The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop Motor Cross Reference Threads

Can someone link the engine options for my 1949 3/4T Chevy? I know there are some good threads out there.

I am generally looking at 235's and 261's but do not want to buy a boat anchor.

I understand I can rebuild my 216, and may still do so, but would prefer a full oil pressure motor and maybe one with inser bearings to begin with. (I see I can send my 216 rods in for machining at about $100 a piece)

Are you asking what high-pressure oil system insert-rod bearings 235 and 261 engines would bolt-into your 1949 truck and its original transmission?

1954-1963 235 and 261 engines (one 1953 235 version would also be high-pressure).

1955-2nd series and later need to have the water-pump relocated (preferred) or use a shorter-shaft water pump.

Front motor mount adjustments need to be considered in some later engines.

You would use your old clutch housing and whatever clutch-assembly you want to use (all parts matching for whatever year/assem,bly you choose).

Here is a Stovebolt.com Tech Tip

Thanks Tim. I am reading those threads now. Boy I don't know. There is a place called Doug's 4 Wheelers over by Pella Iowa that has a ton of old trucks (he is not just 4 wheel drive). I am sure he has 235 or 261.

That was interesting to see that they made the 235 in the 40's but it was splash lubrication too.

I am torn. On one hand I see the value in a full oil pressure motor with slightly more displacement and some have described the 235 as a more "modern" engine.

On the other hand, I don't like having a ton of "stuff" around and could have insert bearing machined on the rods, then use a MUCH higher quality lower viscosity engine oil - maybe run synthetic - and for my purposes have no problems.

Low viscosity oil is a big mistake on a stovebolt- - - -they just were not designed to run that stuff and you'll have numerous knocks, rattles and leaks. While it might be possible to tighten up the clearances enough to run something like 5W-30, it would take a major redesign of everything including having hypereutectic pistons custom made and figuring out some way to reduce the clearance on rocker arms, cam bearings, and a lot of other places to less than half their original specifications. What's wrong with running the 30 weight oil the engine was designed to use?
Jerry

I figured the new oil was much better than the old formulation.

I should have asked what should be used then assuming 5W-30 was OK. or synthetic. How about (after break-in) 15W-50 Mobil 1?

I run Diesel-rated 15W-40 HD oil in everything I own, including a couple of high-mileage engines that were specified for 5W-30 when new. The main reason for using water-thin oils is for an imaginary gain in gas mileage for some of the new engines that are subject to EPA regulations. The clearances on bearings, piston skirts, etc. are unbelievably close, like less than .001" on piston skirts and crankshaft bearings. What used to be acceptable clearance 50 years ago is "worn out" now.

Mobil 1 is OK, but if there's even a little bit of oil consumption or leakage between oil changes it's going to get pretty expensive. It's hard to beat a high detergent mineral oil with some ZDDP additives to reduce wear on the flat-tappet camshafts these old engines run. Newer oils run roller cams, and they don't need ZDDP in the oil.
Jerry

I also use diesel 15w-40 in all my engines, mostly it is for convenience as I have several diesel vehicles .
However , the Shell Rimula I use has a good level of zddp as standard , so that is also an incentive for me.

15w-40 Rotella in everything except the wife's late model turbo Subaru.
I buy it by the barrel at sam's club and keep extra filters on hand for oil changes.
Very convenient.

Don