The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop Question for Engine Purchase

I have posted an Ad on Craigslist for a 216 or 235 engine. I got a response from a guy, and I have pictures of the 2 engines and transmission he wants to sell me. He wants 300$ for the two 216s and the transmission I wanted to know if anyone could help me and tell me this is a good or bad buy. Travel has nothing to do with the price either. I am just really eager to tear down these motors to learn more about them.

What is the compression in each cylinder?
When was the engine last running?
What was the oil pressure at idle and at 1500 RPM?

I know this are impossible questions to answer, but, these factors affect the value of a 216 engine.

What transmission?

I've got some pictures of them put not sure how to put them on the thread. They have not ran in 5 years, and that's all he told me and he hasn't tested compression or anything else that I know of. If you could Pm me I might could figure out how to send pictures of it. I believe he said the trans was a 3 speed manual.

How much is shipping?

What year is transmission? (what is the casting code/codes)?

Unless you can hear both engines run and answer the questions Tim asked above, any stovebolt engine (particularly a 216) is worth whatever it will bring as scrap iron. There are just too many variables involved in buying non-running "core" engines- - - -wear, freeze cracks, crankshaft condition, rust, etc.
Jerry

We are meeting each other about an hour from each of our houses. And it is out of a 1949 3100 he told me

I'm looking just for engines to tear down and learn about them, but I'm still not sure if this is a bad deal or not. I might rebuild one just for experience, but I'm still not sure.

Until you take one apart, you will not know if it is rebuildable.

Maybe $100 scrap value per engine?

Offer $200 - go no higher than $250.

I was thinking around there, but I'll try to make an offer. Thanks for all the help once again TC.

Building a 216 may not be the best to learn how to build motors. Non pressurized, dipper, babbitt bearing motors are not worth the effort except to a purist. Learn on a 235 or V8. UNLESS you want to learn a dying art for some reason.


Scrap value is about 3.5 cents per lb for block and head. $15 Max. ($70 NT)

DIY rebuild cost $1800+. Resale value after rebuild, if you can find a buyer, $500 (ball park figures/ratios using search on Stovebolt)

Keep looking for a free one. They are out there.
The problem with buying a 216 (or a 235 for that matter) is that most of them failed, resulting in the truck being parked or the engine being pulled.
Don't hesitate to dive into a 216 engine. Some of the internals are fascinating and a testament of the history of the evolution of the modern engine.
I find myself asking, "Why in the world did they design it that way?" or "Why did they ever stop making them like that?"
(Some Southwestern US ranchers have no sense of adventure, nor the yearning for learning the history of the internal combustion engine development.)
Carl

Sometimes the failure is something very simple, but not detected by the owner, such as a bent pushrod jumping out of the rocker arm, allowing that valve to remain closed. Result: a 5 cylinder engine.

Sometimes indeed. But many more of them are victims of overheating due to leaky radiators which were filled with who knows what until the water jackets were packed with what we all find when we try to clean them out. Brass radiators were difficult to repair and a new one cost a small fortune, which a farmer did not have.
Makes me think about all this talk of how its hard to find a Stovebolt head which isn't cracked. Road hard and put away wet back then, I'll bet.

I often comment to my wife as we drive the back roads that they were the main highways back when these trucks were new (long before my time though but I still think about it). Washboards, ruts, and very muddy when wet. In the old days there were no car washes around, trucks and cars were hammered, put away wet and filthy and they were rotten in 10 years. We are spoiled these days. No wonder 100,000 miles back then was uncommon. When I worked as an oilfield operator the roads were brutal like the old days and we went through front ends, brakes and suspension like crazy. No vehicle is immune to abuse.

My 216 had a similar problem when I was diagnosing it. Number 4 cylinder low on compression. Took off valve cover...broken rocker. PO along the way had attempted to weld it back together. I haven't changed it out as I replaced the Babbitt pounder with a 261. The other cylinders were all between 100 and 105. She'd be a good used drop in purchase.

With so many pressurized 235's for sale out there, I can't imagine why anyone would want to rebuild a 216... although I guess I can understand wanted to keep a relic alive.

keeping a 216 makes just as much sense as owning horses, playing golf, or watching football, none of which makes a lick of sense to me.

Some people actually restore and drive Model T's, Model A's, and other antiques like farm tractors and/or rebuild hit/miss stationary engines. Compared to those things, a 216 is positively modern. I've got a Model A 4 cylinder in my shop now that's going to need to have new main bearings poured, line bored and fitted with Prussian Blue, or retro-fitted for insert type main and rod bearings. Putting aluminum pistons and rod bearing inserts in a 216 eliminates most of the Babbit-pounding woes and only requires aiming the oil squirter tubes properly to make it as reliable as a 235. My oil pump modification to put small block V8 gears in a stovebolt pump should solve the low oil pressure at idle problems the 216 is notorious for, also.
Jerry

I bought a 235 and a 216 for $50 total. Another pair of 216s for $75.

Don't spend much on those. I wouldn't spend more than $100 for the both of them.

Building a 216 is in no way practical, but that's exactly what makes it cool. You should totally do it.

Related question I've been meaning to ask:

If someone was determined to build a 216, for whatever reason....is there any reason NOT to go ahead and find one of the dipper 235s? I would think the extra displacement might be handy. And although not as common as 216s, they aren't particularly hard to find either.

Just be sure the oil pan on the 235 is in good shape- - - - -a 216 pan does not interchange. The difference in the stroke puts the dippers in a different position vertically. A 235 pan on a 216 could cause oil starvation, and the dippers on the 235 rods will hit the troughs on a 216 pan.
Jerry

JW51,

Good question, good answer, and good use of "dipper" rather than splasher. Anyone who knows better, and knows GM engine specs/history, knows that a real splash-oil engine is a far different engine than a 216 and from the similar low-pressure 235s (1941-1953).

However, the early low-pressure 235 was a relatively uncommon engine (as you noted) - only used/optional on lower-production large trucks.

But, the low-pressure 235 would be noticeably more powerful than a 216.

Even though I don't mind using inaccurate terminology when it makes the same point, I know it can be a pet peeve for Professor Lederman. That dipper was for you, Tim.

As long as we are on the topic of unneeded power in obsolete engines, what's the max overbore on a dipper 235? And how many cubic inches would it translate to?

The 216 in my 49 leaks oil out of every seal it's got, has blowby so bad that I smell like I've been working all day in an oil refinery after a 1/2 hr cruise, needs to be down shifted to 2nd on steep hills and rarely hits 13 mpg and with all that said I still can't make myself swap it out with a freshly rebuilt full pressure 235 collecting dust in the corner of my shop.

I even get these strange thoughts whilst on my extended cruises on pulling it out and attempting to stop all the leaks, and perhaps some new rings and mains to stop the blowby and increase the oil pressure (which avg's 7 psi when warmed).
I figure I must be breathing too much blowby LOL...

A 235 has a 3 9/16" bore size, and it can take a 60 thousandths overbore comfortably. I've even seen a few go 80 over, but I think that's pushing the envelope a little. A 60 overbore would probably gain about 7-8 cubic inches, just as a wild guess, not enough to really affect compression or power a noticeable amount, IMHO.
Jerry

Well I guess this thread has digressed to random engine trivia, I guess my submission is okay... the original poster wants to learn about engines anyway.

The first year the low oil pressure 235 went into production was 1941, and only in the WW2 military trucks. Below is an image of a very similar 1942 235, notice the unique deep sump oil pan. Also notice the oil pan actually has "235" stamped on it.

[img]http://www.surfacezero.com/g503/data/3285/medium/IMG_19215.JPG[/img]

Paul, that site is asking for a password- - - - -can you make it "general access" instead of members only?
Jerry

Hmm, stand by

Try it now...let me know if it works.

Never seen that oil pan. Was that a military thing?

That oil pan is definitely a military thing- - - -none of the 235's that were paired up with Powerglide transmissions from 1950 forward had anything anything like that. They did have "235" stamped into the pan in big numbers to prevent a mismatch with a 216 oil pan. The measurements for checking rod dipper and oil pan trough position were definitely different, and required the use of a different checking fixture.
Jerry

Yes it is a military thing. My original 1940 Chevrolet part manual for these trucks differentiates common civilian parts (which there are many) from unique military parts. It lists the pan as an exclusive military part number and a new part for the 1941 model year. The crank case still takes just 5 quarts like any other similar engine, but this model has a much longer pickup tube to work with the deeper pan. I presume it was designed to prevent oil starvation when the vehicle was operated on steep slopes. Notice that the pan has a seam along the middle suggesting it used a civilian top portion with the deeper sump welded to the bottom.

Good explanation on the slope thing. I was thinking it was a larger capacity pan.

Was struggling to imagine why more oil would be necessary. That makes more sense.

There is an added section in that pan, probably military only.

Ed