The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop 82 chevy 250 ??? one peice head

I asked this on inliners and have not got the answer as of yet, but an upcoming auction has an 82 chevy 1/2 ton with a straight six was wondering what the last year of the intregal head was?? Can't look at it till the day of the auction so I would like to now if its worth going??? Thanks for your help!!! Dale

The last year of the integral head was the last year of the 250. I don't think the 292 ever used that abortion. Unless it's been changed, an 82 250 will have that POS on top of it. Get an early head and manifold set (pre-75 or so) from a boneyard and go from there.

Santucci's Inline 6 Power Manual has all the info on the L22 engines that you could ever need.

Late model 292's had the integral head too. The best heads are late 60's early 70's with hardened seats. I have both 250's and 292's. I don't know when the integral head came into production but I will look it up. Redcoat

The first year of the integrated manifold was around 75 or 76...however, the separate manifold heads must have continued past that date, as I have a 77 250 that had the separate manifold, and everything appeared to be original.

My C10 bought new leftover in june 74 was a non integral head engine.
A friend that bought the same truck specwise in Nov 74 but was a new 75 had the integral head.
You think they were just using up the old style into the 77 model year?
Steve sr.

GMC.... I also had a 76 C10 bought used 8 yrs ago that had the integral head but was cracked,switched it for the old style and the kid that bought it is still drivin it

75 was the first year for the intregal head although some models didn,t use it, namely the Camero,s. I worked on hundreds of 292,s & never saw an intregal head on one.

Thanks for the info, will have to wait till Thursday to see how the auction goes, not going to bid to high since these motors seem to be in good supply!!

L22s are good engines, and they're everywhere...everyone wants a V8.

I haven't seen one of these wonders. How do you clean the ports during a valve job?

Short of hot-tanking it, I don't see a good way to do so. It's a really, really, REALLY stupid design...and it's prone to cracking. Probably designed by the same crackhead engineer that designed the 2.8L V6...GM's worst engine of all time.

well guys the wreck of a truck I was bidding on sold for $200 so the next step will be to decide what engine to use and tear down the 250 I do have and see what it looks like inside. Thanks for all the imput its all great!!!!!!

2.8L= 3.lL
they get some good mileage but i always see problem with valve heads snapping off the stems for some odd reason,

but those are good engines too if you take care of them, just like with any other engine really,

ive had a 77 integrated head 250 and an 84 one too,

ive had a 69 non integrated set of manifolds and carb and all from a running 69 pickup for years up in the attic that no one seems to want, im not thinking 250 are very popular anymore

i will end up taking them to shredder next load i take in, need the $ and all these parts are taking up alot of room, attic, and upstairs and all over the place, it gets old and annoying,


good luck

do the 69 heads have hardened seats for the valves??

PS I think I may step up to the larger 302 or maybe a 292.

The 302 is a very different beast.

okay ill bite GMCpanel, do you mean that in a positive way or are you saying go with the 292. as Ive said earlier I have no problem using the 235 thru the 302 I want something solid and strong so Iam not coming up short on power I have no doubt I will be hauling 3 or 4 tons in the back of this truck 51 Chevy 6400 with flatbed hoist. will also be looking at power brakes and power steering???

I have a 54 6100 that I haul 11,000 pounds of water everyday. It's six miles down hill to the standpipe and six miles uphill loaded. The 250 runs great in 4th gear at about 40 mph. The 292 just has a whole lot more grunt at low rpm. I uses the 70 292 to haul the stock trailer all through the mountains of Arizona. I've had better performance from the 292 than with the 350 V8. Redcoat

DAS, the 302 is a great engine, it just isn't at all related to the 292. It's from the old GMC engine family that included the 228, 248 and 270. Four main bearings and a nearly bomb-proof block. Front and rear motor mounts like all the other early Chevy and GMC motors.

The 292 belongs to the L22 engine family (194/230/250). Seven main bearings, a much lighter block (and overall package), some parts are shared with the SBC V8s, and it uses a standard Chevy V8 bellhousing mount. Side motor mounts - the smaller L22s are straight across, just like an SBC. The 292 has the passenger-side mount offset forward, and the fuel pump in the normal motor mount position.

What year truck is the engine going in? What are you trying to do with it?

51 chevy 6400 flatbed W/hoist moving dirt and gravel around town and to the city next door 40 miles to buy building supplies and landscaping stuff

I have a 250 that will need a head, my thinking was that the 235 was to low rev. and was hoping that with a 292 or 302 they would rev higher and let me get 55 mph out of this truck without blowing it up.

A 261 would be a direct bolt-in, and can be made to produce good power (there should be an article about them in the tech section). A 302 is a bit more work to install, but would also provide good power. A 292 would probably give you the best power and be a higher-rev engine, but would be by far the most work to install. With the rear axle gearing and brakes in a 6400, you're not going to be moving very fast no matter which engine is installed.

So in your opinion my low geared rear end is the biggest factor, not the low rev. 235. I didnt mention earlier but you prob. know I have a 2 speed rear end and 4 speed transmission, if those are my limitting factor maybe I should upgrade to the 250 I have for free and get a better head, and live with it. Ive only drive the truck a couple of times (unloaded) and unbled brakes (just topped off emtie res and short off road test drive) the brakes worked quite well ie. I hit the steering wheel they worked so well. Was very surpised since I have read many neg. things about them.

I posted another ??? and am assuming my expectations are to high for the plans for this truck, if i plan to use it as a modern truck and the speed/safety that goes with them. I want a truck that looks like a 51 6400 but has at least a 60's or 70's performance and saftey ie brakes

The engine and rear end gearing are both working against you for modern highway speeds. Besides, you want to be careful using original drum brakes at higher speeds than orginally intended, especially loaded.

Thanks to all for your input, now I have to rethink this whole pipe dream. Sucks to be a fan of the old trucks. Is there a less expensive hobby out there that gives your wife as much grief please let me know Dale