The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop 216 VERSUS 235

How can you see the diference between a 216 and a 235 , Cheers

Jan

A 216 has two nuts holding down the center of the valve cover, the 235 has four screws around the outside of the valve cover.

Piper,

The easiest method, if you can get it, is to find the block casting # and verify it. It should be tucked down behind the starter. You might also have some luck with the #'s stamped on the "boss" behind the distributor.

If you can get either of those #'s, you can generally determine what you have on the inliner's website, or some other's floating around out there.

While Cbaymac is generally correct, the early 235's, splash motors, had the same valve cover and look identical to the 216's. The later 235's had the "4-screws".

My latest truck 1952, 3100, has a 1948 235 out of a 2-ton grain truck. Visually, you can't tell a bit of difference between it, and the 216 I've got in my 46-1/2ton.

If you're looking for a full-flow 235, you need a post 54 motor. To id them, look at the passenger side of the engine. The 216 & early 235 had a lifter cover that goes around the spark plugs up to the valve cover. The lifter cover on the 235 you're looking for stops at the bottom of the head

Jed's right.. the old 235's look just like the 216's.. the prefix on the number stamped on the "pad" to the bottom left of the distributor will tell for sure.

The question I have to ask is, "Is there a significant difference between the 216 and 235 in power or drivability?"

My '50 1/2 ton had a 216 and it was plenty peppy for daily driving.. altho I probably wouldn't have taken it on the highway or interstate.

I hear about alot of folks switching from a 216 to the 235... but looking at the specs for both engine (90HP vs 93HP) I gotta wonder if it's worth all the effort?

Fumblin,

I believe in addition to the extra 3 H.P. there was a slight difference in torque as well. However, I can tell you, my 46 with a 216 will run down the road smoothly between 45-50 at very, and I do mean very, minimal throttle.

The gearing in the rear-end, the skinny tube-type tires, and the poor stock brakes are all that keep me from cruising with the big-dogs.

With the stock rear-end, I have the same issues with my 250-I-6.

I believe the most obvious reason individuals would switch to a 235 would be to get out of the babbit/splash oiling/low pressure arena.

I'd be curious to know what other reasons I might have overlooked.

The big difference is the rod bearings. The newer 235 has steel backed insert style bearings. The 216/early 235 have poured babbit rods. Since the poured babbit bearing is thicker, it is easily displaced under load, resulting in stretched rods. This can be remedied by getting the rods machined to accept the insert style bearing. Due to the stretching, the 216 can not endure coninuous operation at higher rpm.

I'd say a daily/regular driver outta have radials on 'em.. radial 15's are on the '46 with black rims.. I like the look, just have to see if they make "add on" clips so I can get stock hubcaps to fit on it.

I haven't got this latest 216 running yet (just now got the starter put back together) but this truck is going to be my daily driving/working/go to the auction/trips to the lumberyard/trips to the store truck.

The 216 in the '50 sure was strong, but all this talk about folks swapping up to the 235 had me wondering about it.

I can't imagine i'll do any serious work to the 216 thats in this '46.. if the engine thats in there won't fire up and run good with a new coil, plugs, carb rebuild, etc i'll definately be in the market for a new power plant.

What I6 engines will fit in a '46 as a direct bolt in replacement? Just the 216 and 235?

Fred T,
I am not sure where your theory came from on the "stretching of the rods", but unless I were to read it in the Book-O-Bolts, I'm not buying it. In my experience, (limited) every application involving tremendous bearing loads used babbit in lieu of ball, roller etc. It would seem to me if a force was generated strong enough to tweek a babbit rod, then it would do the same to a inserted rod! Maybe I didn't understand your statement.


Stuart.

Fumblin '46-

In addition to the 235 and 216 you could find a 261, which was basically the same as a 235 but had a bigger bore cylinder so greater displacement, more torque/HP. The 261 JOBMASTER engine came in school busses and dump trucks, etc... Just like the 235 it'll bolt right in to where your 216 used to sit.

The big advantage to the post 1954 235/261 is the full pressure oiling as opposed to what the pre 1954 216/235 had, 'splash oiling'. Splash oilers, in oversimplified terms, relied on oil splashing around to properly lubricate the engine where full pressure oilers have a pressurized oil galley that circulates oil to all the places it needs to go at roughly 45 psi. That means the 235/261 oiled itself better, didn't heat up as much and didn't ruin critical parts, like bearings, as easily or frequently.

A critical difference between the 235 and 261 is that the later 261 was set up for full pressure oil filtration while the 235 only had bypass filtration. So, while the heavy duty 261 could filter all the oil under 45 psi of pressure the 235 would filter 10%-20% under less pressure, so less filtration.

Use the search feature in this forum to read up on 235s, 261s and read the tech articles on swapping your 216 for a full pressure engine before making up your mind. Many people say there is little HP/Torque difference between the 235 and 261 because a 1954 tech article specs said so. Perhaps that is correct and the potential of the 261 is in buildability and durability with the full pressure oil filtration. The 235 can be converted to full pressure oil filtration by drilling a hole in the block and threading it which leaves only the little differnce of 26 Cubic Inches of displacement, sort of like the difference between a 327 and 350 small block.

To take the theory a little further, with pure rod dippers, as the RPMs go up, you reach a point where the dipper feed has not recoverd from the last "splash" and therefore the oiling becomes inadequate. In about 1939, Chevy added "dipper sprayers" that were supposed to address this problem. However they were miles behind the industry in this respect. Also, the babbitting on the rods was very thin and I would imagine exteremely expensive to manufacture.

Atomarc - What actually occurs is compression of the poured babbit. It is the softest part of the rod. The poured babbit is thicker than the babbit in the insert bearing, which has a steel backer and doesn't compress as easily. With the insert bearings, the rods will actually elongate (stretch) when subjected to sustained operation at high rpms.

The way to avoid this problem in the 216 is to keep the rpm down, preferably under 2,500 for sustained operation. There are guys here with over 100,000 miles on the 216. But some have also ran them hard enough that they only got 50-60,000 miles out of them.

The local boneyards sell rebuildable 235's for about $250. After buying that the other costs of the rebuild would be the same, except that you'd pay to have the 216 rods set up for insert bearings.

As the newer 235s progressed, the compression ratio went up and that brought quite a gain in power. That is another advantage of the full pressure 235s.

I have a 51, 235 with hyd. lifters. The casting #s match right up with the #s from Inliners. It does not have the 216 push rod cover. It has the regular smaller 235 cover and 2 bolt hold down on the valve cover. I believe it came from an auto with powerglide transmission.

The 1953 powerglide equipped cars were the first full pressure 235s and they had the two acorn nut hold downs on the valve cover, all 1954 235s were full pressure. Don't say full flow when you actually mean full pressure, not the same thing.

I've heard that some hotrodders put two acorn valve covers on their later model 235s and 261s to disguise them as splash oilin' 216s!

Baldy- Yer right, my bad. I meant 'full flow' filtration, not full pressure. Or was it full flow/full pressure v. full pressure/bypass v. bypass/low pressure?

Many of the aftermarket cast valve covers for 235s and 261s were/are of the two acorn type and the installation kits have the hardware to convert the head for their use. They look a lot cleaner than the four bolt type.

The Canadian 1951 235 powerglide motor had hydraulic lifters and I assume it was the full pressure motor.