| |
Labor Day Putting down your wrenches or time for MORE wrenching? 
Plenty of places to share. | | Click on image for the lowdown. 
====
| | |
2 members (RLB, baldeagle),
43
guests, and
4
robots. | | Key: Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod | | | Forums66 Topics128,003 Posts1,055,244 Members48,418 | | Most Online14,466 Apr 26th, 2026 | | AD Chevy Trucks Over 6,000 pictures Brad Allen has an awesome collection of Chevrolet factory pictures that he has set up from film strips. Check them out!
Lots of work on Brad's part ... pure enjoyment (and references) for you!
| | THANKS!
For helping keep this great
old truck web site
on the Internet for over 30 years! and not clogged down with Ads! Again, thanks! | | | | Joined: Mar 2014 Posts: 4,473 Moderator, Electrical Bay | | Moderator, Electrical Bay Joined: Mar 2014 Posts: 4,473 | Answer to question 3...the blocks are not too much different aside from the oiling scheme. Most people think the oiling scheme was better in the later blocks and that may be true, however I would not base my decision on that alone. Here is one notable difference: the camshaft used from 1959 and up to 1962 was better. Be it hydraulic or be it solid it was designed to produce more torque at lower rpms and it did that. Max torque was reached at 2000 rpm and the torque line is pretty level from about 1600 over to around 2600. Years ago there was a memo on the GM Heritage site that explained what they did and how it helped. They were trying to help reduce smog from bumper-to-bumper traffic and the thought that more power at lower rpms would be helpful was one of their first steps. Good luck!
~ Jon 1952 1/2 ton with 1959 235 | T5 with 3.07 rear end
| | |
| |
| |