Welcome to Club Hot Rod!  The premier site for everything to do with Hot Rod, Customs, Low Riders, Rat Rods, and more. 

  •  » Members from all over the US and the world!
  •  » Help from all over the world for your questions
  •  » Build logs for you and all members
  •  » Blogs
  •  » Image Gallery
  •  » Many thousands of members and hundreds of thousands of posts! 

YES! I want to register an account for free right now!  p.s.: For registered members this ad will NOT show

 

Thread: Lost in the sauce....
          
   
   

Results 1 to 13 of 13

Threaded View

  1. #10
    pro70z28's Avatar
    pro70z28 is offline CHR Member Visit my Photo Gallery
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    CC
    Car Year, Make, Model: 70 Camaro Z-28 Now/40 Chevy Back Then
    Posts
    4,306

    Originally posted by drg84
    Being an 88, they would almost have to be hydraulic, wouldnt they?Oh, and streets, if memory serves me right, the oldsmobile engines were a 78 option. Your talking of the 403, I hope. Anyway, if the 403 is like the 403 in my car, they are almost dummy proof. Actually, i think the same design was used on all the small block heads for rocker arms. Wasnt it?
    slaisebam:
    We need more info. What engine do you have in the Trans Am? And what yr. is it? Hydraulics would be a little more forgiving than solids. But if they were set w/engine not running maybe not, as they would probably just colapse w/o oil pressure. If they have the rocker assembly like Streets posted u just torque em' right?
    Last edited by pro70z28; 03-16-2004 at 08:10 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Links monetized by VigLink