it. That's why I'm such a > Bubba. You still don't get it. Probably never will. > > Actually, it wasn't, sh.t fer brains. > > It takes a separate menu command to open the full header to show > > your ISP. > > Just admit you don't know how Bubba. Why would I admit to not knowing how to do something when I've already demonstrated in an earlier post and included in that post that I do know how? You're really starting to sound quite desperate in your rationalizations. > It does not take "a separate menu > command". That comment makes no sense whatsoever. Of course it makes no sense, you (obviously) have limited knowledge of the various news readers being used and arrogantly assume that everyone uses the same crap news reader that you do. > > You mean so we'll all know for sure whether you're talking about > > imperial gallons or not? > > <har> > > Oh, I thought you said they were Canadian gallons before Bubba. Maybe you > can learn. ;-) <har> I never used the term "Canadian gallons." Scott did, so as we've seen before, you obviously aren't as smart as you think you are. Of course, if you believe otherwise, post the message number where I used the term "Canadian gallons." > > Hate to break it to you but the "redneck" comment merely shows > > how much you don't know about tracking down where a usenet post > > originated from. > > Redneck has more to do with your boorish behaviour than your geographic > location Bubba. Good god, you're positively delusional. > > So, according to you, we should all waste screen space, display > > full headers on the off chance that some self absorbed nimrod > > If you don't want to waste bandwidth Bubba, stop posting your arcane > comments and hold your breath. When and where did I mention anything about "bandwidth?" Choosing to NOT display full headers has nothing to do with "bandwidth." Some expert! > > might be making claims about the fuel mileage he experienced > > based upon measurements done in imperial gallons. > > It seems that you're still shocked to learn that there are some measurements > in the world other than U.S. gallons.<har> Not shocked at all. What shocks me is that you'd make such an issue when your country (admitted by you) doesn't even use that unit of measurement anymore. > > Oooo, he's going to show us how smart he is.... > > Oooo, Bubba's going to show us how dumb he is.... Classic statement coming from someone who can't read the attributes and confuses the few posters participating in this thread. > > Here's a clue for ya: > > Southwestern Bell is a subsidiary of my parent ISP. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > provider dumbass! You have once again proven that old adage "A little > learning is a dangerous thing". <har> Sorry, wrong again. (maybe you looked up scott instead of me, because it wouldn't be the first time you got us confused) Do keep trying though, your hilarity is endless. <Snip Crap> > Here's another; > There -still- isn't any indication in [your] headers that you're > posting from Canaduh. You know, I did not want to get in this little argument between you two, but all I am going to say is you both seem like small children. Especially you 'aarcuda69062'. You get pissed at one person so you insult his country. I happen to be Canadian and do not care much for your insult. Take your crap up with the guy not his country. > <Snip Crap> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > happen to be Canadian and do not care much for your insult. Take your crap > up with the guy not his country. Well, if you resemble him, take offense. Otherwise, bear in mind, he started with the insults, and if he can't handle the insults, he shouldn't be using them. As for my using the term "canaduh." he's the one who trotted out the 'country' card... guess the ice was thinner than he thought. Since your countryman fancies himself to be such an expert (not) have him teach you how to kill-file me if you find my posts so distasteful. No skin off my nose. >> <Snip Crap> >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > No skin off my nose. Hey, I found his 30mpg to be a little off too, and I did not think to look at his headers, but that still does not warrant insulting his (my) entire country. You yourself are acting pretty childish as well, yet you do not see me insulting the USA. That was my point. > Hey, I found his 30mpg to be a little off too, and I did not think to look > at his headers, but that still does not warrant insulting his (my) entire > country. You yourself are acting pretty childish as well, yet you do not > see me insulting the USA. That was my point. 80 Knight, this whole thread started when I responded to Bill's request for help with his Monte Carlo, which he said was getting 11-12 m.p.g. He also asked for help in finding an engine rebuild kit. I responded that "I got close to 30 m.p.g. on highway trips" with my '74 Monte and I gave Bill a link to an engine rebuild kit for his 305. So I was doing what this NewsGroup was intended for. Helping a fellow hobbiest. I failed to qualify that we used Imperial gallons in Canada, prior to metric conversion and I found myself under attack by no less than 3 people. I stand by the 30 m.p.g. figure because I know that it is the truth. I clarified the Imperial gallon issue and the 3 individuals who initially attacked my credibility stopped their attacks, presumably because they found the numbers feasible. Once the whole issue seemed settled, "aarcuda69062" decided in his wisdom (or lack thereof) to instigate further discussion by showing us all what a redneck Bubba he is. 80 Knight, I have said nothing but the truth in trying to help the original poster with his problem and I refuse to be flamed by the likes of such low-brow Bubbas as "aarcuda69062". Canadians as a group are oft accused of being apathetic when attacked, but I don't put up with dimwits like "aarcuda69062". I am compelled to let him and his ilk know that when it comes to a battle of wits, they are completely unarmed. I regret if my poking fun at "aarcuda69062" has caused you or any other NewsGroup reader undue distress. For your sake and the sake of the non-Bubbas in this NewsGroup, I will now cease and desist my dialog with "aarcuda69062". >80 Knight, this whole thread started when I responded to Bill's request for >help with his Monte Carlo, which he said was getting 11-12 m.p.g. He also [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >undue distress. For your sake and the sake of the non-Bubbas in this >NewsGroup, I will now cease and desist my dialog with "aarcuda69062". Excellent, you can blab like a 16 year old. Now shut the F up and go find something else to bitch about. You got all indignant over someone elses comments when you are the one who started with the whole name calling episode. (quote) "I always find it fascinating that Bozo's like you three challenge someone's credibility without substantiating your comments". (end quote). All you had to do was state that the fuel measure was in Imperial and that would have pretty much been the end of the matter. Is this how the schools teach you to behave in Canada, leap before you look? Maybe if you thought things through all the way the rest of us wouldn't have to wade through the b.s. I personally find these little pissing matches entertaining, after all it is only usenet, invented to allow information to be moved from place to place efficiently no matter how immature the comments. ...Ron -- 68' Camaro RS 88' Firebird Formula 00' Mustang GT Vert > Excellent, you can blab like a 16 year old. Now shut the F up and go > find something else to bitch about. You got all indignant over > someone elses comments when you are the one who started with the whole > name calling episode. Let me see now - The first nasty word in the string was when "TheSnoMan" wrote "That is pure BS, 30 MPG on a trip with a Monte." Well RSCamaro, that may not be name calling, but it sure is inflammatory. My "Bozo" comment followed that comment, if you care to be honest. > (quote) "I always find it fascinating that Bozo's like you three > challenge someone's credibility without substantiating your comments". > (end quote). > > All you had to do was state that the fuel measure was in Imperial and > that would have pretty much been the end of the matter. Uh, RSCamaro, that's what I did, long before aarcuda69062 <nonelson@sbcglobal.net> entered the fray. > Is this how > the schools teach you to behave in Canada, leap before you look? Yes RSCamaro, schools in Canada do teach us that the best defense is a good offense. I know that no-one in the U.S. would leap before they looked. (for weapons of mass destruction) > Maybe if you thought things through all the way the rest of us > wouldn't have to wade through the b.s. Now that's a contradictory comment, if ever I saw one. Read your next comment to see why. > I personally find these little pissing matches entertaining, after all > it is only usenet, invented to allow information to be moved from > place to place efficiently I find them entertaining too Ron. no matter how immature the comments. You've proven that! > ...Ron > -- > 68' Camaro RS > 88' Firebird Formula > 00' Mustang GT Vert > Let me see now - The first nasty word in the string was when "TheSnoMan" > wrote "That is pure BS, 30 MPG on a trip with a Monte." Well RSCamaro, that > may not be name calling, but it sure is inflammatory. So, BS, MS and PhD would be really, really, really inflammatory, right? > My "Bozo" comment > followed that comment, if you care to be honest. Doesn't matter whether -he- cares to be honest. You've already proven yourself incapable. > > (quote) "I always find it fascinating that Bozo's like you three > > challenge someone's credibility without substantiating your comments". > > (end quote). Interestingly, it was -you- stingray who neglected to substantiate your comments. > > All you had to do was state that the fuel measure was in Imperial and > > that would have pretty much been the end of the matter. > > Uh, RSCamaro, that's what I did, long before aarcuda69062 > <nonelson@sbcglobal.net> entered the fray. But not long before you chose to start calling people "Bozo." When I entered the "fray" is immaterial. > > Is this how > > the schools teach you to behave in Canada, leap before you look? > > Yes RSCamaro, schools in Canada do teach us that the best defense is a good > offense. So you admit to being offensive. > I know that no-one in the U.S. would leap before they looked. (for > weapons of mass destruction) looks like Red Herring season has started in Canada. > > Maybe if you thought things through all the way the rest of us > > wouldn't have to wade through the b.s. > > Now that's a contradictory comment, if ever I saw one. Read your next > comment to see why. Not contradictory at all. He's referencing that your original post was BS, the rest of your back pedaling, rationalizing and offers of Red Herrings are entertaining. I agree! > > I personally find these little pissing matches entertaining, after all > > it is only usenet, invented to allow information to be moved from [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > no matter how immature the comments. Would that include the ones that you originated? > You've proven that! As have you. >Let me see now - The first nasty word in the string was when "TheSnoMan" >wrote "That is pure BS, 30 MPG on a trip with a Monte." Well RSCamaro, that >may not be name calling, but it sure is inflammatory. My "Bozo" comment >followed that comment, if you care to be honest. I see, so calling someone out on a statement that they made is no better than calling someone a name? OK, I'll try to remember that. It wasn't inflammatory at all in my opinion. They just stated that they thought that your statement was hogwash with the information that you gave them. If you stated that you were using Imperial gallons to prequalify your calculations, this thread would have been done long ago. I'm not even going to comment on the rest of your reply to me as it shows just how thin a skin you have with the need to attack anything that might make you look... Hmmm, less than the petty person you really appear to be. Maybe outside of this computer you are different, I see you that way with how and what you have typed so far. ...Ron -- 68' Camaro RS 88' Firebird Formula 00' Mustang GT Vert >> Hey, I found his 30mpg to be a little off too, and I did not think to >> look at his headers, but that still does not warrant insulting his (my) [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > undue distress. For your sake and the sake of the non-Bubbas in this > NewsGroup, I will now cease and desist my dialog with "aarcuda69062". Hey, you two seem like you can be civilized people. My only problem was 'aarcuda69062' was insulting an entire country based on only one person. I am not saying you're Monte could get 30MPG, but I do admit that with you being the owner, you should know. Other then that, I had no idea you were in Canada either until I saw Rogers.com in your headers when they were posted. Anyhow, crap happens in newsgroups, we all must let it go and move on. > Hey, you two seem like you can be civilized people. My only problem was > 'aarcuda69062' was insulting an entire country based on only one person. I > am not saying you're Monte could get 30MPG, but I do admit that with you > being the owner, you should know. Other then that, I had no idea you were in > Canada either until I saw Rogers.com in your headers when they were posted. > Anyhow, crap happens in newsgroups, we all must let it go and move on. Just so you know where you (and I) heard it first... >> In article <lZGdnZor0p37U_PeRVn-pQ@rogers.com>, >> "StingRay" <StingRay@Vette.com> wrote: >> Canada. Duh! And just to refresh, stingray felt the need to resort to name calling long before I added a comment. > Hey, you two seem like you can be civilized people. My only problem was > 'aarcuda69062' was insulting an entire country based on only one person. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > posted. > Anyhow, crap happens in newsgroups, we all must let it go and move on. I hear yah! ><Snip Crap> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >happen to be Canadian and do not care much for your insult. Take your crap >up with the guy not his country. Well said. I took an easier approach and killfiled both. >><Snip Crap> >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> > Well said. I took an easier approach and killfiled both. That is a good idea, but I myself have never killfiled anyone in my entire time on Usenet, so I really do not want to start now :-P >> I know it's not exactly an economy car, but eleven mpg still seems >>pretty darn low. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > http://www.autobooks-aerobooks.com/framestuffer.htm?cars/gm1.asp~mainFrame That is pure BS, 30 MPG on a trip with a Monte. You have very bad math skills or wishfull thinking.  Signature----------------- www.thesnoman.com > The car: 1977 Chevrolet Monte Carlo, 305, automatic, 70K miles. > Never wrecked, excellent body, frame, runs and drives [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > TIA > Bill Bill, you should be able to find rebuild kits in the U.S. for the 305. In the off-chance that you can't, here's a link to a Canadian source. I assume that prices are in Canadian $, so it should be even cheaper in U.S. $. http://www.hi-performance.com/CHP/DomesticRebuildKits.htm#top If you do decide to rebuild it, be sure if the block is over-bored 0.030 inch, that the pistons you buy are also 0.030-inch over--and just as important, be sure both dimensions are measured using *English inches*!!! Seriously, IMO, it hurts NOT the value of the car if you use a 350 to replace the tired 305. Both run regular fuel, both use a catalytic convertor, neither is going to set records being stingy on gas, and the 350 has more meat in the water-jacket area for freeze-resistance and for maybe yielding greater overall strength. It seems to me that 1977 models weren't known for surprisingly great fuel mileage; however, 11-12 mpg seems low for either 305 or 350. I'd be checking the timing elements for being out of spec. and causing such poor mpg. Both distributor timing as well as timing chain stretch can result in timing being off. As the chain wears, the timing becomes retarded and over time attempts have quite possibly been made to compensate by advancing the distributor. And as has been suggested earlier, 70-K miles seems immature for the 305 needing a total rebuild. You did not say how much oil it was burning--but you did mention the possibility of its being due to (valve) seals. I think this is a good guess, and quite possibly new valve seals with a total *cleansing* of the engine's interior, verification of proper cat. convertor action, proper distributor function(including its advance characteristics), checking the *slop* in the timing chain's operation to determine its need for replacement, and a thorough tune-up(including new quality wires, dist. cap, rotor, pcv-valve, plugs, & carb-service)--all this may please you with how much better it operates. You might be wise, though, to not expect even close to 30 mpg--either US-gal. or Imperial-gal! I have seen some quite unreal vehicles that yielded phenomenal & unexplainably good mpg(like the one S/R described), but they were definitely among the minority. Just like I've also seen vehicles perform on the other end of the economy spectrum: one I remember quite well as being the most disappointing was a low-mileage 1973 Chev half-ton, 6-cyl w/3-speed on column--no ps, no ac, no pb--truly a plain jane: it would NEVER yield over 8 mpg, driving around my rural town or driving 55 mph along a 2-lane, low traffic road, to and back from a 30-mile-away larger town. Started, ran, and performed as sweet as a 6-cyl could be expected. No leaks, no cat. conv., of course, rolled freely, adequate power, poor mpg. It was so bad, I refused to retail it in my small home-town. Wholesaled it to a dealer and even told him it was rough on gas. He called me when he got home to tell me he had to stop 3 times and put gas in it--apparently not filling it, as dealers tend to do!. (Other 2 he bought did ok, I guess.) And he lived only like 40 miles away. This was in 1975-1976 during tight gas supplies and recent price-hikes. Luck to you. s I got lost for a while reading the flip/flap over that guys 74 monty getting 30mpg. Anyway, I am in the process of dropping the oil pan (it has a crease and is leaking oil). I will inspect the rod journals and after that decide what to do about the rest of the motor. I did feel pretty strong. I will probably eliminate the cat. It is not needed in Texas (I believe) when the car is registered as an antique. What is your (and others) opinion of this web site and the builders results from modifying a 305 without machining the short block: http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1494 If I can get 20mpg with a base Edelbrock 2101 manifold and a 600 Edelbrock carb, I would be VERY satisfied. Bill > If you do decide to rebuild it, be sure if the block is over-bored >0.030 inch, that the pistons you buy are also 0.030-inch over--and just as [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >gas supplies and recent price-hikes. > Luck to you. s |
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.