| |
Click on image for the lowdown. 
====
| | | Forums66 Topics128,163 Posts1,057,070 Members48,463 | | 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: Oct 2006 Posts: 9,671 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 9,671 | I didn't quote Gene word for word Tim, I just used his reply as a starting point for my own research. The 20 hp info came from the Service News. I tried to clear the water by noting that this was for the 235 which wasn’t used in the light trucks. I suppose I should have also said that there are a lot of changes going on during that period depending on what the application was. Gene did address the increase in CR in ’58 for the 848 head and his guess was that they might have just shaved the head. The early 235 head, i.e. 1953 3708883, head had the combustion chambers reworked according to the Service News for that year and was being used for all three applications of the 235. This really was a transitional year for the Stovebolt. From what I gather, even though the Load Master and 3speed pasenger 235 block was upgraded it still remained a splash oiler. The new block uses the new head and all of the blocks were strengthened supposedly because of the increase in CR. Makes me wonder if the block wasn’t the same 235 casting they were using in the Load Master, standard passenger car and powerglide. It also seems odd that they didn’t go full pressure with the standard 3speed passenger and Load Master engines at the same time as the powerglide engine. According to the Service News they were using the new rods and cranks in this engines.
This can get very convoluted and requires more comparison of the block casting numbers. I just don’t have the time to do that now. Denny Graham Sandwich, IL
Last edited by Denny Graham; 10/18/2010 10:52 AM.
Denny G Sandwich, IL
| | | |
Entire Thread
|
Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| Denny Graham | 10/17/2010 2:22 AM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| tclederman | 10/17/2010 2:37 AM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| Pre '68 Dave | 10/17/2010 2:42 AM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| Denny Graham | 10/17/2010 2:43 AM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| tclederman | 10/17/2010 2:53 AM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| Denny Graham | 10/17/2010 2:27 PM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| tclederman | 10/17/2010 3:24 PM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| Big Tee | 10/17/2010 5:27 PM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| DennisM | 10/17/2010 7:18 PM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| Denny Graham | 10/18/2010 1:51 AM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| Pre '68 Dave | 10/18/2010 2:27 AM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| DADS50 | 10/18/2010 2:39 AM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| tclederman | 10/18/2010 3:31 AM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| tclederman | 10/18/2010 4:28 AM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| Pre '68 Dave | 10/18/2010 6:00 AM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| Denny Graham | 10/18/2010 10:43 AM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| nrdesieyes | 11/04/2010 11:11 PM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| tclederman | 11/05/2010 11:46 AM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| nrdesieyes | 11/05/2010 4:37 PM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| panic | 11/05/2010 6:01 PM |
Re: Phantom 235 Head, 3835913?
| Pre '68 Dave | 11/05/2010 6:10 PM | |
| |
| |