The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop 350 issues

Hi. I have a 1958 32. I wonder if any of you know how much hp the stock drivetrain will handle. I am planning on putting a 350 with Vortec heads on, should produce about 320HP. Will the stock drivetrain hold the power, or will it need to be upgraded

If you're running the original 3-speed transmission, that's the weak point. I'd suggest a turbo 350 or 400, with a few performance upgrades like a slightly higher stall speed torque converter. If you insist on staying with a manual trans, (a BIG mistake) try a Saginaw 4-speed, or one of the heavy-duty 5-speeds intended for service behind a V-8. The popular T-5 swap probably won't handle the power and torque of a beaned-up 350.
Jerry

why is it everyone wants to put the 350 in their trucks? with the proper parts one can get 200hp out of the straight six and then put a t 5 with it and have a safe reliable truck. my 2 cents. ron

Seems that parts are cheaper and more plentiful for the SB 350, Zeke

we b old, you can buy a new gm crate motor for 1200 bucks that'll turn out 260 hp all day long.

betcha can't do that with yer 6cyl for $1200
don't get me wrong, i like the 6cyl idea better but they just aren't as cost effective

It this particular one didn't come with the 3 speed, It had the 4. There is just not the avalibility of parts for the 235 as there is for a 350

Some of us got stuck with a SBC when we bought the truck, and to retrofit back to the 6 would be a bigger expense. I'll go to another SBC unless I find a deal on something like a big block chevy. Of course if a Cummins diesel or a vintage hemi happened to drop in my lap, I might have to rethink. (Plenty of time for that while my lap is in a cast. )

In a way, owning a Stovebolt is like raising kids. Everybody has opinions and advice, but ultimately, only you can decide what to do with your baby.

I got to agree I inheirted a 350 my real choice would be a Plymouth 383 but 350's are a dime a dozen and everybody has parts so I went new rebuilt and going from there.

popcorn The Truth is Out There (Ok Brad what happened didn't hear about the cast!!!)

The venerable Chevy 350 is lighter than the straight 6 and has a LOT more torque. It's actually a very good upgrade. Cheaper to build and parts are plentiful.

I don't see why it's a "big mistake" to keep a manual transmission in a truck. A common Muncie M20 wide ratio or M21 close ratio will handle about 450 lb-ft of torque, gives you a 4-speed, and bolts up nicely to a 350 with an equally common bellhousing. If you want an overdrive, Gear Vendors makes one for the Muncie. Really pretty basic, a lot more powerful, and a lot smoother.

I can see exactly why the hotrodders like the 350 so much. Plus it's better for the purists...more stove bolts motors for sale on e-bay.

Jerry,

Why is a manual transmission a big mistake? I would think it would be preferable for efficiency. No torque converter to waste power, more gears typically than automatics. I have been dreaming about the Richmond Gear 6 speed OD. They are built specifically for heavy duty applications in Chevy trucks, yet they are as smooth and quick as the old T10s or Super T10s. I know they are spendy but to my thinking scrimping on the tranny can ruin the vehicle.

I'm probably gonna get drawn and quartered for this, but I'm thinking of putting a blown 354 hemi in my '54. (It's a drag racing thaaang...) Got a block and heads here that I picked up a few year back and my dad has a 6:71 GMC blower I can get my grubby little mits on. Here's a link to pics of a model I built with the general idea of what I want to do.

\'54 Chevy gasser model

Let the drawing and quartering begin because I'm going to be building and installing a 6-71 supercharged 400 small block with some kind of an overdrive manual, probably a Tremec TKO. That's years down the road, and the sale of my 235, 4-speed manual and original rear end will help fund the project. I was tempted to modify it for 4WD, but the only way I'll do that is if I find a good parts truck.

And (gasp) I'm going to paint flames on it too!

Manual transmissions are a giant leap backward in technology, sort of like yanking all the computerized fuel injection stuff off an engine and installing a carburetor. (Some folks do that, too!) How about installing a crank instead of a starter? Clincher rims, and high-pressure tires, maybe?

Here's a suggestion- - - -a stick shift is something for a driver to play with, so why not install an automatic transmission, and cut the pockets out of your pants? You've got a toy that's more pleasing than a stick shift, and a better-performing vehicle, too!

My students love it when I explain it that way!

Jerry

C'mon Jerry, you can do better than that. Usually I read your posts as gospel. This time you're telling me to go play with myself. You didn't even address the technical issues I brought up.

Manual transmissions nowadays have a high degree of technology too. I want a low pulling gear and a decent overdrive, and I don't want to do that with three or four gears. I want reasonably close gear ratios so I'm not going from 4000 RPM to 1500 RPM when it changes gears.

I also want a stick to teach my youngest son on. The other boys got to learn that. I'm not shortchanging this one.

Regarding what kind of analogies your students love, I hope you are teaching at the college level. If you made that analogy to my high schooler, I would become the top parent on your list of people you don't want to see.

Point taken, Brad, and no, I don't include that little bit of advice in a general lecture! Most of us teachers are shocked by what our students know, (or think they know) on a regular basis!

Modern standard transmissions are still extremely primitive in design, and they can't even approach the degree of efficiency or versatility of a good automatic. Clutch design hasn't changed in over 100 years. They still chatter, shake, and overheat, and most clutches won't last nearly as long as a torque converter under hard use. That "wasteful" torque converter actually doubles engine torque just prior to getting the vehicle into motion, allowing a noticeably higher final drive ratio which converts into better fuel mileage, lower cruise RPM, and less engine wear and noise. The downside of a converter is a 10% loss of RPM on the output, due to the design of the stator that multiplies the torque. This can be remedied by a single-disc clutch inside the converter that locks up and eliminates slippage at cruise speed. Combined with an overdrive, there can be four modes of operation at highway speed, depending on load and speed: Direct drive, converter unlocked; Direct drive converter in lockup; Overdrive, converter unlocked; and overdrive, converter locked. There's the equivalent of four different gear ratios, and engine torque outputs, which switch without any driver input. Most transmissions shift between these options without any noticeable difference in speed or engine note, the transition is so smooth. A very alert driver who watches the tachometer constantly will notice minor speed changes, but he's got to be looking for them.

Since the average powertrain control computer samples operating conditions anywhere from 10 to 90 times per second, a computer-controlled transmission can select the proper gear for any operating situation more quickly, and more accurately than a driver with a 5 or 6-speed choice at his disposal. Even an older hydraulic-cntrolled trans can sense speed and load conditions more accurately than the average stick shift driver, and select the proper gear. For really unusual situations, the driver with an automatic transmission can take manual control of some, if not all operating modes. The ones he can't control are outside of the operating limits of the vehicle, 70 MPH in 1st. gear, for instance. Most automatics have safety circuits to allow a shift before damage is done, like the above example. There's an emergency override built into most automatics to allow a shift into top gear at extreme engine RPM, before engine damage occurs.

A driver who believes he can out-think a good automatic transmission with a stick shift is just deluding himself.
Jerry

Now that's what I am talking about! Facts and figures. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but I like to know the whys and wherefores.

Thanks, and sorry if it came across like growling. It wasn't intended.

Oh, and one other reason to want a stick... The wife won't drive it.

Yeah, but REAL MEN drive a stick! Sorry, I couldn't think of anything to counter with...lol

I think it comes down to personal preference. I just like the intimate control a manual transmission give me. But I hate manuals in stop and go rush traffic. If you saw my stable, about half my cars are manual, half automatic.

The drag racer street/strip Firebird is a TH400 with a 3500 rpm stall. Torque multiplication? You betcha. Ratchetting shifter for the real speed and controllability.

The open road racer C3 427 Corvette is a close ratio Muncie. The controllability over the gears and the rpms in each gear, shift points, coming out of an apex just right, heel & toe-ing, etc. is a lot better for that car's mission. Plus I just love harnessing the 427's 600+ hp like that.

The commuting cars (IROC & Grand Am) are automatics, because of the stop and go traffic issue.
And the Stovebolt truck is a manual, because I prefer to stroke the gears myself when I'm towing or off the road.

If I had the green to own a Ferarri, you can bet it'd be a stick shift rather than a paddle shift. I wouldn't have that car any other way.

It's a personal preference, Jerry. That's what it comes down to. I like them both for different reasons. But that's just my own personal opinion.

not to be too contentious here,

but there is one thing that the automatic transmissino can NOT due that a manual can. a driver of a manual can anticipate the situation before it happens. an Automatic has to guess what the driver wants to do based on pedal pressure. it can not know that I am about to slow down to turn, or that while the rpm is dropping lower than the most efficient band, I am about to top the hill, so don't bother downshifting, or that I am about to pass that guy, so downshift immediately.

the Auto transmission can certainly make a better decision about what gear I should be in now, based on what has been happening, but it will never anticipate what I will need 2-3 seconds from now.

If your statement about Auto efficiency were true, than the MPG data would back you up, but I have never seen a vehicle get better gas mileage in an Auto tranny than in a manual.

-Mike R.

"Real men drive a stick", I would agree with that. Automatics are for little old ladies and grocery getters. Ha, Ha.

"Manual transmissions are a giant leap backward in technology". I'll agree that other than syncronizers and adding a few gears, the manual trans has change very little in the last eighty years. It really hasn't had to.
The automatic on the other hand, has hundreds of designs and thousands of modifications. A couple years ago GM said the future was in "Continuously Variable Transmissions (CVTs) or what they call "Hydra-Matic Variable Transmission intelligent (VTi) that they were using in the Saturn. Now they are talking about several new versions of six speed automatics.
When they get the technology right, maybe they'll let us know.
"The Big Three" have spent the last 20 years working on getting an auto to work behind a diesel in a pickup and they still get complaints.

In the mean time.
High-stall converters, lock-up torque converters, manual control automatic transmissions. A multi billion dollar industry, trying to make a automatic transmission operate like a manual transmission.

A high-stall torque converter is not a performance upgrade. It is a band-aid to cover up a weak bottom end and for an engine that won't idle at a decent rpm in gear. A 350 with 320 hp is still relatively mild and should have very streetable manners with a broad power range and a good idle.

Jerry, with all due respect, I have made the transision of automatic trans to manual trans MANY times. Each time I have gained power (no dyno, but using the same hill and accelerating from the same point to the top results in a higher terminal speed); fuel economy (measurable from 10 to 20 percent depending on the vehicle); a cooler running vehicle; and a vehicle which runs on lower octane fuel.

As far as clutches are concerned, have never installed a clutch in a vehicle that I purchased new, and never installed the second clutch in one that I bought used. My shop truck (bought used) went over 400,000 miles after I installed a clutch at 120,000. We finally retired it due to rust.

I will confess to only buying one new vehicle with a dogmatic transmission, and that one blew up at 7000 miles. :mad:

I will concede that as I grow older, the automatics are easier to drive (no, changed my mind, I won't concede that either)

If one likes a automatic, sobeit; but for performance, economy, and reliability give me the manual trans every time.

Since we were forced to buy a vehicle with a dogmatic transmission, I change the fluid and filter every 25,000 miles AND BOUGHT A CELLULAR TELEPHONE!!!

Jon.

I recently bought a 2004 Honda CR-V. The fuel economy is EPA rated at (if I remember right) 21/26 for the manual version and 22/27 for the slushbox. The engine is exactly the same in both versions.
While the automatic version gets marginally better milage, the manual version is faster and more responsive in the driving conditions I tested, so I bought the manual version. I have yet to drive an automatic that I liked.

Automatics are probably faster in drag racing, but in a road race (or spirited corner carving) where being in the right gear is critical, I'm pretty sure a manual will keep winning races.

Plus, y'know, some vehicles just have to be driven on the stick. Yeah, for you'r adverage car you see on the road just wouldn't be right with a stick. For drag racing, however, a computer can shift more accurately and consistantly, but, most of these trucks are probably not built to be for and only for drag racing

Funny, I thought the whole purpose of the Stovebolt page was to provide a meeting place for people who appreciate "primitive" technology. In case eveyone has forgotten, "Stovebolt" refers to the 235 inline 6 and all its inline 6 ancestors. Lecture on the merits of modern technology all you want. I like everything about my 2003 Suburban with all its modern marvels (thank God, though, for the extended warranty!). But the reason I congregate here is to share a love of old trucks. I'm not a hot rodder. I don't jack 'em up, or install V-8s, fuel injection and an automatic that needs 90 decision points per second. A Stovebolt 6 and a three-speed on the column is what gives my old truck its character. I believe everyone has the right to do anything they want with their old truck. But I reserve the right to laugh out loud when it is clear that the only appreciation one holds for an old classic is in the contour of it's sheet metal.

From a guy that does every bit of his own repairs, I prefer manuals over automatics mainly from a cost and time point of view. If a manual quits it's usually just a clutch and I have it back in action in a few hours for a few hundred dollars, if that. If an auto goes bad, it's down for days (if it's repairable at all) and will cost several hundred dollars to repair. If you keep the gear lube full, a heavy-duty 4 speed will far out last an automatic in the working conditions I put them through. In my "big bolt" fleet, economy isn't even measurable so it's not even a concern, just reliability.
Just my 2 cents (and not looking for a [censored] match),
Scott