Beaner has got it. Want to make it a better engine? Air pump. Turbo seems most direct. Engine is made for it.
I say bump up the compression and add some injectors. Might as well build a diesel out of it while your at it Toroflow? I think they were called
You are correct, it was the Toroflow Diesel. Some called it the Toiletflow. Sent from my iPhone using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
Those engines were designed for trucks. At the time, diesels were out there, but more trucks used gas engines. IH had big sixes, Ford had their Super Duty line, GM had these V6's. All were used in larger trucks, even semi trucks. The legal load limit wasn't what it is today, 80,000 lbs, it was more like 73,280 lbs or less. I worked for a dairy while I was in High School, they had a short nose GMC they had retired and used as a yard spotter. When new, it hauled loads of milk in 38' and 40' refrigerated trailers. IIRC, it had a 5 speed trans with a 2 speed rear axle, giving you 10 gears. One of the old guys that had driven it told me if you got down to 1st and low on the axle, you could get out and walk faster than it would run at wot! He also said it was almost impossible to choke it down with a load.
You're right; just could't see the bolts with my "regular" glasses on, and the pulley kinda hides things. Oh well, I got the hydro part right. I am Butch/56sedandelivery.
It does have a sweet sound when you stomp on the skinny pedal. About 45 years ago, I bought a 1963 1-Ton GMC with a 305 V-6. Paid $150 and drove it until the 19.5 tires failed the MA vehicle inspection.
I worked on a ton of these v6's back in the day, even the toro-flo diesel version now that was a nightmare........ The 305 isn't going to pull muck over 520cfm on a good day they are a low rpm engine and you don't want to run them higher then about 4,500rpm on a regular basis GM recommended 3800 max for the 305c. There were some guys years ago that ran 4bbl adapters on the 2 bbl intake but at 7.5:1 compression and 4000 rpm it didn't make any difference that I could see. The magnum engines(351M, 401M and 478M ) had higher flow heads and worse fuel mileage My favorite was the twin 6 702ci I knew a guy that had one in a GMC cracker box cab over ran containers out of the Philly ports out pulled every other truck down there in the late 60's early 70's til he got to the gas station..............
I have personal experience daily driving these 305s and they are great for powering an old truck. My old 63 GMC 1000 had something like 3.08 gears and a column shift and I was able to average 14mpg freeway/city. Dead reliable too. My latest truck is also a 63 half ton with a 305/4 speed and 3.54 gears. I swapped a 2bbl Holley in place of the Stromberg and gained some performance but do notice a drop in mpg. I know they're odd ball engines but my local Napa has always stocked the basic parts I've needed and I've never had any major issues. All that said, if I ever did run into major issues, I wouldn't be sending one off to the machine shop
Im not really sure about da plaid covers, but from what ive heard, they're kinda rare. Ive never seen em in person. Well im kinda sheltered, so that dont mean much. Ha
Well if it were me and it aint. Its yours. Id get it running and driving. Its a truck motor to say da least. Wont win races for sure, but will do what truck motor is supposed to do. Work and be reliable, everyday.... Build your big block, and get your ducks in a row. Make da switch then. Its already in there, give it a try...
We had a Jimmy 4x4 with one in it, you could get it into 4th around 25 mph and it would just chug. We had a guy that ran with us in the early 70s with a Jimmy 10 whl dump with a 478, and it was plenty strong, but not close to a match with the 534 Ford and 549 Binder, which were pretty evenly matched. There was a 6 that would smoke that 478, the Binder 501- a serious beast
Now I'm beginning to wonder what one of these would perform like if it were coupled with a modern 10-speed transmission, and a really tall rear gear.
The first church I served after seminary had a church bus with that engine. That engine didn't know or care if the bus was loaded or empty, it drove the same and got the same mileage. You couldn't stall it, and I don't think I ever used first gear the times I drove it.
They were great at what they were designed for, hauling a heavy load at low speed and the low speed torque let you pull out of a field with a full load of what ever crop you were hauling pretty easily. Those GMCs were popular with famers around here but from the mid 70's on when one of them crapped out it got replaced with a small block or maybe a big block. Parts were getting hard to get and rather expensive even then. I hated doing tune ups on them because the plugs are to the inside of the valve covers and you spend more time cleaning up around the plugs before you pull them out so you don't dirt in the engine than actually changing the plugs.
Perfect engine for that light weight T or A hotrod. Damn thing weighs in at 740lbs dry, and produces 150hp. Impressive numbers. Just couple it to a Jet-away transmission and you'll be making a real 'traditional' performance statement....
I heard there was a 12 cyl. version in U.S. Military vehicles, but have never seen one. One old timer recalled driving a gravel truck version, "It would climb a wall, but didn't have the speed to get out of its own way"
702ci... an integrated block with 4 standard 351 heads, 2 intakes, and 4 exhaust manifolds. Do not drop on your toe.
Wasn’t there also a 302? GMC V6? My memory is foggy, but back in HS a buddy had a similar engine in a early/ mid 60’ GMC pu, I think was just a 1/2 ton. But I don’t recall plaid VCs, but think I recall offset heads, almost like it was a V8 with one front cylinder missing on one side, and one rear cylinder missing on the other. Ring a bell? Or has 40 + years been bad to me?
But WHY the crappy fuel mileage? Big valves??.....Big bore/short stroke??.......terrible intake?? Killer gear ratio??? Which one? Sure wasn't a wild grind camshaft!..........was it?? Just curious..... 6sally6
Yep called a twin 6 it was not just a military engine. That's the guy running out port ran in a old cracker box GMC cab over. There was also a screaming dozen, 12v71 Detroit Diesel 450 hp @2300 Rpm like the rest of the 2 cycle Detroits' it had to be wound out to stay in the power band, even rarer was the 16v71 mostly marine but some found there way into trucks.
I read an article in one of the magazines back in the '90s that spoke of various versions of the motor. They used more than one block with a common crank. At least that is how i remember it.
Designed to run low compression for low octane fuel high torque at low rpms in the 60's mpg was not a big concern the heads were flat like the 348/409 chevy, the v6's were designed to run under load all the time with little maintenance(for the time) Gas @ $.299, In the early 80's we still had some 534 Ford gas engines running around getting 2 mpg the 478m v6 did better.
The twin 6's ran a single block and crank 4 heads, 4 exhaust manifolds, 2 intakes, 2 carbs from a 351ci. Detroit used to bolt together blocks and cranks to make V12's, and V16's(12V92T, 16V92T) Went out to look at a 12v92T in a crane once, it was still running and working(kind of) with a hole blown through the front block and a broken crank, oil all over the place but the guy was still picking RTU's off a roof.....................
Back in 63 I worked at a Texaco station. A guy in the neighborhood drove a GMC truck with a V6 for a tire service. He would drop it off when his day was done so we could park it inside at night. We probably topped off the tank also. Most of the time is was loaded with new tires. It had gobs of torque, but I never drove it on the road, just around the lot.
The Jalopy Journal
