Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[oletrucks\]\s+\'\s+79\s+305\s+and\s+S\-10\s+motor\s+mounts\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[oletrucks\]\s+\'\s+79\s+305\s+and\s+S\-10\s+motor\s+mounts\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [oletrucks] ' 79 305 and S-10 motor mounts (score: 1): Author: "Andy Johns" <andy51chevy@mindspring.com>; Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 20:34:42 -0500; Hey all, I was looking at swapping in a v8 engine to replace my 216. I'm going with the S-10 frame, and I have found a site that makes motor mounts and has books for S-10 v8 conversions. The specific; /html/oletrucks/2000-02/msg00563.html (8,345 bytes)
2. Re: [oletrucks] ' 79 305 and S-10 motor mounts (score: 1): Author: jelerath@us.ibm.com; Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 09:29:46 -0700; The 305 was unreliable. If you have to purchase an engine, get a 350. All the Chevy small blocks are the same size so a 350 shouldn't create a mounting problem. Since so manu 350's were made, there; /html/oletrucks/2000-02/msg00577.html (9,555 bytes)
3. RE: [oletrucks] ' 79 305 and S-10 motor mounts (score: 1): Author: "Peters, Jon C" <jpeters@sikorsky.com>; Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:35:28 -0500; All 305's were not created equally.... 78'-82' had bad cams from the factory. The lobes wore quickly, giving them a bad rap. Hot Rod (within the last couple of years) did a buildup of a hi-performan; /html/oletrucks/2000-02/msg00578.html (10,659 bytes)
4. RE: [oletrucks] ' 79 305 and S-10 motor mounts (score: 1): Author: varanus@phoenix.net; Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:06:24 -0600; Andy - I'd go with the 350 too (preferably a 4 bolt ;). They are much more versatile and better made. Even if the 305 were a great motor - I'd still run a 350 for a sb. I had always dreamed of droppi; /html/oletrucks/2000-02/msg00581.html (12,011 bytes)
5. Re: [oletrucks] ' 79 305 and S-10 motor mounts (score: 1): Author: "Andy Johns" <andy51chevy@mindspring.com>; Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 13:26:20 -0500; Thanks for all the in put. The reason I looking at a 305 was the better gas mileage though. What would the gas mileage difference be between a 350 and a 305? I'm working on a 16 year old's budget so; /html/oletrucks/2000-02/msg00582.html (13,554 bytes)
6. Re: [oletrucks] ' 79 305 and S-10 motor mounts (score: 1): Author: Dustin Cross <livnrt@uswest.net>; Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 12:20:29 -0700; I had an '83 GMC with a 305 I ran it for about 3 years and constantly got 13-14 mpg on the highway I swapped in a 350 with a fairly mild cam and rejetted the carb (everything else was left alone) aft; /html/oletrucks/2000-02/msg00585.html (8,807 bytes)
7. Re: [oletrucks] ' 79 305 and S-10 motor mounts (score: 1): Author: "Andy Johns" <andy51chevy@mindspring.com>; Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:25:09 -0500; Thanks a bunch for all of the responses so far. I also was wanting to go with a turbo 350 auto transmission or if not that, then at leas some kind of auto trans. I forgot to mention that when I first; /html/oletrucks/2000-02/msg00587.html (10,839 bytes)
8. Re: [oletrucks] ' 79 305 and S-10 motor mounts (score: 1): Author: ADvent@thuntek.net; Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:04:25 -0700; a corvette is cammed up for performance and the power is in the top end, this is exactly what you don't want. you want low end torque, something the 283 never had. there's no substitute for cubic inc; /html/oletrucks/2000-02/msg00591.html (11,643 bytes)
9. Re: [oletrucks] ' 79 305 and S-10 motor mounts (score: 1): Author: ADvent@thuntek.net; Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 16:28:58 -0700; everything else being equal, the 305 will give you about 2 mpg. oletrucks is devoted to Chevy and GM trucks built between 1941 and 1959; /html/oletrucks/2000-02/msg00598.html (14,469 bytes)
10. Re: [oletrucks] ' 79 305 and S-10 motor mounts (score: 1): Author: jelerath@us.ibm.com; Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 18:06:39 -0700; I'm not a proponent of the 305, but doesn't if get better than 2 mpg? Jon Elerath jelerath@us.ibm.com ADvent@thuntek.net@autox.team.net on 02/18/2000 03:28:58 PM Please respond to ADvent@thuntek.net; /html/oletrucks/2000-02/msg00603.html (9,046 bytes)
11. Re: [oletrucks] ' 79 305 and S-10 motor mounts (score: 1): Author: Bruce Damen <little-castle-contracting@cadvision.com>; Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 20:05:30 -0700; i had a 305 in one of my cutlusses ...it was ok power wise ( no 350 power thou) but as far as great gas mileage, it was a pig on gas, as bad as the 350. im in the opinion of if your buying an engine; /html/oletrucks/2000-02/msg00611.html (10,026 bytes)
12. RE: [oletrucks] ' 79 305 and S-10 motor mounts (score: 1): Author: "Ralph Linnell" <chevysix@seatac.net>; Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2000 19:28:09 -0800; I had a 305 in my 1977 El Camino and it was the sweetest engine I ever had. Gas mileage was 20/21 MPH on the highway and 16/18 MPH in town. It had plenty of power, I never felt like I needed more. I; /html/oletrucks/2000-02/msg00613.html (10,763 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]