<VV> Pointless Answers
corvairduval at cox.net
Mon Apr 26 00:13:13 EDT 2010
Bill, please follow the questions closely, as your comment does not.
The original poster wanted to know if anyone had used an early PG behind
a 164 cu in engine, not the difference between early and late PGs. So
the answer "I have used both and have not noticed a difference" is a
good answer. Here is the original post:
Just curious...has anyone ever used an early model (1960-63) Powerglide
>transmission connected to a 164 cu inch engine?
>According to the Shop Manuals, the 1964-69 PG had increased oil pressures
>and was beefed up to match the 164 CID. So if one were to mate a 1960-63 PG
>to a 164 CID engine, how would this work out?
>The EM transmission has lower internal pressures which might make it shift
>differently (or badly) when tied to a 164 cid engine.
>Has anyone done this? Were there any problems with this combination?
People filling in more data, even RTFM, are trying to help. It remind us
how much data there is out there, and helps sell more books.
Bill Hubbell wrote:
>Why do folks persist in giving pointless "answers" to legitimate technical questions?
>For instance, when the question asks what the difference is between early and late powerglide transmissions, the answer should specifically address the differences, not say something like, "Gee, I don't know", or "I think the answer is in Bob's book", or "I have used both and have not noticed a difference."
>Folks, if you don't know the answer to a question and don't want to bother to look it up, why not just stay silent?
More information about the VirtualVairs