The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop Rebuilding 216 for more power

I’m keeping my 44 216 1/2 ton all stock and have the motor at the machine shop. Looking to get ideas on making a little more power but keeping the engine stock looking on the outside. Just read in another thread of going 60 over and swapping 235 pistons in and that got me thinking to ask for your thoughts. Any other tips or tricks?

Without spending big bucks, your effort to gain “a little more power” from your 216 will be an exercise in futility. The thread you read is from a very experienced master mechanic who has the equipment to do those modifications. To pay a machine shop for the work would not be cheap. Don’t fall into the hype that multiple carburetors and headers are the cheap way to hotrod your 216. It just isn’t so.🛠

Good advice Martin, No replacement for cubic inches displacement

Bill, Best solution is rear end gears, not sure what's on the market today but 3:55 gears will really help. When I first got my '46 I swapped in a 54 passenger car torque tube rear from a powerglide car (3:55 ratio), may take some searching to find one today. This does require some mods to make it work with your springs. I also put the 216 in storage and built a 261.
Best of luck

Reading your post, and then reading my carburetor resources has me confused.

My sources suggest that a 1944 truck would be military only.

If this is true, the military carburetors were designed for high torque LOW RPM. I have no idea what might have been done internally to the engine.

If you have the military engine and carburetor, maybe 5 HP could be acquired by replacing the military Carter W-1 with a civilian Carter W-1.

BEFORE DOING ANYTHING: I would suggest determining exactly what you have.

Jon.

Well I’m at a point where I need to sleeve 1 cylinder and they are all getting bored to some extent due to wear. The crank is being cut and the rods will be changed out to re-poured or newer bearing halves. Believe cam is also going to get some attention. So I’m in this to rebuild the entire motor and the shop is familiar with 216’s. Block is original to truck and I’m traditional in bringing my cars or trucks back to life but if something can be altered that is not seen I’m all for it.

I am now switching to suspension and brakes now that the motor is going to be out for awhile. I have been reading up on gear swaps and that is on my list of things to do.

Jon
Sorry I should have mentioned it is a civilian Canadian 44 and the motor is basically a 40.

The 1940 engine with Carter W-1 420s was rated 85 HP.

The 1946 engine with Carter W-1 574s was rated 90 HP.

The main venturi in the 574s is slightly larger than the one in the 420s.

I do not know if there were other engine changes 1940 to 1946.

With the air cleaner in place, the 420s and 574s look virtually identical

Carter W-1 carbs used by Chevrolet

If you are interested in how to tell the difference, look at the two different choke arms in the pictures.

Jon.

If you're boring the block anyway, 235 aluminum pistons will be a drop-in fit with no other modifications. The wrist pin size and compression height are identical to 216 cast iron pistons. The bore would be 1/16" oversize, (0.0625") for a total of 224 cubic inches. The main advantage to using aluminum pistons will be less reciprocating weight- - - -quicker acceleration, and there will be less stress on those Babbit rod bearings, also.

Drop me a PM and I'll share a few other tricks an experienced engine man can incorporate into a basically stock rebuild without bumping the cost up significantly. Jon is right on the money about carburetion- - - -it's a lot easier to build a stovebolt engine for more torque than it is to chase those elusive high-RPM gremlins who are impossible to catch.
Jerry

“Torque wins races, and horsepower only sells cars” is what I’ve always been told. 😎 😉

HP is torque at higher rpm

Looking at it as a math problem, RPM X Torque = Horse Power.
With a naturally aspirated 216, RPM is the limiting factor due to poor breathing heads which cannot be significantly modified due to their design.
The best way that I have found to get the most out of a Stovebolt engine is with a T-5 out of an S-10. It gives you 5 close together shifts which results in keeping the engine in the optimal power range through all gears.
With the original 3 speed, every gear shift results in starting out lugging the engine until the engine speed increases to the point where the engine is screaming until the next gear shift is made where it once again lugs. This does not equate to optimal performance from this engine.
Carl

now i regret not buying back my s-10 from the insurance company after my bother got t-boned in it, that thing had a great engine and transmission in it.
i could have kept it for about 200 bucks off of the settlement, but i didn't know they were so useful at the time

my plan for my 216 is not to go over board trying to get more power out of it, i will fix it up the way it was, but maybe with aluminum pistons like so many suggested
it is what it is

does the cam shaft from a 261 or 235 fit in a 216?
-s

Not without some modification. The 54-up 235 and 261 engines have larger cam bearing journals than the 216 and pre-54 235 engines. On a whim earlier this year I did some experimenting on a 235 cam with one worn out lobe- - - - -chucked it up in a lathe and used a carbide cutting bit and a tool post grinder to resize the bearing journals to 216 dimensions! It slipped right into a spray-oiler 235 block that was also used for experimentation on the one-piece rear oil seal project. I see no reason that the "Corvette" 261 cam can't be fitted to a 216 engine with a little bit of machining.
Jerry

Jerry, so it’s sounds like we may in the not too distant future be drooling over some 216 sweetness. Stroked with Nascar rods, 235 aluminum pistons and a ‘vett 261 cam. All sealed up with a neoprene rear main seal. If so, I’ll take one in ‘51 Chevrolet engine gray please.

Don't forget the SBC oil pump HRM's been adapting to the 216/235/261 engines too....

I don't know how "nation wide" I is but I would have preferred to run an updated 216 than any other powerplant in my old 49, if just for the cool nostalgia feels..... Those tall side covers and sewing machine ticking are just too cool, LOL...

FYI Bill, the windbroke 216 that was in my 49 with 3 on the tree and 4:11 gears was most confortable at 40-45 and would run there all day long (for as long as the oil lasted), would do 55 for long stretches and could hit 65 for the rare pass. A freshened up 216 with good tight bearings and seals would have no problem running all day at 55-60, with a bed full of whatever too.

Actually, stroking the 216 isn't an option because of the spray-oiling system. The other mods would definitely apply. 235's and 261's become 266 and 300 cubic inch engines, respectively, with the grasscutter stroker crank. A 224 cubic inch "216" with 40+ PSI of oil pressure and replaceable rod bearings from a Perkins Diesel engine might persuade a few folks who prefer to run a stock-appearing engine not to make that old 216 a boat anchor, however!
Jerry

Well of course you don’t stroke 216s. I’ve had the pan off mine and flushed the oil spay system, can’t believe I forgot that detail.

Chevy bored and stroked the 216 to get the spray-oiler 235, but unless you've got a block stretcher to increase the deck height, that's not an option for anybody without a foundry handy!
Jerry

FYI Bill, the windbroke 216 that was in my 49 with 3 on the tree and 4:11 gears was most confortable at 40-45 and would run there all day long (for as long as the oil lasted), would do 55 for long stretches and could hit 65 for the rare pass. A freshened up 216 with good tight bearings and seals would have no problem running all day at 55-60, with a bed full of whatever too.

Good to know as I’m not looking to make any land speed records just pep it up within reason if possible

Conversion rod bearings for Babbit rod engines have been around for over 50 years, but they're getting scarce and expensive. I'm working on a conversion to Perkins Diesel engine rod bearings for stovebolts that are plentiful and cheap, but the crankshaft need to be ground to fit the bearings. That's also an advantage, as it can salvage crankshafts that are supposedly "worn out" and ready to be weld-repaired or discarded.
Jerry

Jerry, what diameter would you grind the rod journals to for the Perkins bearings?

The STD diameter Perkins rod bearing is the equivalent of an .060" undersize stovebolt bearing- - - -2 1/4" instead of the 2 5/16" standard diameter of the stovebolt Babbit rod. A 30 under crank can be turned down another 30 and it fits the Perkins bearing.

Federal-Mogul 2015 CPA or TRW CB 560AL Standard shaft size is 2.2485-2.2490" It's necessary to drill a hole in the lower bearing shell to align with the stovebolt rod dipper. I made a fixture out of an old rod, bored to fit the bearing, with the upper end cut off so I can machine a lube groove in the Perkins bearing to align with the spit hole in the top of the rod, also.

Jerry

I have been watching this thread, and am in the process of another 216 rebuild.. The machine shop tells me I need to go ten over on the pistons and bore. After reading about the 235 swap on the pistons, I said why don't we do this. The shop came back with a volumn of reasons why that is impossible. None of which seemed to make much sense or indicate to me they had the desire to try anything that is outside the philosophy of "we always do it this way". This response is from the guy, who seems like a decent sort, taking over the manager job from the 30 year veteran of the shop. I am starting to get some blank stares from the place. It is also about the only place around that does this stuff and has a great reputation as of now.

Read my PM

Mike, that's the usual response from people who are too lazy or set in their ways to step outside of their comfort zone. "We always do it that way" was a good reason to reject the "horseless carriage" in the 1890's, too! Let's go back to flintlock rifles and whale oil lamps, and homespun thread for clothing while we're at it. You'll get a lot of resistance from people like that- - - - -I do!
Jerry

Jerry,

Totally agree! Seems some people have a script and follow it no matter what. "I got a hammer, so everything is a nail"

Mike

On the diameter change of crankshaft journals, that's not a new idea, either. The 85 HP 1932-39 flathead Fords ran a smaller rod journal than the 100 HP 1942-53 Ford engines and the 1949-53 Mercury engines. By offest-grinding the 4" stroke Mercury shaft by 1/16" and taking the size down to the 85 HP journal, the crankshaft became a 4 1/8" stroker without any welding being done. Dad ran bunches of those engines in the early 1950's, and also bored them 1/4" oversize to get almost 300 cubic inches from a 239 Ford flathead V8. They also ran 11:1 compression and used an alcohol/Hydrogen Peroxide fuel mixture. 30-something years later, I was making 3 9/16" stroker Chevy 350's, using 2.00" bearings and rods from a 283, and offset-grinding the 350 crankshaft with the 2.100" rod journal. Some things never change- - - - -new generations of hotrodders just rediscover stuff their grandfathers were doing decades ago!
Jerry