Which brakes are right

[SeanV]

Also, I try not to be biased. I have '78 454 Suburban that I daily drive and my wife has a '00 Suburban with the 6 liter. Ain't no way in hell I'd go to the trouble of that swap. Stock for stock, they are basically equal for pulling power. The '78 actually has a bit of an edge actually.

Yeah that was my thought. The power is about equal, both engines pull like a train, but the 6.0L could do the same job mode efficiently. My plan was to pull out everything but the rear and insert it in the ’77. The dual front a/c (for the wife), the rear a/c (for the bulldog), those captains chairs, all the computers, sensors, the works and bolt it in the 77. For $3k in swap parts, $1600 donor truck, I just doubled the value of my truck and made it more fuel efficient with no loss in pulling power. But I could also put a $3500 top end kit on the engine and a $3200 Gear Vendor overdrive unit and accomplish the same but have more pulling power. But with stock interior and a/c. But whatever I do, I will not wreck the originality or cut anything up. All bolt on changes and all stock stuff will be preserved so it can go back stock if wanted.

 

[Keith Seymore]

Door tag says it’s the 7100 lbs GVWR vehicle, built in June of 77. Wondering if the end of year run has something to do with this weirdness.

Nope. That's not how it works.

K

 

[Keith Seymore]

I wonder if the rotors are off a 67-72 Chevy 1/2 ton 2wd, which were a 6 lug (rather than a squarebody).

K

 

[SeanV]

I wonder if the rotors are off a 67-72 Chevy 1/2 ton 2wd, which were a 6 lug (rather than a squarebody).

K

I’m open to all suggestions.

The rotors I have on now are the rotor/hub combination casting as opposed to the separate hub and separate rotor setup I’ve seen on other K10’s.

 

[Turbo4whl]

Also, I try not to be biased. I have '78 454 Suburban that I daily drive and my wife has a '00 Suburban with the 6 liter. Ain't no way in hell I'd go to the trouble of that swap. Stock for stock, they are basically equal for pulling power. The '78 actually has a bit of an edge actually.

454 cubic inch = 7.4 liters, 6.0 liters = 6.0 liters. "There is no replacement for displacement." Exceptions; turbo or blower.

 

[RecklessWOT]

Since I don’t plan to do any serious towing with 280 bhp & 380 lbs-ft of torque, the switch isn’t that big of a deal to me.

I do plenty of towing with the 210hp/300ft lbs torque my small block 350 produces. It's not much by today's standards, but it was enough back then and it's still enough today even though I agree it could be much better. The big block is even more grunt, give it the credit it deserves. It's fine if you don't choose to use the truck for hard work, but don't doubt it, it is more than capable for whatever you need (within reason).

 

[RecklessWOT]

Imho, that one is too clean and original looking to drastically modify. Trends die eventually, but clean original trucks have always been in demand.

I would like this a thousand times if I could.

 

[SeanV]

454 cubic inch = 7.4 liters, 6.0 liters = 6.0 liters. "There is no replacement for displacement." Exceptions; turbo or blower.

LOL....yes, very true. But when each power unit delivers the same amount of “twist” at the crankshaft, it’s the smaller unit that can do it with less fuel. Plus, those ******* LS’s can take an insane amount of boost and still stay together. It’s crazy what they can do.

 

[bucket]

LOL....yes, very true. But when each power unit delivers the same amount of “twist” at the crankshaft, it’s the smaller unit that can do it with less fuel. Plus, those ******* LS’s can take an insane amount of boost and still stay together. It’s crazy what they can do.

The 6.0 only saves fuel when simply driving around. If pulling or just hot rodding around town, they drink a bunch of fuel too. They will also lose some economy when installed in a square brick. We average about 12 mpg with our '00, that's with a lot of small town country driving. It's significantly lower than what you might expect because they are really only substantially more efficient when all the conditions are right. We lost a mpg or two simply from running mud terrain type tires. I'd guess that's about the same mpg hit one would take if it were in a square.

 

[SeanV]

That’s understandable. I was referring to the driving around aspect. My in-laws are not in great health so we make several trips per year to the south Atlanta area. Just cruising hauling nothing but a couple suitcases and snoring Bulldog it should do better. Feeding 6.0L vs 7.4L to push that brick 75 mph.

Plus that lower 1st gear in the 4L65E trans may help in town. Of course I can also install a lower 1st gear in my TH400.

 

[idahovette]

OK guys, first picture on post # 29 shows FRONT and REAR 6 lug wheels and NO 4wd, right?? This is on page 2, just so we are all on the same subject and I think @Keith Seymore is right about the earlier rotors and also possibly the same year rear axle?

 

[shiftpro]

454 cubic inch = 7.4 liters, 6.0 liters = 6.0 liters. "There is no replacement for displacement." Exceptions; turbo or blower.

There is no replacement for a twin turboed 496.

 

[SeanV]

There is no replacement for a twin turboed 496.

Very true. I sold a 72 chevy short/wide with an all iron Blueprint 496 in it. Very impressive engine.

 

[SeanV]

OK guys, first picture on post # 29 shows FRONT and REAR 6 lug wheels and NO 4wd, right?? This is on page 2, just so we are all on the same subject and I think @Keith Seymore is right about the earlier rotors and also possibly the same year rear axle?

It does have a GM 12 bolt Truck axle under it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but were these square body C20/C30’s “supposed” to be equipped with the Corporate 14 bolt?

 

[Keith Seymore]

There is no replacement for a twin turboed 496.

Except a twin turbo 624.