RE: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
Hi Dale, By now you probably saw my previous message, which also said that I agree with you but in a different way (Even though I called you Brad. Sorry about that.). I think the main thing is to be realistic about what RPM you are trying to achieve 100% VE at. Most street-only cars don't ever see high RPMs. John Nasta -Original Message- John, I think we're agreeing, just in a different manner. :*) If you calculate for 100% VE and knowing you'll only get 75%-80%, no problem. Who makes a 362cfm (or whatever) carb anyway, right? What I was trying to get across was that if you calculate for a realistic cfm carb, you'll only overcarb a little bit (say a 390 Holley or 500 Edelbrock) instead of the 100% which might lead you to overcarb to say, a 700 or 750. Shoot, if everyone thought alike and built the same cars...we'd all be clones. :*) Dale McIntosh
RE: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
John, I think we're agreeing, just in a different manner. :*) If you calculate for 100% VE and knowing you'll only get 75%-80%, no problem. Who makes a 362cfm (or whatever) carb anyway, right? What I was trying to get across was that if you calculate for a realistic cfm carb, you'll only overcarb a little bit (say a 390 Holley or 500 Edelbrock) instead of the 100% which might lead you to overcarb to say, a 700 or 750. Shoot, if everyone thought alike and built the same cars...we'd all be clones. :*) Dale McIntosh I've stopped 1,583 spam messages. You can too! One month FREE spam protection at http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnetsig/ > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Nasta > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 9:42 AM > To: The Chevelle Mailing List > Subject: RE: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question > > Right, you can calculate for 100% VE and you probably won't > get it, but if you calculate for 75% VE you definitely won't > get it. You probably wouldn't even get the 75% you think you > are trying to get because VE is influenced by more than just > the carburetor. > > Again, the key is to *be realistic* about what RPM you want > to try to get 100% VE at. This is precisely why a 600 CFM is > overkill on a 283 street engine. You would have to be running > at over 7000 RPM to attempt to get 100% VE. > > I still disagree with you. I think you should get the > carburetor that will give you 100% VE at a reasonable RPM > according to the formula. It's true that you might not get > the whole 100%, but I think you'll get a higher percentage > than you would out of a carb that you know in advance can't > give you more than 75% even with everything else being optimal. > > John Nasta > > > > -Original Message- > > My point is that you can calculate for 100% VE but, in > reality, you'll probably never achieve it in a day-to-day > car. So, why fool yourself into thinking you can run a > larger carb at a higher RPM than you can really use? > It's not a point of choosing a carb that'll only "get" you > 75%, it's choosing a carb that'll make the most of the 75% > you'll probably achieve. > Even at 80% to 85% VE with the same basic engine, you're > looking at 360cfm to 380cfm range. It's like selecting a > camshaft, bigger sounds better (i.e., .580 lift at 320º > duration) when a .490 lift and .295º duration will > make your car drivable. I'd just say to give it some > thought and don't run > out and buy the biggest or most popular combo out there...it > might not work for you. :*) > > Dale McIntosh > > I've stopped 1,542 spam messages. You can too! > One month FREE spam protection at http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnetsig/ > > > > >
RE: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
Keep in mind that most street-only cars w/ 3-speed automatics & 8 cyl engines (esp. big blocks) probably rarely exceed 4,000 RPMs. So, I think Brad is right in saying that most people need to dumb down the formula, but I think the answer is not to second-guess some imaginary minimized VE, but to be realistic about what RPM you want to try to get 100% VE at. John Nasta -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of John C. Butler Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 2:05 PM To: 'The Chevelle Mailing List' Subject: RE: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question WOW!..thanks everyone for all the information!..I will let you all know how it turns out...performance wise!..I really missed this list!!! Thanks Johnny
RE: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
WOW!..thanks everyone for all the information!..I will let you all know how it turns out...performance wise!..I really missed this list!!! Thanks Johnny
Re: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
Sounds like Rochester should have taken a page from the mattress industry: "Do not remove this tag under penalty of law...!" I tried Googling "Rochester 4CG + rebuild kit" and got some useful-looking sites. I didn't have much time to look around, but I did find that GM used 4CGs on big block Cadillacs (390 and 421). Couldn't find 348/409. But, I owned two 348s, one with 3x2s and one with what my fading memory tells me was a 4CG or WCFB Carter. 409s? Beats me! I know 4CGs were used on low-power 327s -- 250hp? Bottom line: You're probably right. A 4CG might work fine on a low-energy 350. But if you're thinking about a snotty cam and Performer RPM, you'll need to be thinking heads, as well! And in an S10??? You are a nasty person, Brad, but I like your thinking! Good luck! Steve On 2/25/04 11:42 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unfortunately the 4Gs came with an attached aluminum tag that contained the > pertinent info, and the tags were prone to being damaged or disappearing. 8^( > I keep my eyes open at swap meets so maybe if I find one that still has its > tag I'll take a flyer on it. Of course, there's no guarantee it's the correct > tag! > > I don't know if 4Gs were used on 348s and 409s but if they were I think one > would be able to feed a low-RPM 350. Then again, the other thing I want to do > to this engine is stuff in an absurdly cam and top it with a Performer RPM or > single-plane intake... ;^) > > Brad >
Re: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
Unfortunately the 4Gs came with an attached aluminum tag that contained the pertinent info, and the tags were prone to being damaged or disappearing. 8^( I keep my eyes open at swap meets so maybe if I find one that still has its tag I'll take a flyer on it. Of course, there's no guarantee it's the correct tag! I don't know if 4Gs were used on 348s and 409s but if they were I think one would be able to feed a low-RPM 350. Then again, the other thing I want to do to this engine is stuff in an absurdly cam and top it with a Performer RPM or single-plane intake... ;^) Brad > Makes sense to me, although I seem to recall hearing that these oldies were > getting expensive -- probably from someone who wanted to sell one to a > restorer. They can't be rare -- they made zillions of em. And just about > as many versions, each requiring a different rebuild kit! Were these carbs > stamped with ID numbers? If so, you might be able to narrow your search a little. > > I'd love to hear the results of your experiment, although strictly from the > standpoint of CFM, putting one of those little winkies on a 350 is sort of > like fitting a 2-barrel. Which makes it no less fun! > > SM > > On 2/25/04 10:10 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My experience has been that the older intakes are worth $$$ only to those who > > want or need them for a specific reason; I had a '64 WCFB intake and a '66 4G > > intake for a long time before finding people (both list members, incidentally) > > who were interested in them. Same goes for 4G carbs...which are still sitting > > in my basement, Gary! ;^) They're out there but not worth as much as you > > might think. > > > > I think from a performance standpoint the modern intakes and carburetors offer > > wider variety and better bang for the buck but the older stuff has a coolness > > that can't be duplicated. I'm half-tempted to rebuild one of my 4Gs (both of > > which are missing the tags so finding a kit might be tough), get a matching > > intake, and put them on my '77 C10 guinea pig (350) just to see what > > happens... > > > > Brad O.
Re: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
Brad, Makes sense to me, although I seem to recall hearing that these oldies were getting expensive -- probably from someone who wanted to sell one to a restorer. They can't be rare -- they made zillions of em. And just about as many versions, each requiring a different rebuild kit! Were these carbs stamped with ID numbers? If so, you might be able to narrow your search a little. I'd love to hear the results of your experiment, although strictly from the standpoint of CFM, putting one of those little winkies on a 350 is sort of like fitting a 2-barrel. Which makes it no less fun! SM On 2/25/04 10:10 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My experience has been that the older intakes are worth $$$ only to those who > want or need them for a specific reason; I had a '64 WCFB intake and a '66 4G > intake for a long time before finding people (both list members, incidentally) > who were interested in them. Same goes for 4G carbs...which are still sitting > in my basement, Gary! ;^) They're out there but not worth as much as you > might think. > > I think from a performance standpoint the modern intakes and carburetors offer > wider variety and better bang for the buck but the older stuff has a coolness > that can't be duplicated. I'm half-tempted to rebuild one of my 4Gs (both of > which are missing the tags so finding a kit might be tough), get a matching > intake, and put them on my '77 C10 guinea pig (350) just to see what > happens... > > Brad O. > >> Without meaning to deflect the technical drift of this thread, I had a >> thought: >> >> Whatever happened to those old Carter (WCFB?) and Rochester (4CG?) >> four-barrels that I remember coming with up-rated 283s? They flowed far >> less than 600cfm -- nearer 400 or 450cfm, I think -- and seemed to do the >> business pretty well. >> >> But then, I suppose both these carbs and the manifolds designed for them are >> now collector's items and pricier than Fabrege eggs. >> >> SM >
Re: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
My experience has been that the older intakes are worth $$$ only to those who want or need them for a specific reason; I had a '64 WCFB intake and a '66 4G intake for a long time before finding people (both list members, incidentally) who were interested in them. Same goes for 4G carbs...which are still sitting in my basement, Gary! ;^) They're out there but not worth as much as you might think. I think from a performance standpoint the modern intakes and carburetors offer wider variety and better bang for the buck but the older stuff has a coolness that can't be duplicated. I'm half-tempted to rebuild one of my 4Gs (both of which are missing the tags so finding a kit might be tough), get a matching intake, and put them on my '77 C10 guinea pig (350) just to see what happens... Brad O. > Without meaning to deflect the technical drift of this thread, I had a thought: > > Whatever happened to those old Carter (WCFB?) and Rochester (4CG?) > four-barrels that I remember coming with up-rated 283s? They flowed far > less than 600cfm -- nearer 400 or 450cfm, I think -- and seemed to do the > business pretty well. > > But then, I suppose both these carbs and the manifolds designed for them are > now collector's items and pricier than Fabrege eggs. > > SM
Re: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
Without meaning to deflect the technical drift of this thread, I had a thought: Whatever happened to those old Carter (WCFB?) and Rochester (4CG?) four-barrels that I remember coming with up-rated 283s? They flowed far less than 600cfm -- nearer 400 or 450cfm, I think -- and seemed to do the business pretty well. But then, I suppose both these carbs and the manifolds designed for them are now collector's items and pricier than Fabrege eggs. SM On 2/25/04 9:41 AM, "John Nasta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right, you can calculate for 100% VE and you probably won't get it, but if > you calculate for 75% VE you definitely won't get it. You probably wouldn't > even get the 75% you think you are trying to get because VE is influenced by > more than just the carburetor. > > Again, the key is to *be realistic* about what RPM you want to try to get > 100% VE at. This is precisely why a 600 CFM is overkill on a 283 street > engine. You would have to be running at over 7000 RPM to attempt to get 100% > VE. > > I still disagree with you. I think you should get the carburetor that will > give you 100% VE at a reasonable RPM according to the formula. It's true > that you might not get the whole 100%, but I think you'll get a higher > percentage than you would out of a carb that you know in advance can't give > you more than 75% even with everything else being optimal. > > John Nasta > > > > -Original Message- > > My point is that you can calculate for 100% VE but, in reality, you'll > probably never achieve it in a day-to-day car. So, why fool yourself into > thinking you can run a larger carb at a higher RPM than you can really use? > It's not a point of choosing a carb that'll only "get" you 75%, it's > choosing a carb that'll make the most of the 75% you'll probably achieve. > Even at 80% to 85% VE with the same basic engine, you're looking at 360cfm > to 380cfm range. It's like selecting a camshaft, bigger sounds better > (i.e., .580 lift at 320º duration) when a .490 lift and .295º duration will > make your car drivable. I'd just say to give it some thought and don't run > out and buy the biggest or most popular combo out there...it might not work > for you. :*) > > Dale McIntosh > > I've stopped 1,542 spam messages. You can too! > One month FREE spam protection at http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnetsig/ > > > >
RE: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
Right, you can calculate for 100% VE and you probably won't get it, but if you calculate for 75% VE you definitely won't get it. You probably wouldn't even get the 75% you think you are trying to get because VE is influenced by more than just the carburetor. Again, the key is to *be realistic* about what RPM you want to try to get 100% VE at. This is precisely why a 600 CFM is overkill on a 283 street engine. You would have to be running at over 7000 RPM to attempt to get 100% VE. I still disagree with you. I think you should get the carburetor that will give you 100% VE at a reasonable RPM according to the formula. It's true that you might not get the whole 100%, but I think you'll get a higher percentage than you would out of a carb that you know in advance can't give you more than 75% even with everything else being optimal. John Nasta -Original Message- My point is that you can calculate for 100% VE but, in reality, you'll probably never achieve it in a day-to-day car. So, why fool yourself into thinking you can run a larger carb at a higher RPM than you can really use? It's not a point of choosing a carb that'll only "get" you 75%, it's choosing a carb that'll make the most of the 75% you'll probably achieve. Even at 80% to 85% VE with the same basic engine, you're looking at 360cfm to 380cfm range. It's like selecting a camshaft, bigger sounds better (i.e., .580 lift at 320º duration) when a .490 lift and .295º duration will make your car drivable. I'd just say to give it some thought and don't run out and buy the biggest or most popular combo out there...it might not work for you. :*) Dale McIntosh I've stopped 1,542 spam messages. You can too! One month FREE spam protection at http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnetsig/
RE: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
Not my numbers, John. Holley states that an ordinary low-performance engine has a VE of about 80% at 'maximum torque' and a high-performance engine at about 85%. http://www.holley.com/HiOctn/TechServ/TechInfo/TI-224.html Other sites say between 80% and 90% is typical for a normally aspirated engine. http://www.auto-ware.com/combust_bytes/eng_sci.htm http://www.epi-eng.com/ET-VolEff.htm http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/020529.htm This guy went so far as to calculate his on a 99 Z/28. http://www.installuniversity.com/install_university/installu_articles/volume tric_efficiency/ve_computation_9.012000.htm - came out with just a shade over 76% My point is that you can calculate for 100% VE but, in reality, you'll probably never achieve it in a day-to-day car. So, why fool yourself into thinking you can run a larger carb at a higher RPM than you can really use? It's not a point of choosing a carb that'll only "get" you 75%, it's choosing a carb that'll make the most of the 75% you'll probably achieve. Even at 80% to 85% VE with the same basic engine, you're looking at 360cfm to 380cfm range. It's like selecting a camshaft, bigger sounds better (i.e., .580 lift at 320º duration) when a .490 lift and .295º duration will make your car drivable. I'd just say to give it some thought and don't run out and buy the biggest or most popular combo out there...it might not work for you. :*) Dale McIntosh I've stopped 1,542 spam messages. You can too! One month FREE spam protection at http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnetsig/ > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Nasta > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:01 PM > To: The Chevelle Mailing List > Subject: RE: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question > > What you are supposed to do is *be realistic* about what max > RPM you will be running at, and find the CFM that will get > you 100% VE at that RPM. Using the formula to find a carb > that will get you 75% VE at your max RPM kind of defeats the > purpose of using the formula if you ask me. > > Now, it's true that there are factors other than the > carburetor that contribute to whether or not you are getting > 100% VE at max RPM, but that doesn't mean you should choose a > carburetor that will guarantee you not to get better than 75%. > > John Nasta > > -Original Message- > > But...you're lucky to get 75%-80% VE on any given street > engine. :*) A normal street 283 isn't going to see the high > side of 5500 and live very long either, to be honest. > So...in the real world > > 283 * 5500 / 3456 = 450. Multiply that times 75% and you get > 338. Of course, there are always exceptions and VE can vary > - but not much. :*) > > > >
Re: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
Be cautious of what manifold you use on a 283-2 barrel engine. It was pointed out to me that these have small ports so some manifolds aren't a good match. see Team Chevelle engine forum: http://www.chevelles.com/cgi-bin/forum/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=011698 It's occurred to me that any recent small block parts are really intended for 350's; just a gut feeling, not a conspiracy theory. I was shopping for Edelbrock C3B or C4B manifolds (for nostalgic look and oil fill pipe) but I decided to buy an Edelbrock S.P.2-P instead. I'm going to use either a 390 or a 450 Holley, might try both and see which I like better. At the pace things move at around here, might be next year before I can say which I used. :( Pete Geurds Douglassville, PA
RE: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
What you are supposed to do is *be realistic* about what max RPM you will be running at, and find the CFM that will get you 100% VE at that RPM. Using the formula to find a carb that will get you 75% VE at your max RPM kind of defeats the purpose of using the formula if you ask me. Now, it's true that there are factors other than the carburetor that contribute to whether or not you are getting 100% VE at max RPM, but that doesn't mean you should choose a carburetor that will guarantee you not to get better than 75%. John Nasta -Original Message- But...you're lucky to get 75%-80% VE on any given street engine. :*) A normal street 283 isn't going to see the high side of 5500 and live very long either, to be honest. So...in the real world 283 * 5500 / 3456 = 450. Multiply that times 75% and you get 338. Of course, there are always exceptions and VE can vary - but not much. :*)
RE: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
But...you're lucky to get 75%-80% VE on any given street engine. :*) A normal street 283 isn't going to see the high side of 5500 and live very long either, to be honest. So...in the real world 283 * 5500 / 3456 = 450. Multiply that times 75% and you get 338. Of course, there are always exceptions and VE can vary - but not much. :*) Dale McIntosh TC Gold #92/ACES #1709/NECOA #41 67SS/67 Elky DalesPlace My 67 SS and 67 El Camino ChevelleStuff Decoding info on 64-72 Chevelles Team67 1967 Chevelle/El Camino Specific MidwestChevelles Midwest Chevelle Show Information I've stopped 1,541 spam messages. You can too!One month FREE spam protection at www.cloudmark.com From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John NastaSent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 8:57 PMTo: The Chevelle Mailing ListSubject: RE: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question ((Engine CID x Max RPM) / 3456) x Volumetric Efficiency = CFM Example: 350 CID 7000 RPM Max Assume you want 100% VE Looks like this: ((350 x 7000) / 3456) x 1 = 709 CFM If you generally always assume that you want the CFM that will give you 100% VE, you can remove that part of the equation, because multiplying by 1 doesn’t change the result, so you could say: (350 x 7000) / 3456 = 709 CFM You have to know your displacement and be realistic about the max RPM you intend to run the engine at. A 600 CFM carb is only appropriate on a 283 if you are running it at over 7000 RPM. If it is a streetcar, you are probably better off with a 500 CFM. That would get you 100% VE at a little under 6000 RPM. John Nasta Old Car Network http://oldcarnetwork.com -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of GunnerSent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 9:34 PMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question Hi John, I did the same thing on my '64. Used the Edelbrock 600 CFM 4 BBL. Does get the job done . -= Gunner =- -= Jacksonville FL =- -= www.tail-gunner.net =- ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Chevelle Mailing List Date: 02/24/04 16:44:11 To: 'The Chevelle Mailing List' Subject: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question Does anyone know where I could find information on the carburetor size that was on the 66 Malibu, 2 barrel, 283 motor. I need to replace mine and was thinking about getting a edelbrock 4 barrel manifold and carb but not sure of the cfm to get. Any hints or suggestion would be great. John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Pelle Andersson Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:35 AM To: Chevelle Mailing List Subject: [Chevelle-list] Off subj? Q: Impala towing hook? A friend of mine is wondering which towing hooks that will fit a -75 Impala B-bod? Best regards Pelle Andersson -- http://members.chello.se/gearheads/ . <>
RE: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
((Engine CID x Max RPM) / 3456) x Volumetric Efficiency = CFM Example: 350 CID 7000 RPM Max Assume you want 100% VE Looks like this: ((350 x 7000) / 3456) x 1 = 709 CFM If you generally always assume that you want the CFM that will give you 100% VE, you can remove that part of the equation, because multiplying by 1 doesn’t change the result, so you could say: (350 x 7000) / 3456 = 709 CFM You have to know your displacement and be realistic about the max RPM you intend to run the engine at. A 600 CFM carb is only appropriate on a 283 if you are running it at over 7000 RPM. If it is a streetcar, you are probably better off with a 500 CFM. That would get you 100% VE at a little under 6000 RPM. John Nasta Old Car Network http://oldcarnetwork.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Gunner Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 9:34 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question Hi John, I did the same thing on my '64. Used the Edelbrock 600 CFM 4 BBL. Does get the job done . -= Gunner =- -= Jacksonville FL =- -= www.tail-gunner.net =- ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Chevelle Mailing List Date: 02/24/04 16:44:11 To: 'The Chevelle Mailing List' Subject: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question Does anyone know where I could find information on the carburetor size that was on the 66 Malibu, 2 barrel, 283 motor. I need to replace mine and was thinking about getting a edelbrock 4 barrel manifold and carb but not sure of the cfm to get. Any hints or suggestion would be great. John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Pelle Andersson Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:35 AM To: Chevelle Mailing List Subject: [Chevelle-list] Off subj? Q: Impala towing hook? A friend of mine is wondering which towing hooks that will fit a -75 Impala B-bod? Best regards Pelle Andersson -- http://members.chello.se/gearheads/ . <><>
RE: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
A 283-2 isn't going to take much fuel to get it running. Probably the smallest 4-bbl from Edelbrock would be their 500cfm unit (#1404). Another choice would be a Holley 390cfm (#0-8007) for a small engine (http://www.holley.com/HiOctn/ProdLine/Products/FMS/FMSC/0-8007.html). An Edelbrock Performer EPS (#2701) intake would make a good choice for a mild 283 (idle - 5500). Dale I've stopped 1,541 spam messages. You can too! One month FREE spam protection at http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnetsig/ > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > John C. Butler > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 3:40 PM > To: 'The Chevelle Mailing List' > Subject: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question > > Does anyone know where I could find information on the > carburetor size that was on the 66 Malibu, 2 barrel, 283 > motor. I need to replace mine and was thinking about getting > a edelbrock 4 barrel manifold and carb but not sure of the > cfm to get. Any hints or suggestion would be great. > > > > John > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > Pelle Andersson > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:35 AM > To: Chevelle Mailing List > Subject: [Chevelle-list] Off subj? Q: Impala towing hook? > > > A friend of mine is wondering which towing hooks that will > fit a -75 Impala B-bod? > > Best regards > Pelle Andersson > -- > http://members.chello.se/gearheads/ > > > > > > >
Re: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question
Hi John, I did the same thing on my '64. Used the Edelbrock 600 CFM 4 BBL. Does get the job done . -= Gunner =- -= Jacksonville FL =- -= www.tail-gunner.net =- ---Original Message--- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; The Chevelle Mailing List Date: 02/24/04 16:44:11 To: 'The Chevelle Mailing List' Subject: [Chevelle-list] Malibu Carb question Does anyone know where I could find information on the carburetor size that was on the 66 Malibu, 2 barrel, 283 motor. I need to replace mine and was thinking about getting a edelbrock 4 barrel manifold and carb but not sure of the cfm to get. Any hints or suggestion would be great. John -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Pelle Andersson Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:35 AM To: Chevelle Mailing List Subject: [Chevelle-list] Off subj? Q: Impala towing hook? A friend of mine is wondering which towing hooks that will fit a -75 Impala B-bod? Best regards Pelle Andersson -- http://members.chello.se/gearheads/ .
