The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop Consumption differences between a 216 and a 235

Referring to all trucks or cars normally equipped with a 216.

This is a purely philosophical question as I intend to keep my vehicle as original as possible.
I should like to know what your experiences are with installing a full pressure 235 in place of the 216.I knows some of you purchased your vehicles with a 235 already installed but the average consumption of your 235 should be also welcome.
Thank you in advance.

Jianis

Not too sure I understand what you mean by consumption difference between these two motors.

My 50 came with a 216 which was very worn and I already had a good 235 so I installed it with little if any problem.

Jianis,

If you are referring to fuel consumption, my guess is that you would not see much of a difference between a 216/235 in the same truck with same rear-ends at the same speeds. Maybe someone who has experience with well-tuned 216s and 235s in good conditions in the same truck will post their experiences?

I do not have any experience with a 216 and 235 in the same truck (or with the same rear-end gear ratio). I do know that my 1948 1/2 ton panel with a 216 (4.11 rear) got lower gas mileage than my 1954 with a 235 or a 261 (3.90 and then 3.55 rear ends). These are not fair or useful comparisons.

Maybe Pete will jump in here this morning, after all I‘m talking about his truck. We took his '52, 3104 w/216 that he had just rebuilt to KC last year and she gave us a little better than 15 mpg on the average, which is good for this truck with the stock 4.10 gear and correct size tires. This past Fall/Winter Pete rebuilt a 235, correct me Peter if I'm wrong, but I believe he said it was a '55 passenger car power glide engine. We were just talking about the mileage a few days ago and he said he really hasn't been to diligent about checking the mileage but a rough estimate was that it was about the same as the 216. Which isn't bad at all considering it puts out a bunch more HP than the 216. I've driven the truck with both engines and the 235 is of course, much quieter, had a lot more pep, pulls much better all the way up the power band and in general is a real nice smooth running engine.
If absolute originality isn't your goal then this is certainly a swap that’s well worth the effort.

Denny Graham
Sandwich, IL

Cmayna

You are right my question was not very clear.
What I meant was the difference in fuel consumption (MPG) between these two engines.
I am also interested to know what the average MPG of a 235 is on different trucks or cars.

Tim

I am getting an average of 14,5 MPG with my 216.( 48 Fleetmaster with 4,11 rear end).
A 3,55 rear end is in my wish list as fuel costs here 9,44 Dollar a gallon .(today’s price)

Denny

If the consumption of the 235 is about the same then it’s very good considering the advantages. I hope Pete will confirm the information.

And waiting for more reactions

Jianis

I believe there was a post some time ago by 4 on the floor on this subject. I think maybe it was the difference in mpg between the 216 and the 261 and it was real. With the 235 you have a slightly larger displacement but as time went on they had higher compression ratios. The higher ratios brought higher hp numbers and also should have been more efficient.

Jianis,

I got 18 mpg with a 235 and standard/stock carburetor in my 1954 1/2 ton Suburban with a 3.55 rear end and averaging around 55 mph.

Assuming that such variables as gear ratio, vehicle weight, and driving habits remain unchanged, the 235 with its increased torque should spend more time running in the "economy" mode with the power valve closed due to higher intake manifold vacuum. That should result in slightly better gas mileage, although the difference might be hard to see. If you average fuel comsumption over at least a 3-month time frame, accounting for all driving conditions and weather changes, that's about the only way to get a true picture of fuel economy. Short-term checks just don't include enough of a diversity of conditions or length of time to be very accurate.
Jerry

As Denny said I've run both engines in the same truck The 216 got 15 /16 MPG to Kansas city and back and I've been kinda doing the same with the 235-55-powerglide thats in her now both were rebuilt before install and the 216 ran with a carter W1 and the 235 is running with a carter 4480s YF The only real differance that I see is the 235 pulls much better than the 216.Both are good engines,I don't go over 55MPH and don't care to the truck just was not built to go faster than that.When we take the truck out I'm just enjoying the drive it feels good to not be in a rush.

I think that the 216 works harder and the 235 is more cu.in.=the same MPG. Now that I've had both I'd be happy with the 216 or the 235.


Pete

Since neither is fast enough, and any mileage difference is more affected by engine condition and tune (rather than displacement), use the bigger one.

So, not to change the subject (slightly), what are the same opinions on a 216 vs. the LOW pressure 235, ie: the one available for the '41-'46 Art Deco Heavy-Duty trucks? Since the difference is just slightly more power and displacement, that maybe just a small hit in fuel consumption?

My '41 fire truck was probably born with the 235, but has a rebuilt 216 in it now.

-Michael