Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

No torque!

Discussion in '1973-1991 K5 Blazer | Truck | Suburban' started by BillyBob, Jun 27, 2001.

  1. BillyBob

    BillyBob 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2000
    Posts:
    557
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Dumont, NJ
    Well, I finally got my 84 on the road today. Wow, it feels a lot different than my 87. But, the main problem I noticed was that the thing doesn't have as much torque as my 87! It feels more like a car. The engine is a GM crate 350, Q-jet, 31" tires, Gearing is "standard" I haven't put many mods on it. Just a Summit Max flow open air cleaner and a set of JBA headers. I just find it weird that my bone stock 87 (okay, so it has a stock performance chip.. but still...) 350 has more torque than it. What the heck is going on?

    <A target="_blank" HREF=http://billybob87k5.50megs.com>Homepage of Porky & Stinky</A>
    Billybob, the REAL <font color=red>Bionic Redneck</font color=red>
     
  2. 89Blazin

    89Blazin 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2001
    Posts:
    134
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    midwest KC area
    Difference in gearing or tranny or both between the 84 and 87 probably.....

    85 Burb and an 89 Blazer
    One just for fun, one simply for pleazer
     
  3. HarryH3

    HarryH3 1 ton status Author

    Joined:
    May 31, 2000
    Posts:
    10,384
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    Georgetown, TX
    It depends on which "crate" engine was installed. The bottom feeder "TargetMaster" engine is a stock replacement. Low HP and torque. You have to spend considerably more money to get one of the performance crate engines.

    Also check the axle ratio. If it has 3.08's it will be a dawg... [​IMG]

    <font color=black>HarryH3 - '75 K5</font color=black>
    <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.angelfire.com/super/ThunderTruck>http://www.angelfire.com/super/ThunderTruck</A>
    It's a great day to be alive...
     
  4. 83ZZ502_Jimmy

    83ZZ502_Jimmy 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2001
    Posts:
    3,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    I would agree with the others, could be gearing, trans gearing or low output crate motor

    '83 GMC Jimmy 4x4 ZZ4 Crate Motor
    '83 Chevy P/U 4x4 Sand Drag Racer, 578 RWHP
    '94 Impala SS
    '01 Chevy 2500HD w/8.1L & Allison Auto
     
  5. BillyBob

    BillyBob 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2000
    Posts:
    557
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Dumont, NJ
    Well, both have 700 R4 trannies, I still have to pop the cover to see the gearing. And even if the engine was low HP, my 87's is also low. And it has 3.73s and 33" tires. would 3.08s and 31"s feel a lot slower? I guess I should go to a lower gearing?

    <A target="_blank" HREF=http://billybob87k5.50megs.com>Homepage of Porky & Stinky</A>
    Billybob, the REAL <font color=red>Bionic Redneck</font color=red>
     
  6. muddin4fun

    muddin4fun 3/4 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2001
    Posts:
    5,644
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    N Texas
    Also your '87 is prolly fuel injection. I would think 3.08's would feel slower. The 700R4 in '87 was a better tranny than the early 700's that your '84 would have. I think....



    <font color=blue>I've got a mind like a . . . a . . . what's that thing called?</font color=blue>
     
  7. Executioner

    Executioner 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2000
    Posts:
    1,530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Temp. Ft. Walton Beach Fl. home=Tucson, Az.
    Let's see if I can explain a little algerbra for you.
    (3.73)(X)=(33)(3.08)
    slove for X
    X=27.....
    So 33 and 3.73 is like 27 and 3.08
    So 31 and 3.08 is like 37.5 and 3.73
    Get out your cacul and give it a try !
     
  8. redbeast

    redbeast Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2000
    Posts:
    67
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    San Marcos Texas
    What did he say!!!!!!!! I dont need no stinking calculator !! I got stinking toes to count on!!!!! LOL

    1985 Blazer, 305 soon to be a TBI 350, 700r4, msd ign, 3.43s, headers, 31x10.50x15s
     
  9. Chris Demartini

    Chris Demartini 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Dumont NJ 07628
    <font color=blue>It's that 2" exhaust you have on there. You need to get a cat-back made. It wont be as much as your y-pipe was to make. A carb and intake like mine would also help.</font color=blue>
     
  10. 84_Chevy_K10

    84_Chevy_K10 Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2001
    Posts:
    17,669
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    IL, USA
    Standard ratio in '84 was not 3.08, standard was 2.73. That's why she's such a dog. My truck came with 2.73s. It's happy with 4.10s now.

    Tim
    '84 Chevy K10, lifted, loud, fast, and 3/4 ton axles
     
  11. shawnboy

    shawnboy 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2001
    Posts:
    468
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada, eh.
    Depending on how long your rig sat between engines, check your cat converter. Sounds a bit off but mine caused me a whole world of confusion because it sat for 2 days during the swap. It seems things cooled and congealed and plugged the converter just enough to build up back pressure so the motor couldn't breath properly. The result, similiar symptoms to what you describe.
    Shawnboy.
     
  12. BillyBob

    BillyBob 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2000
    Posts:
    557
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Dumont, NJ
    Chris- the exaust is the same as the 87's, except for the blown out muffler. And I doubt going from a Q-jet to a edelbrock 650cfm carb would help me.
    Tim- you sure it's 2.73? That would explain a lot.
    Shawn- I don't think it's the cat. it looks somewhat new. It's obviously a replacement.
    Anyway, since we're talking about gearing, the code for it should be stamped on the diff, right? Where on the diff is it located? We found it on my 87's 12 bolt when we were looking a few months ago, but can't seem to find it on the 84's 10 bolt.

    <A target="_blank" HREF=http://billybob87k5.50megs.com>Homepage of Porky & Stinky</A>
    Billybob, the REAL <font color=red>Bionic Redneck</font color=red>
    <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by BillyBob on 06/28/01 08:07 AM (server time).</FONT></P>
     
  13. 84_Chevy_K10

    84_Chevy_K10 Banned

    Joined:
    May 30, 2001
    Posts:
    17,669
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    IL, USA
    I am undoubtably correct. My glovebox said something to the effect of, "Rear axle ratio--Standard ratio" and it was 2.73. I'm not the only one either. Someone on another site (Chevytalk) has all the option codes for 1984, and it also shows it. Yes, I'm absolutely sure, if you've got the standard ratio, you've got 2.73s.

    In 1984 you could get 2.73, 3.08, 3.23, 3.42, 3.73, or 4.10 in 1/2 ton trucks. Given the choice back then, I'd have only chosen from 3.73 or 4.10 since I run big tires. Stock tires 3.42. I wouldn't even consider higher gearing than that. It tends to have a worse effect on gas mileage if it gets higher than that.

    Ever notice that nowadays, trucks only come with 3.42s, 3.73s, or 4.10s? Most only come with either 3.73s or 4.10s, even 1/2 tons! It took so long for GM to learn!! Too high is just as bad for gas mileage as too low!

    Tim
    '84 Chevy K10, lifted, loud, fast, and 3/4 ton axles
     

Share This Page