25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

Just for you guys to ponder. At least 25% of the stove bolt post are full of wrong info. This includes lots of the senior posters. !67 -72 has issues but not as bad as the bolt. Dont trust the bolt posts. Barry

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

Typically that is because they believe that GMC and Chevrolet are identical and what applies to one applies to both.

I was reading a thread regarding wiring and they told the GMC owner that his wiring was all messed up because the regulator was on the wrong side... told him that there shouldn't be anything wired on the passenger side.
That might be true of a Chevy, but not of a GMC.
What I thought was terrible was that they were so positive they were correct, they didn't seem to entertain any notion that his truck was correct and they were wrong.

Which is probably why I never registered an account there (that I can remember anyway).

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

I don't think I am a "Stovebolter" or if I am I do not know my login info LOL
But this sounds like a good opportunity for some of us who do know apples from oranges to educate uneducated readers on any forum. We should assume the burden of the educator to prevent mis-information wherever it is being spread.

Just an opinion :)

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

Wow 25% ?... I have seen wrong info on pretty much every forum, and cannot really say that one is as bad as the other when it's pretty much the same people who spew wrong informaton each site. Sometimes it's just someone who is trying to help since no one else has posted a reply, and yes other times it's a knuckle head that's just plain wrong. I think a good idea to help preserve facts and keep people on the right information highway would be to start picture loaded permanent post on the forums with the differences between GMC and Chevrolet trucks rather than get twisted up about something that I agree sometimes gets to be an issue, and can benefit from the attention. Another tool to help is the moderator of the forum, if you see blatant wrong post let them know so they can help, many moderators get busy and don't always know or can catch the crap that gets posted.

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

way back when i started playing online, I signed up on that site. two things to remember, that site stared out covering the older trucks, pre-1956 mostly, than they added the newer trucks later, and what David said above..."they believe that GMC and Chevrolet are identical".

back when I was putting the 6066 GMC Trucks website together, I posted a lot of info that was wrong, but as the right info was found I made the changes needed to get it right. the trouble with forums is once its posted, it never really gets changed once some one finds out they were wrong.

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

if you guys think people are clueless about 60's GMC and the V6, you should take a ride around the internet and listen to the BS and cockeyed info being spread about the 55-59 Blue Chip trucks. WOW. For example, even magazines as prestigious as Hemmings Motor News continually do incorrect fact containing articles on them. Just about every person, and magazine writer refers to GMC's version of a Chevrolet Cameo as a "Suburban Carrier". No such name ever existed, but because everyone keeps telling each other this is the right name, it gets spread to epidemic proportions. The GMC "Cameo" truck was called a "Suburban Pickup". The "Carrier" name got stuck on the GMC because the Cameo correct full name is Cameo Carrier. My 57 Suburban Pickup has original firewall grease pencil markings that say "Sub P.U." so we know this is correct. No one ever tells the Pontiac V8 engine story right either, or dozens of other GMC vs Chevy differences separating the two lines. Its a full time job keeping everybody I talk to straight on the 55-59 stuff much less adding the 60-66 stuff on top of that hehehehe

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

Good comment GMCNUT! I sure don't know a lot about all this GMC stuff but they are still my passion. Right now there is a debate on the "big city truck site" about a distributor on an I-6 1959 GMC. The owner can't understand why the distributor moves while the engine is running. I'm pretty sure that the distributor is supposed to rotate to advance and retard the timing. I don't own a GMC engine that does that, but do have a 1957 Chevy truck 235 that the whole distributor rotates. Everyone is agreeing with him that something is wrong with the distributor and it should be stationary. I can't understand that they would think that just for the reason this kid said it had a steel vacuum advance line. The "experts" over there are showing him drawings of 60's and 70's Chevy points and HEI distributors trying to help and even offering to send him free Chevy distributors. I'm pretty sure that ain't gonna work!---LOL! I quit trying to give this kid information when they were giving him 55-59 Chevy pics and info of how to wire dash gauges in a GMC. I got ignored trying to explain that one indicator flashed for right or left turn signals back then (at least in my '55 GMC), so I quit trying to help.

Never cared much for Stovebolt. Not enough pics for me and pics explain more to me than anything else.

DAC

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

What. The 55-59 gmc trucks don't have buick motors? :noway: DAC. That thread with the 59 gmc on 67-72 is painfull to read. Holy cow. That has to get my vote for the worst. The blind leading the blind in circles while they all think they have made great progress.
My favorite v6 myth out there is that they only ever got 5mpg. I just heard this again from a local at the grocery store. I don't even correct em any more. I said that's why it has 3 tanks.
My second favorite myth centers around a 60 Chevy truck I have with a 348. 9 out of ten people who see it all have stories about one they had or an uncle or there dad had one just like it. It was ordered that way. Bla bla bla. I used to correct them. Now I just say bet you wished you kept it. Super rare and worth huge money back east. 50-60 grand.

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

So I know a 348 could be ordered in a 3/4 ton starting in 1958 or 59, because I have seen a couple of them - not sure about 1960, but I thought you had to move up to the C60 size rig before the 348 was available - what size truck do you have that came with the 348? I guess my 1960 Data Book would say somewhere in it what truck size you had to order to get the 348

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

No 348 engines in 60-66 light trucks. Only medium duty. The 348 won't bolt into the stock bell housing location without some fire wall work. I put it in. I used bbc motor stands from a 70 truck. T400 trans and crossmember from a 72. Cut out the stock tranny crossmember, and moved it all forward 3 inches. Also used a 60 auto column. I have been building a 61 Chevy k 20 frame to put under this body. This is a real bitsa truck. Some day I may post some on it but for now I don't want to contribute to the delinquency of others.

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

Yeah Barry, that thread is painful to read, but when on that forum it is kinda like driving by a car accident. Just have to take a look! LOL!

I have heard all that 5 mpg stuff about the V-6 also. When I had a '62 K2500 back 2006-2007 the p.o. said that he had plans to pull the "5 mpg boat anchor" and put in a Chevy V-8 but didn't have the time. Made him an offer and drove it home. The way things go I had to sell it but the buyer promised me the 305E would stay in it for restoration. He already had restored a 65 K10 Chev with a hot rodded up 292 for himself and wanted the GMC to build for his young son. He was a 6 cylinder guy all the way.

DAC

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

I plan on buying a a 2015 gmc with a stock 348!!! just like my old grand pappy did! not...
i avoid stove bolt, most forums i see are worthless now. Ive learned a ton from you guys here, there was a point i was lead to believe the old gmc vs chevy was the same as it is now, just branding. I actually first got interested because I was going to buy a '65 chevy for $500 but i saw a 64 GMC and realized I wanted the quad headlight bezel. while searching for conversions I found you guys and stalked the website then the forums and changed my mind, I wanted a GMC. Then i planned a 2wd cummins swap, but as i learned more i decided against it, these are unique trucks and i don't want to ruin its integrity unless i absolutely have no other choice.

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

So I have been reading a bit on other sites. Stove bolt and 67-72. Ron aka padresag up in BC gets an F rating on his drivetrain comments. At least 50% of his post are full of wrong info. My 2 favs are he got his 205 out of a scout. And new process made the 420 trans and Muncie made the mystery 365 three speed. WOW. No trust on his words. Barry.

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

So . Old truck man gets the idiot of the day on 67-72. Every v6 I have ever owned gets better mpg than a small v 8 chevy. This crap is why these engines are getting pulled. Punish this idiot. Please. I won't post there because an administrator is a a convicted car thief. Actually a 67-72 truck thief. Barry

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

Well then...
Sounds worthless to me. But isn't it obvious most 6bangers are gonna be more economical, where as a V8 won't? Now obviously situational, a ford 300 I6 gets about 1-2mpg better than their V8's, the new 6cyl camaros get around 10ish better mpg but an old big block V6 I've heard so many different stories I'm not even sure anymore

Sent from my dumbphone via tapatalk

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

No other site is as "brand" specific as how Jolly built this one.

The other sites have all the correct info, but they also have all the wrong information and no way to tell for sure which is which.

Well done Jolly.

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

I'll be honest, I'm partial to Chevy and gmc, but at the same time I appreciate other vehicles / engines as well. The ford 300 straight 6, 460 V8, Cummins 4bt, 6bt, and some others. But I feel its nice to find opinions and information from people who are brand specific

Sent from my dumbphone via tapatalk

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

Agree about old truck man! Read his crap from today.

DAC

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

Old truck man is your typical biased Chevy guy, can't live without the idea of owning or driving anything that's not powered by a Chevy engine, specially that ubiquitous small block. His reason for why the GMC V6 was discontinued is totally bogus, I have not yet after all these years heard a legitimate answer for it but was obviously not a decision made by the GMC Truck and Coach Division.

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

Pete --

I don't know why GM stopped making the V6 either, but I suspect the bean counters had a lot to do with it.

The story I like best, though, is the one my Dad tells. He claims that the dealer who sold him the one ton Suburban I have now told him that too many dealers were complaining to GM about not getting enough business in their service departments because the V6 owners never needed any work done on their trucks. The dealers got their way and wound up with small block Chevys.

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

I heard that Ford & Chrysler went selling trucks because of V6 out worked their V8s

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

I would have to say that held true for medium duty and heavy duty trucks not pickups. My father owned a grocery store in San Francisco and in the late 60 to early 70's I could remember the majority of medium duty trucks that made deliveries were GMC V6 trucks and there was one liquor distributor made deliveries in a HM-7500 series. Some of the bigger companies were Gallo wines, Nabisco and Morell all had GMC V6 powered trucks. Of course our delivery truck was a 62 GMC K1000 then the 68 KM2500.

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

So is anybody here on jalopy? The general consensus seems to be that the 305 V6 in a truck will get 4-7mpg if you are lucky, is it me, or does that seem kind of low? I thought 12 was a more appropriate number


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

12 is closer. Most I've read seem to be around 10, with a general range of 9-12.

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

Okay, cool, that's more doable than 4. I'm assuming it's that kind of info that gets these engines dropped in the scrap yard


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

I agreee. And I've heard of people change out the rear ends and transmissions and get 15-20 mpg out of them too. I guess if they're geared right they aren't much different than modern trucks in the gas department.

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

Yeah some guy claimed 25 with a custom milled intake and a Holley racing carb on one of the hot rod forums. I suppose if you build the gears for a high torque low rpm motor I could see good mileage


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

10-12 mpg from my experience has always been the average on a 305 V6, my 68 KM-2500 would get that with 4.56 gears which I think is fairly reasonable from a 3/4 ton 4wd truck. Now if you're running a 1/2 ton with 3.07 gears it's possible to do better. Former member Rick Rusconi was getting 19 mpg in his 62 1/2 ton with the 305 V6 equipped with the Holley 500 cfm 2bbl carb running 3.07 gears and overdrive. After the 401M conversion he's getting 17 mpg.

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

That's still pretty good! I would be good with 15 any day


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

My 1965 2500 has 4.56:1 gearing and it got about 10mpg. the Rescue Squad I have not checked to see what the mileage is, 3500 with 305 1:1 top geare in trans, and 6.71 rear axle, I got 22.5" wheels on it as well, came stock with 20".

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

Awesome, thanks! I'll find what I need to do when the time comes. Doesn't increasing the tire size increase mileage on these trucks to a point?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

Yes, increasing the rear tire diameter decreases the engine rpm for a given speed. This chart helps to visually show the impact.

http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/u...ps0ccd1738.jpg
http://i645.photobucket.com/albums/u...ps0c03ad74.jpg

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

Wow, can't say it gets any simpler than that!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

Great info, John, I'm sure you have lots of good info like this that can help us here too!

Jeannie, could this chart be moved to a more useful thread?

DAC

Re: 25% of stove bolt post are wrong info.
 

IHC light duty 4 x 4's 1969 - 1975 used a TC143 single speed transfer case. the optional 2 speed t/c was a NP 205 which was an independent right side drop transfer case (passenger side). Dodge in those years also used an independent
NP 205 right side drop T/C; the only difference was the u-joint flanges(yokes)
ron