4X4 w/ 292 Pics Needed

[1972RedNeck]

I've been doing a bit of thinking and measuring over the past few days to get ready to swap my 350 for a 292. For the cross member, I will cut it in half and slide the passenger side forward, drill holes in the frame, and weld the center back together.

I need to know what to do with the power steering pump. I would like to see pictures of where the alternator and pump were mounted. Were 2 wheel drives the same? Since brackets are scarce, I will probably end up building them.

[75gmc454]

I have a 69 4x4 with a 292 with power steering. I can try to get some pics for you of the power steering setup.

[franken]

You may want to troll the scrapyards for the accessory mounts.
Back in the day I had a bit of 3x1 channel and I'd torch new holes as needed when a new combo was dropped in.

[54blackhornet]

I am thinking about putting a 292 into my 71 K-10 build, the 350 in it now is shot and I have a fresh 292 sitting around. Can someone with 292 4x4 experience chime in with some pros and cons ? Mine will be used off road at low speed, I figured the 292 low rpm torque would be a big plus.

[1972RedNeck]

I'm in the same spot. I have a worn out smog 350 (stock 1976 pickup motor), and a good running 292. For me, the 292 will have more horsepower and much more torque. It might get better fuel economy.

The main reason I am doing it is because everybody does just the opposite. I would be the one to take an original shortbed and make it a longbed.

[1972RedNeck]

Originally Posted by 75gmc454

I have a 69 4x4 with a 292 with power steering. I can try to get some pics for you of the power steering setup.

It would be much appreciated.

[54blackhornet]

The fuel mileage will suck but I will use mine off road on my ranch. I have a 292 in my 68 GMC 1500 and it gets lots of people talking when I open the hood ! Problem is it just does not work for me on the High-way at all ! I look forward to the swap into my K-10, the low rpm torque of the 292 should work much better for how I will use the truck. Any thoughts on dropping it into a 4x4 frame would help....thanks

[MusicMan70]

Here's al ink with pics

http://67-72chevytrucks.com/vboard/s...d.php?t=425435

[pritch]

I have a 292/4x4 crossmember (NOT for sale) but I could shoot you some pictures and measurments if you want.

[brad_man_72]

Con. The last 2 pushrods can't be removed/installed with the engine in the truck.

[54blackhornet]

Brad Man Thanks ! That is the kind of stuff that needs to be passed on to others looking to put a " Different" engine in a build.

[CanadianK10]

I have a 1967 K10 4x4 with a 292 but it doesn't have power steering, I could grab some pictures the next time I'm working on it if you tell me what you need pictures of.

- Adam

[1972RedNeck]

Originally Posted by brad_man_72

Con. The last 2 pushrods can't be removed/installed with the engine in the truck.

Pro. The intake doesn't have to be removed the take the rest of them out.

['68OrangeSunshine]

I took pix of my 292 K-Series crossmember. They are on a tailgate for display.

[ikester]

Here are a couple of pics of my 68 K10 292... you can see the power steering pump and alternator mounts.

[pritch]

Originally Posted by ikester

Here are a couple of pics of my 68 K10 292... you can see the power steering pump and alternator mounts.

Very nice!

Where are you running your manifold heat from? I see you have the older-style large diameter by-pass hose in one picture, then the smaller heater hose to your manifold in the other. Did you sacrifice cab heat for manifold heat?

I broke down and bought an after-market mount system for mine:

It was pricey, but worth it. Everything fits and the belts all line up. I did have to have a spacer made for my thermostat/by pass housing so the by pass hose would clear the alternator. You can kind of see it in the picture. It's 1.5" wide.

Better picture:

[RichardJ]

Mine isn't 4x4 either so I hope I'm not hijacking the thread too much.
Very interesting brackets. For my 292, I went with the readily available and relatively cheap 250 brackets. I had to weld a section into the upper part to allow for the taller block. I had to cut out a section of the front to clear the by-pass hose and another section on the rear to clear the header tube. You can see part of one of the welds.

My AC compressor bracket that I made up, reaches back to the two bolt holes between the #2 and #3 spartk plugs instead of having a brace extend across the engine.

I wanted to turn my 4bbl sideways to get the carb primaries the maximun distance from cylinders #3 and #4. I switched to the later style swinging pedal so I could use a cable for the throttle. It also made it easier to hook up the manual choke that I wanted to keep.

[ikester]

[QUOTE=pritch;6440817]Very nice!

Where are you running your manifold heat from? I see you have the older-style large diameter by-pass hose in one picture, then the smaller heater hose to your manifold in the other. Did you sacrifice cab heat for manifold heat?

I just ran the heater core coolant to the intake manifold then to he heater core, I figured its better to get intake heat first. Seems to work fine, although I haven't left the driveway yet

[ikester]

Hi Richard, Do you think it makes a difference turning the carb sideways? Its not too late for me to change. Mine seems to idle fine but I haven't driven it yet. That throttle linkage is temporary, I ordered the Lokar linkage and cable setup. Much better!

[RichardJ]

There are many on the stovebolt forum and inlinners forum that say they have tried it both ways and found no difference in the way their engine ran.
Most people will say and agree that the end cylinders on an inline will run leaner. For that reason, I feel that any attempt to equalize runner length would be beneficial.

I used a 1/4" tape measure to check runner length to the primary throttle plates with the carb mounted both ways. I tried to measure through the center of the runners from the gasket surface. From the gasket surface to the valves would be the same for all three port openings, so I did not include that.

With the carb faced forward as you have it, measured over 15" from the 5-6 port to either primary. The inside primary was under 4" to the 3-4 port. That's a difference in length from the longest to the shortest of over 11". By turning the carb sideways, the distance from the longest to the shortest was 7".
A variation of 7" is not ideal, but a whole lot better than 11".

GM has only made one inline six with a 4bbl that they sold in this country. The Pontiac OHC Sprint 6-cyl engine. It had a 4bbl Quadrajet with the carb turned sideways with the primaries facing out.
Works for me.

Clifford doesn't seem to care which way you mount it. Their web page has examples of the carb facing out, in, and forward.

[Warrens69GMC]

Check out these guys brackets-
http://www.ebay.com/itm/10004-PS-P-S...b6c14e&vxp=mtr

[1972RedNeck]

Originally Posted by Warrens69GMC

Check out these guys brackets-
http://www.ebay.com/itm/10004-PS-P-S...b6c14e&vxp=mtr

Wow. That's pretty good. Where would I get a matching crank and water pump pulley, I wonder? I might shoot them an e-mail.