The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop 216 low pressure system or high pressure system

So I have this 216 that I'm going to rebuild. I know all 216 were low pressure and it worked for many years a lot of them still run. I was reading a thing about getting a 235 crank and some custom pistons and having a high pressure 216. I could also drill out the original crank but I'm no machinist and I'm not find of the idea of a stranger working on my block for these mods. I have read a lot of horror stories about the low pressure system. I refuse to use a 235 with a kit to make it look like a 216 because I know the difference when I look at them. The thing that really makes me nervous about low pressure system is most of what I read can be blamed on turning the vehicle and something not getting the proper oil and burning it up. Having never actually ran a 216 and only ripping one apart I'm not sure how true any of what I have read is. Any information regarding reliability would be useful.

Nothing wrong with using a good 216 as is it was designed. What are your plans for the vehicle the 216 is going into?

the only place I know of that will drill the crank is crower cams. They did mine for $180. You are going to have to get used to people working on your block if you are no machinist. Particularly the crank drilling, you ain't gonna do it in your garage I can promise you that. Anyway, Gene Beck is the one who told me all this, but the 235 crank swap is the easiest, basically just remove the little spigot/2" piece of tubing in the block that feeds the spray nozzles manifold. Then tap and plug this hole. He said to use a '54 oil pump and pickup, as there is a relief valve. Now if you desire a full flow filter then things are different. However the splash system has worked for many years, the engine I took out was in there for nearly thirty years, and at least 90,000 miles. Smoked like a forest fire, but it spent a lot of time sitting, while I was out to sea, and for the better part of 5 years while I was terrorizing Waikiki as a younger man. But is still ran fine. I have a long way to go to beat that engine. Whatever the case, I have done a lot of research on this and if you are interested, PM me.

The engine is going I back into a late 47 chevy truck. I'm building it for shows. If it will be fine as a low pressure engine that's ok but I want to explore all my options and know exactly what I'm looking at with the low pressure.

Understanding low pressure oiling. It takes a couple of minutes to get to the germain info.

I'm a big fan of the 216, though it is based more on romance than performance, expense, practicality. I just love the way they sound. I purchased a 50 that had a full pressure 235 in it and had it completely rebuilt (for less money than what it takes to rebuild a 216) and I do enjoy the extra power, but I miss the clickity-clack valve train, the hand crank starter, and the originality. The 216 is all to often disparaged for this and that, but the bottom line is, it was the best engine of its time.
Carl

My experience w/a 216 is somewhat short but very interesting.
I had to free it up and do some extensive topend work to get it going and for the last 4k miles or so it has become a pleasure to operate. I tried in vane to quiet that topend down and finally gave in and accepted it for what it is, a pretty stout 60+ yr old OHV 6 banger that likes to let you know it's running
Perhaps it's broke me in as opposed to me breaking it in but when I have it cruising along at 40mph (rpm unknown at this point), it almost sounds like an old singer sewing machine and I bet thats where that old saying comes from.
In any case, my vote is to put it back together as a good and tight spray lubed 216 as it was originally designed and then find a later model 235 or 261 to experiment with (my ultimate plan).
Good luck
Dave

Thank you for the info. It will stay as a 216 because I'm building my truck for shows plus I'm running the origanal 4 speed unsynchronized tranny with reverse lockout and I'm not very good at double clutching so the extra power of a 235 or 261 I feel is a little less desirable until I have improved on my foot work. Plus as I said I will know the difference and even if most people don't it will drive me crazy lol. I know its a little odd to be worried about the oiling system when I'm comfortable enough with the fully unsynchronized tranny to run it but that's because at least on the tranny I have some control with what is happening and I have another transmission like it that is not so uncommon that I can learn on.

That's a good informative film, Tiny

Yeah it is.

I got a reprint of the 1951 edition of "how to hop up Chevrolet engines". I was surprised that they did not trash the splash oiling. They said "lubrication was by a weird but effective combination of splash, jet and pressure...it would handle an lubrication conditions at any RPM on the stock setup". They also noted that the bearing area was larger per cubic inch than any other production engine. Their main beef with the engine was the cast iron pistons.

Some of the oldtime racers actually preferred the splasher engines, claiming that the non-drilled crankshaft was stronger. Of course, our flathead V8 Fords outran them pretty regularly, regardless of which style they ran. The military-surplus GMC 270's gave us the best run for our money- - - -almost the same displacement, and gobs of torque, but their problem was too much wheelspin off the corners. By the time the Jimmy engine guys got hooked up, the Fords were halfway down the straightaway.
Jerry