The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop 292 .... Viable swap for older trucks?

It seems there's been a lot more questions lately regarding swapping in a 292 where folks would have normally put a 261 or 302. Pull up the rope, I got mine -- 261, that is but I'm guessing these engines are getting harder to find so folks are naturally turning to more readily available alternatives. Am I reading the tea leaves accurately here?

So what's the consensus -- Is the later straight six a viable option for repowering, say, a Task Force, Advance Design or earlier truck? And is it doable by the average Stovebolter/weekend mechanic ?

If yes to both, then we ought to have some sort of a Tech Tip focusing on it ....

Discussion?

Yes, the tea leaves appear to be signaling a change in the wind.
The "Stovebolt Engine" pipeline is unfortunately drying up for good rebuildable cores and theres many folks that prefer to buck the trend of going SBC and stay unique with a 6 banger powerplant.

Example 1: The 54 235 I recently rebuilt was it's 1st major rebuild that required machine work. The cylinders had to be bored 0.060 over to be trued up. This means this is not only the 1st rebore but also the last rebore on this engine. I will add that the block can be rebored to an oversize to allow the install of sleeves but at that cost a SBC engine becomes a cheaper and better option. -or- a 230/250/292.

Example 2: I recently traded for an "in-progress" resto-mod 49 GMC 1/2 ton that someone had already replaced the original engine with a 78 250. Not being experienced on this particular generation of GM 6's I've spent many hrs researching them all over the WWW. I rarely had to leave The Stovebolt for info on the 216 and 235.
I have found that there is a wealth of knowledge lurking around here on the Stovebolt pertaining to this next generation of Chevy 6's that just may be waiting the means to share.

Inorder to promulgate an effective means of maintaining these self propelled Art-Deco, Advanced Design and Task Force motorized denizens of mechanized labor, the addition of the pursuit of knowledge on the next generation of powerplant is highly advisable.

Depending on the individual stovebolter's project plans, the 230 and/or 250 engines are definitely a viable option. The 292 is taller, heavier, and uses more fuel than the others, but it's a torque monster the hotrodders love. The only competition a 292 has, performance-wise, is the Ford 300 cubic inch inline. All those GM inline engines share the same cylinder head and bellhousing bolt pattern, and most of the go fast techniques commonly in practice apply to all of them. One really nice thing is that the latest-generation inline sixes share the same bellhousing shape as the Mercruiser 4 cylinder, a lot of the GM V6's, and small and big block V8's. I've got a project in the pipeline involving an Excalibur fiberglass roadster that could be running "any of the above" engines on a particular day! It will most likely run a highly modified 230 with three side draft carburetors and a roller cam and a bottom end that will be capable of living comfortably at 6K+ RPM if necessary. I like "little engines wound up tight!"

The same sort of motor mount modifications needed to adapt a stovebolt to a small block V8 will work for a 3rd.-generation inline six. From there, the rest of the driveline fabrication procedures concerning installing transmissions, rear ends, front and rear suspension, brakes, etc. are the same as installing a "belly button" small block V8.

On a similar note, a lot of Model T's got retro-fitted with Model A powerplants and transmissions back in the 1930's, if a hotrodder didn't want to go with the flathead V8 conversion. There were overhead valve conversion cylinder heads available for the A and T 4 cylinder engines, too! "There's nothing new under the sun!"
Jerry

A 292 gets horrible gas mileage. It has odd offset motor mounts, which means you will need to fabricate your own. It is not a direct bolt in like a 235/261.
If someone gave me a 292 in excellent running condition and I had a beater AD, I would probably consider it as an option.
I once had a '70 Nova with a 230 and a 3 on the tree and I was amazed at how much pep that it had and you couldn't tell that it was running at a stop light.
I prefer the "belly button" 350 for ease of installation, added HP, and easy to find/inexpensive parts.
I de-belly buttoned my 350.

I have to chime in for the beast 292. I bought my side mounts made. plenty of head room for the taller engine until you start putting blowers and multiple carbs up there and then things get a little tight. I have been collecting 250's and 292's so I hope it catches on. They can still be found cheep from the belly button crowd. I just bought a 292 and two 250's all for $300.

Ok, I have to ask to confirm my assumption for "Belly-Button" 350.

Is this because "everyone has one"?

Yes it's more polite than the other thing.

Having not done one of these swaps or looked at one closely...
Is it possible with custom made mounts to adapt the more modern 6 cylinders to an AD truck without serious modifications?
Can you make it resemble the original mounting details to bolt one in to the original 48-53 or 1954 engine mount locations at front and bellhousing crossmember, what would you need to make, find, or buy?

I understand the usual method of installing one is mostly same as putting in a V8 with side mounts and one rear mount.

If there were a “kit” or reasonably simple and documented method to make this swap without modifying the frame, more bolt in like the 261 and 302 fit where a 216 or 228 was, then this could turn into a more popular and desirable swap.

Simple and reversible upgrades are most always better than cutting, welding, and otherwise “no going back” type swaps.

Jumping in here as a noob,, and looking back to the 70's when I had a 67 c 10 with a straight six, I could not wait to get rid of it because I was drinking the "kool aid",, I really like my 63 and I found a 292 at a good price so I scooped it up,, My thought are to freshen it up and transplanting the motor in the 63 keeping the one that is in it for a later who knows project,, I am researching the motor mounts so I can retain the Mech fuel pump as Hot rod Lincoln suggested Thanks Jerry for all your guidance , and the many others here on this forum

In answer to John's original question, I for one would be very much in favor of a section dedicated to this type of swap. The 38 I have had for many years and just recently pulled out of the weeds to resume work on, as a retirement project, was originaly set up for a 350/350 combo. I had made mounts and a cross member to fit while rebuilding a rusted frame. I now am thinking I would rather go with an inline, probably a 250 with the 350 auto thats been on the shelf awaiting use. Any info found here that would save me hours of research and or trial and error would be more than welcome to me and I'm sure many others.

LOL!! That's why I have a 327 in my '62 C10.

I'm not as up to date on the 292 as many others are here. Is there a way to do a front mount like the old 235's used?

Yep, the other PC euphemism is "Noses- - - -everybody's got one, and most of them are pretty smelly!"

LOL!
Jerry

Can the 230/250 be hopped up thus avoiding the offset mount issues and gas hog qualities of the 292? I know the motor mounts would still be an modification, but perhaps less so?

"There's no replacement for displacement!" Anything a 250 can do, 42 extra cubic inches can do better, plus the longer stroke of a 292 puts that engine miles ahead of the 250 in the torque department. Back when the 292 was relatively new, a couple of guys put one into an "altered" drag car with a tubular frame and a fiberglass T model roadster body. They routinely beat most of the V8 powered cars at the local 1,000 foot drag strip, sometimes by embarrassingly long distances. That car had a hole shot off the line that was amazing. It was rumored they were running a flywheel in the 60+ pound range.
Jerry

Ive got a Hot Street built 292 in my 54 chevy 5 window pickup. I used a custom made front mount like the 235 it had. No side mounts. Works awesome! Here is what i did:
Chevrolet High Torque 292
300+ HP 400+ Torque
Block: 1974 Chevy 292
Crank- Polished
Cam- Clifford 264 Hot Street
Bored .040 (298 CI)
High Compression Forged Racing Pistons
Zero Decked
65K HEI Distributor
Chrome Moly Push Rods
Head: 1966 Chevy 250
Machined .030
Oversized Stainless Steel Valves 1.94/1.60
Bolt Bosses Removed
Premium Hi-Flo Lump Port Kit
Big Block Roller Rockers
Port and Polished
Offenhouser 4bbl Intake
Edelbrock 600 CFM Carb
Pace Setter Full Length Tube Headers
12" Heavy Duty Clutch

Hey Beast, cool front mount. What did you use for the rubber part. What are you using for rear mounts?

52Carl I used a motor mount from a Ford v10 i think. got it at NAPA. I had to cut and shorten it for the front but it works great! The rear is a 1965 chevy truck bell housing that bolts directly to the original 235 bell housing location. Pretty much a direct bolt on setup!

Would a 230/250 mount up with that same style bracket?

I think so. There might be some blocks that dont have the bolt holes on the passenger side of the motor. And I dont think you will be able to run a power steering pump with this bracket. The other option would be to use a v8 crossmember for the 230/250.

I am thinking about a 292 myself. I have noticed they have a reputation for bad fuel economy. Has anyone here built a motor that enhances these engines low end torque and put an overdrive box behind it to get the revs down around 2000 at 65MPH. If so did that help with the economy?

Thanks
Steve

Be careful going to too-tall gearing, either with a high rear end gear or an overdrive. Once the intake manifold vacuum drops due to lugging, the power valve in the carburetor opens up and gas mileage drops precipitously. Letting the engine wind up a little and keeping the manifold vacuum high is the best way to get good fuel economy, coupled with proper ignition timing. One degree too much timing advance drops as much power as 5 degrees retarded from the best power setting. I've proved that repeatedly on dyno runs.

There are two possibilities for good gas mileage from a 292:

1. Slim
2. None

Jerry

My '59 Viking 1 1/2 ton has a 292. It was installed by the previous owner. So, it's definitely a doable swap.

John

My 53 3 ton has a 292 as well by PO, using a couple of custom 1/4" brackets welded to frame. Although we had to remove rebuild n replace. But she works well. I've tire issues over 53mph that stop me from pushing farther, but she's only at about 3600rpm, with a SM420 and 2 speed rear. But that's fast enough for me at 12260lbs of rolling weight. Haven't actually calculated mileage yet tho.

What is it about the 292 that makes it such a gas hog? I’m sure displacement is some of it, but carbureted V8s of comparable cubic inches can be decent on gas.

Just a really heavy engine?

I have a 292 donor to drop in my 63 the 292 I found I believe is a 1984 vintage and has what is left of some kind of air/ fluid manifold on the carb side of the motor, I am taking it off and wondering what would make a proper plug for these holes,, m should I fill the hole with braze? or get new plugs ?

The quick fix for the A.I.R. system plumbing is to run a 1/4" NPT tap into the hole a few turns and convert the fitting threads to a pipe thread. Then run a 1/4" pipe plug into the hole until it gets snug. Don't worry about shavings- - - -they just fall into the exhaust port and get blown away the next time the engine starts. You can use brass or steel pipe plugs, and if you want a clean-looking installation, use Allen socket plugs instead of the square-headed type.
Jerry

Dang Jerry !, You always come up with the cool fix,,I love the clean look of Allen plugs

, Now if the temps can go up I can get out there and get some of this beautification started !