<VV> Pointless Answers

[Frank DuVal]

Bill, please follow the  questions closely, as your comment does not. 
The original poster wanted to know if anyone had used an early PG behind 
a 164 cu in engine, not the difference between early and late PGs. So 
the answer "I have used both and have not noticed a difference" is a 
good answer. Here is the original post:

Just curious...has anyone ever used an early model  (1960-63) Powerglide
>transmission connected to a 164 cu inch engine?
>
>According to the Shop Manuals, the 1964-69 PG had  increased oil pressures
>and was beefed up to match the 164 CID. So if one were  to mate a 1960-63 PG
>to a 164 CID engine, how would this work out?
>The EM transmission has lower internal  pressures which might make it shift
>differently (or badly) when tied to a 164  cid engine.
>
>Has anyone done this?  Were there any  problems with this combination?

People filling in more data, even RTFM, are trying to help. It remind us 
how much data there is out there, and helps sell more books.

Frank DuVal

Bill Hubbell wrote:

>Why do folks persist in giving pointless "answers" to legitimate technical questions?  
>
>For instance, when the question asks what the difference is between early and late powerglide transmissions, the answer should specifically address the differences, not say something like, "Gee, I don't know", or "I think the answer is in Bob's book", or "I have used both and have not noticed a difference." 
>
>Folks, if you don't know the answer to a question and don't want to bother to look it up, why not just stay silent?
>
>Bill Hubbell
>
>  
>