Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[oletrucks\]\s+348\s+c\.i\.\s*$/: 9 ]

Total 9 documents matching your query.

1. [oletrucks] 348 c.i. (score: 1)
Author: "rock1" <rock1@austin.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:22:34 -0700
Does anyone out there know anything about the 348 c.i. chevy engine. Was it a reliable motor? Would it be worth rebuilding and putting in my 55 second series? Is it worth anything? Thanks. -- Origina
/html/oletrucks/2000-10/msg00412.html (7,972 bytes)

2. Re: [oletrucks] 348 c.i. (score: 1)
Author: "A.B." <bigfred@unm.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 16:28:44 -0600 (MDT)
I dont' think it's really worth anything unless it's got tri-power in a '58 impala. But I bet the nostalgia factor is kinda high. I'd bet a solid 350 is capable of more torque/hp, but I could be wron
/html/oletrucks/2000-10/msg00414.html (8,432 bytes)

3. Re: [oletrucks] 348 c.i. (score: 1)
Author: "Claude" <cramey@dashlink.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 17:28:09 -0500
Check out this Web page. http://members.spree.com/entertainment/mr409/bob_s_409_chevy_page_index.html I have always heard that the 348 was not a desirable engine. But, I have no experience with them
/html/oletrucks/2000-10/msg00415.html (8,720 bytes)

4. Re: [oletrucks] 348 c.i. (score: 1)
Author: "Edward T. Dingo" <cen36932@centuryinter.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:45:21 -0400
Had 1 in the first car I ever owned, a 1960 Bel Air. Engine ran flawlessly; however went thru a few turbo-glide (not power-glide) transmissions. These engines are way heavier than traditional small-b
/html/oletrucks/2000-10/msg00416.html (8,795 bytes)

5. Re: [oletrucks] 348 c.i. (score: 1)
Author: "Tom Warner" <twwood@bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 18:48:17 -0400
http://members.spree.com/entertainment/mr409/bob_s_409_chevy_page_index.html no second In 1961, My freind bought a used 1956 Chev 1/2 ton, and we found a 348 truck engine (tall block) the heads are f
/html/oletrucks/2000-10/msg00417.html (8,697 bytes)

6. Re: [oletrucks] 348 c.i. (score: 1)
Author: "rock1" <rock1@austin.rr.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 22:08:40 -0700
Thanks for all the information guys! Have been struggling with the decision of putting out the money to rebuild it and put it in my 55, when I get to that stage. Right now the cab is on 4 jack stands
/html/oletrucks/2000-10/msg00426.html (9,845 bytes)

7. RE: [oletrucks] 348 c.i. (score: 1)
Author: Whittaker Bill G Civ ASC/SMY <Bill.Whittaker@wpafb.af.mil>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 08:30:24 -0400
The 348 was a good "truck" engine. The bore and stroke combination lent itself to a slightly lower rpm operating range than it's larger high performance sibling the 409. It was designed to produce mo
/html/oletrucks/2000-10/msg00434.html (12,135 bytes)

8. RE: [oletrucks] 348 c.i. (score: 1)
Author: "Hanlon, Bill" <Bill.Hanlon@COMPAQ.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:49:33 -0500
Tom is right about the "combustion chamber". The business side of the head is flat. The top of the cylinder is not perpendicular to the bore. Makes it impossible to use regular ring compressors to in
/html/oletrucks/2000-10/msg00442.html (9,279 bytes)

9. Re: [oletrucks] 348 c.i. (score: 1)
Author: "joe" <chevy1@jps.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:05:49 -0700
My brother in law has the speed item for the motor "the Multi Carburetors with intake" just in case you decide to go that route. No linkage but that's available from various suppliers. Joe Garcia Yub
/html/oletrucks/2000-10/msg00449.html (11,055 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu