OT Let's See What Some Of Yall Think 88 Chevy Blazer

[Dunk]

[i:7001ebb9aa][u:7001ebb9aa][b:7001ebb9aa]Not really asking for advice[/b:7001ebb9aa][/u:7001ebb9aa][/i:7001ebb9aa].
So it is ok to be, right, or wrong, it won't matter, or hurt anyone.
I'm looking for smart fellers though.

I just want to see what answers I get, and why.

You are welcome to use the Internet, or any other resources.
We are talking "new crate engines".
Neither come with intake or distributor.
Both come with ALL sheetmetal installed, valve covers, oil pan, timing cover.

Which engine would you pick, why, and will it work with the original TBI?
Even with minor modification

[u:7001ebb9aa][b:7001ebb9aa]88 Chevy Blazer, Fullsize, 4x4, 5.7 engine, TBI, 700R4 tranny.[/b:7001ebb9aa][/u:7001ebb9aa]

Two choices of engines .
hint: #1 is factory specs.
$1,999.99 #2
[color=red:7001ebb9aa]$1,769.99 #1[/color:7001ebb9aa]
------------
$230 price difference


1:
For 1987-95 Chevy/GMC 1500 and 2500 Trucks

This two-bolt main block has a one-piece nodular iron crankshaft and powdered metal connecting rods with dished hypereutectic pistons for a 9.4:1 compression ratio. It features a flat tappet hydraulic camshaft and swirl port intake design. The exhaust flange is 7-bolt, and the valve covers are centerbolt. [color=red:7001ebb9aa]200 horsepower rating at 4000 RPM [/color:7001ebb9aa](300 ft/lbs TQ) and includes an 8" balancer, 4-quart oil pan, timing cover, and valve covers.

Specifications
Block: Cast iron, 2-bolt main, 1-piece rear main seal
Connecting Rods: Powdered Metal Connecting Rods
Pistons: Dished Hypereutectic
Compression Ratio: 9.4:1
Oil Pump: High-Volume Oil Pump
Timing Chain: Morse link-type
Camshaft: Flat Tappet Hydraulic (Lift .382" Int/.402" Exh; Duration @ .050" 165.9° Int/174.8° Exh; Lobe Separation Angle 111.9°)
Cylinder Heads: 65.3cc chambers, 1.94"/1.50" valves, swirl port intake design (heads are not performance-oriented; intended for good bottom end torque and fuel economy; intake runner is restrictive because it has a ramp cast into the bottom of the bowl to promote high swirl)
$1,769.99

http://www.jegs.com/i/GM-Performance/809/12568758/10002/-1?parentProductId=753961





2:
This 350 is GM Performance Parts value-leading crate engine, with [color=red:7001ebb9aa]290 horsepower @ 5100 RPM[/color:7001ebb9aa], and 326 ft/lbs of torque @ 3750 RPM on 87 octane fuel. Its power will provide great durability with a 4-bolt mains, PM steel rods, and strong cast aluminum pistons. The camshaft has .450" intake and .460" exhaust lift with hydraulic flat tappets. The cast iron cylinder heads have 1.94" intake and 1.50" exhaust valves with 76 cc combustion chamber. The heads have the conventional 12-bolt intake manifold attaching design used from 1955 through late 1980. This 350 engine is not intended for marine use, and should be used in 1979 or earlier pre-emissions street vehicles or any off-road usage.

Specifications

Horsepower: 290 @ 5100 RPM
Torque: 326 ft/lbs @ 3750 RPM
Max Rec. RPM: 5100 RPM
Compression Ratio: 8.5:1
Heads: Cast Iron 76 cc Chamber - 1.94 Intake valve/1.5 Exhaust valve
Camshaft Lift: .450 Intake /.460 Exhaust
Flat Tappet Duration @ .050" (222°Int/222° Exh)
Lifters: Flat Tappet
Connecting Rods: Powdered Metal
Block: 4-bolt main
Pistons & Pins: Aluminum
Crankshaft: Cast Iron Nodular, 3.480" Stroke
Rocker Arm: 1.5
Ignition Timing: 34° BTDC total advance
Fuel: 87 octane
$1,999.99

http://www.jegs.com/i/GM+Performance/809/12499529/10002/-1

 

[hdheritage]

go with #1. no reprogramming or reflashing the computer. Cammed for your computer. You'll be happier

 

[oldtanker]

Don't know about the JEGS engines but around here most shops want to install reman and crate motors from GM only on Gm vehicles. Claim they like to do the job one time only.

As long as everything is drilled and tapped for your sensors the only "mods" needed for either engine would be the possibility of having to rechip/flash the puter.

My question is if yer thinking about spending that much on an engine why not dump the extra money into a MPI upgrade while you are at it?

Rick[/code]

 

[JMOR]

I don't know, but would check on heads to intake manifold compatibility, as you are about in the bolt pattern change over era.

 

[Dunk]

So far [b:51c7c4badb][i:51c7c4badb][u:51c7c4badb]excellent[/u:51c7c4badb][/i:51c7c4badb][/b:51c7c4badb] answers!!
Do remember these ARE GM engines.
And we seem to be talking 200 HP to 290 HP.
GM part numbers included below.


Same engines, different supplier.
Summit Racing


1:
#GM Performance 12568758 - GM Performance 350 C.I.D. VIN Code K Engine
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/NAL-12568758/


2:
GM Performance 12499529 - GM Performance 350 C.I.D. 290 HP Engine
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/NAL-12499529/

 

[Ron-MO]

Honestly for no more difference in price, I would go with #2. Unless I am missing something it should bolt in and go. With the ECM that is in a 88 I doubt it would cause any issues, and you would definetely notice the power difference, and likely do just as well if not better on fuel consumption. Those older (95 and older) computers were pretty forgiving. I know I removed the catalytic converter on a 89 S-10 4 cylinder, and the thing ran so much better it was unbelievable, with no engine light after (O2 Sensor is up near the manifold). In looking at the GM Performance Parts catalog that appears to be the base line engine, and you might check with a local dealer, they may be able to match or beat that price. All depends on how bad they want your business, and some would rather make a sale than you walk away and go buy elsewhere. I have one of the engines similar to #1 in my 92 TBI pickup, and while it is ok, it is certainly not overpowered, and any extra would be welcome. I say go for it and get #2.

 

[Dunk]

(quoted from post at 09:19:12 04/19/11) Honestly for no more difference in price, I would go with #2. Unless I am missing something it should bolt in and go. With the ECM that is in a 88 I doubt it would cause any issues, and you would definetely notice the power difference, and likely do just as well if not better on fuel consumption. Those older (95 and older) computers were pretty forgiving. I know I removed the catalytic converter on a 89 S-10 4 cylinder, and the thing ran so much better it was unbelievable, with no engine light after (O2 Sensor is up near the manifold). In looking at the GM Performance Parts catalog that appears to be the base line engine, and you might check with a local dealer, they may be able to match or beat that price. All depends on how bad they want your business, and some would rather make a sale than you walk away and go buy elsewhere. I have one of the engines similar to #1 in my 92 TBI pickup, and while it is ok, it is certainly not overpowered, and any extra would be welcome. I say go for it and get #2.

That was my thinking exactly, Ron.

And looking stuff like that up on the net, seems a lot of folks are doing switching GMs from carb, to TBI.

You can find it all over the Internet.

It is a good thing, that I have both a 1978 K10 Pickup, and a 1988 K10 Blazer 4x4s.

Even with presidential modifications on the 290 (I think/hope I can reverse) , I cannot make it run on that TBI.

200 runs like a top.

I would love to be able to understand this.

JMOR is right about the intake being the first presidential modification.

Good thing all I have to do is sit and watch, and let the boy do all of the "work".

 

[Dunk]

When I bought the K10 Pickup the transfer case chain was worn out, and slipped, I went to the junk yard and got another, same thing.

I said not again.....

I searched everywhere around here for the transfer case I wanted, finally found one, a solid cast iron, solid cast iron gear 305?, chain won't stretch, or wear in that sucker, but it sure is heavy.

So I have a place for both, I may have to do a little more presidential engineering on 4 intake/head bolt holes, but that shouldn't be much to that. Not an amature there, and know when I need a machine shop man.

Helicoils if necessary.
They don't hold much in the middle of that intake.

I just can't understand why I couldn't make it run on that TBI, it was like I could never get it in time, I can't imagine why.

 

[Dunk]

I promised to tell the story of the mudhole, they call it the "submarine hole" that started all of this $4000 story.... Maybe soon.....

"Here hold my beer, and watch this"

 

[Greg_Ky]

#1 is the same as you have with the "new" style heads and
intake that have different intake mounting. #2 is the "old" style
intake mounting. You would need a different intake if you
want #2

 

[Brian Bell]

i have a '94 gmc z71 4x4. I got a Vortec 350 bottom end from my brothers shop with a spun rod bearing. I rebuild the motor with flat top pistons and a 2 new rods and a new crank from Autozone. I found a set of heads (TBI type) at the junk yard and had them gone thru with new springs and umbrella valve seals. I reused the factory hydraulic roller cam and lifters with the vortec self centering rocker arms. I noticed a nice gain in pulling power when pulling my 8N and rotary cutter with it. No major port work on heads and the bottom end is stock bore. Check engine light will come on from time to time (did pre engine swap too due to O2 sensor) but doesn't affect the performance. I just acquired a set of headers for it that I'm going to put on in the near future as well. My brother suggest replacing the in tank pump with one from a big block truck to get the higher fuel pressure to be able to make more power in the future. Overall, I'm happy with what I did with no major modifications. If you want to go to the newer style engines with more power, buy a reman Vortec 350 and the TBI-Vortec intake from GMPP and get the benefits of the later technology engines. I would have if so much stuff didn't just fall into my lap!

 

[Bob]

YEP!

 

[Hobo,NC]

The exhaust flange is 7-bolt,,, that does cause issues when swap'n...

 

[danny in draketown]

isnt there some great input on these sites. you could ask about grandmas apple dumlins and get some good feedback. good stuff guys

 

[danny in darketown]

oops, i meant dumplins

 

[Dunk]

(quoted from post at 17:21:03 04/19/11) oops, i meant dumplins

There are folks on this site that I have confidence in, by reason.
Most of them I have been watching their answers for lots of years.

 

[Hobo,NC]

Looks like to make the swap you will need a new flywheel along with the correct zaust manifolds (not cheap)... look at the Engine Balance spec,,, Internal/external... I have made the swap a tbi engine to a carb set up but not a carb engine to a tbi engine..

 

[Dunk]

(quoted from post at 20:58:05 04/19/11) Looks like to make the swap you will need a new flywheel along with the correct zaust manifolds (not cheap)... look at the Engine Balance spec,,, Internal/external... I have made the swap a tbi engine to a carb set up but not a carb engine to a tbi engine..

Good advice Hobo, I had the flexplate/flywheel swap, no problem there, and made that (got flywheel, and bolts, off of older engine at junkyard, as well as (dayumit something else, I will have to figure out what later)).

Exhaust manifolds bolted right up.
(without some spark plug heat shields)

I don't understand what the internal/external means (may be a clue).
200HP came with harmonical balancer installed, 290HP came without, and we swapped the one off the old 200HP, it had a key way.

We tried dist a couple or 3 different ways.

I will figure out what else we got from the junkyard today.
My brain ain't working right now, I will have to ask someone that isn't available right now. It may have just been a bracket.

290HP came with 2 different timing mark plates, only one fit balancer.

 

[Bob]

Internally-balanced engines used unweighted (balanced) vibration dampers and flywheels.

Externally-balanced engines use counterweighted vibration dampers and/or flywheels.

The good old 350's with a two-piece rear main seal are internally-balanced.

The newer 350's (about 1986-up) have a one-piece rear main seal necessitating a the elimination of a little weight at the back of the crankshaft, so they hung a weight on the flywheel instead, making it an externally-balanced engine.

 

[Dunk]

(quoted from post at 12:27:44 04/20/11) Internally-balanced engines used unweighted (balanced) vibration dampers and flywheels.

Externally-balanced engines use counterweighted vibration dampers and/or flywheels.

The good old 350's with a two-piece rear main seal are internally-balanced.

The newer 350's (about 1986-up) have a one-piece rear main seal necessitating a the elimination of a little weight at the back of the crankshaft, so they hung a weight on the flywheel instead, making it an externally-balanced engine.

Thanks so much, Bob.
We seem to have had that handled then, as long as the 200HP, harmonical balancer wasn't and issue, and I can't believe it would be enought to make a difference in it running, maybe on longetivity.

We had the proper flywheel, matched with the 2 piece seal.

 

[Hobo,NC]

(quoted from post at 17:27:44 04/20/11) Internally-balanced engines used unweighted (balanced) vibration dampers and flywheels.

Externally-balanced engines use counterweighted vibration dampers and/or flywheels.

The good old 350's with a two-piece rear main seal are internally-balanced.

The newer 350's (about 1986-up) have a one-piece rear main seal necessitating a the elimination of a little weight at the back of the crankshaft, so they hung a weight on the flywheel instead, making it an externally-balanced engine.

What he said,,, use the timing marker that's like the original engine had,,, I don't think the ballancer is a issue as long as you stay with the original style timing indicator....

Test fit the starter while the engine is out and check the starter pinion gap...
It can B a issue a real bad issue now is the time to confirm you parts mate up well...

Google shimming a GM starter... maybe bob had the spec I think its .030 (standard paperclip will work)...,,, I figger your engine is set up to use either oil dip tick :idea: .. Does your TBI manifold bolt up,,, Carb and TBI manifolds are different,,, I know you can make a carb manifold work on a TBI engine with modifications but not sure the other way....

BTW I don' like shimming a 350 starter,,, I had rather find the combination that requires no shimming...

 

[Dunk]

The other part that I got from the junkyard was the spin on oil fillter adapter, as I took the oil cooler off of it, I did not want it on there.

Hobo,

I ended up buying both engines.
(From Summit Racing, the 290HP carb first, and tried it in the '88 Blazer, just to see, Tried pretty hard to make it work on the TBI, I couldn't, I feel sure it will work wonderfully in the '78 Carb Pickup.) [b:474a96519a][i:474a96519a][u:474a96519a] I would LOVE to know, and understand why I could not make it work on the TBI.[/u:474a96519a][/i:474a96519a][/b:474a96519a] I am putting back what came out of both '78 Carb Pickup, and '88 TBI Blazer stock. I think, now.

I know that what I have back in the '88 is the stock engine now, and I haven't had time to drive it over a few (10?) miles, but it seems jam up, and jelly tight, I have drove it and cranked it enough, that it acts close to perfect, I am going to still put a new fuel pump and filter on it, and maybe a few other "maint" type things, hopefully some paint too.

This is no longer a problem, and I no longer have it to test on. I have the 200HP stock TBI in the '88 Blazer and seemingly running like a top, just like I just bought it new.

I have the 290HP pretty much ready to go in the '78 Pickup, possibly this weekend.

I had no starter problems at all with the swap.

I just cannot understand what is so much different about these engines, that the carb engine, won't run on the TBI, no matter what I tried, except a reprogram or something.

I could make it kind of run, with the 0* timing wire on, and with it off, also I think, but it was not like it was running on all, cylinders. Like the plug wires were on wrong, or like it had a timing issue, or something, no popping back thru intake though.

It was kinda like the wires were not on correctly, or some not all on, but they matched intake order.

I want to understand the differences in these engines.

What the difference is in the way the fuel/firing is different, carb/TBI that won't let the carb engine run correctly on the TBI.

(maybe that made some sense).

90 more HP would have tickled me in the Blazer.

Too late now, but I still would [color=red:474a96519a][u:474a96519a][i:474a96519a][b:474a96519a]love[/b:474a96519a][/i:474a96519a][/u:474a96519a][/color:474a96519a] to know the REASON.

Especially since I see folks on the Internet that show them doing it.

Oh and I plan on having dual exhausts put on the '88 too.

 

[Hobo,NC]

I am still trying to figger out how you got a TBI intake on a carb style engine...

290HP I don't buy it... :roll:

 

[Dunk]

(quoted from post at 20:30:07 04/20/11) I am still trying to figger out how you got a TBI intake on a carb style engine...

290HP I don't buy it... :roll:

I did some drilling on the 4 middle intake holes.
That should explain it.

Most would call it a [color=red:930ff2301d][b:930ff2301d][i:930ff2301d][u:930ff2301d]stupid[/u:930ff2301d][/i:930ff2301d][/b:930ff2301d][/color:930ff2301d] move.
I think I can deal with what I did one way or another.

It was my engine, I could do what I wanted.
:lol: