The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop I need opinions and experiences with the 235 & 216

Greetings!

It's all in the subject line; I want to discuss the 235 and 216. I have been stalking thru the forum for a little over a year reading posts and threads and watching youtube videos and following links. I own a 1940 Chevy and I've been going thru the body and wiring over the last year and acquiring parts. I bought a 1951 216 that runs to drop in to make her mobile and for testing, etc. The engine which that replaced is what I believe to be a 235. The lifter cover is the smaller one which only covers the camshaft access and the v-belt is narrow and the gauge of a more modern v-belt, whereas the 216 I bought has a wide v-belt and the cam cover completely surrounds the spark plugs and a different carburetor. So feel free to jump in and describe the differences between 216 and 235. The 235 that came in the car is locked up and has no sludge or oil filter canister or oil in it, which lead me to the conclusion that it was a rebuilt motor that was never fired and allowed to seize.

Then, there's much more. I see some people install stand alone GM fuel injection, others a multi carb setup from Fenton or Clifford or Offenhauser and install split manifolds from fenton or use the stock GM corvette part #'s. people work around the issues of heating up the fuel mixture with piping and dry heat or wet plumbing, and the 235 seems to be catered to dress-up finned valve covers and cam cover. What I don't see is multiple spark discharge ignition and bigger rocker arm ratio's or even roller rockers. Or camshafts. From what I've seen in videos there is a HEI distributor that has been used on a 235 and obviously that's 12 volts, I have sourced 6v to 12v step-up transformers for close to $100 a piece, but the amperage drawn by a stand alone, fuel pump, MSD-6AL ignition box, and headlamps will way exceed the 30 amps the generator will provide. Anyone running a 6v alternator? Or has anyone run dual voltage on their cars, one system for the car on 6v, the other on 12 for the engine bay & headlamps ( I am a HID lighting person)? Which systems have you used for fuel delivery? If I were to go the fuel injection route I would want dual exhaust, can the fenton manifolds be drilled for an O2 sensor, or will it be only possible with a bung welded after the manifolds in the piping? I would really like to hear all of your experiences, 216/232/262 because it is getting close to winter, and this will be the time for machine work and I want to make a decision on what will work best. I am also looking for a better clutch, and word on which brands are best? Has anyone ported and polished their head? Installed larger valves/stronger springs?

Thanks for reading thru this, if you've made it this far, I am a new member but I am planning to stick around a while. If you can help me with your knowledge/sources I will be eternally grateful, and so will my car.

Well Mr Master Delukse were very happy to have you join us! It seems to me that your already pretty well informed about what goes on here and also into a little higher tech than so many of us old timers. Which raises a question for me (and something I've wanted to try myself) and that is why not take a look at the newer OHC/FI sixes (or 5 or 4) that GM used in the Trailblazer and smaller pickups? That would eliminate a lot of the problems you've already considered and you'd have something really different. I have a OHC Poncho engine that I've wanted to try out in something but it is old hat compared to the newer GM family of inline engines. Another plus is that they were made with 5 speed OD trannys and A/T so your choice. Either would necessitate a change to an open rear end but I'm guessing you already know that. Just food for thought. Good luck and Welcome Aboard.

The major electronic and mechanical upgrades you're suggesting are interesting, but totally unnecessary. The restrictive cylinder head design and the rudimentary oiling system and 4 main bearing crankshaft make exotic modifications to early Chevy engines about as useful as putting lipstick on a pig. It makes you look foolish and annoys the pig.

The engine was well-designed to do what it was intended to do, move older cars and trucks down the road at a safe, sedate speed. By the time all those modern modifications get accomplished, you've got a vehicle that will be problematic and unreliable, and it will probably be in a performance envelope that will overstress the brakes and the handling capabilities. A better approach would be to adapt the body to a newer, more modern chassis if you want to incorporate all those modifications. Try a late-model Toyota pickup chassis with the early sheet metal on it. You'll end up with most of the modern running gear you describe, and a retro-looking body style.
Jerry

I'm with Hotrod Lincoln on this one. I wouldn't waste the money on a step up transformer or MSD box. I would convert to a 12 gernerator or install a later model high amp alternator. A Petronix or MSD electronic ignition upgrade is a more reliable choice. As far as Camshafts go that's about all you're going to find for a performance upgrade. Patricks and EGGE sell some custom grinds. If you want to coin up, Comp Cams and Howards can cut you a cam to your specs.
Anyway, good luck.

"the 235 seems to be catered to dress-up finned valve covers and cam cover. What I don't see is multiple spark discharge ignition and bigger rocker arm ratio's or even roller rockers. Or camshafts."

Right - because you can't see them. Most "speed equipment" is posing.

The major stumbling block in using the Atlas series engine for a donor has been the front sump cast aluminum oil pan which has a hole thru it sideways, needs lots of oil, and interferes with many crossmembers. An Inliner has developed/cast a pan to open up the donor possibilities and if I was building a Stovebolt that needed big trailer hauling grunt I would closely look at that option. Here’s the difference side by side:

http://s176.photobucket.com/albums/w186/curt160/Marcs%20stuff/


Here’s where they will be available:

http://www.emtechmotorsports.com/index.htm


Welcome and great job researching your options. You’ll find your way.

My information was that the "hole" in the pan was only used on 4X4 chassis's. If true then finding a 2 wheel donor would make the swap a little easier perhaps. I know most of them are 4x4's however. Glad to know about the replacement pan in any case. Thanks Curt.

Dave (53 Money pit)

First off, thanks for replying! I am always open to new ideas on this project, but I want to stay with the stovebolt engine. The reason for this is because I collect cars; already have several stovebolts, and what I do to cars is more for me than for everyone else... ya know? An example for both would be in this particular vehicle the 3speed power assisted column shifted transmission from the factory and the remote tuned from the steering column 6 tube shortwave radio. Hence my desire for a separate 6v system. In the last few years I have brought all the systems back up from the gas gauge to the separate heater and defroster blower motors. I decided to worry about the engine last.I prefer to restore the vehicle, then modify it. The MSD and HID systems are more modern than their predecessors but can be fitted as to not contrast with the integrity and dignity of a 70 year old car. For instance, the MSD control box will run off of a conventional CD ignition, box can be mounted inside behind firewall,and much quicker starting, smoother idle and improved fuel economy are the result, and HID lighting comes in a range from 3000-22000 K so the original color hue of 4000-5500k can be used and the result will be, simply, 'much brighter light' without the ricer color and hue.

In the end,I believe that I will be building a 235 or 261 (or is it 262) because of the fully pressurized oil system and hydraulic lifters. 150 brake horsepower versus 80 just by choosing that long block is probably the most cost effective upgrade. Maybe fuel injection, maybe not. that depends on what the 'feel' will be.

I may have addressed other members insights/concerns in this reply by accident as I read thru all the responses before beginning to reply. If so, Dave, I apologize. What have your experiences been with the stovebolts? power-band? reliability? characteristics?

I agree that a 261 is preferable to a 216, but is 150 hp enough to make driving fun?
I suggest you choose your minimum power output before doing anything else.
If you need 300 ft/lbs, the stovebolt is out.

Panic

I'm sorry, I used Misleading English.Please accept my heartfelt apology. I used the word 'see' when I should have used the words 'Haven't found' so that I wouldn't have mislead you into thinking that I was physically looking for an internal part of the engine, such as a camshaft - or roller rockers, from outside the engine. Thankfully the majority of the responders had enough reading comprehension to understand the meaning of the sentence structure and word placement to get the coherent 'meaning' of what the words were meant to express.

Panic

200 Horsepower would be more than adequate for this car 250 would be 'fun'.

Curt

This looks very interesting, Although I believe that it would be better suited for one of my other projects, maybe one of the early 30's Chevrolet cars I have been keeping out of the sun, but not really figuring out what to 'do' with them yet.

As for researching my options, I need real world experiences with them. There seems to be a HEI that can be used on the 235/262 and I have to wonder what kind of interference it may cause with a DC generator throughout the car...or truck. Any ideas?

Chevy built a 235ci motor in 1941 with a big side cover. Are you talking about the 235ci motor built in 1953 with the small side cover?

Handtight

Yes, it is a small side cover engine, but I'm not sure of it being a 235. The casting numbers are rough, and it's set up with a foot button operated starter and a rather large fan with a narrow belt.

These are complete engines I'm fooling with here. I read about a difference in water pump placement and castings, I am also trying to find a 262 because I can double the horsepower of a 216 just by dropping that in. Plus they sound better. Can you help me with that?

What is the make and the years of the 262 you refer to?

That's something I was wondering. The only Chevy 262s I know of are the '85-current V6 and a rare '83-'84 V8.

It's a 261... I confuse it sometimes with the small block vernacular. The largest stovebolt 6.

In 1954, a 261-cubic-inch (4.3 L) truck engine was introduced as an optional Jobmaster engine for heavy-duty trucks. This engine was very similar to the 235 engine, except for a different block casting with a larger piston bore of 3.750” or 95.25mm, two extra coolant holes (in the block and head) between three paired (siamesed) cylinders, and a slightly higher lift camshaft. This engine was offered as a step up from the 235 starting in 1954. It was offered in parallel with the GMC V6 engine in 1960 until 1963, when it was discontinued. The 261 USA truck engine had mechanical lifters and was available from 1954-62. In 1963, the 261 truck engine was available in 4x4 Chevrolet trucks (until the engine sold out).

The 235 and 261 truck engines were also used by GMC Truck of Canada (GMC truck 6-cylinder engines were also used in Canada). The 1955-1962 Canadian full-size Pontiac car had an optional 261-cubic-inch engine that had hydraulic lifters. This engine was not sold in the USA but was very similar to the USA truck 261.

The 261 engines were also used in light trucks and the Chevrolet Veraneio from 1958 to 1979 in Brazil

Yes, we know about 261s; and, most of us have also seen (or contributed part of) the 261 information you posted, taken from the Wikipedia.

The 262 you referred to a couple of times had most of us confused.

web page update for the pan..

4200 oil pan

Tim

I'm sorry about that, jeez... My bad; my blunder.

Hey, ya know what? I was wondering, since you speak for everyone who knows about the 261, and got them to contribute to a Wikipedia page for all of us could you see your way to gathering a compendium of opinions and experiences with it (the 261, in case your falling behind) and post them for all for us? Or are you another Hotrod Lincoln type poster with a million dollar talent and a 10 cent brain?

Let me remind you that the topic of discussion is to share info and experiences with the engines in the stovebolt family. Tell a story, relive an old dream or idea or even someone Else's machine. Don't you get it yet? Try to be helpful - like Wikipedia.

What kind of Bumsnatch has to be a choad over 1 cubic inch...

Wow, flaming hostility much...

Listen, I know I'm new to this whole stovebolt thing, but can somebody tell me where on the 261 I can find the 'bumsnatch'? It's not mentioned anywhere in my user's manual...

Oh! oh! oh! oh! I know where this insult came from! The movie, "Bull Durham"! "Crash" Davis (Kevin Costner) says it in reference to "Nuke" LaRoosh (Tim Robbins) and his pitching abilities!

Do we get any extra points for being able to cite sources? If so, me and Tim's got some comin'!

MasterDelukse,

"What kind of Bumsnatch has to be a choad over 1 cubic inch..."

Some of us do not have any more knowledge than our limited experiences and what we have read here and in GM documents.

You have been clear and careful in telling us you know what you are talking about. I was quite seriously and innocently asking about the 262 (I am always ready to learn something).

You are the one who lectured us on a 261 (without referencing your source), as a follow-up-post to your clarification. You could have just stopped after saying "oops" (like many of us often do and as you nicely did in your clarification). Or, you could have said "have you seen this info about the 261?" or "here's some interesting information about the 261 that you all might have seen".

It does appear that you know a lot, and it is sad that you were greeted with an insult/cheap-shot (in your Custom Camshaft post) from another member who is a little "crisp" when correcting people. I sincerely apologize that my simple question "What is the make and the years of the 262 you refer to?" was taken by you as an attack/insult.

If you are interested, here is another article on the 261 that was first posted by Jim Carter about a decade ago (I think).

I knew a guy like you in high school once.

Tim:

First and foremost, it is my request that you accept a sincere apology on my behalf regarding 'hostile retaliation' on my behalf. It is not my intention to create an atmosphere of hostility here. The issue I had wasn't the request for clarification, it was the assertion of ownership of knowledge about the 261,"Yes,we know about the 261's;and,most of us have also seen..."

Wouldn't you concede that there is a clearly coy tone there?

Nrdesieyes:

It's not a GM original part, it's a by-product of an overbuilt engine, usually accompanied by a rag for a gas cap.

Dave: I do give points for a sense of humor, and quote recognition.

Ghostrider:

Continue?

Check out inliners.org you will find a poster over there called cncdude that has cut, studied, ported, and digitized an 848 head. That site is actually frequented more by the performance enthusiasts and I am betting you will find more information there that will fit your needs.

Let us also give Curt B, a valued contributor, both on this site and the Inliners, for valuable 848 head work.

Hoyt

Thanks, man.

The point total now stands at: Tim: 8,733,300 Jerry: 5,477,401 Dave: 2

It's good to know that if one cannot be intelligent, experienced, and informative, one can be entertaining.