Click on image for the lowdown. 
====
| | | Forums66 Topics128,174 Posts1,057,048 Members48,458 | | Most Online14,466 Apr 26th, 2026 | | AD Chevy Trucks Over 6,000 pictures Brad Allen has an awesome collection of Chevrolet factory pictures that he has set up from film strips. Check them out!
Lots of work on Brad's part ... pure enjoyment (and references) for you!
| | THANKS!
For helping keep this great
old truck web site
on the Internet for over 30 years! and not clogged down with Ads! Again, thanks! | | | | Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 24 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 24 | Taylorcraft1 I have Pm'd you and emailed some questions but have not heard back from you. Please check through your emails for mine. Also, I have talked to Webster, I am not sure he really did have one. Thank you! | | | | | Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,847 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,847 | if you drill it for full pressure oiling and use GMC rods, you should be fine, That is one of my upcoming projects. You wouldn't have to turn it over about 4500 to get good power. | | | | | Joined: Aug 2005 Posts: 424 Shop Shark | | Shop Shark Joined: Aug 2005 Posts: 424 | Just because you can doesn't mean you should, BUT, if that's what you want to do, make sure you take a video when you wind that sucker out. I wanna see it!
Frankly though, It doesn't make any sense to me. I guess I kind of like era correct stuff and a turbo doesn't go with a 216 in my head.
If you were using a modern turbo system, stay with a more modern motor. Why would anyone choose an antiquated motor that has so many limitations?
Even if you had an era correct vintage turbo system (if such a thing exists), the 216 sure wouldn't have been the motor of choice back in the day.
It all seems incongruous and kind of a "unusual" exercise. I get it that some folks like to be unusual, which to me is okay if it makes sense. Otherwise it just seems kind of silly.
Now a 302 GMC with a Supercharger might be cool as hell, would stay together if built right, has a "wow!" factor (instead of a "huh?" factor) and will net you some serious speed.
Last edited by Old Gold; 07/13/2013 12:55 PM.
| | | | | Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,847 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,847 | this whole hobby doesn't make any sense. | | | | | Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,775 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,775 | Don't know if a babbitt bearing 216 could take it. Maybe if she were line bored and insert bearing installed. Another issue is oiling. Don't know if a 216 could feed enough oil. A ball bearing turbo would be best. Maybe even a belt drive oil pump. | | | | | Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,847 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,847 | notice I said drill for oil, and use GMC rods, of course you would use insert bearings. You wouldn't use a stock 216 oil pump, you would use a GMC oil pump. There would be very little stock for that matter. I'm not sure of the current state of development of turbos, but I don't think they use ball bearings any more. The fella at Ross pistons said that turbocharging inline 6's are actually pretty popular due to the fact that the breathing of the heads on most inlines quite frankly sucks. You don't just throw a turbo on pretty much any engine without a fair amount of modification. This is one of my really favorite things to think about, after the 12 port of course. | | | | | Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 4,983 Master Gabster | | Master Gabster Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 4,983 | Why on earth would anyone want to s.charge a 216? I doubt it would get more than 30 yards down the strip before those bearings would need to be swept up off the pavement. My deductions: 1) you want speed 2) you don't care about original. 3) you prefer an inline six Why not use a more compatible six which also comes with more torque?
~Jim
| | | | | Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,847 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,847 | the same reason people watch football, play golf, or ride horses. None of which makes a lick of sense to me. And other than the watching football part, cost just about as much. But since I absolutely abhor football. I would rather turbocharge a 216. Why would you assume it is going to the dragstrip? It is just an activity. Wouldn't give it over about 3-4 psi boost, just about like the Chrysler K cars. You wouldn't have to turn it over about 4000 RPM, a turbo isn't speed dependent, it is load dependent. Doesn't cost nearly as much as a motorcycle, or a boat, or a motor home. And I would much rather have a turbocharged 216, pretty much guarantee no one else will have one. You don't have to deduce anything, and you are wrong on most counts. I just want to do it. After I get the 12 port running of course. Unless I find a good deal on an offenhauser 270 to put in a T-bucket.
Last edited by brokenhead; 07/14/2013 5:21 PM.
| | | | | Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 4,983 Master Gabster | | Master Gabster Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 4,983 | Sounds like fun, go for it.
~Jim
| | | | | Joined: Sep 2012 Posts: 1 Moderated | | Moderated Joined: Sep 2012 Posts: 1 | | | | | | Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,775 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Mar 2008 Posts: 1,775 | | | | | | Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,847 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,847 | Ah yes, I wasn't sure of all that. However I did find a 1926 miller straight eight for sale. Not sure how much it would be, probably more than my house. | | | | | Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,847 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,847 | yep, it would cost about as much as my house.... | | | | | Joined: Jul 2013 Posts: 1 Moderated | | Moderated Joined: Jul 2013 Posts: 1 | if supercharger could be of interest, the Eatons are internally lubed without pressured external oil. Then the low splash oilpressure trouble on the 216 , want be any trouble..... | | | | | Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,847 'Bolter | | 'Bolter Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,847 | you wouldn't use a stock 216 oiling system, just like you wouldn't use a stock 216 oiling system for any other modified 216. | | |
| |