Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Login


Take the time to read our Privacy Policy.

2 Pages<12
Flem Offline
#21 Posted : Sunday, 2 December 2018 8:31:34 PM(UTC)
Flem

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 30/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 49
Australia
Location: Canberra

That amendment bulletin for parts Catalogue
35966 says to amend p/n 3855163 with p/n 3846559.
Flem
Flem Offline
#22 Posted : Sunday, 2 December 2018 9:58:07 PM(UTC)
Flem

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 30/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 49
Australia
Location: Canberra

p/n 3855163 is a curved outlet manifold and p/n3846559 is a straight outlet manifold.You would think it would have been replaced by a curved outlet.


HK1837 Offline
#23 Posted : Monday, 3 December 2018 5:23:11 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,505

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 123 time(s) in 121 post(s)
Plus it is a Corvette 2.5” manifold and earlier too. 3846559 is a casting number though, not necessarily a part number, they are sometimes different.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Flem Offline
#24 Posted : Monday, 3 December 2018 9:23:10 AM(UTC)
Flem

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 30/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 49
Australia
Location: Canberra

Thanks HK, that’s an interesting point you make about
cast # and part # being different. You might find that both
those numbers are cast numbers.
How many of these numbers being quoted here to suit
Chev motors used in our cars are for inlet and
exhaust manifolds have the cast # and part # using the same number?
It would seem strange if some were and others not. If so how can
Determine which is which?
Flem


HK1837 Offline
#25 Posted : Monday, 3 December 2018 9:48:45 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,505

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 123 time(s) in 121 post(s)
It is hit and miss, sometimes different for example cylinder heads. Sometimes different by one or two digits, example HK bellhousings. Will have to check intakes and exhaust manifolds, just can’t remember if they are the same or vary.

The part number versus casting number difference stands out like the proverbial in the HT parts catalogue amendment where the 186 heads are added, they used the casting number, which is obviously HDT arse covering as 041 and 186 heads are the same part number but casting plants used different cast numbers.

Edit - just checked a pair of McKinnon 1968 manifolds in the shed. They are casting number 3855163 and 3855164 as per the part numbers in the HK book, so these are the same part and cast number.

Edited by user Monday, 3 December 2018 3:53:31 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#26 Posted : Monday, 3 December 2018 9:55:10 AM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,175

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
All Aussie delivered K20 were 292 as far as I am aware. None of them were pollution, the reason they changed to a 350 in C20 and C30 was the 292 wouldn't pass ADR27A emissions which came into effect on commercials in Australia in mid 1978 from memory. The 350 was a very similar engine to a HQ 350. You answered your own question too, 250 in an F100, you cannot compare to a K20 or C20, different class of vehicle. A K20 is the equivalent of an F250, far heavier than an F100. Probably weighed a good 750kg more than the F100 and geared like a truck with an engine with truck like torque. If you walk into a Ram dealer and see a 1500 next to a 2500 the sheer size, not just the vehicle but the chassis and the diffs for example. That is the F100 vs K20 size difference. That is why a Ram 2500 gets a 6.7L diesel, but the 1500 only a 3.0L V6 diesel. One is a truck, the other a utility. The 292 ran about 7.25:1 compression and a 4.1:1 rear axle!


That K20 would of had all the USA emission law crap on it. it may of been a auto, I cant remember that but.
Looked no bigger than my dads F100 to me, but that 250 powered f100 when like a rocket it was unbelievable how well it went, a mate had a 1977 v8 302 auto F100 and that was a slug, I said my dads would drag him off any day, he did not believe it, but I never got around to giving him a go to prove it.

I seen one of them type of years C30 some months ago and sure that was really big, it had a huge tray as well, looked good.
HK1837 Offline
#27 Posted : Monday, 3 December 2018 10:38:48 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,505

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 123 time(s) in 121 post(s)
No they didn’t have any emissions and that is why they were replaced by a 350 very late in the 70’s. In Australia we never used US emissions stuff on the Chevrolet engines, that is why we had unique Quadrajets and different distributors to the US L48 and LM1 engines in the USA. If we had the same emissions cr@p as the USA we would have had air pumps on all manual SBC from HK and ADR27 style emissions on all auto engines. The C20-C60 and K20 trucks used export 292 engines as trucks and 4x4 didn’t have ADR27 or 27A applied until the later 70’s. You even see it on Holden commercials, look at any HJ commercial, you won’t find ADR27 on it, but 27A applied to passenger derivatives, but not to trucks or 4x4 until later. My 4/78 Overlander cab-chassis didn’t have ADR27A applied.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
castellan Offline
#28 Posted : Tuesday, 4 December 2018 12:17:10 PM(UTC)
castellan

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 26/02/2009(UTC)
Posts: 1,175

Thanks: 12 times
Was thanked: 11 time(s) in 10 post(s)
Originally Posted by: HK1837 Go to Quoted Post
No they didn’t have any emissions and that is why they were replaced by a 350 very late in the 70’s. In Australia we never used US emissions stuff on the Chevrolet engines, that is why we had unique Quadrajets and different distributors to the US L48 and LM1 engines in the USA. If we had the same emissions cr@p as the USA we would have had air pumps on all manual SBC from HK and ADR27 style emissions on all auto engines. The C20-C60 and K20 trucks used export 292 engines as trucks and 4x4 didn’t have ADR27 or 27A applied until the later 70’s. You even see it on Holden commercials, look at any HJ commercial, you won’t find ADR27 on it, but 27A applied to passenger derivatives, but not to trucks or 4x4 until later. My 4/78 Overlander cab-chassis didn’t have ADR27A applied.


Not ADR27 but such a C20 etc were to the USA EPA standards anything after 1975 would have a cat on it, maybe we did not get the cat but all the other emission crap would be on it for sure.

My Dads full imported Feb 1972 Aussie tagged, LTD Galaxie had all the USA EPA pollution stuff on it, hot air snorkel and petrol fume return and the next model type that came out mid 1972 had the low compression 400ci for there unleaded fuel.
HK1837 Offline
#29 Posted : Tuesday, 4 December 2018 1:02:14 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,505

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 123 time(s) in 121 post(s)
No it didn’t. If it wasn’t needed it wasn’t fitted. GMH did the same for export vehicle engines or engines supplied for marine use - they all used the early HJ style engine complete with 1974 carb and distributor, there was no change to later ADR27A style engines on export vehicles. Remember all our CKD stuff was built in Canada for export territories.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Flem Offline
#30 Posted : Tuesday, 4 December 2018 11:25:26 PM(UTC)
Flem

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 30/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 49
Australia
Location: Canberra

I have those same numbers on my manifolds with one difference though.
The 3 is missing on the ( 3 ) 855163 A. Manifold and there is
no T or McKinnon cast marks on them.
The other marks on that manifold are LH 24 and GM.
The 3855164 manifold also has RH 4 GM on it
Going on what You’ve noted earlier about the identification
of these manifolds by the cast marks
What do you think is the story with these manifolds ?.
Flem
HK1837 Offline
#31 Posted : Wednesday, 5 December 2018 5:24:22 AM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,505

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 123 time(s) in 121 post(s)
No marks generally means Saginaw casting plant. I think I may have some like it too.
_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Flem Offline
#32 Posted : Wednesday, 5 December 2018 10:25:25 AM(UTC)
Flem

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 30/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 49
Australia
Location: Canberra

Thanks HK, those date codes of LH 24 (24 Aug.) and RH 4 (4 Aug).
That would have to be Aug 1967. Most other parts for the motor
have date code in March or April 1968.
That leaves a gap of 6 to 8 months between casting times.
What’s the likelihood of this to be a pair of manifolds laying around
Seems like a bit far apart to me, what do you think.
Flem

HK1837 Offline
#33 Posted : Wednesday, 5 December 2018 12:11:05 PM(UTC)
HK1837

Rank: Veteran

Reputation:

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Veteran
Joined: 1/03/2005(UTC)
Posts: 12,505

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 123 time(s) in 121 post(s)
I doubt they belong to the engine if they are 8/67 cast. Remember exhaust manifolds went on at the engine assembly plant and will within reason be cast close to the rest of the engine bits.
Are you sure those are the date codes though?

Edited by user Wednesday, 5 December 2018 12:14:32 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

_______________________________________________________
If we all had the same (good) taste, who would buy all the Fords?
Flem Offline
#34 Posted : Thursday, 6 December 2018 11:57:17 AM(UTC)
Flem

Rank: Member

Reputation:

Groups: Registered
Joined: 30/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 49
Australia
Location: Canberra

You’re right HK, Had another look at those heads and no that
Lh24 and RH4 are not date codes, C3 8 is more like it and the other is a little obscure and
bit difficult to make out what it is, certainly an 8 is one of the digits.
Getting back to the part # cast # though. I have an US publication that
Relates specifically to Chev parts I D.
Talking here on cast # only, that cast # 3855163 was the same as cast# 3846559
which is a 2” Rams horn outlet that was used on 65-67 Corvette 327ci, 250,300 & 350 HP motors.
That is the one our amendment is referring. It did go on to say it is also
the same as cast # 3932473, which is the one use on our 350s.
It did also go on to say that 3932473 could also be have cast # 3872741.
A lot of those # we are familiar with but from what I have found this is how they are
related in these Chev texts from the USA.
Flem
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF | YAF © 2003-2018, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.229 seconds.