Re: 392 EGR

["Chris and Ranae Procyk" <procyk19@domain.elided>]

You said (a):

>an old (pre improved-cooling) 392 short block with 345 heads
>and 345 intake manifold with the EGR.  That way the EGR
>would be functional, help reduce pinging, and still be legal
>since it has all the '78 emissions stuff on it.


and (b)...

>As far as heads, I don't really know except the "improved
>cooling" 392 apparently uses the water jacket from the head
>to the manifold as the EGR passage.


But my question was: don't your 345 heads referred to in (a) ALSO use the
same passage for the EGR as referenced in (b)???  That's what John Landry's
FAQ implies.

Let me back up:

Once, a long time ago, somebody, call him Fred,  told me that the 392 I/C
blocks weren't any different.. "IH just changed the head castings and
cleverly re-routed the plumbing."

So I am trying to work this misconception out of my system, if it is a
misconception.  I was always suspicious of it.  It *IS* true that,  if you
look, you can see the pop-outs for the old water pipe connections on the I/C
blocks, and this reinforced the idea.  But maybe the truth is that that
these pop-outs created the misconception in the first place, and I was a
victim of feedback- (Joe sees the pop-outs, takes that as proof the block
didn't change. W/out any further investigaton, he tells Fred the blocks are
the same. Fred then tells Chris, and Chris thinks "Fred must be right, for
example, look at the pop-outs!!").  Believe the lie!!

It's just that if it were true that the block didn't change, somebody like
you would just have to hunt down a I/C 392, and be done.  This way, you have
to find a block from one engine and an intake manifold from another.

P.S. BTW, I still don't think it would be technically legal.. remember that
you would have "V392" clearly stamped on the side of your block- and that
would be the only indication of the motor type.  Since there is no
correlation between V392s and any light-duty vehicle after 1975, there is no
way it would pass the stupid visual.   It would take a pretty anal (and
surprisingly IH-knowledgable) inspector to find that, fer sure.  But that's
why I suggested the "accident" with the grinder.

Or just fitting 392 pistions.