| |
Click on image for the lowdown. 
====
| | | Forums66 Topics128,090 Posts1,056,022 Members48,430 | | 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: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,152 Cruising in the Passing Lane | | Cruising in the Passing Lane Joined: Oct 2003 Posts: 5,152 | Part of the six versus eight difference is simply cubic inches. There are few sixes larger than the 300 cube neighborhood and most that are don't belong in a car or light truck.
Lots of eights are a lot bigger than 300 cubic inches. The old saw there is no substitute for cubic inches is true. If you need more power more cubes is one sure way to get it.
Torque can be achieved through gears if not produced directly by the motor. Lots of the older six powered vehicles had deep rear gears to create torque. Now days a recurring theme here is how do I change my gears to get some highway speed.
I am very satisfied with the GMC 270 in my Suburban except when I try to pull a trailer with it. I am satisfied with the TBI 350 in my '91 K2500 until I pull a heavily loaded trailer with it. My old K3500 with a 454 would easily out pull either of the other trucks with smaller motors.
Can a six be made that will pull like that 454? Sure, the Cummins BT-6 has similar horsepower and torque specs and a good reputation for working hard. Will one of the now obselete GM gas powered sixes compete? I don't think so, at least not without spending big dollars are modifications.
The answer to this question really has to go back to the owner's performance expectations. My 270 powered Suburban will not fulfill my expectations pulling a trailer. If that was my purpose for that vehicle it would be a failure. But then the 454 powered K3500 didn't always go fast enough for me either.
If the owners expectations can be met with a 235/261/270/292/302 then great, run a six. If not either adjust the expectations or get a motor (likely a V-8 if gas powered) that will do the job and remember that performance is a package deal. The rear gears, tire height and transmission all have to be chosen and coordinated with the end in mind.
1955 1st GMC Suburban | 1954 GMC 250 trailer puller project | 1954 GMC 250 Hydra-Matic | 1954 Chevy 3100 . 1947 Chevy COE | and more... It's true. I really don't do anything but browse the Internet looking for trouble... | | | |
Entire Thread
|
Stovebolt vs, Small Block V*
| C10Apache1960 | 02/11/2010 5:24 PM |
Re: Stovebolt vs, Small Block V*
| OldSub | 02/11/2010 6:11 PM |
Re: Stovebolt vs, Small Block V*
| KC in NH | 02/11/2010 6:14 PM |
Re: Stovebolt vs, Small Block V*
| Avette4me | 02/12/2010 1:06 AM |
Re: Stovebolt vs, Small Block V*
| chevman32 | 02/12/2010 2:49 AM |
Re: Stovebolt vs, Small Block V*
| panic | 02/12/2010 4:22 AM |
Re: Stovebolt vs, Small Block V*
| Scott Danforth | 02/12/2010 4:47 AM |
Re: Stovebolt vs, Small Block V*
| BILL | 02/12/2010 4:30 PM |
Re: Stovebolt vs, Small Block V*
| panic | 02/12/2010 6:42 PM |
Re: Stovebolt vs, Small Block V*
| OldSub | 02/13/2010 12:58 AM |
Re: Stovebolt vs, Small Block V*
| hoggyrubber | 02/13/2010 5:40 AM |
Re: Stovebolt vs, Small Block V*
| padresag | 02/13/2010 7:02 AM |
Re: Stovebolt vs, Small Block V*
| 54daddy | 02/23/2010 1:14 AM |
Re: Stovebolt vs, Small Block V*
| Scott Danforth | 02/13/2010 1:03 AM |
Re: Stovebolt vs, Small Block V*
| LONGBOX55 | 02/13/2010 2:14 AM | |
| |
| |