S10 SS 4.3 HO

I have a 94 S10SS 4.3 HO engine in a parts truck which i am probably
going to use for parts for my 96. I don't need the engine (mine is a
2.2), and it knocks anyway. What was special about the SS HO 4.3's?
Would it be worth saving the whole engine or heads and manifold? Are
they special from a standard 4.3?

I am thinking about using the rear end off the 94. Should the rear end
from the 94 SS work in my 96 2.2? I know some of the rear ends had
a longer nose piece on them. And different track widths. Both trucks
had Anti lock (which is different), but as far as i can tell there is
no anti lock sensors on either rear end. I think the 94's is a 3.46 and
should be a limited slip.

The trannie seems to be OK, but i think the 94 4l60E's did not have the
removable bell housing so i could use it on a 2.2

Bob


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Bob Urz" > wrote in message
...
| I have a 94 S10SS 4.3 HO engine in a parts truck which i am probably
| going to use for parts for my 96. I don't need the engine (mine is a
| 2.2), and it knocks anyway. What was special about the SS HO 4.3's?
| Would it be worth saving the whole engine or heads and manifold? Are
| they special from a standard 4.3?
|
| I am thinking about using the rear end off the 94. Should the rear end
| from the 94 SS work in my 96 2.2? I know some of the rear ends had
| a longer nose piece on them. And different track widths. Both trucks
| had Anti lock (which is different), but as far as i can tell there is
| no anti lock sensors on either rear end. I think the 94's is a 3.46
and
| should be a limited slip.
|
| The trannie seems to be OK, but i think the 94 4l60E's did not have
the
| removable bell housing so i could use it on a 2.2
|
| Bob
|

Your gear ratio on the '94 may be a 3.42/1 or 3.73/1 and the 2.2 ratio
IE 4.10/1 or 4.27/1. The VIN #'s will show what they are. There may be a
metal tag showing the ratio. The 2.2 may not have the torque to pull the
lower ratio IMO.

--
Jarhead




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Jarhead wrote:
> "Bob Urz" > wrote in message
> ...
> | I have a 94 S10SS 4.3 HO engine in a parts truck which i am probably
> | going to use for parts for my 96. I don't need the engine (mine is a
> | 2.2), and it knocks anyway. What was special about the SS HO 4.3's?
> | Would it be worth saving the whole engine or heads and manifold? Are
> | they special from a standard 4.3?
> |
> | I am thinking about using the rear end off the 94. Should the rear end
> | from the 94 SS work in my 96 2.2? I know some of the rear ends had
> | a longer nose piece on them. And different track widths. Both trucks
> | had Anti lock (which is different), but as far as i can tell there is
> | no anti lock sensors on either rear end. I think the 94's is a 3.46
> and
> | should be a limited slip.
> |
> | The trannie seems to be OK, but i think the 94 4l60E's did not have
> the
> | removable bell housing so i could use it on a 2.2
> |
> | Bob
> |
>
> Your gear ratio on the '94 may be a 3.42/1 or 3.73/1 and the 2.2 ratio
> IE 4.10/1 or 4.27/1. The VIN #'s will show what they are. There may be a
> metal tag showing the ratio. The 2.2 may not have the torque to pull the
> lower ratio IMO.
>
Well, i was wrong on the 96's ratios. The RPO on the glove box is gt5,
which is a 4.10 (no g80). I have not got possession of the 94 ss yet,
but it seems 3.42 is likely. The question is how much more of a dog will
the 2.2 be if i put the 3.42 in? Then, i have to change the sensor in
the trannie to correct the spedo?

The 96's rear has a clunk in it and a axle seal leaking. SO this looked
like a good opportunity to fix the problem. The truck was in a hard hit
to the passenger rear before i got it and i was suspicious that the axle
housing might have been slightly off in some way.

Bob

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

<<<<<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>


|| > Your gear ratio on the '94 may be a 3.42/1 or 3.73/1 and the 2.2
ratio
| > IE 4.10/1 or 4.27/1. The VIN #'s will show what they are. There may
be a
| > metal tag showing the ratio. The 2.2 may not have the torque to pull
the
| > lower ratio IMO.
| >
| Well, i was wrong on the 96's ratios. The RPO on the glove box is gt5,
| which is a 4.10 (no g80). I have not got possession of the 94 ss yet,
| but it seems 3.42 is likely. The question is how much more of a dog
will
| the 2.2 be if i put the 3.42 in? Then, i have to change the sensor in
| the trannie to correct the spedo?
|
| The 96's rear has a clunk in it and a axle seal leaking. SO this
looked
| like a good opportunity to fix the problem. The truck was in a hard
hit
| to the passenger rear before i got it and i was suspicious that the
axle
| housing might have been slightly off in some way.
|
| Bob

According to my calculator the % difference between 3.42 and 4.10 is
around 17%. This is about the difference between 235X75R15 and
33X9.50X15 tires.

I had a '87 4X4 SC PU with the 22R (carb eng) that had 33's on it when
I bought it. I couldn't use 5th gear at all. The odometer was at least
15% off as well. I put 235's on it and the truck performed like it was
meant to.

--
Jarhead

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the
government." ---Patrick Henry





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

<<<<<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>


|| > Your gear ratio on the '94 may be a 3.42/1 or 3.73/1 and the 2.2
ratio
| > IE 4.10/1 or 4.27/1. The VIN #'s will show what they are. There may
be a
| > metal tag showing the ratio. The 2.2 may not have the torque to pull
the
| > lower ratio IMO.
| >
| Well, i was wrong on the 96's ratios. The RPO on the glove box is gt5,
| which is a 4.10 (no g80). I have not got possession of the 94 ss yet,
| but it seems 3.42 is likely. The question is how much more of a dog
will
| the 2.2 be if i put the 3.42 in? Then, i have to change the sensor in
| the trannie to correct the spedo?
|
| The 96's rear has a clunk in it and a axle seal leaking. SO this
looked
| like a good opportunity to fix the problem. The truck was in a hard
hit
| to the passenger rear before i got it and i was suspicious that the
axle
| housing might have been slightly off in some way.
|
| Bob

According to my calculator the % difference between 3.42 and 4.10 is
around 17%. This is about the difference between 235X75R15 and
33X9.50X15 tires.

I had a '87 4X4 SC PU with the 22R (carb eng) that had 33's on it when
I bought it. I couldn't use 5th gear at all. The odometer was at least
15% off as well. I put 235's on it and the truck performed like it was
meant to.

--
Jarhead

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain
the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the
government." ---Patrick Henry






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Jarhead wrote:

> <<<<<<<<<<<SNIP>>>>>>>>>
>
> || > Your gear ratio on the '94 may be a 3.42/1 or 3.73/1 and the 2.2
> ratio
> | > IE 4.10/1 or 4.27/1. The VIN #'s will show what they are. There may
> be a
> | > metal tag showing the ratio. The 2.2 may not have the torque to pull
> the
> | > lower ratio IMO.
> | >
> | Well, i was wrong on the 96's ratios. The RPO on the glove box is gt5,
> | which is a 4.10 (no g80). I have not got possession of the 94 ss yet,
> | but it seems 3.42 is likely. The question is how much more of a dog
> will
> | the 2.2 be if i put the 3.42 in? Then, i have to change the sensor in
> | the trannie to correct the spedo?
> |
> | The 96's rear has a clunk in it and a axle seal leaking. SO this
> looked
> | like a good opportunity to fix the problem. The truck was in a hard
> hit
> | to the passenger rear before i got it and i was suspicious that the
> axle
> | housing might have been slightly off in some way.
> |
> | Bob
>
> According to my calculator the % difference between 3.42 and 4.10 is
> around 17%. This is about the difference between 235X75R15 and
> 33X9.50X15 tires.
>
> I had a '87 4X4 SC PU with the 22R (carb eng) that had 33's on it when
> I bought it. I couldn't use 5th gear at all. The odometer was at least
> 15% off as well. I put 235's on it and the truck performed like it was
> meant to.
>
> --
> Jarhead
>

Now assuming i did the swap and changed the trannie speed sensor,
what controls the trannie shift points? Since its a 4l60E its electronic.
so its the computer that's shifting it. I wonder if the computer would
have to be changed to or if just changing the trannie sensor will
solve the shift point? Or is it strictly RPM based?

Bob



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----