Author Topic: "NEW" PROBLEM(S), PART 2:  (Read 8494 times)

Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3215
"NEW" PROBLEM(S), PART 2:
« on: July 13, 2009, 03:19:38 PM »
The original thread was getting to long to sift thru, so i decided to start another one.

We're almost there, as you can see.

One heater hose goes to the radiator, but which of these outlets (inlets?) should i hook the other hose to?


Offline eventhorizon66

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1910
Re: "NEW" PROBLEM(S), PART 2:
« Reply #1 on: July 13, 2009, 03:32:06 PM »
I have mine at location "B".
'85 C10 SWB 350 700R4 TKO600

Offline baddogg79

  • Registered Users
  • *
  • Posts: 120
Re: "NEW" PROBLEM(S), PART 2:
« Reply #2 on: July 13, 2009, 06:15:28 PM »
mine is on "B" too

Offline Irish_Alley

  • Tim
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13273
  • Family is not an important thing. It's everything.
Re: "NEW" PROBLEM(S), PART 2:
« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2009, 12:37:44 AM »
B
If you canít tell yourself the truth, who can you tell it to?~Irish_Alley

When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth ~Sherlock Holmes

Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3215
Re: "NEW" PROBLEM(S), PART 2:
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2009, 08:21:22 PM »
i'm pretty sure it's "B" too at this point.  i will plug "a" or put a temp sender unit in there.

We have, unfortunately(or fortunately depending on how you look at it) hit another unrelated life snag/issue and thus the problem will have to be put on hold again temporarily.  How pathetic.

Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3215
Re: "NEW" PROBLEM(S), PART 2:
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2009, 11:17:57 PM »
P.S.  That is the boring but reliable 305 i had in the garage sittting dormant that i was talking about.  Complete with rochester 2g carb and manifold.  How 50's ish.


Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3215
Re: "NEW" PROBLEM(S), PART 2:
« Reply #6 on: August 06, 2009, 12:15:16 PM »
Update:

The engine is finally running (not real smooth---needs tuning adjustments etc., but running)

Will provide more info asap and possibly a video.

Thanks for everyones help in the matter.

Offline SUX2BU99

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1478
    • My Cardomain Site. Truck is on Page 6.
Re: "NEW" PROBLEM(S), PART 2:
« Reply #7 on: August 06, 2009, 12:48:48 PM »
P.S.  That is the boring but reliable 305 i had in the garage sittting dormant that i was talking about.  Complete with rochester 2g carb and manifold.  How 50's ish.



That's what my 81 Jimmy 2wd had. 305 2bbl. Most gutless vehicle I ever owned. Kept me out of trouble (mostly) in high school though :)  Hmmm I did almost beat a guy who had a 83 305 4bbl LWB and straight pipes though...almost  lol
85 Chevy Silverado C10 short, wide, yellow, 2wd. Lowered, 60-over 350 with Dart Iron Eagle heads and Comp Cams XE268 cam, TH350 w/ shift kit, 3.40 Gov-lok 12 bolt.

Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3215
Re: "NEW" PROBLEM(S), PART 2:
« Reply #8 on: August 08, 2009, 07:51:02 PM »
305's don't get enough respect;  i personally love them and think you can get some performance out of them.

No one has any problems with a 283, yet the 305 with 22 more cubic inches is hated.  i don't get it.

Offline eventhorizon66

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1910
Re: "NEW" PROBLEM(S), PART 2:
« Reply #9 on: August 08, 2009, 08:00:32 PM »
305's don't get enough respect;  i personally love them and think you can get some performance out of them.

No one has any problems with a 283, yet the 305 with 22 more cubic inches is hated.  i don't get it.

I have a problem with anything less than a 350 for a rebuild and 383 for a "from scratch" build.  It's not that the smaller SBC's are bad engines in any way.  It's just that if you are serious about performance, your money is much better spent on 350 and up.

305's don't get respect from people who are wanting to build power.  For a commuter engine, they're jim dandy.
'85 C10 SWB 350 700R4 TKO600

Offline TexasRed

  • Junior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 641
Re: "NEW" PROBLEM(S), PART 2:
« Reply #10 on: August 08, 2009, 08:06:19 PM »
305's are good for a motor for a small boat and a grocery getter, even then I wouldn't do an all out check-every-clearance rebuild for 400k miles. My grandpa used to drive a 305 with a pop-up camper through some hilly parts of Oklahoma just fine (from what I recall), but really, it's not ideal.

Offline eventhorizon66

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1910
Re: "NEW" PROBLEM(S), PART 2:
« Reply #11 on: August 08, 2009, 08:22:52 PM »
And another thing.  It baffles me that the 305's ever existed in the first place.  Wouldn't it have been easier and cheaper to simply use a 3" stroke to achieve 5.0L rather than cast a whole new block?  And why was 383 never offered as a factory engine?
'85 C10 SWB 350 700R4 TKO600

Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3215
Re: "NEW" PROBLEM(S), PART 2:
« Reply #12 on: August 10, 2009, 10:08:16 AM »
1) Probably because they, the engineers, were looking for more of a torque engine---longer stroke.  While still getting decent mpg?


2) Proabably due to mpg;  The 400 is the "monster" torque engine of the sbc family--not really a hi-po engine, more of a hauler.  So, the 383 would have just been redundant because the 350 would fill the bill for performance while getting slightly(but enough for marketing and environmental concerns) better mpg.

These are only my thoughts/speculations on why they did what they did with the above engines.

Plus, gm is just conservative----we are not talking about Ferrari here.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2009, 12:37:45 PM by Stewart G Griffin »

Offline Stewart G Griffin

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3215
Re: "NEW" PROBLEM(S), PART 2:
« Reply #13 on: August 10, 2009, 12:01:48 PM »
So anyways, next i need as much info as humanly possible on the rochester 2G carburetor.

Please provide any/all links possible concerning this carb.   i know this is not an easy task as no-one gives a crap about this carb anymore except in tri-power configurations but even then, multi-carb setups are just not that popular anyways.


1) i'm having problems keeping the engine running below 1000rpms which sounds like the timing is too retarded.   (The engine, does however, sound pretty decent for the brief time i can get it to run at 1200rpm or above.)

Current plan for that would be to keep advancing timing little-by-little before each attempt to start.  i have a battery charger, so testing like this is not nessesarily a problem.
My only concern about this first stategy is that i don't want to damage the starter;   Is 15 seconds of cranking per minute ok?   In other words, i'm letting the starter cool off for at least 45 seconds before cranking a maximium 15 seconds per try.

2) How do you actually start a car equipped with a 2G?

a) when cold?

b) when the engine has run for a few secs but shuts down?   So, the engine is still "cold" but not as cold as if not run for a few hours.   Also, i'm ASSuming in this condition fuel has run thru the carb.

c) When warm?




Offline Donut

  • Frequent Member
  • **
  • Posts: 402
Re: "NEW" PROBLEM(S), PART 2:
« Reply #14 on: August 10, 2009, 06:00:21 PM »
http://www.oldcarmanualproject.com/manuals/Carbs/Rochester/2-Jet/Manual/MCarbRoch1973__2G.htm
http://www.carburetorfactory.com/expvw23.htmlexploded view.

I had one on a Monte Carlo (I think) and if I remember, it started like any other carb.

Have you gone through the carb yet?  A quick overhaul and cleanout can work wonders.  The kits should be available at most auto parts shops for less than 20.00.
'73 Chevy K-20 ***SOLD***
350/tbh350/np205
My plow was half price if i took the truck with it.

'86 C-30 dually, 454/tbh400