DO you think the GMC 270 is a HEAVY DUTY ENGINE? WHY

pfarber · Post by **pfarber** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:06 pm

Please select ONE reason why you *THINK* the GMC 270 is HD.

armydriver · Post by **armydriver** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:58 pm

Actually, for the time period the engine was designed, it is well engineered and very serviceable. Also look how many are still running after some 60 years of duty, a lot of it very rough and not that well maintained.

42cckw · Post by **42cckw** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 11:50 pm

Are we going to start this all over again

HELP BILL PUSH THE MAGIC LOCK

pfarber · Post by **pfarber** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:07 am

THis is te correct place for this topic.

Its obvious that you cannot form a coherant thought on the issue.

Chappers · Post by **Chappers** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:46 am

This is what I call a heavy duty engine, http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/check out the spec and fuel consumption

.As for the GMC Engine being heavy duty,I think it's down to personal choice as to how you describe it. I don't think there's a break of point between light duty and heavy duty or a set bunch of rules. I would class an engine as light duty if it was in a small vehicle that didn't need to move a lot of goods around ,My personal feelings are that the GMC engine is a heavy duty engine and proved it's self over the last 60 years ,but that's my interpritation of the 270 lump. Everyone has there own opinion.

42cckw · Post by **42cckw** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:59 am

Lets see coherent (spelt correctly) has nothing to do with it, as for this being the correct place

don't know whats thats all about

nothing was said about that

simply put this horse has been ridden untill it dropped, get off. I would think you could take the hint Bill did when he locked the subject , he did it very tactfully,and with diplomacy. why does your post's seem to have so much built up

this is supposed to be a fun site with people who all have the same love of these old trucks and desire to help. anyway I do wish you well

Barry Churcher · Post by **Barry Churcher** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 9:17 pm

I would consider this engine to be heavy duty as it was the engine of choice for larger, more heavily loaded vehicles. The regular Canadian trucks had the 216 cu in engine for most applications. Dipper rods and splash feed. This was even in the artillery tractors that towed a gun and a limber. The 6X6 Canadian Chevys and the heavier armored wheeled vehicles used the 270. To me that says heavy duty but if you compare it to a Mack its a wimp. Heavy duty is relevant but really what does it matter?

This is a great engine that when looked after will last another 60 years.
Cheers,
Barry

KEVINABR · Post by **KEVINABR** » Fri Dec 01, 2006 5:14 pm

WELL AFTER 60 PLUS YEARS OF SERVICE IN MANY COUNTRIES THE 270 MOTOR KEEPS DOING WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO..... VERY BASIC AND EASY TO WORK ON A SIMPLE DESIGN OF THE 40s .. USED IN A VARIOUS VEHICLES ALL OVER THE WORLD, PROBABLY NOT THE BIGGEST OF ENGINES BUT DID THE JOB..... I THINK THAT THAT DOES LIST IT AS HEAVY DUTY FOR SURE