235 in a 67 C10?

[shortymac83]

OK, a little history so you guys will understand exactly why I want to do this:

Back in the day (about 1966), my dad bought his dad's 62 bel air. It was a coupe with a 235 and 3 on the tree. My dad being the speed nut that he is, and with a lack of good motors, heavily modified the 235. It's got a 3/4 race cam, 10:1 compression, headers, dual 1 BBL intake that he modified to fit 2 corvair carbs, port and polish on the head, bored .060 over. He said with 4.11's, it ran mid-high 13's. Then he found a 283, threw that in and ran low 13's before he sold it for a 72 nova (350/350, posi rearend). Anyway, the point is that I have this hot-rodded 235 sitting there all alone in a corner of our basement. When it was put away, the intake and headers came off, but it's still all there, just missing the corvair carbs. I could run the single 1bbl for now, until I can locate 2 corvair carbs.

Regardless, I've got this sweet 235, or a turd of a 250 that might run. then again, it might not. depends on it's mood. I'd like to throw this 235 in my 67 pickemup, but I'm not sure if the motor mounts will work, and if they won't, what mounts I could use, or if I would have to fab them up.

Any help would be appreciated. Oh, and BTW, you haven't heard weird until you've heard a 235 like this one idling at 1100 RPM's because it won't idle slower. Sweet!

[Brainchild]

I have a 67 GMC that has a 235 in it.I'm pretty sure it's a factory engine,so there should be mounts out there that will work.

Those ol 235's have a lot of torque.I have had a couple and they are bulletproof.

[Longhorn Man]

235s were not stock. are they part of the 230/250 family?

['68OrangeSunshine]

235s were part of the older L6 family: 216, 235, 261. '62 was the last year for them in production. [IINM.] The 230, 250, 292 group came on line with the 1963 model year. I don't know about the motor mounts, but I think the bellhousing is different too.
Lots of old Chevy guys on --
www.stovebolt.com/
and
www.inliners.org
--That will be more intimate with the 235
Hope this helps.

[Tx Firefighter]

68orangesunshine is right about everything he said.

The bellhousing is different.

The 194, 230, 250, 292 series of engines are much better engines overall.

[shortymac83]

I can get the bellhousing for it, and it's originally a manual transmission - engine, so I don't have to worry about that. My biggest concern is getting it on the frame.

[ChevLoRay]

There is one more engine in the 194-292 series, and that is the Pontiac 215 6-cylinder. It was used in 64-65.

Also in that "family", but relatively scarce, are the overhead cam sixes that Pontiac had from 66-69. The 66-67 engines were 230CID, with two versions. The Lo-Po version was equipped with single 1-bbl carb, and single exit exhaust manifold. The Hi-Po version was rated at 207HP in '66 and 215HP in '67, and had a 10.1:1 compression ratio, high lift cam, a Q-Jet and split exhaust manifolds feeding into a Y-pipe and a V-8 exhaust system. The high performance sixes came in the Tempest/Lemans body in '66 as the Sprint. In '67, it was also available in the Firebird, again as the Sprint. In 68-69, displacement increased to 250CID, with horsepower rated at 215 in the hi-po version. When the new F-body came out in '70-1/2, the OHC was too tall and was scrapped.

I had a '67 Sprint Firebird. It would terrorize a 225HP/289 Mustang. It had the revs and also came with traction bars on the rear end that helped to keep the standard 3.55 gears planted.

One note on the 235's, and its' brethren, there was also a GMC version that displaced 302 cubes. Used to be some old school racers who put a Wayne 12-port head on the 302, and do some serious damage at the drags.

As for the 63 and up engines, the 4-cyl in the Chevy II was the smallest version. Seems that the 230's had the same bore as the 283, and let Chevy standardize on some parts. I don't know if there were other internal parts that swapped with the bent-8, but the rockers, and upper end stuff had a lot of common swaps. I think that the change in '62 (the 194's) had a better bottom end, i.e., 7 main bearings, versus 4 in the early stovebolts....from 1929-62. Toyotas' old pushrod six was a whole lot like the old stovebolt sixes, too.

[shortymac83]

Speaking of the sprint pontiacs, there's a black 67 lemans sprint about 30 minutes north of here. Pretty good shape, but knowing redneck country around here, it's probably got a 350 chevy now.

[Longhorn Man]

There is one more engine in the 194-292 series, and that is the Pontiac 215 6-cylinder. It was used in 64-65.

is this the same family of engine? With an overhead cam, wouldn't it be apples to oranges?
Just curiouse...it could be a modified 194, 230, 250, 292.
Heck, i thought the 292 was not in that family, being that the fuel pump and motor mount are not in the same locations between the 292 and all the others. But I don't know the inlines very well.

[Fred T]

The 235 takes different mounts than the later sixes. 235 block is wider and shorter than the 250 series, and you will have to make your own mounts. The full pressure 235 was used in trucks from 54 to 63. A decent engine in it's day, the 250 series is far better. But don't let that stop you from putting the 235 in your 67.

As far as idling at 1100, it can be slowed down with the proper carb and ignition. My friend's 261, shaved head professionally ported, full race cam, Unilite distributor, MSD-6 box, cast Fenton headers and dual holley-weber 2 barrels idles about 650 rpm. His c/r is about 9.5, about as high as you can go without filling the combustion chambers.

If you want to run the engine and have it a bit more streetable, put in a HEI from a 250, all it takes is some machining on the shaft. Add the MSD-6, and consider going with either a 500 cfm 4 bbl or a pair of rochester 2 bbls. All of these will help lower the idle.

The 235 that I built for my 52 is stock except for the M4F cam. I had plans for dual carbs and headers, but to much else to do. My plans now include a built 292.

For guys that know a lot about the 235, go to www.stovebolt.com , you'll find I spend a lot of time there, too.

[ChevLoRay]

Longhorn Man....the Pontiac 215 was an OHV engine. The OHC engines didn't come out until '66 and were only made until '69.

When the Tempest first came out in '61, it had a 4-cyl, that was half of a 389 V-8. Slanted block, same pistons, rods, etc. Even had a 4-bbl version with a hotter cam. That engine, a 194.5, was used from 61-63, when the Tempest had a "rope" drive shaft and a transaxle in the rear. When the GM "A" bodies came out for '64 (Chevelle, Tempest, Skylark, Cutlass), the new in line engines were brought out, too. The 326 V-8 came out in '63. The hot 4-cyl was available in the '62 LeMans Hardtop, for one. Had a classmate whose father had too much money, and bought the boy a new '62 LeMans, when he was only 15.

[Longhorn Man]

OK, after re-reading that, I see my mistake. Thanks

['68OrangeSunshine]

Originally Posted by Longhorn Man

Heck, i thought the 292 was not in that family, being that the fuel pump and motor mount are not in the same locations between the 292 and all the others. But I don't know the inlines very well.

Not to bust your chops Andy, but the 292 is the big brother on steriods of the Chevy L6 clan. With a 1.75" taller block, my best guess is that the forward location of the passenger's-side motor mount has something to do with counteracting that massive torque. I've seen 'em lean almost 2" toward the right fender when you advance the throttle. GM wouldn't waste time and money relocating a tower if they didn't have good reason. The head is the same casting [but w/bigger valves and stiffer springs] and the oil pan bolt pattern is also the same, but the 292 is stock-configured with a 6-quart oilpan instead of the 4-5 quart 250 oilpan.

[Longhorn Man]

Thanks...I didn't know that.
No chop busting needed...like I said, I know very little on the inline motors, they were before my time. I hear ppl say how they were the best thing since sliced bread and all that jaz...then I (silently) say to my self...if they are so good, why don't they still make them? I know most the reasons....but sometimes i can't help myself.

[john]

Originally Posted by Longhorn Man

if they are so good, why don't they still make them?

They do, Trailblazer L6 Overhead cam 275 H.P.

[LUV2XCLR8]

Originally Posted by john

They do, Trailblazer L6 Overhead cam 275 H.P.

YEA THE PUT ONE OF THOSE IN A 50 OR 60 SOMETHING TRUCK THAT
TRAVELS AROUND WITH THE SUPER CHEVY SHOW, EXCEPT THEY MADE
IT LOOK LIKE IT WAS FROM THAT ERA, KINDA COOL, CAN'T FIND MY PIC.

[1969 GMC]

Ford made the 300 cubic inch six (4.9L) until at least '96. Despite the fact that its a ford, it is one of their best motors.

EDIT: I also think they put the 5 cyl version of the Trailblazer engine in the new Colorado/Canyon trucks.

[Longhorn Man]

Yeah, ford never stopped, onless it was recent.
I knew GM has gone back to them.
Dodge has still been running the old AMC inline too...again, onless it was recently axed.

[ChevLoRay]

The AMC inline ranged from (what?) maybe 199 CID up to 258 CID. The 4.2L is the latest variant, but has been used since the introduction of the Wrangler and the Commanche/Cherokee bodies in '84. The 4-cyl is also based on that design.

But, I never knew that the 4.2 came in any Dodge's. They used the slant-6, until replacing it with the V-6. The only inline 6 that I know Dodge uses is the Cummins 5.9L Diesel.