The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop 230 cu. in. engine....why?

OK...DAQ time.....Chevy had the 235 why then did it build another engine the 230? I have never seen one therefore have no idea why they were constructed and how different they are from the 235...just want to learn me sumthang.....T/C Steve

Hi Steve;

The 230 was part of the "new" 3rd generation of 6 cyl. engines that came along in '63 (possibly a little earlier in the first Chevy ll's) that also included the 194 and then a little later the 250. It was a redesigned engine with 7 main bearings. It eventually became the basis for the mighty 292 which a lot of the guys on this forum use in their 'bolts.

I'm sure someone will come along soon and be able to add to, or correct, this.

The 230/250/292 was the next generation of 6's. They had the same 'back of block' configuration as the V-8's, had 7 main bearings, & used the same stamped steel ball & stud rocker arm assembly as the V-8's.
Doug

I sure am a slow typer

OK...it sounds like it was an upgraded design but was it that much better than the 235? On this site I read a lot about the 235/292/216 but not any mention of the 230 was the 230 more popular in cars? 1962 seems to be the last date of manufacture for the 235 which was a pretty good run how long did the 230/250 last...T/C Steve

I have one of those 230 engines in a 65 Fleetside. Very strong for a stock engine with 3 on the tree...

I believe 1970 was the last year for the 230. The 250 and 292 was used up into the mid-1980's.

I think the 230s are lighter than the 235. Another big advantage is that the third generation had the same bolt pattern for the bellhousing as the V8s, thus allowing interchanges of engines without different bellhousing castings being necessary.

The 230 and 250 even mount the same as the 283. The 292 was the same on the passenger side, if I remember correctly, but different on the driver's side. (I might have the sides mixed up though)

That family of 6s came out with the Chevy 2 (Nova) in '62, the 194 for sure, but the 230 might have been a mid-year addition. There was also a Nova only 4 cylinder based on the same block. I do know that there was much sharing of internals wit the V8, like the aforementioned rockers and valves. If memery serves, I think that the 230 also uses the same pistons as the 283, I'll have to check on that.

I think the 230 came about because the new cars then were getting lower hood clearance and overall smaller. They also wanted to cut weight for more MPG. So the height and length of the 230 was shorter than the 235 and was lighter in weight than the 235. Along with this they also tried to make some improvements. The sign-of-the-times was calling for changes and change they did, they completly changed it, so no parts will interchange between the 230 and the older 235. Did they improve it, or make it "better" ????? I don't know, opinions differ. (??) But the old 235 was, and still is, a real workhorse and a very stable and reliable motor.

You ask: "On this site I read a lot about the 235/292/216 but not any mention of the 230 was the 230 more popular in cars?"

I think, (this is just my opinion) that the 230 did not live up to the standards of the old 235, so they made the 230 into a 250. (I think this is why the 230 ended production earlier than the 250/292). So then the 250 had a little bit more guts and zip than the 230 did. Therefore the 250 is mentioned (and is more desirable) than the 230. The 230 and 250 ended up being just a little shy when it came to moving a work truck so they made the 292 out of the 230/250. All three 230/250/292 share a lot of common parts but share none with the older 235.

Hope this may help a little.

I had a 235/powerglide in a '62 Nova and a 250/3 on the tree in a '63. Indications are that they were both original power, and I can tell you that there was nothing lame about that 250. Of course the transmissions made some of the difference. I was a kid, and wasted both cars. I know: Kick me here! A friend had the same 250 and 3 on the tree in an '85 1/2 ton. It was original as well; a fleet unit.

There's a really good book on Stovebolt 6s that is mainly concerned with adding performance. Can't remember the author's name, but he was Spanglish.

The 194/230/250/292 was designed after GM became capable of thin wall castings. These engines weighed maybe 75% of what the 216/235/261s weighed, and were about two inches shorter in height, except for the 292, which was the same height as the 235.

The 230 was mainly a passenger car engine, and was used in quite a few. The first new car my parents bought was a 1964 Chevelle station wagon with a 230 in it. Lots of torque, and it would run a 80 mph all day in front of a Power Glide.

The 194, and the 2.5 liter 4, were for cars like the Nova. The 250 was often used in place of the 283/327 in Canadian sedans because of the tax formula there. The 250 was out for a few years before the 292 came out. In one way, GM really screwed up the 292 by moving the passenger's side motor mount. Seems to me like they did it because of some conflict with the placement of the oil filter boss. (???) The good thing was that the block was tall enough so that the driver's side front head bolt did not have to pass through the water passage.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

As for passenger cars, in 1965 the 230 was available in the Super Sport Chevelle. Almost 7,500 people paid EXTRA to forgo the standard 283 and place a 230 between the fenders of a SS including convertibles. The GM literature I have from the time all indicate that the 230 was an additional cost option.
"I think the 230 came about because the new cars then were getting lower hood clearance and overall smaller." You're right - The clearance from the top surface of the intake horizontal feature to the bottom of the hood is only 9" on the Chevelle. And there is very little room from the hood to the top of the V/C.

I'm proud to have one of those Super Sport Sixes. After 42 years it has never been removed from the car, rebuilt or had any major work done to it. Even after the car was sitting unused outside from 1993 to 2005 neglected, it still fires right up today and not a bit of smoke or clatter. Just needed most of the gaskets replaced. The original fuel pump and distributor were still working fine when they were upgraded and I have them still as spares.
The next upgrades are in a box in the garage simply waiting for warmer weather to install: An Offenhauser dual carb intake with Carter YFs. There is just barely enough hood clearance to do this with low profile air cleaners. Also a pair of Langdon split cast iron headers. I won't be beating on this engine, I realize it's still only a six with original internal components - but it sure turned heads at the car shows in original configuration. Most folks at these shows don't know much about the 230, but the ones that do will comment about it being a well-built & reliable passenger car engine. Here are some photos of the engine and the car:
230 engine view
1965 Malibu SS

Tried to find some history on this generation of sixes 194/230/250/292 but not a lot online.

Found years of 230/250/292 from "History of Chevy Trucks" by Don Bunn and several online engine rebuilding sites:

Last year of 6 cylinder 235 and 261 engine... 1963 K10 and K20 model.

So, used in trucks:

230 6 cylinder ... 1963-66.

250 6 cylinder ... 1967-84.

292 6 cylinder ... 1963-90.

http://www.chevytrucks.org/resources/history_of_chevy_trucks.htm

The only other history source I found from search engines was the wickipedia
article on chevy engines.

You may not think much of its accuracy as a source but it mentioned what some of you had already noted. That a big difference between the 235 and this generation of sixes was the development of a common bellhousing pattern between the sixes and the V8's so that engines and transmissions could be interchanged with much less difficulty than before. Less parts to stock and easier assembly would have surely made a lot of sense to the production managers of that day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Straight-6_engine

If you think some of my years are off, corrections are welcome. A source for the info would be appreciated.

If anyone knows of good sources for history of the development of this later generation of sixes I would certainly be interested.

Thanks for thinking about it.

PineConeChevy, GM apparently used a lot of the good features of the older engine series (216/235/261) in the later thin-wall casting models. Both series have reputations as reliable and relatively powerful engines. Remember that the V-8s are better at producing horsepower than torque and the 6s are usually better at producing torque than horsepower. My BMW 325is has a 2.5 liter (152 cubic inch) straight 6 engine in it. I think the body size and weight are close to the late 1970s Chevelles. I use the cruise control a lot and the surrounding area is pretty hilly. Set it to 60 mph, which is about 2600 rpms, and it maintains 60 mph, no matter what. I have the manual 5 speed, so there isn't any question of shifting down if it gets in trouble. Fortunately, it never gets in trouble. I idle around town in 4th gear to save gas, and because I can.

I like I-6s. The V-6s seem to need to run at higher RPM to get the same job done.

If I remember my facts correctly, the 230 has the same bore and stroke as the infamous 307 V8. If you ask why the 230? I ask "why the 307?"

The 230 was/is a nice smooth powerful small six. But, in pickup use they are just marginal in my opinion. Lots of power for the size but require much higher RPM to develop the power as compared to the 235. My granddad sold a 61 1/2ton and bought a new 63 and just hated it for farm use. He was used to just idling around the pasture feeding hay from a big load and pulling out of the pasture with 2-3 big steers in the stock racks at very low rpm. The 230 just wouldn't do that like the 235. He bought a 250 in about 65 and was happy with the Chevy again.

Hey 1953 Panel.....
I just confirmed what you recalled. They are both 3.875" x 3.250".
I learn something new every day...this was it! Thanks for some conversation fodder - now if I can just put a spin on why the 230 is so much better than the smog-strangled 307.

Nice clean Chevelle pinecone, mine is 4 years newer.

Just to muddy the waters a little more, the 292 has the same torque rating as the 350 V-8, although less power. So, same torque at 83% of the displacement.