The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop Anyone ever use a 2.6 V6 in a bolt?

Heres the deal; I have a 54 1/2 ton chevy short/stepside that came w/an s-10 frame.I also have a Blazer w/a 2.6 V-6.
Does the V-6 have enough power to move the 54,or should I wait for a 4.3 or 350?.(Keeping in mind that I already own the 2.6)

That 2.6 V/6 doesnt sound very good to me.I dont see where you would gain anything over the original 216 or 235. I would go with a 350,yeah I know a lot of people here think the 350 is a boring engine. But lets look at the facts. They can be bought fairly cheap,they are easy to work on,and parts are readily available for them.There is definitly a reason why so many hot rodders use the 350.I have a 1974 350 in my 1955 2nd series coupled to a 700R4 trans.and stock 3.90 rearend. I baby the [censored]out of this truck,but when that rare occasion arises and I get the urge to mash the gas pedal,she will get up and go.It also gets 20 MPG.

I've never heard of a 2.6 engine. Do you mean a 2.8 L? If so, that would be a really poor choice. It's just barely got enough power to pull an S-10 around, and the early ones with a carburetor had all sorts of fuel system troubles and main bearing issues. If you used a 700R4 trans behind it, the extra-low 1st. gear would help get something the size of a stovebolt moving, but I'm pretty sure performance and fuel mileage would really suck!
Jerry

Ive had a few of those s-10 engines and I wouldnt recomend one. Mine did fine for the use I put it to, but I was constantly fixing it. They shake and vibrate very detrimentally for an engine. I had more pieces shake themselves off those engines then in all the combined vehicles Ive driven.

The oil filter extension that wraps around the motor mount is bound to leak. I fixed mine numerous times and tried lots of different ways and the best I could do was slow the leak down to a minor leak. They have a nightmare of vaccum lines and as mentioned the carburetors have their own complicated set of problems.

I would say your better off using an inline 6 or stepping up to the 4.3 which would be the easiest bolt in replacement.

Jeff

A friend of mine had a 2.8 in his 94 S-10, it was abused plenty and kept going. With the 5 speed the acceleration was decent and he got right around 28 mpg. I am going to go out on a limb but I would be willing to bet that the cab and box from the 54 doesn't weigh that much more than the S-10 cab/box combo. I drove a long box 4x4 S-10 with a 2.8 and an automatic. It was pretty much the heaviest combination you can get. The acceleration wasn't great but it wasn't horrible either. Heck if you already got a good running 2.8 might as well use it. Drive it till it blows and save some dough to put in a bigger motor later.

I would say nay on the 2.8 also. I have an '85 4x4 S 10 Blazer with one, and while it serves well in that application, it will be grossly underpowered for a full size truck. I haven't experienced any bearing issues (I do change the oil religiously, though) but can vouch for the feul system issues, especially when the heat plate quits working. I can also vouch for the vibration issues. There are also other issues, the block has a unique bellhousing pattern not compatible with any of the other GM V engines. So if it were used, there would be issues with the motor mounts at the rear, and if an automatic were used, the entire trans would have to be changed if a V8 were swapped in later. Oh, and another thing, the 2.8 is a noted leaker.

You can get some power from the 2.8, however not with the stock heads, cam, or intake. The heads need porting, the intake and cam needs replacing. These engines were used in sprint cars for years. I myself would at a minimum pull the intake and heads, fire up the die grinder and open the ports. while your that far, pull the mild economy cam and put something a bit more aggressive. GM front drive 60 degree engines have aluminum heads which flow slightly better stock than the cast iron units.

The 2.8 has the corporate narrow pattern (also known as front drive pattern). Flywheel housings from a 2.8, 3.1, or 3.4 are the same. The T5 bolts to this engine without any modifications as this is the engine that GM put the T5 behind (as well as the 2.5 tech-4)

If you have it and are on a budget, then use it. If you have some spare cash, sell the 2.8 to someone with an S-10 and take the cash to put something with a bit more displacement into the truck.

Go to newer model V6 the 4.2. It is based on the 350 block, minus two cylinders. Mine is in a 94 astro van, has 335K miles on it and still going, and still pushing the van along at 70 on the highway at 19 mpg. The astro van is comprable insize/weight etc. of a 46. Maybe look into that for your old bolt. Look at Brad's 41-46 if you want to see an application for an earlier model. Feel your pain. No bee like a frebeee.
Good luck,
Cavebull