The Stovebolt Site Forums The Parking Lot Big Bolts Engine opinions for 63 L60

Hello great site! I've been reading for a couple months and finally registered. Would appreciate some opinions on engines. My 63 Chev L60 LCF grain truck currently has a mid 80's 350, 4sp on 3sp Brownie, original grain box dump. The engine is very tired so looking for a rebuilder to start into. I've actually just found an early 60's c60 truck 327 rebuilder for sale which is one of the original available motor options for my truck. I use the truck for hauling heavy loads of fill, gravel and firewood as needed. Other considerations are 292 inline 6, stay with newer SB350/400 and I also found an early 60's vette 283 long block rebuilder that available for $100. Main thing I want is strong torque and ability to ride resonably comfortably 60-70 mph down the highway.

Also I'm assuming the Brownie did not comne with the L60. Appreciate any/all opinions on these topics. Thanks

RWH;

I would stay with the 350. It is going to have more torque than either a 327 or a 283. If it needs a complete rebuild I suggest that you might make it a 383 with an even longer stroke and create one of the most popular power combinations in the Chevy community. Good Luck;

SimS

No replacement for displacement, go with a 454,
Scott

A 366 would be the minimum I would consider. Bigger is ok if you want to buy the gas.

A 366 would be ideal for torque.

Go big. If you are committed to small block options the 388 stroker is probably best, but I'd go big block based on what you want the truck to do.

If it were me I'd go bigger than a 454.

one word:
Diesel...

The 292 will have enough torque, altho they are not the best engine for going 70 MPH for long distances, unless you have an Overdrive. The Small Block should do just fine and even tho the Big Block will give you torque and power, I'm not a big fan of them in trucks.

Altho not original to your truck, a GMC V-6 will give you plenty of torque, altho again, parts are getting hard to find for them.

And lastly you could consider a Detroit Diesel. The 4-53 was available in some '60 to '66 trucks.

All in all tho, my personal pick in your truck would be a fresh 292.

Bill

Thanks for all the input. For high torque I like that idea of a 383. I've not come across any 348's or 366's would stay with the 350 versus one of those. Were the truck 283's and 327's any different from what was put in the 1/2 ton pickups and cars? How about the 292's, any difference?

Going big block I'd be concerned with the challenge of a tight squeeze in the LCF short nose configuration.
Diesel? very cool but I think more of a project in time and cost than I want to take on right now.

Bill -

Any differences in the 292's 1963 forward? Comparing to the truck 327 I'm assuming the main difference is the 292 will be a bit more torque at lower RPM's. I've not looked for any yet to see what a decent rebuilder would sale for.

I've got the '61 Vette 283 and '63 327 on my mind as they are available for sale right now for $100 each. The 283 is a long block with a bad valve and the 327 is a complete enging (minus carb) pulled from a c60 that had not run in 20 yrs.

Roger

With the 4X3 transmission setup, you've got enough gears to use any of several engines. I'd suggest one of the big block V-8's if one is available. You won't have to split as many gears with a high-torque engine like a 454 or 502. Just be sure the transmissions and driveline setup is rated for the torque you'll have. Nothing gets expensive as quick as a scattered truck transmission, and one missed shift is all it takes when the engine has more torque than the trans can handle. If you upgrade to a more powerful engine, remember to increase the size of the radiator accordingly.
Jerry

Hotrod Lincoln -

Great points. That make me realize since I'm not interested in doing a major drivetrain upgrade/overhaul and want to keep using the truck I'm better off staying with a SBC or the 292.

One engine that hasn't been considered is the 427. It's on the same block as the 366, 454, 502, etc., and if you can find a "tall block" version, that one was designed as a truck engine. The short-stroke small blocks like the 283 (3" stroke) or 327 (3 1/4" stroke) have to wind up to make much power, so you'll be using that brownie a lot to keep the RPM in a range where it belongs. It's kind of like driving a Detroit Diesel- - - - -keep it running wide open all the time, or get out and push! If you can find a good small block 400, it might be an option (3 3/4" stroke) but they had cooling system issues. If a 292 will fit, you shouldn't have any problem getting a big block V-8 in there.
Jerry

Conway,

I would trust any older style 292 (not too familiar with the newer integeral models), but I believe one originally from a larger truck may have an extra piston ring or some other minor differences.

If you do go with one, dual exhaust would be nice, but at least use a straight thru muffler on it. These engines will perform a lot better when they can breathe and it will sound sweet to boot.

The 283 Vette engine sounds like a good deal by the way. A good bare block alone would be worth way more than that asking price.

Keep us posted.

Bill

yep, HotRod that's exactly what I don't want to end up with having to drive in high rpm stroking gears as the norm. So scratch the 283/327 option. If considering the 427 seems it would make sense to just go 454 for ease of finding one and availability of parts?

I have found a complete 1972 292 currently for sale at $300. Seller claims its in good tight running condition. Probably the most economical option of everything being considered.

RW

Fuel economy doesn't really play a factor in these big truck that are used occassionally. A 292 will be pusshed to it's limits at all times when loaded (pedal to the floor) where a 454 won't be. They would use about the same amount of fuel but the big block will be more fun to drive,
Scott

I have to dis-agree with the fuel mileage. My 292 in my '64 C-30 fully loaded at 10,000 lbs would get about 14 MPG and that was just with a 4-Speed. I know that is better than average tho as most people I talked to didn't get quite that good. But if you super tune a 292 and drive it correctly (including shifting it at the right RPM's) it will do real good. I just about never had it to the floor and I used to climb some steep hills. What I could do with a 4X3!!

Bill

I will definitely take the 292 over the 454 in a big truck. My 292 in a 1964 c-60 2 speed rear will get 10-14 mpg loaded.
If the 454 was in a pickup or car i would take the 454

I'm not saying there would be a difference, just not enough to matter unless it was being used daily like in a business, etc.
Scott

Time is money.

I don't believe a 292 will perform time wise as fast as a 454. Look at the comparative torque specs of the two motors and consider how the truck will accelerate with one versus the other.

Okay I'll admit to being a fan of big torquey motors. A 292 may be a very hard working motor, but I'll be the last to believe it will perform hauling loads with a big block.

Mileage might be another matter, but I agree with Scott, in limited use its not likely a difference in mileage will make much difference.

Sorry guys, when I said most economical choice going with a 292 I didn't mean fuel economy. I meant the costs of getting the various motors we've been discussing seemed to suggest 292 would be a lower cost option relative to the others whether thats rebuilding or buying one ready to drop in.

To Scott's point I agree, that the relative small amount of time I actually get to spend driving this truck I don't really care if it gets 5 mpg or 15 mpg.

But considering all the great input here I'm leaning towards the 292 based on lower cost perception and attractiveness mating to my 4x3 setup.

RW

Being fast at haulin a load is not always a good thing money isnt everthing

id go with a industial 366 big block or a 427 industrial frfom a mid seventys to mid 80s c6500 or c7500 chevy or gmc truck also look at old uhauls they got some great big block drivetrains for sale cheap joe

If I considered the 427 Industrial would it make sense to eliminate the Brownie 3sp auxilary? I don't believe it came on the truck and I don't use it much given the flat terrain in my county and small radius I run from home where stroking through the 4sp seems fine with a load of rock on. (It's also likely true I don't know how to properly take advatage of the rpm's and the Browie). Anyone with 4x3 advice/experience on different engines would be great to hear. Also I have either the 11,000 or 15,000 lb full floating single speed rear end Chev made. Not sure how to identify which one.

Be careful of those old 283's and 327's. Somehow all of them ended up in Corvettes!
Better check the numbers.

Great point Dave. The 283 long block I was looking at listed as a vette motor was a transplant into a Landcruiser for the last 20 yrs and on further discussion with the seller he said he didn't actually know it's history but that it's a "vette era" motor.

I sure wouldn't eliminate it. It's nice to have the extra gears anytime you would need some. You don't have to use them all, just use what you would like to.

I would say that you have the 15 Rears, but what is the GVW on the truck? Also look for the label on the glove box door for axel info.

Bill

For more 283 and 327 info, try to get the engine code on the front pad of the engines.

Bill

The advantage to the 4X3 is the ability to split a gear up or down if necessary to keep the engine in its best torque range. Generally, the Brownie will have an underdrive, direct, and overdrive ratio. For running unloaded, or lightly loaded, just leave the Brownie in direct, and shift the 4-speed normally, If you start to lug down on a hill, the under gear lets you pick up a few RPM without downshifting the main box. Ditto for gaining a little speed if you start to run out of RPM in direct- - - -just put the Brownie in OD and keep on trucking! One precaution- - - -don't use compound low in the main box combined with OD in the Brownie, as it wears out the bearings and gears in the main trans unnecessarily. It's best to split gears in 2nd., 3rd., and 4th. gear only. On the 5-speed OD transmissions we used in the big rigs, we didn't use OD in the main box combined with UD in the Brownie for the same reason. With both boxes in OD and a long, flat road, the speeds we could get were outrageous! Of course, once the rig was in motion, we never used the clutch. Just float the RPM right, and both transmissions could be shifted without using the clutch. Just don't get them both in neutral at the same time!
Jerry

[/quote]

I sure wouldn't eliminate it. It's nice to have the extra gears anytime you would need some. You don't have to use them all, just use what you would like to.

I would say that you have the 15 Rears, but what is the GVW on the truck? Also look for the label on the glove box door for axel info.

Bill

[/quote]

There's a small Chevrolet mfg metal plate riveted forward of the door by the drivers left leg. It has the following stamping data:

Maximu GVW Rating: 19,500 LB
Transmission: C4
Rear Axle: C15
Ratio: 7.2
Trim: STD
Paint: 505
WB: Blank
CA: 136

It also states the certified Net H.P. of Engine listing the ratings for each engine available (292, 327, 348, 409)

Thanks Jerry that is very helpful. How about Brownie background/identification? Is "Brownie" a reference to a specific manufacturer or is it a general term for three speed auxilaries made by various companies? How are they identified for mfg and model?

Conway,

I'm not an expert on Rear Axel Codes, but I believe we can safely say the "C15" designates a 15,000 Rear Axel.

By the way, with a 19,500 GVW, the 292 would be plenty good enough. The Brownie will only make it better.

You won't be the fastest from a stop, but you should be well satisfied with the performance. If you do put one in, don't forget to super tune it and let it breathe.

Bill

"Brownie" is a slang term used by some of us old farts to describe all auxiliary transmissions, but the original term referred to the Brown-Lipe transmissions that were sold as optional equipment on big rigs. Spicer, Borg-Warner, Saginaw, and other manufacturers also made auxiliary transmissions. In addition to your 4X3 setup, there were 5X4's, 5X3's, 4X4's, and various other combinations. Some had overdrive top gears, while others had direct drive as the top-end ratio. There were several sizes of gearboxes available, depending on the torque output of the engines they were paired with. Unless it's been lost or damaged, there is usually a tag somewhere on the side of the transmission giving a model number, and sometimes the gear ratios are also listed. I've got an older Motor heavy truck manual that has a pretty good manual transmission section with exploded views and teardown/reassembly instructions for some of the more common variations. Virtually all auxiliaries I've had experience with are non-synchronized, so you'll need to get very good at double-clutching and/or RPM matching.

One old Ford grain truck from the early 1950's that I worked on had a 5X4 main/auxiliary transmission setup, plus a manually-shifted 2-speed rear axle. It had a "tag" axle behind the drive axle, and about a 20-foot grain bed on it. The old flathead Lincoln V-8 needed all the help it could get moving that rig around! I'll bet the driver had his hands full with three shifters!
Jerry

5x4 plas a 2? Geez,... I'd go mad.
Sounds about as bad as the old Kenworth my dad brought home from work once. Was used to haul heavy equipment, 24 total gears, a couple levers and switches. NOT for beginners!

That helps and further makes me want to go the 292 route. I've already seen a couple '68-'72 pickups with the 292 for sale for under $500 for the entire rig which I'd just swap out the 292 to rebuild and drop my SB350 into the pickup.

I did become quite good double clutching at 13 yrs old when I started driving grain truck to the elevetor in downtown Kalispell, MT. It's funny now (maybe scary) looking back, as we kids were giving the oldest/loosest rigs. I was usually in a '58 GMC 2T 4sp/2sp which felt like the front end was on ice with a load on. A very narrow two lane high bridge over the Flathead river always had us praying for no oncoming Semi's to skin by. Those first handful of runs I did had the experience of butt off the seat standing one footed on the brake and clutching down gears approaching the stop light and traffic at a stop. One of my kids will be 13 next summer. It's probably illegal now. Jerry, what I'm not expeienced at is not using the clutch with "RPM matching". I've attempted it breifly with no success and stopped because I was in someone elses rig and didn't want to risk damaging anything. Any tip on that?

If you don't mind me saying, I wouldn't recommend shifting without the clutch until you have it mastered with the clutch, if you haven't already. I personally always use the clutch. We took a poll on another truck board recently and I was surprised on how many of us use the clutch. I thought I was in a low number group, but close to half do indeed still use it.

I have more control and can shift quicker and smoother using the clutch. Basically speaking, the only time I don't use it, other than just goofing around, is when a break a clutch rod or something.

Bill

Depends on the transmission.
If it has synchronizers it is best and almost required to use the clutch, it'll last longer if you do.

If no synchronizers and you can easily match speeds and slip it into gear with absolutely no grinding then clutchless shifting not hard on it. It's when you miss a shift or grind gears that you're hard on stuff.

I'll say that my 53 1 ton with an SM420 took a lot of practice to shift without the clutch, only did it occasionally just for fun to see if I could.
My newer car is very difficult to shift without the clutch, but very easy to double clutch and speed match, actually I do a half and half. Slip it out of gear not using the clutch, speed match with the accelerator, then depress the clutch and slip it into gear.
My truck and the previous one with Roadranger 10 speeds take some practice shifting and double clutching, then with that mastered shifting without the clutch is effortless and extremely fast.

Grigg

The trick to clutchless shifting is getting familiar with how fast your engine loses RPM when you let off the throttle. I learned clutchless shifting on a 64 Freightliner with a Detroit 8V-71 and a Roadranger 10-speed. That one wound up and slowed down almost instantly, so shifting was simply a matter of "floating" the gear, neither accelerating or coasting, and slipping it out of gear into neutral. Then, let off the throttle, and ease the shifter into the next gear position. As the gear speeds match, it will fall into the next higher gear without clashing. It takes practice, but the average driver can learn pretty well in a few days, max. Downshifting is similar, float the gear to disengage, rev up in neutral until the gear speeds match, and poke it into the lower gear. Shifting a 2-transmission rig is a little different, but once you get the hang of one, two isn't all that much harder. One transmission or the other MUST stay in gear, to allow the engine RPM to be manipulated to speed-match the gears. The absolute hardest setup for me, personally is the 4X4, since the ratios are so close together that if I ever lose count of which gear I'm in, I have to stop, and begin all over. With a Detroit and a 4X4, I can keep the engine speed in the top 200 RPM all the time, where a "Screaming Jimmy" develops practically all its pulling power. Get one lugged down below 1950 RPM or so, and the game's over! From 1950 to 2150, they haul butt!

Cummins engines have more low-end torque, and they rev up and slow down more slowly. It takes a different shifting technique on the 4-stroke engines like Cummins or Cat.
Jerry

There was a tme when I could shift a two stick rig like I knew what I was doing, but its been about 30 years since I've had occasion to even try.

I remember like it was yesterday the time the transmission in that truck basically exploded. Empty truck shifting only the primary and using the clutch. I believe someone else must have done something bad and I was the lucky one behind the wheel when it let loose.

About 1980 it cost $1,000 for either the parts or a replacement transmission. I did get to install the new transmission in it.