Scored a 1964 gmc pu truck with the 305 v6. Anyone know if theres an aftermarket 4bbl intake for this engine?
Probably not since it was designed as a truck engine. Built for pulling and hauling heavy loads. Lots of torque, but not lots of speed. This website has a small section about V6 performance. http://6066gmcguy.com/holley.html
It will still be a low revving engine. No real benefit. If you want performance, it's engine swap time. Sent from my SM-G950U using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
If ya want to pull a trailer, you’re set If ya want to drag race, your gonna have to get real good a fabricating stuff. the heads are not very well designed port wise for performance. They are designed very well for low rpm stump pulling. https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/gmc-351-v6-magnum.658907/ http://67- 72chevytrucks.com/vboard/showthread.php?t=662959
"Score" is not the word that comes to mind with that 305 Jimmy. The word that does come to mind starts with "a", ends in "r" and rhythms with banker.
Honestly those v6 are great truck engines. But it’s not like building a 350. There is no 1-800 get performance part for them. They are a heavy duty industrial engine. You can spend a lot of time and $ to get that v6 to the starting point of that 454.(maybe) A slightly better carb, dual exhaust and a pertronix ignition would help a bunch. the v6 and the 454 will probably burn the same amount of gas
I actually like em. I have a 63 gmc chassis with a 305e motor under a 66 chevy with a 55-59 9ft stepside bed. The main goal of that motor was easy maintenence, low end torque and reliability. It will never be fast, but traffic sucks anyhow. Lol. Run forever tho, and pull stumps everyday. Tune it right, and just drive it. Nothing else todo.
One other thing i found interesting was take a look at the exhaust manifolds. They swap side to side. Never noticed another motor with em. Just food for thought. Good luck.
I have only heard that these engines suck gas. The one I messed with was in a school bus, got about 5-6 mpg. There are some guys on message boards claiming 12-14 for 1/2 ton trucks with lots of tuning and ‘proper’ driving I would have to experience that to believe it.
A few years ago, over on HotRodders.Com, was a guy who was making/adapting a 4 barrel to one using the stock 2 barrel intake. I think he finally gave up after a lot of research, modifying, welding, machining, etc. There has been lots of different threads and questions about these engines, including the V-12 cylinder version of the same basic engine, here on the HAMB. Probably one of GM's biggest mistakes IMO, and should have been included in last weeks thread about automakers mess ups. If they had just gotten "reasonable" gas mileage, there might have been hope for them. I am Butch/56sedandelivery.
Gas mileage wise. I cant bitch, really. It actually gets between 11 and 12. My 51 chevy 2dr sdn with a 62 261 and a 848 head, splits and duals, pertronix ignition, 3 on da tree with 3.55s only gets 10.
Lol. If it was gas mileage, we were after, i would think this site wouldn't exist. Ha. Keep it to the floor and beg for more.
Heck, every old pickup truck I've owned, whether straight 6 or V8 (302 Ford, 318 & 360 Dodge, plus the 305 Chevys dad owned) all got that same mileage. Some just got you there faster than others. I know my grandfather bought a 61 GMC new and the only thing he ever said about that truck was the gas mileage stunk (it had replaced an early 50's IH and in turn was replaced by a 67 C-10 with a 250). I'd read recently that they improved the mileage later on in the production run.
Look at the torque curve for that engine. It may allow a switch to higher (lower numeric) ring and pinion.
I know enough about them, to know that they are excellent, reliable, workhorses, but like the others have stated, for low rpm grunt work. Here is a link with all kinds of information on the 305. https://6066gmcclub.com/forumdisplay.php?f=9 Bob
Does it have rocker covers like these? The oddest thing ever seen on an engine in my opinion. Anyone know the reasoning behind them?
Apparently, it's supposed to resemble Scottish plaid. The idea was that the Scots are frugal people; therefore, the engine was economical to own and operate. Obviously, that was marketing at work, kind of like the Studebaker Scotsman. http://6066gmcguy.com/GMCplaid.html
If you want to retain the v6 version, find a magnum 401. If you could get a camshaft ground, that engine has way better cylinder heads. It's still very heavy, though.
No,plain painted valve covers. Guessing I'll go with the big block the more I realize the 305's limitations.Thanks for the info.
Had a 351 in a '65 K2500. Excellent truck motor, DD for about a year. 10mpg loaded or empty, low range + compound low it would pull anything. As for the carburetor.. original was worn and leaky.. bought an aluminum 2v-to-4v adapter, mounted an Edelbrock 4v to it. Primaries were slightly smaller than the stock 2v, started and idled just fine. At about 2500rpm, there was enough vacuum to get the secondaries open and it would pull real nice to about 3600. Stock heads wouldn't flow past that. I ran the stock ignition, had zero problems with the water pump, radiator. Well-built machine.
^^^Never really noticed the water pump before^^^; water pump/timing case/fuel pump mounting, all in one. What's a water pump cost in that configuration? Must be fairly heavy also. And, it's got a Dual Range, 4 speed Hydro behind it. I am Butch/56sedandelivery.
I saw that hydro in that photo, what year did that V6 come out? That seems like an unlikely combination? Sent from my iPad using The H.A.M.B. mobile app
If you look there actually is a lot of information on that particular engine and I have seen 4 bbl intakes for them as well as blower intakes. look on tractor pulling sites for "speed" parts. They are OK motors but in our world they are considered to be boat anchors. You need to monitor your oil pressure gauge closely. They have been known the bust (crack) the diaphragm in the fuel pump and flood the crankcase with gasoline.
The Jalopy Journal
