RE: Old Days and big motors

From: Stlaurent Mr Steven (STLAURENTS@mctssa.usmc.mil)
Date: Thu Jan 13 2000 - 10:23:16 EST


Here we go again! Since, I used to own it and rebuild it, I would think I
should know the CUBIC INCHES. The 396 was replaced with a 427 and I removed
it for a 454 version.

Remember! I forgot to tell you.....I bored it over to almost thinning the
cylinder walls, from a 454 to a 502 cubic inches.
Thanks for the interest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven St.Laurent
Test Engineer
Test Branch, GSD,MCTSSA
MARCORSYSCOM, US Marine Corps
mailto:stlaurents@mctssa.usmc.mil (work)
mailto:Saint1958@home.com (home)
Office: (760) 725-2296

-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn Pedersen [mailto:davewaco@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 3:32 PM
To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
Subject: Re: DML: Old Days and big motors

Yo The 69 Chevelle ss 396 was 402 CU. IN. not 502
.. Just ask Rob. He knows all the Chevy facts.
                 Dave Waco
94 Dakota V8 14.9 69 Super B 12.8 78 Arrow 360 V8 11.7
Stlaurent Mr Steven wrote:
>
> Yes! Let's kill this thread.
>
> But, I still remember buying a 69 Chevelle SS 396 (really a 502 Cubic
> inches), 12.5 compression, TRW forged pistons, reworked heads, 600 plus
> solid cam & lifters, Moroso 12 QT sump pan, Hurst shifter and liberty
> gearing in a Muncie Tranny, with a 4:10 rear. The only problem was the
970
> CFM three barrel carburetor that only push a gallon every thirty seconds
> when racing or 3-5 MPG on the freeway. OH yes! That was day when real
> motors were pushing 650 to 750 HP but no gas. Then here comes a jeep that
> creamed my pants off the line while I going sideways in a POSI-TRACK rear
> and loosing rubber (even with traction bars). With a smaller motor he was
> gone while I was touting the first gear doing 60MPH and burning rubber. I
> will never forget that day and remember it until I can own a Viper GTS/R.
>
> The old story is bigger is not always better but the gearing, traction,
and
> correct engineering what always wins.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Steven St.Laurent
> Test Engineer
> Test Branch, GSD,MCTSSA
> MARCORSYSCOM, US Marine Corps
> mailto:stlaurents@mctssa.usmc.mil (work)
> mailto:Saint1958@home.com (home)
> Office: (760) 725-2296
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SS454454@aol.com [mailto:SS454454@aol.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2000 8:48 PM
> To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net
> Subject: Re: DML: Re: RE: RE: RE: Re: 4.7 SLT out......die thread die
> -Weight
>
> In a message dated 01/12/2000 12:40:14 AM !!!First Boot!!!,
bernd@texas.net
> writes:
>
> << AHHHHHHHHHH.....
>
> It's the "MINE'S BIGGER THAN YOURS" Syndrome.
> >>
>
> yeah right. dude when i had my 454ss ( stock) i got beat by little 1.7
litre
> turbo jobs and mild mods hondas 9 air intake exhaust ...) yeah i had a
big
> a$$ motor but so what i was getting killed at the track. I had v6 S10
keep
> up and got beat by same style chevy and GMcs with 350. Ive beaten 454ss
> pick
> ups with my 1989 GMC sierra and i only had a 350 in it. so size its great
> but
> I guess im just tired of people with a 360 thinking they are so special.
> believe me while the RT or a 360 is a nice powerful motor they arent
> invincible. My 4.7 only puts out 235 hp. a cadillac northstar v8 ( 4.8
> litre)
> puts out 300 hp. all im saying just because its a little smaller it doesnt
> make it a economy motor or whatever you may think. ive kept up to RT and
> chevy 350 and fords. mabey mine is better built i dont know. all i know is
> its not economy. my average fuel is between 12 to 15 mpg depending on how
i
> drive. and it has plenty of power for passing and keeping up with so
called
> sport cars. i kept up to a mustang from 60 to 100 mph. anyway let this
> thing
> die out
> Rob



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:46:44 EDT