Happy 6 Bangers - The 1947 - Present Chevrolet & GMC Truck Message Board Network

Dave66! · 04-21-2004, 08:03 PM

I know a lot of you will think this sacrilige but is anyone out there running a straight six in a fwd blazer and happy I have a 283 in mine currently because my 350 fragged a piston late last fall.I was considering a 6cyl then but im told i would have the pedal on the floor constantly.the old 283 is no speed racer either but suits my needs just fine.
Also anyone know why GM put the 230 six in the blazer and not the bigger six?

3wbdriver · 04-21-2004, 11:16 PM

Don't know that GM made a bigger I6 back then. I've often wondered how one of the newer 4.3 V6's would do. My dad literally dragged my Beast up and down a paved road with an S-10 with one of those in it back in '89, to break loose the brand new engine in the Blazer. Couldn't get the starter to turn it over, so he dragged it up and down the road with that itty bitty truck until it turned over. THAT'S TORQUE!

1969 GMC · 04-21-2004, 11:47 PM

i dont think blazers originally came with 230's...just 250, and maybe some 292s. all of the 6 cyl factory blazers i've seen were 250.

Dave66! · 04-22-2004, 09:35 PM

thats right 250 my mistake acording to what ive read 250 was the only 6 put in blazers in 72

**'68OrangeSunshine** · 04-23-2004, 08:00 AM

I always wondered why the 292 L6 was not more easily optioned into the K/5s. 250s were standard. If you wanted something bigger, the dealer tried to talk you into a 350, at least. They were also pushing the automatic slushboxes too.
With its heavy duty low end torque the 292 is ideal for off road conditions. Also a lot more heat resistant [w/stock 6 quart oilpan]. And a 292 weighs less than an SBC.
I am thinking of building up a '72 Blazer I bought as a rolling frame and giving it a 292, sm465, np205 etc... I would have to de-engineer the automatic set-up. That project is a long way off, I'll admit.
Think of it as a "Heep" on steroids.

Dave66! · 04-23-2004, 11:33 PM

68 orange
im definately with you on the tranny thing.you think the 292 would be a better choice than the 250?How about mileage ?i know if i want mileage get a little roller skate.anyway thanks for your reply it was just the kind of input i was after

**'68OrangeSunshine** · 04-24-2004, 08:26 AM

Well I think I remember 17 mpg back when it was stock. [That was on the downhill trip from Flagstaff to Tucson. --lol] Once I put on Clifford headers, Offy intake and 4 Bbl 390 cfm Holley, I was lucky if I got 12. But then I had a TANK! When I added a posi rear it was an earthmover. A 1stGen K/5 w/292, 4-speed, np205 and 12-bolt posi rear would be an outback contender. I'm thinking of a topless or soft-topped, cut-out door rig. [Just a dream.]You might need narrower, knobby tires like Yokohama 704s on 17.5 rims to getr the effect. It would cost about the same to rebuild a 292 as a 250. [well maybe more for some of the 292-only parts ] 250s, I hear will wind out higher [but still not a high revver like a V8, but a 292 has that same kinda low torque growl as a big block in low.
Hoping to drop-in my own freshly rebuilt 292 into my '68 C/10 Stepside soon.
Later
Hey -- this is my Two Hundred and Ninty-Second post! [292]

Southern Rebel · 04-26-2004, 09:18 AM

My blazer has the 250 straight 6. I was debating putting a sbc in it, but really doesn't need that. The 250 in mine has like a 156 k miles on it and to the best of my knowledge has never been rebuilt and still runs strong.

**'68OrangeSunshine** · 04-27-2004, 06:35 AM

Buddy, you got another hundred thousand to go before you 'll need a rebuild. Trust me.

04-21-2004, 08:03 PM	#1
Dave66! Registered User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: holiday,il,usa Posts: 52	Happy 6 Bangers I know a lot of you will think this sacrilige but is anyone out there running a straight six in a fwd blazer and happy I have a 283 in mine currently because my 350 fragged a piston late last fall.I was considering a 6cyl then but im told i would have the pedal on the floor constantly.the old 283 is no speed racer either but suits my needs just fine. Also anyone know why GM put the 230 six in the blazer and not the bigger six? __________________ 1972BLAZER,1966C10SWB,1963NOVASS HOLIDAY,IL

04-21-2004, 11:16 PM	#2
3wbdriver Registered User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: West Central Louisiana Posts: 82	Don't know that GM made a bigger I6 back then. I've often wondered how one of the newer 4.3 V6's would do. My dad literally dragged my Beast up and down a paved road with an S-10 with one of those in it back in '89, to break loose the brand new engine in the Blazer. Couldn't get the starter to turn it over, so he dragged it up and down the road with that itty bitty truck until it turned over. THAT'S TORQUE! __________________ '72 Blazer, 4WD, 350/4 spd. Affectionately known as "Da Beast" '04 Silverado (new daily driver) '00 Intrepid (wife's ride) It's a BLAZER dude! No options, no emblems, no a/c, no fancy shmancy. It's a BLAZER....

04-21-2004, 11:47 PM	#3
1969 GMC Registered User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: The Rubber City Posts: 5,498	i dont think blazers originally came with 230's...just 250, and maybe some 292s. all of the 6 cyl factory blazers i've seen were 250. __________________ 1969 GMC K2500 1996 Honda Accord 2007 Kawasaki KLR 650

04-22-2004, 09:35 PM	#4
Dave66! Registered User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: holiday,il,usa Posts: 52	thats right 250 my mistake acording to what ive read 250 was the only 6 put in blazers in 72 __________________ 1972BLAZER,1966C10SWB,1963NOVASS HOLIDAY,IL

04-23-2004, 08:00 AM	#5
'68OrangeSunshine Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Posts: 7,513	292s I always wondered why the 292 L6 was not more easily optioned into the K/5s. 250s were standard. If you wanted something bigger, the dealer tried to talk you into a 350, at least. They were also pushing the automatic slushboxes too. With its heavy duty low end torque the 292 is ideal for off road conditions. Also a lot more heat resistant [w/stock 6 quart oilpan]. And a 292 weighs less than an SBC. I am thinking of building up a '72 Blazer I bought as a rolling frame and giving it a 292, sm465, np205 etc... I would have to de-engineer the automatic set-up. That project is a long way off, I'll admit. Think of it as a "Heep" on steroids. __________________ Every 25 years I like to rebuild that 292, whether it needs it or not.

04-23-2004, 11:33 PM	#6
Dave66! Registered User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: holiday,il,usa Posts: 52	68 orange im definately with you on the tranny thing.you think the 292 would be a better choice than the 250?How about mileage ?i know if i want mileage get a little roller skate.anyway thanks for your reply it was just the kind of input i was after __________________ 1972BLAZER,1966C10SWB,1963NOVASS HOLIDAY,IL

04-24-2004, 08:26 AM	#7
'68OrangeSunshine Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Posts: 7,513	Well I think I remember 17 mpg back when it was stock. [That was on the downhill trip from Flagstaff to Tucson. --lol] Once I put on Clifford headers, Offy intake and 4 Bbl 390 cfm Holley, I was lucky if I got 12. But then I had a TANK! When I added a posi rear it was an earthmover. A 1stGen K/5 w/292, 4-speed, np205 and 12-bolt posi rear would be an outback contender. I'm thinking of a topless or soft-topped, cut-out door rig. [Just a dream.]You might need narrower, knobby tires like Yokohama 704s on 17.5 rims to getr the effect. It would cost about the same to rebuild a 292 as a 250. [well maybe more for some of the 292-only parts ] 250s, I hear will wind out higher [but still not a high revver like a V8, but a 292 has that same kinda low torque growl as a big block in low. Hoping to drop-in my own freshly rebuilt 292 into my '68 C/10 Stepside soon. Later Hey -- this is my Two Hundred and Ninty-Second post! [292] __________________ Every 25 years I like to rebuild that 292, whether it needs it or not. Last edited by '68OrangeSunshine; 04-24-2004 at 08:29 AM.

04-26-2004, 09:18 AM	#8
Southern Rebel 70' blazer Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Durham, NC Posts: 71	70 K5 with 250 C.I. My blazer has the 250 straight 6. I was debating putting a sbc in it, but really doesn't need that. The 250 in mine has like a 156 k miles on it and to the best of my knowledge has never been rebuilt and still runs strong.

04-27-2004, 06:35 AM	#9
'68OrangeSunshine Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Tucson, AZ USA Posts: 7,513	Buddy, you got another hundred thousand to go before you 'll need a rebuild. Trust me.



Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.

Register or Log In To remove these advertisements.