The Stovebolt.com Forums Home | Tech Tips | Gallery | FAQ | Events | Features | Search
Help is a click away!

VEHICLE
INFORMATION
KITS


at the

GM Heritage Center
All the details are here.

Searching the Site - a click away
click here to search
New here ??? Where to start?
Click on image for the lowdown. Where do I go around here?
====
Who's Online Now
11 members (GMCJammer51, Steveoreno, 4tttt8, Jay R, Joe H, dt235sd, Peggy M, 55shaker, FAST55, 1955 1 Series, Waveski), 95 guests, and 5 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums66
Topics128,180
Posts1,057,164
Members48,465
Most Online14,466
Apr 26th, 2026
Step-by-step instructions for pictures in the forums
Brad Allen's photos

AD Chevy Trucks

Pictures galore
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!

Big Thanks!

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!

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 136
R
Wrench Fetcher
Wrench Fetcher
R Offline
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 136
Two questions here. First,my 57 has a 3.36 rearend from a GM A-body. Engine/trans is 350/ MY6. I would like to change the rearend to a 2.73 for better gas mileage. I have done some research and discovered that the 2.73 was in a number of vehicles including Nova, Blazer, and others. The issue that concerns me is width of the unit. I am running 8" rallye wheels, and if I load the truck, the tires rub on the inside of the fenders. Is there a particular 2.73 application that is narrower than others? Second, my truck suspension is original configuration, and has a nose-up stance. That, and the fact that any sort of load causes the bed to settle way down, indicates weak springs--I expect they are original to the truck. I have heard of re-arching the springs, but is that any better or cheaper than buying new ones ?






Joined: May 2006
Posts: 8,351
L
'Bolter
'Bolter
L Offline
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 8,351
Sounds like the springs are shot. Rearching them will help, or at least for a while. Rearched springs have a tendacy to eventually settle back down to where they were to begin with. For the cost, you would be ahead getting new springs. Replace the shocks at the same time.
On the rearend, I would advise against the 2.73 gear, given the transmission you're running. It's too high of a ratio. You'll find that you'll lose gas mileage, especially in traffic, as there's not enough gear to get the truck rolling. With the rear gear and trans you currently have, your final drive is approximatly 2.36:1, with a 2.73, it'll be 1.9:1. Great for a high speed highway cruiser with a torquey big block, not so great with a smallblock. It'll get the engine below it's ideal powerband, which will kill the mileage.


Bill Burmeister
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,859
S
Grumpy old guy playing with trucks, cars, and boats
Grumpy old guy playing with trucks, cars, and boats
S Offline
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,859
G-bodies and S-10's have 2.73's. I had a 2.73 rear from a V8 Monza in my Opel GT. The upside, light car and I could get 32mpg. The down side, I had to red-line it in 2nd through the traps against the rev limiter. Shifting into 3rd made me slower.

The car only weighed 2100# with 330hp. It needed better gearing. A truck with more weight and less power will be not as stellar at acceleration.

I would not recommend anything less than a 3.08 with plenty of torque, or a 3:42 with an SBC and the trans you have.


The problems we face today can not be addressed at the same level of intelligence we were at when we created them - Albert Einstein Or with the same level of $ - Me
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 136
R
Wrench Fetcher
Wrench Fetcher
R Offline
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 136
Thanks, guys. New springs definitely, new rearend, maybe. My 350 has incredible low-end torque. Most of my driving is in OD, and Iwould like the RPMs at 65-70 to be in the 2000-2300 range. I know the acceleration will be un-stellar, but am more concerned with fuel economy. BTW, I'm running a 4GC square bore w/ manual choke.

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 8,351
L
'Bolter
'Bolter
L Offline
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 8,351
Assuming a stock tire, which was 27" in diameter for the TF trucks, in 4th gear (.71 overdrive) and a 3.36 rear gear, you should only be turning about 2073 rpm at 70 mph. With the 2.73, you only be turning 1681.
With my setup, I'm running a 3 speed w/B-W overdrive and 30" tires. Rear gear is stock 3.90. At 70 mph, I'm only turning 1850 rpm.


Bill Burmeister
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 4,095
W
'Bolter
'Bolter
W Offline
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 4,095
i have a nova 2.73 on my 54 with a 235/6 and it runs just fine in 4th and 5th at highway speeds but on hill it needs the 4th. on take off it does ok but around town driving is better in third. mileage in town stinks, 12-13 but on the trip to KC i averaged 20mpg and got a high of 23.5 at 70 mph. you can put over load springs on the leaf spring pretty cheap. ron


Ron, The Computer Greek
I love therefore I am.
1954 3100 Chevy truck
In the Gallery
2017 Buick Encore
See more pix
1960 MGA Roadster Sold 7/18/2017

Moderated by  Phak1, Woogeroo 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Home | FAQ | Gallery | Tech Tips | Events | Features | Search | Hoo-Ya Shop
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0