![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: west coast
Posts: 3,374
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
Lets keep the thread to 67 thru 72,late model modular 5.4's and 01 Expeditions are a bore to me. My point is historically Chevys are prefered for personal light duty use, where Fords are more preferred for truck work, where top speed and handling are not as important factors.Here are some facts. Sorry my camera aint that great, but this photo shows a 327 Chevy block and a 330 Ford block. Chevy crank is level with the bottom of block, Ford extend 2.66" below crank center line. Distance between cylinders is .402" on Chevy and .759" on Ford. Exhaust valve ports are alternated on Ford to minimzie heat concentration, Chevy has exhaust ports adjacent to each other which builds heat concentration on middle of cylinder head.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Petersville KY
Posts: 673
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
I can't really speak for the rest of the country, but around here I still see alot more 67-72 Chevies earning their keep as work trucks than 67-72 Fords! Most of the Fords rusted away years ago in these years. My brother traded off a 71 F-100 last year that had came up from Texas a few years back, it was a really nice truck had a 360 and automatic. It drove and ran great but since it had been up here the lower sides of the hood were rusted through and the front fenders behind the wheels was rusting through. All the moisture we have in this part of the country has always wreaked havoc on old sheetmetal, add to that winter road salt and you get the picture.
__________________
Rob 72 C/10 (under reconstruction)(destruction ? LOL) 48 Willys CJ2A 1952 Super "A" Farmall (Grandfather's) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Lethbridge,Alberta
Posts: 532
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
I'd drive this one:
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Factory Strippers Rule!
![]() Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Shingle Springs, CA
Posts: 707
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
Ford Backwards:
Driver Returns On Foot I think they're as cool as herpes on a first date.
__________________
"Feast your eyes on a feast of smoke." 67 Chevy Short Fleet PLAN: LQ9, 4L60, D60 Looking for School Bus Gauges - Help me out! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta,Ga
Posts: 660
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
The only thing from FORD i like is MUSTANG's(classic to modern)!!
Never had much FORD's in my family.
__________________
www.gkautospa.com Like A Rock! http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=397153 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Mo
Posts: 963
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
Sorry I bore you so much factorystock.
__________________
New daily driver 96 Chevy K3500 crew cab dually 53,000 miles 350 Vortec 4L80 Nice ride 67 Chevy C-10 LWB Built 350 TH-400 Wifes ride and family rig: 2001 Furd Expedition 5.4 Liter ![]() Kickin back in Rolla,Mo. USA "Do the thing you fear most and the death of fear is certain" Mark Twain |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
Registered User
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Carmichael, California
Posts: 576
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
I like them, but I like anything old and American. My brother has a 74 F-250 and I love it just as much as I love my C10. Just my opinion though.
__________________
Eric ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() 1995 Ford F-250 4x4 Powerstroke, 342k "Each generation goes further than the generation preceding it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation. You will have opportunities beyond anything we've ever known." -Ronald Reagan |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
What?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 7,617
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
I don't care what Ford did to their motor's.
To me, all that "reinforcement" just added to the weight which just added to their lack luster performance. Thus giving them the common nick name "Boat anchor"... Though not all Ford motors were pigs, just most of them. Then again I'm biased, and you are trying to compare a Ford to Chevrolet on a Chevrolet forum. ![]()
__________________
Chris 1968 K20 Suburban 1972 K10 LWB PU |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tejas
Posts: 691
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
Ford made a fuss over their heavy block compared to the 327, but how often are stock small block Chevies referred to as fragile instead of a workhorse or the like?
__________________
'72 cheyenne super step, '05 long bed gmc |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 |
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: sykesville MD
Posts: 200
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
not gonna lie my uncles is pretty bad ass
![]() ![]() with my 67
__________________
1967 c-10-built smallblock, backed by m-21, lowered 2005 silverado-tint, exhaust, lift, 35's 1964 c-10 shortbed project |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 | |
gets board easy.......
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 717
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
Quote:
the SB chevy the most universal dominat engine in the universe................ |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 | |
I have a radical idea!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sweet Home Alabama!
Posts: 6,513
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
Quote:
__________________
'67 C-30 Dually Pickup 6.2 Turbo Diesel, NP435 ‘72 C-10 SWB , 350 4bbl, TH350 '69 C-10 SWB , 250 L6, 3 OTT '69 GMC C3500, dump truck, 351 V6, NP435 '84 M1009 CUCV Military Blazer 67 C-30 Turbodiesel build thread http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=254096 My trucks http://s226.photobucket.com/albums/d...ediafilter=all Member of the 1-Ton Club! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
Kill Bill...et
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Winchestertonfieldville, Wa
Posts: 366
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
No way. I've given up on any Ford newer than a '60. As far as aesthetics go.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Salina, Kansas
Posts: 1,998
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
those are some nice lookin chevys.....
__________________
1972 C-10...402/400..flowmaster 40 series 1967 Mustang 347 stroker/C-4 1966 Mustang 289/3-speed 2013 Mustang V6/6speed w/300 ponies I may be 23, but i sure do knows 67-72s are sexy! Its not MPG its smiles per gallon! build started 11/25/08 build thread: http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s....php?p=2993796 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Senior Member
![]() Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,332
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
factorystock, did you get those pictures out of one of those salesman's comparison booklets? Those were a laugh, all the manufacturers printed up those 'bad stuff about the other guys truck' booklets for their salesmen. That particular book looks like it is about medium duty trucks, as the FT 330 was never used in any pickup trucks. Ford always made a big deal about the crankcase skirts and heavy block on the FT's. Kind of doubtful the skirts were of any benefit, I never saw any SBC's bend in the middle and wipe out the main bearings! 4 bolt main caps like the 'truck' 327's had were probably more of an advantage. I am not buying the excessive heat from adjacent exhaust ports in the head jazz either. The firing order of the SBC does not have any of the center cylinders firing next to each other and the whole length of the exhaust port is water cooled, unlike an FE/FT Ford. Wonder why those Fords were always breaking exhaust manifold bolts? Now you know. In any event, since the FT Ford is a big block, why didn't they compare it to the Chevy 366? I certainly understand why Ford didn't compare that FT to any of the GMC V-6's, that would have been a total embarrassment! You think that FT's block is heavy? All kidding aside, the FT was a pretty good truck engine.
__________________
1967 GMC CM-2500 Camper Cruiser, 351E V-6, NP 435 4 speed, Dana 60, and factory A/C. 2012 GMC K-3500 WT regular cab, 6.0L Vortec, 6L90. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#41 | |
I have a radical idea!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sweet Home Alabama!
Posts: 6,513
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
Quote:
![]()
__________________
'67 C-30 Dually Pickup 6.2 Turbo Diesel, NP435 ‘72 C-10 SWB , 350 4bbl, TH350 '69 C-10 SWB , 250 L6, 3 OTT '69 GMC C3500, dump truck, 351 V6, NP435 '84 M1009 CUCV Military Blazer 67 C-30 Turbodiesel build thread http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=254096 My trucks http://s226.photobucket.com/albums/d...ediafilter=all Member of the 1-Ton Club! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: west coast
Posts: 3,374
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
The 327 or any other SBC was never considered a heavy duty industrial V8 truck engine in the industry, recommended for light duty use only(under 2 ton). In 1966 Chevy introduced the 366 V8, this was a heavy duty industrial truck engine designed to compete with Ford and International HD truck engines.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: west coast
Posts: 3,374
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
Racing world yes, large trucks no.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: west coast
Posts: 3,374
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 | |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tejas
Posts: 691
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
Quote:
__________________
'72 cheyenne super step, '05 long bed gmc |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#46 |
Senior Member
![]() Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,332
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
factorystock, you are right about a deep skirt block offering more support to mount the bell housing/transmission. Many Chevy small and big blocks in medium trucks have struts that brace the sides of the block to the bottom of the bell housing. The GMC V-6 uses a two piece bell housing with an inner piece that bolts all the way down to the skirts. Very strong, and very heavy! You are also right about the GMC V-6 being in the Super Duty's league. What I find amazing about the GMC V-6's is that there really isn't much difference between a 305 in a pickup and a 478 in a heavy truck. Aside from pistons and valves, the major differences are the 305's use a timing chain and a cast steel (not cast iron) crank while the 478's use a gear drive cam and a forged steel Tufftrided crank. Ford never offered the Super Duty V-8's in pickups, but a GMC pickup with a 305 or 351 V-6 is about the equivalent from a durability standpoint. Back in the days of gas powered heavy trucks, the Ford 534 Super Duty's had good power, probably better than the International 549's (which had a reputation for overheating). The GMC 478 V-6's would out pull both of them no problem. The Super Duty had kind of a honked up head design. GMC went over the top with the 702 gas V-12 and later 637 V-8, both based on the V-6 design. Those engines were in the same league as a Hall-Scott or Waukasha, and were seldom seen outside of fire apparatus. GMC dropped the V-6's in 1974 as you stated. Big gassers were loosing popularity and the big block Chevy truck engines were cheaper to produce, even if they were not quite as durable as the V-6's. Ford kept the Super Duty 534 around until 1982, mainly for C series fire trucks. I remember talking to a Ford engineer at a trade show after the 534 had been dropped. He said the 534 had become something of a joke because the emission controls had hurt the performance so much (I think due to those heads) that the 'truck' Lima 429's had a lot more power! As for the 366 not being used in pickups, my guess is that Chevy probably felt that the 396 was a more suitable engine for a light truck. The 366's durabilty wasn't needed in a pickup, and the 396 was a better performer.
__________________
1967 GMC CM-2500 Camper Cruiser, 351E V-6, NP 435 4 speed, Dana 60, and factory A/C. 2012 GMC K-3500 WT regular cab, 6.0L Vortec, 6L90. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#47 | |
I have a radical idea!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sweet Home Alabama!
Posts: 6,513
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
Quote:
The 366 wasn't really neccessary in a pickup. Chevy's light duty engines were more than capable, and the need for a big, heavy, purpose truck engine wasn't needed. Ford finally realized this themselves (albeit after a couple of decades) and the 351W replaced the big gaz guzzling FE and Cleveland/modified engines. I had an 84 F350 with a 351W and C6 and it was way more powerful and much better on fuel than the 352, 360 FE's ever were, not to mention those dreadful 351M400's.
__________________
'67 C-30 Dually Pickup 6.2 Turbo Diesel, NP435 ‘72 C-10 SWB , 350 4bbl, TH350 '69 C-10 SWB , 250 L6, 3 OTT '69 GMC C3500, dump truck, 351 V6, NP435 '84 M1009 CUCV Military Blazer 67 C-30 Turbodiesel build thread http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=254096 My trucks http://s226.photobucket.com/albums/d...ediafilter=all Member of the 1-Ton Club! |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#48 |
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: west coast
Posts: 3,374
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
As in my earlier posts, my point mainly is geared to the medium and heavier end of the market. Chevy pretty much let GMC deal with the big stuff, and concentrated mainly on the lighter end of the market. My engine block comparsion is the 327 engine Chevy used in medium trucks from 1962 to 1968.350's ( similar design)were used in later medium trucks. It would have been nice to see a light duty version of the 366 engine for GM and also a light duty version of the 401 Ford, as an option in a 3/4 or 1 tons for serious commerical type buyers.A little info on Super Dutys, for those who are not familiar with truck engines of the past.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#49 |
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tejas
Posts: 691
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
why would a light 366 be nice? It would cost the same to make and perform worse than the 402's and 396's that were available
__________________
'72 cheyenne super step, '05 long bed gmc |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#50 |
I have a radical idea!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sweet Home Alabama!
Posts: 6,513
|
Re: You Opinions Please!
That's my stance as well. You can't legally load a light truck to ever need any beefier engine that was offered. In fact, I'll go as far to say that you can't load a pickup or even a 1 ton (legal or not) heavy enough to need a medium duty engine, and still be able to stop the truck. I have hauled some over the limit loads on my ramp truck at times, and the brakes are always what gets hairy. GM put small blocks in medium duty trucks up to 24000#+ GVWR. If you load a 1 ton to weigh 24000#, the brakes are suspension have already long ago left the building.
__________________
'67 C-30 Dually Pickup 6.2 Turbo Diesel, NP435 ‘72 C-10 SWB , 350 4bbl, TH350 '69 C-10 SWB , 250 L6, 3 OTT '69 GMC C3500, dump truck, 351 V6, NP435 '84 M1009 CUCV Military Blazer 67 C-30 Turbodiesel build thread http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=254096 My trucks http://s226.photobucket.com/albums/d...ediafilter=all Member of the 1-Ton Club! |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|