The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop 1953 235 car engine question.

According to my old GM manuals,1953 Chevy cars had a 235 engine,the Powerglide got the first full oil pressure engine and the manual tranny car used a low pressure 235 like the previous 216 and 235 truck engines.
Now an Inliner guy claims the heads on both the 53 car engines are the same 18 bolt head like used on 54-62 235 engines.
So my question is, did the 53 manual trans car engine have the 18 bolt head interchangable with later 235's, does that mean the 41-52 truck 235 low oil pressure engine was based on the 216 and not the same as the 53 car low pressure engine?

Tony, we recently bought a cherry 42,000 mi '53 Bel Air with Powerglide. I'm almost positive it has never been messed with. The valve cover on our engine has the bolt holes along the centerline of the top, as opposed to the later 235 style along the bottom edges. I'm thinking that I read somewhere that the '53 head (not sure if they meant manual and/or Powerglide) was unique.

Not sure if that answers your question, though.

---> Bill

Truckedup,

Whether or not all 1953 cars had the same "generation" of engine, the best indication of older vs newer generation is the head-bolt pattern. I have heard the same information that you stated: 1953 235 manual transmission car engines were the older style and the 1953 Powerglide transmission car engines were the newer style and they had hydraulic lifters.

The 1941-1953 235 truck engines had the lower-pressure oil system with dippers (like the 216). I dimly recall reading that while the head-bolt pattern was the same over those years, the blocks had changes over the years. Maybe someone else knows if blocks and heads could be interchanged for all the older style 216/235s (1941-1952/53).

http://www.inliners.org/tech/tech5.html

Bill,

Which bolt pattern does your 1953 head have? If it is the newer pattern, are there holes for the 4-screw side-attached valve cover? For those of us that find this estoterica interesting, this would confirm if there was a one-year, unique, head. Have you checked the block and head casting numbers?

http://www.inliners.org/becks/BCN2.html
http://www.antiquechevytrucks.com/Content/Engine%20Information/engine_types_side.htm
Does anyone have a link to head casting numbers (or, transmission casting numbers)?

Tim

1941-49 truck 235 used the same head gasket as 216.

1950-52 pass & truck 235 used its own head gasket.

1953-62 pass and truck 235 use the same head gasket.

The 1941-49 truck 235 engine is based on the 216 and heads will interchange.

Starting in 1950 with the introduction of the Powerglide in cars the trucks got the new redesigned 235.

In 1953 all 235 whether splash or full pressure used the same head. All the other parts on the splash engine stayed the same as the 1950-52 engine.

That head gasket for the 50 to 52 235 is not listed by most of the regular truck suppliers and some incorrectly include these years with the previous years.

Just to add to the confusion, the Canadian truck 216s in the 50 to 52 years used the 235 type head arrangement and the same gasket. One of the differences was that the rocker arm feed was sourced from the rear cam oil gallery area.

Well, I can't tell from the only picture I have, as the battery is in the way from that angle.

The car is at my father-in-laws right now, so I can't simply go look, but maybe I can check and let you know a bit later.

I haven't checked the numbers but now that you mention it, it might be interesting.

It does have a cannister filter, partial-flow I assume, so that would make it a pressure engine, correct?

I'll admit that I don't have much experience with these engines. I did rebuild a '55 235 for someone back around 1974 or so, but I don't remember a lot of the small details.

---> Bill

I got my first Stovebolt 6 in 1967, nearly 37 years ago. It was a 216 in a 40 car. I got my first 235 in 74 in a 62 car. From 89 to 91 I built up a 235 from spare parts and made it run in my 55-1st truck. I have a 58 235 on a stand now. I have a few books and manuals and have read literally thousands of pages of text, including on-line about these old Chevies. I share all this only to say that I thought I knew all there was to know about 235's. Of course I was wrong. A friend told me he had a 53 car with the original 235 and stick shift. I thought a 53 car with stick was a 216. SO, I got out my copy of the 1957 Motors manual and looked it up. According to that source beginning in 53 all Chevy sixes were 235's. It was the new designed head with 18 head bolts. The stick shift cars stll had the dippers on the rods, etc. Only the PG cars had oil pressure on the rods. The heads were the same for both. They did not have the 4 little threaded holes for the valve cover screws. It was held down by studs like all previous 216 & 235. Starting in 54 the valve cover had the 4 screws. So, yes I would agree that the 53 head was unique to that year. ( I can hardly believe I forgot that, I've only had that old Motors manual since 1967.)

the same head was used on both 235 motors in 1953. The 216 still came in 1/2 tons and sedan delivery's for the last time.

Truckedup, has this answered your questions? chevyb, I was kinda surprised that the 57 Motors manual only showed 235's for 53 Chevy cars. I thought 216's carried over into 53 in cars and trucks. I have the 48-51, with 52 supplement, Chevy Truck Shop manual and the 54, with 55 first-series supplement, Truck Shop manual, but nothing on 53 trucks. Was there a 1953 (only) Shop Manual published? Thanks for any other info.

Yes, all my questions are answered, and then some.Thanks, Tony

Don't go by the bolts mounting the valve cover on any 216/235 head for identification. I have a '58 235 in my '51 Chevy and I'm running the old style 216 valve cover. You just have to use the long rocker arm studs from a 216 and the gasket covers the 4 small holes where the later valve cover mounts. There is even a kit available to mount the old style cover on a 250. Now if somebody will make a kit to put the 250 distributer back in the center of the block, everybody might be fooled.