HOME FORUM RULES CONTACT
     
   
   

Go Back   CLASS RACER FORUM > Class Racer Forums > Stock and Super Stock
Register Photo Gallery FAQ Community Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-04-2014, 12:23 PM   #1
Dwight Southerland
VIP Member
 
Dwight Southerland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Arkansas - In the middle of everything.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 64
Liked 780 Times in 194 Posts
Default Re: Some "Dime Rockets" for the 4TH!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Nees View Post
Joe, I'd have to put my eyeballs on that one. Every 79 305/2V that I ever saw had a Dual-jet carb, not a 2G. I guess that it's possible but I'd call it a 78.
I had a 79 Monza V8 that I bought new and it had a 2GC. However, the intake manifold number was 373598 like is listed for the '78 engines. I have also seen 79 Caprices, a 79 Firebird, a 79 Skylark and recently a 79 Nova with 2GCs, never a DualJet.

If you look at NHRA's sheets, they list the same intake manifold for the 267 with a DualJet and the 305 with the 2GC; is that possible? (I am not familiar with DualJets, other than they look like the front of a Qjet.) Also, is either of the 79 intake manifolds (14007372 & 14007374) aluminum?

The 78 alt intake 346260 is also used on the 76 and 77 305s, and the 75 and 76 350 2bbl. (Probably the 74 also; the tech sheet says 346266 but that could be a typo.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Billy Nees View Post
And at this point in time, it won't come close to running with the 302s.
Agreed.
Dwight Southerland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 10:46 AM   #2
Billy Nees
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: On a hilltop in Pa.
Posts: 4,496
Likes: 3,600
Liked 7,762 Times in 1,741 Posts
Default Re: Some "Dime Rockets" for the 4TH!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dwight Southerland View Post
If you look at NHRA's sheets, they list the same intake manifold for the 267 with a DualJet and the 305 with the 2GC; is that possible?
No. The dual-jet and the 2GC have a different bolt pattern. I've had a 79 Caprice and a 79 Camaro, 305s both that had dual-jets on them. I wouldn't doubt that it has something to do with where the cars were built and what plant supplied the engines.
__________________
Billy Nees 1188 STK, SS

I'm not spending 100K to win 2K
Billy Nees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 11:08 AM   #3
Dwight Southerland
VIP Member
 
Dwight Southerland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Arkansas - In the middle of everything.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 64
Liked 780 Times in 194 Posts
Default Re: Some "Dime Rockets" for the 4TH!

I did a bit of research last night and found that the two intake manifolds listed on the 79 tech sheet are both for DualJet. In fact, I physically inspected a 14007372 number which is cast iron. I'm going to chase down the carb numbers next. Billy, I think you are probably right about supply and model usage; maybe it has to do with timing in the production year, too. My Monza was ordered in September 1978 and delivered in October.
Dwight Southerland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 08:39 PM   #4
Bill Bogues
Member
 
Bill Bogues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bethany La.
Posts: 323
Likes: 96
Liked 169 Times in 53 Posts
Smile Re: Some "Dime Rockets" for the 4TH!

I've been running the 82 267 Monte Carlo combo for a year now and I have to say the intake manifold on this car has to be the world's heaviest for a small block chevy. Love that dual-jet too. '
__________________
Bill Bogues 4696 STK
Bill Bogues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2014, 10:00 PM   #5
joe huestis
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Youngsville, N.C.
Posts: 623
Likes: 281
Liked 409 Times in 113 Posts
Default Re: Some "Dime Rockets" for the 4TH!

Been looking at some of these U/SA combos such as the late 70's Camaro with the 305-2V and the 80's combos with the 267-2V . At 180 HP vs. 150 for the 267 is it worth carrying the extra 600 lbs. with the 305 ? Which is the better combination and what other chevy combos may be the way to go for U ?
__________________
Joe Huestis
"Annie's Song" Racing U/SA 2724
Youngsville, NC

Last edited by joe huestis; 02-05-2014 at 10:03 PM.
joe huestis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2014, 08:35 AM   #6
Billy Nees
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: On a hilltop in Pa.
Posts: 4,496
Likes: 3,600
Liked 7,762 Times in 1,741 Posts
Default Re: Some "Dime Rockets" for the 4TH!

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe huestis View Post
Been looking at some of these U/SA combos such as the late 70's Camaro with the 305-2V and the 80's combos with the 267-2V . At 180 HP vs. 150 for the 267 is it worth carrying the extra 600 lbs. with the 305 ? Which is the better combination and what other chevy combos may be the way to go for U ?
Joe, IMHO, I think that it's a wash. Personally, I don't like towing around heavy cars. The 2G carb is a bunch easier to deal with that the Dual-Jet.
You could just do a Camaro and get both 78 and 81 facias and run both!
__________________
Billy Nees 1188 STK, SS

I'm not spending 100K to win 2K
Billy Nees is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2014, 12:55 PM   #7
Dwight Southerland
VIP Member
 
Dwight Southerland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Arkansas - In the middle of everything.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 64
Liked 780 Times in 194 Posts
Default Re: Some "Dime Rockets" for the 4TH!

'76 Chevelle is an interesting choice. With it you can run the 305 2bbl in U, but also have the option of 350 2bbl, 350 4bbl and 400 4bbl if you decide to make a career with the car. The '75 Chevy II 262 is another option for U.
Dwight Southerland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2014, 03:53 PM   #8
Mark Yacavone
Veteran Member
 
Mark Yacavone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Miles From Nowhere
Posts: 7,818
Likes: 2,908
Liked 5,125 Times in 1,953 Posts
Default Re: Some "Dime Rockets" for the 4TH!

Quote:
Originally Posted by joe huestis View Post
Been looking at some of these U/SA combos such as the late 70's Camaro with the 305-2V and the 80's combos with the 267-2V . At 180 HP vs. 150 for the 267 is it worth carrying the extra 600 lbs. with the 305 ? Which is the better combination and what other chevy combos may be the way to go for U ?
Almost have to go with an 82 Monte 267...That's a lot of weight difference for sure.. Not quite in the Ford 302 range though.
For some reason though, the 1.21 Dual Jet doesn't seem to work as good as the 1.18 2GC ???
__________________
"We are lucky we don't get as much Government as we pay for." Will Rogers
Mark Yacavone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2014, 04:38 PM   #9
Dwight Southerland
VIP Member
 
Dwight Southerland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Arkansas - In the middle of everything.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 64
Liked 780 Times in 194 Posts
Default Re: Some "Dime Rockets" for the 4TH!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Yacavone View Post
For some reason though, the 1.21 Dual Jet doesn't seem to work as good as the 1.18 2GC ???
It might have something to do with the 2GC having 1.686" throttle bores.
Dwight Southerland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2014, 08:28 AM   #10
Billy Nees
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: On a hilltop in Pa.
Posts: 4,496
Likes: 3,600
Liked 7,762 Times in 1,741 Posts
Default Re: Some "Dime Rockets" for the 4TH!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Bogues View Post
I've been running the 82 267 Monte Carlo combo for a year now and I have to say the intake manifold on this car has to be the world's heaviest for a small block chevy. Love that dual-jet too. '
Bill, there is an aluminium intake available. I just don't remember which one it is.
__________________
Billy Nees 1188 STK, SS

I'm not spending 100K to win 2K
Billy Nees is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.