The Stovebolt Page Forums Home | FAQ | Forum | Swap Meet | Gallery | Tech Tips | Links | Events | Features | Search | Hoo-Ya Shop
Stovebolt Supporter!
Indianapolis

Fabrications

Talk to Randy Domeck

See what they

can do

for you
!


Stovebolt Site Search
 
Old Truck Calendars
Months of truck photos!
Nothing like an old truck calendar

Stovebolt Calendars

Some New
Some Vintage
Many in Production

Check for details!

Will be updating all year around!


Who's Online Now
33 registered members (DougR, 55 SHAKER, canuck49, DennisM, 2 invisible), 411 guests, and 4 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums48
Topics107,206
Posts838,515
Members39,880
Most Online940
Apr 5th, 2017
Today's Birthdays
53ChevHotRod, dmtk2007, foolonthehill, MLT, Niedermair, Perry Dean, Redd GMC, Rick Paul, wizard 49
Image Posting Policy
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
#355172 - Wed Jan 02 2008 02:17 AM Re: 230 cu. in. engine....why? [Re: OldFart-Ed]  
starkweatherr  Offline
Wrench Fetcher
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 409
Cabool, MO
There's a really good book on Stovebolt 6s that is mainly concerned with adding performance. Can't remember the author's name, but he was Spanglish.

The 194/230/250/292 was designed after GM became capable of thin wall castings. These engines weighed maybe 75% of what the 216/235/261s weighed, and were about two inches shorter in height, except for the 292, which was the same height as the 235.

The 230 was mainly a passenger car engine, and was used in quite a few. The first new car my parents bought was a 1964 Chevelle station wagon with a 230 in it. Lots of torque, and it would run a 80 mph all day in front of a Power Glide.

The 194, and the 2.5 liter 4, were for cars like the Nova. The 250 was often used in place of the 283/327 in Canadian sedans because of the tax formula there. The 250 was out for a few years before the 292 came out. In one way, GM really screwed up the 292 by moving the passenger's side motor mount. Seems to me like they did it because of some conflict with the placement of the oil filter boss. (???) The good thing was that the block was tall enough so that the driver's side front head bolt did not have to pass through the water passage.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

Last edited by starkweatherr; Wed Jan 02 2008 02:18 AM.

195? Chevy 3800 dump truck
1973 Chevy C30 cab and chassis
1987 Suburban 3/4 ton 6.2L Diesel


#355191 - Wed Jan 02 2008 03:00 AM Re: 230 cu. in. engine....why? [Re: starkweatherr]  
pineconechevy  Offline
New Guy
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 14
Maine
As for passenger cars, in 1965 the 230 was available in the Super Sport Chevelle. Almost 7,500 people paid EXTRA to forgo the standard 283 and place a 230 between the fenders of a SS including convertibles. The GM literature I have from the time all indicate that the 230 was an additional cost option.
"I think the 230 came about because the new cars then were getting lower hood clearance and overall smaller." You're right - The clearance from the top surface of the intake horizontal feature to the bottom of the hood is only 9" on the Chevelle. And there is very little room from the hood to the top of the V/C.

I'm proud to have one of those Super Sport Sixes. After 42 years it has never been removed from the car, rebuilt or had any major work done to it. Even after the car was sitting unused outside from 1993 to 2005 neglected, it still fires right up today and not a bit of smoke or clatter. Just needed most of the gaskets replaced. The original fuel pump and distributor were still working fine when they were upgraded and I have them still as spares.
The next upgrades are in a box in the garage simply waiting for warmer weather to install: An Offenhauser dual carb intake with Carter YFs. There is just barely enough hood clearance to do this with low profile air cleaners. Also a pair of Langdon split cast iron headers. I won't be beating on this engine, I realize it's still only a six with original internal components - but it sure turned heads at the car shows in original configuration. Most folks at these shows don't know much about the 230, but the ones that do will comment about it being a well-built & reliable passenger car engine. Here are some photos of the engine and the car:
230 engine view
1965 Malibu SS

Last edited by pineconechevy; Wed Jan 02 2008 03:17 AM.

#355309 - Wed Jan 02 2008 11:26 AM Re: 230 cu. in. engine....why? [Re: pineconechevy]  
randy luton  Offline
Shop Shark
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 326
KS
Tried to find some history on this generation of sixes 194/230/250/292 but not a lot online.

Found years of 230/250/292 from "History of Chevy Trucks" by Don Bunn and several online engine rebuilding sites:

Last year of 6 cylinder 235 and 261 engine... 1963 K10 and K20 model.

So, used in trucks:

230 6 cylinder ... 1963-66.

250 6 cylinder ... 1967-84.

292 6 cylinder ... 1963-90.

http://www.chevytrucks.org/resources/history_of_chevy_trucks.htm

The only other history source I found from search engines was the wickipedia
article on chevy engines.

You may not think much of its accuracy as a source but it mentioned what some of you had already noted. That a big difference between the 235 and this generation of sixes was the development of a common bellhousing pattern between the sixes and the V8's so that engines and transmissions could be interchanged with much less difficulty than before. Less parts to stock and easier assembly would have surely made a lot of sense to the production managers of that day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Straight-6_engine

If you think some of my years are off, corrections are welcome. A source for the info would be appreciated.

If anyone knows of good sources for history of the development of this later generation of sixes I would certainly be interested.

Thanks for thinking about it.









"Nothing astonishes men so much as common sense and plain dealing." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

#355446 - Wed Jan 02 2008 07:48 PM Re: 230 cu. in. engine....why? [Re: pineconechevy]  
starkweatherr  Offline
Wrench Fetcher
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 409
Cabool, MO
PineConeChevy, GM apparently used a lot of the good features of the older engine series (216/235/261) in the later thin-wall casting models. Both series have reputations as reliable and relatively powerful engines. Remember that the V-8s are better at producing horsepower than torque and the 6s are usually better at producing torque than horsepower. My BMW 325is has a 2.5 liter (152 cubic inch) straight 6 engine in it. I think the body size and weight are close to the late 1970s Chevelles. I use the cruise control a lot and the surrounding area is pretty hilly. Set it to 60 mph, which is about 2600 rpms, and it maintains 60 mph, no matter what. I have the manual 5 speed, so there isn't any question of shifting down if it gets in trouble. Fortunately, it never gets in trouble. I idle around town in 4th gear to save gas, and because I can.

I like I-6s. The V-6s seem to need to run at higher RPM to get the same job done.


195? Chevy 3800 dump truck
1973 Chevy C30 cab and chassis
1987 Suburban 3/4 ton 6.2L Diesel

#355558 - Thu Jan 03 2008 12:52 AM Re: 230 cu. in. engine....why? [Re: starkweatherr]  
1953 panel  Offline
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,080
Oakwood, Ontario Canada
If I remember my facts correctly, the 230 has the same bore and stroke as the infamous 307 V8. If you ask why the 230? I ask "why the 307?"


#355560 - Thu Jan 03 2008 12:54 AM Re: 230 cu. in. engine....why? [Re: starkweatherr]  
KENC  Offline
Wrench Fetcher
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 131
claremore,ok
The 230 was/is a nice smooth powerful small six. But, in pickup use they are just marginal in my opinion. Lots of power for the size but require much higher RPM to develop the power as compared to the 235. My granddad sold a 61 1/2ton and bought a new 63 and just hated it for farm use. He was used to just idling around the pasture feeding hay from a big load and pulling out of the pasture with 2-3 big steers in the stock racks at very low rpm. The 230 just wouldn't do that like the 235. He bought a 250 in about 65 and was happy with the Chevy again.


#355625 - Thu Jan 03 2008 02:42 AM Re: 230 cu. in. engine....why? [Re: 1953 panel]  
pineconechevy  Offline
New Guy
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 14
Maine
Hey 1953 Panel.....
I just confirmed what you recalled. They are both 3.875" x 3.250".
I learn something new every day...this was it! Thanks for some conversation fodder - now if I can just put a spin on why the 230 is so much better than the smog-strangled 307. smile


#355636 - Thu Jan 03 2008 02:57 AM Re: 230 cu. in. engine....why? [Re: pineconechevy]  
1953 panel  Offline
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,080
Oakwood, Ontario Canada
Nice clean Chevelle pinecone, mine is 4 years newer.


#355810 - Thu Jan 03 2008 01:23 PM Re: 230 cu. in. engine....why? [Re: pineconechevy]  
starkweatherr  Offline
Wrench Fetcher
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 409
Cabool, MO
Originally Posted By pineconechevy
Hey 1953 Panel.....
I just confirmed what you recalled. They are both 3.875" x 3.250".
I learn something new every day...this was it! Thanks for some conversation fodder - now if I can just put a spin on why the 230 is so much better than the smog-strangled 307. smile


Just to muddy the waters a little more, the 292 has the same torque rating as the 350 V-8, although less power. So, same torque at 83% of the displacement.


195? Chevy 3800 dump truck
1973 Chevy C30 cab and chassis
1987 Suburban 3/4 ton 6.2L Diesel

Page 2 of 2 1 2

Moderated by  53moneypit, Woogeroo 

Home | FAQ | Forum | Swap Meet | Gallery | Tech Tips | Links | Events | Features | Search | Hoo-Ya Shop
#-->
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0