The Stovebolt Site Forums The Shop Area Engine Shop How to position a 292 block into a 1951 3/4 ton tr

I have begun the process of planning how I will locate my 292 crate motor into my 1951 Chevy 3/4 ton truck.
The old 216 is almost out. The 292, short block( no oil pan, valve cover, or any sheet metal or accessories) is on the engine stand. Now what?
The 216 bell housing should fit the 292 (without a flywheel or clutch.) If I then use the exiting rear, bell housing motor mounts, the rear positioning of the engine block should be correct (3/8th of an inch from the fire wall.)
I can now support the front of the engine and using Stovebolt motor mounts bolted to the block, locate them to either side of the frame.
My goal is to keep the foot pedal starter mechanism.
And now the fun of matching a flywheel and clutch package between the 292 and a T-5, V8 trans begins.

More to follow, along with pictures.

Hy Chip1951, the 216 bellhousing will not fit the 292, the 292 engine has the same bellhousing bolt pattrn as the small block Chev V8. There is no stock bellhousing that I'm aware of that will allow the 292 or any engine with the same bellhousing pattern to be installed using your stock mounts. You could purchase an adapter to allow the use of the 216 bellhousing on the 292. Or you could find an engine rear crossmember from a 54-55 ist series and install that in your frame, that would allow you to use a bellhousing from a V8 truck from 55 2nd to 68 I think. Using the adapter will move the engine forward the thickness of the adapter, using the later crossmember well not move the engine forward at all, hope that helps.

Thanks, It is this kind of input I am looking for. I guess I am confused on the bell housing pattern. As I have both How To Restore Your Chevy Pickup and the Inline Power Manual, I was under the impression ALL the bell housing bolt patterns were the same. I remember reading in the Forum "60-66 Chevrolet truck V8 engine mount perches" that 64-66 bell housing are the same.
Let the discuss continue.

Stovebolt tech tip on bellhousings

http://www.stovebolt.com/techtips/engines/bellhousings.html

If you click on the search function in the gray bar above and type in "292 swap"
using the quotation marks you will see other previous threads on this topic.

Hy Chip1951, the bellhousing bolt pattern was standardized in 1963, Chev V8s and 6s since then have shared the same bellhousing bolt pattern. The previous 6 cylinder bellhousing bolt pattern began in 1937 and went through 1962, Chev engines 216, 235, and 261, and GMCs 228, 236, 248, 256, 270, and 302 both shared this pattern.

I alined my 250 with the hand crank hole on the front of the truck. I used a automatic trans with new home made cross members. With the crank in the same location as the 216, I figured the engine look right in the opening, most V8's set to low and look out of place.

The only way the foot starter is going to work is with some sort of linkage to a heavy duty solinoid switch wich in turn runs the stock 292 starter solenoid or maybe some sort of heavy duty push button on the floor with a key switch on the dash for ignition.

Sood luck on your swap, Joe.

Langdon'sStovebolt list the side motor mounts you need also. I think you are on the right track with this motor in the old chev, I'd put one in my 53 if I had the time. There are so many pluses for going this route, the best is that is has the V8 bellhousing pattern allowing any modern trans. Forget the foot starter, more trouble than it's worth.

Got a friend that is thinking about them.
What years were the 292's used and which trucks were they in??
DG

1963 on to late 80's?
63-67/8 made in usa
67/8 on to? made in mexico

found in 2ton ++
i've seen then turning cement mixer drums too along w/ dodge L6 spitfire motors

Offering more ride comfort and better control was a coil spring front suspension that debuted for 1963. Chevrolet introduced two new inline six-cylinder engines: a 230 c.i. base engine rated at 140 horsepower and an optional 292 c.i. version with 165 ponies. And once again the grille insert was changed on the Chevy version.
Published At: Isnare Free Articles Directory http://www.isnare.com
Permanent Link: http://www.isnare.com/?aid=365324&ca=Automotive


Straight-six engines in the United States

Engines of this type were popular before World War II in mid-range cars. Most manufacturers started building straight-six engines when cars grew too large for the inline-four engine.
After World War II, larger cars required larger engines, and buyers of larger cars tended to prefer V8s; performance sixes such as the Hudson Hornet 308 cu in (5 L) engine were exceptions to the rule, and were not often top sellers although it became one of the hottest cars on the road and dominated stock car racing (NASCAR) in the early Fifties.[13].
After Chevrolet introduced its V8 in 1955, the straight-six became almost exclusively a base engine model pitched to economy-minded customers. Trucks (both light and heavy duty) also incorporated the straight-six until the mid-1950s, and they are still used in light trucks available today. The new wave of compact cars that started in the late 1950s provided a suitable home for straight-six designs.


Ford and General Motors straight-sixes of the 1960s and 1970s were generally nondescript, except for the unusual (for the United States) OHC Pontiac six of the late-1960s. Although the Pontiac Straight-6 engine was one of the few American straight-sixs of its era to be advertised as exceeding 100 horsepower (75 kW), it wooed few performance buyers away from V8s during the muscle car era, and was eventually discontinued in favor of a less costly but less powerful pushrod design.

American automakers found it more profitable to sell slow-speed straight-sixes as "economy" engines, and V8s as "performance" engines regardless of their horsepower potential, since big, unsophisticated, overhead valve engines were relatively cheap to manufacture, and fuel economy was not a concern prior to the 1973 oil crisis.
The trend after the fuel crises in the 1970s was towards smaller cars with better fuel economy. Despite this, straight-six engines became rare in American cars, although they continued to be used in trucks and vans. The decline of the straight-six was in response to the more compact size of the V6 layout. The straight-six required a longer engine compartment that was more appropriate to a larger car. The shorter V6 could be used in a shorter engine compartment and therefore fit better in a more compact car. It was also relatively easy to cut two cylinders off a V8 design to produce a V6 that could be manufactured on the same assembly line as the V8, which was convenient for American manufacturers.

Jeeps were an exception to the trend to V6s, and began offering AMC's 258 cu in (4.2 L), known as "High Torque," straight-sixes as a common engine option in 1972. These engines continued to receive upgrades which were advanced for their time, high-performance 4.0 L (240 cu in) option in 1987. Usage of the AMC 4.0 declined in Jeep vehicles after the Jeep Cherokee (in North America) was replaced by the Liberty in 2002, which featured Chrysler's 3.7 L (230 cu in) V6 instead. It declined further after the 2005 introduction of the third generation Jeep Grand Cherokee, which also used the 3.7 L (230 cu in) V6. The last application of the 4.0 was in the 2006 Jeep Wrangler; for 2007 the engine has been replaced with a 3.8 L (230 cu in) V6.
Ford used a straight-six in baseline Mustangs and in its other models for many decades. They were also found in F-series pickups, E-series vans, and Broncos (most notably the venerable Ford 300 inline six) until 1997 when they were replaced with a V6.


In 2001, General Motors introduced a new family of straight engines, the Atlas, for use in the Chevrolet TrailBlazer/GMC Envoy. The straight-six was chosen for development because of the desirable operating characteristics of its self-balanced design.[20]

Good advice from Carolines Truck, don't cut up the cab floor, you need all the leg room you can get. Move the radiator as far forward as you can even if you have to modify it and the core support. It much easier now then later when you find the fan doesn't fit, been there done that!

Set the new motor intake at the same amount of degrees off level as the old motor is, so measure it before tearing into it.

http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Angle-Finder-Tool,2916.html

292's were made from 1966 to 1990 so start checking all Chevy trucks, vans, delivery trucks, dump trucks, etc......

UPS used a bunch of them, so you might ask around if you know some who works there.

Joe

Well that answers that one Jim, thanks for your research.
DG

I always thought the newer engines were longer then the older ones, if not then it should fit right in.

You cannot set the engine to ( X ) amount of degrees with out knowing what to reference off of. Is it off true level or some point on the chassis? You could measure the rear axle angle and set the crank to match, which should give the intake and the drive shaft the proper angles.

But if its a bare chassis, then the rear axle angle will be off from its normal position, so it has to have weight on it to be accurate doesn't it? or atleast tide down to its normal ride hight?

Not sure if I explained it right or if I am just over thinking the problem.

Joe

Chip,

I'm using an early '60s V8 bellhousing in my swap with a 250 in front of it. I'm setting things up so the carb flange is level front to back and side to side. That should give me the correct drive line angle, but I'll check to be sure and if necessary raise or lower the front of the engine to correct to 1 to 3 degrees.

The late L6 engines are actually slightly shorter than the early L6s, but they are also 150 to 200lbs LIGHTER than the early engines!

best wishes,

Les

I have begun to track down a ,64-,66, cast iron, truck bellhousing which will give me the rear motor mounts on the bellhousing instead of the trans. I'll go with the 168 tooth flywheel and 12" clutch. This, together with Langdon's side motor mounts, should keep the beast in place. I can then hang the T-5, V8 trans off the bellhousing with out a mount under it. I still plan to keep the two piece drive shaft as this is a "working" truck not a street rod.

Question on the 292. In researching the engine, I am finding it came stock with hydralic lifters, which is Ok with me. Is this the case? Easy enough to find out, just check the valve backlask. If there is clearance, the lifters are solids. If there is no clearance then the lifters are hydralic.

Also, on the head, manifold side, there are holed drilled and tapped between the manifold and the head bolts. What are these for? If it is for some smog device, which I do not plan to run, can they be plugged?

Are you talking about the holes on the exhaust ports? Those were for smog air tubes. They can be plugged off and most of the 292's use hydralic lifters.

This member has a 292 in his truck,maybe pm him.He might be able to answer some questions.
kirby

Kirby at the races
race truck

Have any of you Bolter's ever used Langdon's motor mount kit(motor to frame)? I have a 1951, 3/4 ton truck and the frame is not the same as the 1/2 ton for which the kit was designed. I am looking for photos of the kit installed in a 1/2 ton for reference.
Kirby and others conversions are using Buffalo Bill's kit and they are not the same bolt in design.

unless there's been a swap, i found a '59 apache in a junkyard with a 292, AND, it only has the front and rear mounts like a 216/235

Now this is interesting. The 292 would have had to have been swapped in to the '59 as it was not available until the mid sixties. Do you remember any work to the fire wall?

yes, very interesting. i didn't know 292s weren't around in
'59. everything 'looked' original, and i didn't notice any firewall work. but then again, my attention was caught on the lack of side engine mounts. and according to the block and head numbers, it's a 292. i'll most likely be there this saturday and i'll do a closer inspection

are you sure it was a 292
side offset mounts
NO front mount ever
6'' high valve side covers
dist up between 1&2
bypass hose 292???????????

sure it was a 292?

i'm positive it isn't. i found my notes; it's a 261

Take pictures, please.

chip; did you see my follow-up? it's a 3759365/'59/261
would you still want to see pics?

If it is a 261, then no need. But thanks for the dialog.

Did you ever figure out how to get the foot starter to work on the 292?

The 292 is in. Rebuilding driveline.

http://s985.photobucket.com/user/cs...20Stovebolt%20side%20Motor%20mount%20Kit

As for the foot starter, I got a momentary starter switch from a boat supplier. I'll mount it where the stumper was and just use it to activate the starter solinoid. No one will know the difference.