The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop 292 Engine

I previously asked about the 396 engine, and got some good information on it and the 396 is not a good engine for my application unless I want to drive it very little or have a huge pocket book to feed fuel to the monster.

My Pop mentioned a 292 since I am wanting torque. In your experience, does a 292 get okay gas mileage? I've read they don't, but I also read with a 4-Barrel they get better mileage. Granted this would be going in my '65 3/4 Ton that will have an overdrive unit installed so the rpm's will not be as high as 4.57 makes them without overdrive. I made up a spreadsheet that shows gear ratios, final drive ratios, and rpm's at various speeds in the different gears. I've attached it hereto for your viewing pleasure.

292's were built for torque, not fuel economy and their usual application was for 3/4 ton to 2 ton trucks where fuel mileage was not much of a consideration. Most of the ones I've worked with get somewhere in the 12-15 MPG range, loaded or empty, depending on rear axle ratio. I've never seen a 292 that can average MPG in the high teens or low 20's, regardless of what kind of vehicle it's in.
Jerry

If it can get a consistent 12-15 and not drop into the 4-8 range that wouldn't be bad. From what I've read these engines have a very flat torque curve and that is what I'm looking for. Horsepower means nothing in a truck unless it's for racing, and I don't race anymore. I'll cruise 70-75 if need be, but no more 80-120 mph runs for me.

I can get 12-15 with the 350 that's in it right now, but on grades it really seems to lack the torque to pull the grades without mashing the pedal to the floor. I hate seeing the vacuum gauge at or below 5, I like it to be at 10 and above. I don't run my engines in high rpm ranges, so if I can get the truck setup to where highway cruising is in the happy-spot of max torque that should yield decent mileage. In my brain and on paper it works out that way, real-world can throw curves at us though. Of course the engine has to be tuned-up and all, which I can't stand it when my rigs run like crap, so it will be tuned well.

In 2015 I had the opportunity to get a '66 3/4 ton that had a 292/sm420/4.57 already in it. I was excited to get it, there was little to no rust, it was pretty much unmolested, and I had never had one with a 292. It would have been easy to install the parts I already had for better mileage and improved stopping power. I got the money from my credit union, and was figuring out how to get it when the guy backed out of the deal. I was mad because we were in constant communication, I was doing so to let him know I was in fact interested and when I could come up to get. He was about 5 hours from me. Anyhow, he said I wasn't interested in the truck and wished me luck finding one. That's what made me angry. As it turned out I found one locally, a little more money, but he was the 2nd owner, and it is a pretty good truck. He said it had a 283 in it, but I knew it wasn't by looking at it. It was gutless when I got it, he had the vacuum advance on the wrong port, the timing was off, and the carburetor wouldn't hold a setting for more than 20 miles, and it had a lopey cam. I installed a quadrajet and got it adjusted properly, installed HEI, got the vacuum advance on the correct port, swapped in a torquey cam and some reworked heads, set the timing to 12*, and it runs much better than it did. Just seems to lack power on the grades, even with overdrive disengaged. It has been on many 1,000+ mile trips, though, and does so reliably.

There is no magic torque that occurs differently in certain engines and sizes.
For practical purposes, with a mild cam, it's proportionate to the displacement. A 292 isn't going to have more torque than a 350.

A 350 does out-torque a 292- - - - -BUT- - - - -it does so at around 400 RPM higher than the 292. The 292 has over 1/2" longer stroke than a 350 so it will be able to lug down and pull better over a wider RPM range than the 350 without downshifting. If the 350 isn't pulling well, your engine builder is probably to blame. Go look in the mirror and fuss at yourself!
Jerry

I have no idea who built the engine, it was done before I bought the truck. I know it doesn't burn or use oil, so there's that. What I've done to it has made it better by a long stretch. The thing that gets me is my basically stock 350 in my '81 has no issue with smooth power up to very high revs. It has no tachometer, and is running 4.10/4.11's, I forgot which ratio, and will do the 85 mph shown on the speedometer without missing a beat.

But the engine in the '65 seems to struggle, and doesn't seem as smooth by any means. Have never had a 350 act like this one. Again, it's reliable, just seems to struggle in certain situations. I understand there is more insulation in the '81 so it is much quieter in the cab as compared to the '65, but engine sounds in the cab or lack thereof has nothing to do performance.

To me, the flatter the torque curve the better, granted it is higher torque number. That should equate to an engine that doesn't struggle to get things moving or keep them moving. Unless I am missing something here.

As mentioned the 292 was primarily a truck engine, with the right gearing it will pull a house down. There are ways of developing more horse power and increasing the torque output, many of these require a good deal of money. With a little head work and a decent carb and manifold set up the 292 will run for years, it responds well to headers or split exhaust and still maintains good low end torque. If you really want to make power with a 292 read "Chevrolet Inline Six-Cylinder :Power Manual" by Leo Santucci. He has done the leg work on all the modifications you would ever want to do. Just remeber what you intend this engine to do, some of the ideas in his book take very little work and amount to big changes in the engines power. In the end it is an engine designed for a truck.

Good information guys.

I know the 350 has more power for the most part. Being I've never operated/driven a vehicle with a 292, and it is period correct for my truck, I'm leaning towards getting one if I can find one. I do like that it's built for torque, and since that's my main goal, I think it should suit my needs in the truck just fine. If I can find one I will build it for max torque & efficiency and go from there.

If there's anything else you guys can share, please do. The more I know from seasoned veterans, the better.

Sorry, didn't mean to be rude.

To use the minor tweaks I've read about that improve upon a good base, why not?

However, I started this thread to gain knowledge on the 292. So @Panic, please share what you know about the engine. I want to learn.

It may sound good on paper, but if you pull out a 350 & put in a 292 you are going to be vastly diapointed.

George

Okay. Thanks. Public forums are a hoot sometimes, you never know what you're going to get when you ask a question. My favorite are the guys that say, "My truck won't work, I need your help to fix it." Then get raked over the coals. Or ask a question that has been answered many times over. FYI: I did search on here for 292, and 292 engine, and got zero hits, yet in one of my google searches, I cannot recall the verbiage, but I got one hit for a thread about a Stovebolt member's 292 powered truck.

I see a lot of you are running 216's, 235's, 250's. Do you do it to keep your rigs period correct? I'm curious. Because that is the direction I am leaning towards on trying to acquire a 292. Would a 250 be better? Less power of course, but these trucks came with them, and I know where one is. I'm seeking information, so share away.

If I can find a 292 I may just get it so I can have one truck with a 292, and the other with a 350, 283, 454, or whatever I may choose to install, that way I have options.

Here's my advise re the 292, there is a great book on this motor called " Chevrolet Inline Six Cylinder Power Manual by Leo Santucci.
Available on Amazon around $20. Everything you ever wanted to know re. Chev inlines built after 1963, 230, 250 292. Best of luck

https://www.amazon.com/Chevrolet-In...;qid=1565364895&s=gateway&sr=8-1

It'll arrive next Friday. Hopefully sooner.

I'm just now completing the build up of a 292. The block was bored 0.060 with flat top pistons, rotating assembly has been balanced. The head has been milled 0.020, modified with lump ports, screw in studs and guide plates. The valves have been resized : int 1.86 and ext 1.60 both stainless. Harland-Sharp roller rockers and Roades lifters, Crower custom push rods and a Howards Cam. Clifford 4 barrel intake, 500CFM Edelbrock carb, and split headers and Davis HEI. I have finished assembly and working the last few details, I hope to brake it in late this month. This engine is going in a 50 3100 on a S10/Code 504 frame. Just a note on this engine, my local Machinist is James Bailey, he holds the 1981 NHRA record for 230 CID .

I've got a 292 in my '59 Viking 40. Plenty of torque but not easy on gas.

John

Sounds like a beefy engine build. Can't wait to see you post up on it running. My Pop has found a good machinist up where they live. Not fast on the turn around, but does really good quality work. I'd have him do my machining for me.

I don't know if it's frowned upon here to post links here, but I found one about 6 hours from me. If the picture is correct, it has all the brackets, power steering, everything. $450.

I told Pop about the ad and he asked when we were going down to get it...lol...

DD, no Craigslist or EBay links allowed in the regular forums. Links to non-auction sites are allowed. 🛠

Everything I have ever read on the 292, poor fuel mileage is the number one complaint. Never heard any one complain about lack of power. UPS ran hundreds of them in the package delivery trucks, so they are tough.

99% of time, when modifying an engine, you move the torque and hp band higher up the rpm scale. So use any additional work, you need to run the higher rpm, so guess what happens to your fuel mileage and low rpm torque?

Good thing I didn't post the ad for you guys to see what I was buying. I might have got banned or severely scalded.

I just want to find out where the happy spot is in the powerband, and gear everything to run it as close to that rpm as possible.

Propane Pistons for 292's are about 9 to 1 compression if one can find them.

Ed

The guy I'm building this for is wanting a monster with something unique under the hood. All of his friends are preaching LS and wants a six. It's taken a lot of homework to figure out a good combination. No I cant wait to hear it run.

Question for 'TUTS 59' ?

I have a 1 - ton 292 complete motor (runner) ........ but ........ it's a "Mexico motor" .... are they good or bad ?

just asking ....... running -- it sounds good .

thanks --- jim

As long as one speaks Mexican.

Ed

Mexican blocks are suppose to be better metal. And as far as the sweet spot for driving and setting up the truck, go to GM's Heritage site, https://www.gmheritagecenter.com/gm-heritage-archive/vehicle-information-kits.html and start looking at the trucks equipped with a 292's to see how GM geared them.

Jim,
From everything I've read the Mexico block is the preferred block. The mains are supposed to be heavier and the cylinder walls are thicker, I also read on the HAMB that the block has more nickel in it which is said to make it more durable. The engine I'm building is a 1980 block.

This is the engine. Picking it up on Thursday. He removed it from the truck on the 9th.

The 292 I'm building started out green.

Thanks for your reply .... sounds good to me .

(at this time ... I'm just keeping it for a spare , has a "rebuilt tag" on the side of block . like that means anything).

thanks again, Jim

Here's the engine. Is there any reason why GM didn't put the 2 Jet carburetor on these things? I have one, and I was hoping to install it, but I don't want 2 barrels of mixture going into a 1 barrel hole. Did GM make a 2 barrel intake for these? Any of you have information on the stamping from the pad? I tried a few searches yesterday but could only find information on the v-8's.

This engine will be a beast for sure. If you take a video of it running, post it up please.

I am buying a compression gauge later this week. If the compression checks out I am going to reseal the engine and run it. It has 155k on it. I can get upgrades for it later on. I have researched a bunch since I posted this thread, and the lump upgrade with bigger valves, dual exhaust and a mild cam really bump up the the power and economy these engines can make. The dyno graph I saw was enough to sell me on the upgrades for increased torque and hp. Slowly I'll be sourcing the Lump Kit, the Offenhauser intake and a three barrel Holley, and Langdon Dual Exhaust. When I do rebuild this engine I'll get bigger valves installed, and maybe get the higher compression pistons.

I'd like to run my 2 Jet on this engine, but it doesn't seem to be a good fit for some reason. Heck, they ran them on the 283's, that's where I got mine from. Getting an adapter isn't the way to go according to a thread on here.

While we were driving back from Yuma last Friday, I got to thinking, if this engine can run like the 4.0 in my Cherokee, then it could get decent gas mileage with the gearing I'll eventually have in the truck. It may get good mileage anyhow with the gearing I currently have in the truck (3.19 final drive as it is). I know, it's not fuel injected, but it could still get decent mileage in my book. I've read of people getting in the 20's with these engines, and other's that get around 10. If it gets better or equal to 13 I'll be happy, but I am certain it can get better than 13 with the correct upgrades and gearing.

F0405UH

F = Flint
04 = April
05 = Day
UH = Designation = 292 used in the C-10, 20 30 & K-10, 20. My book goes up to 1967 and UH is shown in both 1966 and '67...so this code may go newer.

Mike B

Thank you Mike! It came out of a '66 C20. It went down Conveyor 2. I forgot what the casting was to the right of that CON2, but the first letter is C (March?), the last digit is a 6 (1966?).

After doing some more research, it appears that a dual progressive 2 barrel setup is better. But man, those carbs aren't cheap! Holy cow. I'll be looking at around $1,200 in parts, not including a rebuild down the road. Really enjoying learning about something new.

Going by Langdon's website, I want to do either the Stage 0 or Stage 1 tuning. Nothing more. And that is about what I got from the 12Bolt website, so now I have a game plan.

If you are in the $1200 range for carbs/intake, take a look at EFI. The Holley Sniper and their competitors offer some slick solutions. The Sniper comes in multiple bolt pattern 2 barrel versions. I'm using the Holley 2300 on a non stovebolt project and it is very well thought out.

SimS

$1,200 was a rough total for all the parts, exhaust manifolds, intake, lumps, carb, pistons, but EFI is an option. I was just surprised at the prices for progressive two barrel carbs.

Right now the only item that is not period correct on the truck is disc brakes, and well, the wheels and tires. It sure is nice to come to an expeditious halt when needed.

Obviously, your project = your choices.
However: have you a clear vision of the goal? Is the final power output, doing what you describe here, going to be sufficient? Is an L6 the only choice?
A 292 can produce a lot of power, but not a lot of power + better mileage. After perhaps 200 hp the street manners begin to go downhill along with the mileage. A 300 hp L6 is a very different car to drive than a 300 hp big block.

Right now the truck has a 350, I know 350's, have driven 350 powered vehicles since I started driving. As my Sig states, I am an unconventional thinker. The 350 in this truck gets 13 to 5 mpg's. I can cruise at 3,000 rpms all day long and get 12 in this truck, but you're only going 50-55 with the 4.57's. Tires are 31.7 inch diameter. Overdrive engaged(30%), average is 13 mpg while cruising around 70-75 mph, but the 350 doesn't like the 3.19 final drive gear on anything but flat, downhill, or downwind so the inclines and headwinds make it get 5-ish mpg.

The goal is to have torque, not high revs. I don't rev my engines over 3,000 unless it's by accident. I have never had an I6 engine in anything but my Cherokee, and to be quite honest, it has plenty of power. It'll cruise at 70 turning about 2,100 rpm's in OD (2.66 final drive in 25% OD) and gets 20-22 mpg's at that speed. My truck weighs less than the Cherokee, go figure, yet sports similar boxy non-aerodynamics. The truck will have similar gearing (2.58 final drive in 27% OD) as the Cherokee when it's all said and done. Will I expect 20-22 mpg from the truck? No. Would it be nice? Yes.

To make the 292 more efficient by allowing it to breathe better with better exhaust and better intake, not over carb it, and get the gearing to be at the sweet spot of the torque curve is ideal. The truck will be used as a truck, but still be able to cruise down the road without over revving.

I'm not looking for LS power, don't want it, don't need it, wouldn't go that route if you paid me to. I like my old rigs to retain as many of the factory pieces it left the assembly line with, and in this case, an engine option that was available from the factory. I want torque, these engines are made for torque, and I believe from the reading I've done that I can get the torque at a better spot instead of peaking at 1,600 rpms according to the shop manual, and possibly get better mileage. Notice I said possibly. I'm being optimistic here, and the things I've read, better mileage is achievable. With the upgrades mentioned in previous posts the torque may peak at say 2,200-2,500 max, which would be in that sweet spot and I can drive right along with everyone else while the engine doesn't even break a sweat.

If I don't like the 292, I can rebuild my 283 or my current 350 and put one or the other in my other '65 for a different-driving truck. Or I can put the 292 in that other truck and put the v-8 back in this one. Either way I have options, and will be minimal out of pocket because I have the stuff already in my possession.

First things first, compression check. If that checks out, run the engine for 50-60 thousand miles and then rebuild it. If it doesn't check out, rebuild it or the head right away. Options. I like those

I'm actually excited to try this engine out, and the way the truck drives right now, it'll basically be about the same as the 350, just no huge secondaries to listen to when floored, and better power where I tend to keep the rpms.