Click on image for the lowdown. 
====
| | |
2 members (walter74, klhansen),
117
guests, and
3
robots. | | Key: Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod | | | Forums66 Topics128,062 Posts1,055,854 Members48,428 | | Most Online14,466 Apr 26th, 2026 | | AD Chevy Trucks Over 6,000 pictures Brad Allen has an awesome collection of Chevrolet factory pictures that he has set up from film strips. Check them out!
Lots of work on Brad's part ... pure enjoyment (and references) for you!
| | THANKS!
For helping keep this great
old truck web site
on the Internet for over 30 years! and not clogged down with Ads! Again, thanks! | | | | Joined: Jun 2005 Posts: 388 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Jun 2005 Posts: 388 | Frank50's observations and questions about the stamped serial number are good. As I mentioned a few months ago, I own or have owned five 261 engines and only one of them has (or had) a stamped serial number that was correct for the block. The other four turned out to be replacement blocks, and the owner either left the pad blank or stamped in the number from the original engine (not a 261) that was in the car receiving the 261.
The engine in the 1949 Chevy in question seems to be a 50-52 PG engine, but there are other possibilities. the only way to know for sure is the take the engine apart and see what is inside. There is the possibility (close to zero) that a low pressure engine with babbitt bearings had been converted to full pressure with insert bearings. The block and head casting codes and date codes are needed, as has been stated above. Even these can be confusing, as the date casting code for a replacement part might not be consistent with the year for the original.
Again, thanks to truckernix for the link to the engine history summary.
Hoyt | | | |
Entire Thread
|
216, 235, or ???
| waldo53 | 08/14/2010 3:50 AM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| tclederman | 08/14/2010 6:40 AM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| truckernix | 08/14/2010 11:08 AM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| Hambone | 08/14/2010 12:14 PM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| waldo53 | 08/14/2010 5:31 PM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| tclederman | 08/14/2010 6:59 PM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| truckernix | 08/14/2010 7:23 PM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| waldo53 | 08/14/2010 9:23 PM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| truckernix | 08/14/2010 9:53 PM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| Frank50 | 08/15/2010 12:29 AM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| truckernix | 08/15/2010 2:52 AM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| waldo53 | 08/15/2010 3:32 AM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| truckernix | 08/15/2010 11:10 AM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| Frank50 | 08/15/2010 1:14 PM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| Oilrag | 08/15/2010 5:37 PM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| truckernix | 08/15/2010 8:23 PM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| Oilrag | 08/15/2010 11:49 PM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| truckernix | 08/16/2010 12:13 AM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| Oilrag | 08/16/2010 11:43 PM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| waldo53 | 08/17/2010 4:22 AM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| truckernix | 08/17/2010 11:49 AM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| truckernix | 08/26/2010 11:56 AM |
Re: 216, 235, or ???
| hoyt | 08/15/2010 3:29 AM | |
| |