Last night I was searching for an Offenhauser intake to purchase, and saw an Aussie Speed intake for a decent price and got it instead. I like the waffle pattern under the carb area. That should be good for atomization of the charge. Has anyone ran one of these intakes on their rig? If so, what were your thought about it?

For the ones that I know have it, You wont find any other one to perform better.

That is good to hear!

Just got one myself and have read good things about it on other forums. Any idea what carb setup you will be going with?

I planned on going with a small base 2g, because I have one laying around and had an adapter made for it. Then in August the truck this engine is scheduled to go in, got munched. So the project is on hold while the truck as a whole gets rebuilt. I have kicked around the Holley conversion by Tom Lowe, the 2g, a quadrajet, the 2g Holley Sniper, and Weber from Clifford. Then the thought of going low-boost-turbocharged entered my mind, so it's a crapshoot what I end up with, but most likely will stick with the 2g for initial start up.

An update on my fuel delivery. I bought a squarebore/spreadbore adapter and am having a Pontiac Sprint 250 Quadrajet built for the 292. I provided them with the engine specs so they can fine tune it accordingly. The engine and head are at the machine shop right now. I cleaned up the ports in the head. The intakes were already extremely close to the gasket, but the exhaust ports needed to be opened up. The engine had no ridges in the cylinders, but two of the pistons had broken top rings. I am waiting to hear back from the machinist as to how the bores will clean up. I am hoping we can go as small overbore as possible since the bores looked good. I see that Tom Lowe has 0.40 as the smallest Ross pistons. Bummer, as I want to use Ross pistons, but Tom had his special built according to what I read, so if the bores clean up at 0.20 or 0.30, I don't have the specs Tom used to have Ross make me a set. Since we can load pics I need to get some on this thread of the engine. They are on my phone so they will have to be loaded later.

Let's just all agree that I'm always wrong and save time, m'kay?

OK Did I miss something?

I don't know what happened. He posted some great info on tuning a Sprint Q-jet. I saw the email but didn't log in to the thread. Bummer it got edited out, I was looking forward to perusing his post on Monday while looking at a computer screen instead of a phone.

Might be having a bad day. Maybe he can repost.
P.S. 12Bolt can get Ross pistons in ANY overbore you want. The .040 and .060 is what is stocked on the shelves. Non stocked pistons will cost more. You also do not want to put a Ross piston into a cylinder that has not been honed for the Ross rings.

I hope he will post it back up.
The machinist that is doing the work is a good one. What needs to be done to use Ross rings? I need to let him know before he gets to that point.

I found the info on the Ross site. Since we are not using a torque plate, which pistons can be used? The engine will not be a race engine, just a reliable highway cruiser.

I see Silvolite makes pistons for the 292 as well. Not 9+ compression like ross, but two (8.0:1 and 7.2:1) compression options and various overbore options, and thicker rings. I am still unsure why ross rings need to have a special honing procedure for them to work in the bore, perhaps someone can elaborate on that subject. This not being a racing engine, I wonder if ross was maybe too much piston for my intended purpose?

Different ring materials require different honing finishes, therefore, a cast ring requires a different honing finish than a moly ring or even a stainless ring. And, a torque plate promotes better ring sealing due to the bores being rounder once the head is installed and torqued.

Thanks. I figured they all needed the cross-hatching and that was it. I find out each day how much I don't know.

Now that I am going away from using Ross pistons and not using a torque plate, but instead going with Silvolite 8:1 Pistons and Hastings Rings, what, if anything should I share with my machinist? He is already telling me I am overthinking a stock build. Not technically stock, but damned close to it, and I will never over rev this engine once it is put into service.

I will admit that Tom mentioning the special honing for the Ross rings put a damper on my project, especially when I searched for 292 pistons after reading his post. I didn't find anything for a 292, but this morning on a computer, not a phone, I found Silvolite, and that got me back on track.

The last engine I re-built was in 1985, we used the rings that Pop said to get, and all we did was cut the ridges, hone the bores using the ball-stone type of honer, re-ring, and install new bearings. That engine ran great and never developed ridges after running it hard for 11 years, didn't burn or use oil, never broke down due to anything internal.

This engine, while getting some new parts, I want to be as reliable as that 350 mentioned in the last paragraph.

Well, better machine shops like to have the pistons in hand before they bore your block. You are still dealing with the human element, and machining errors and/or collapsed skirts happen all the time from UPS drivers throwing piston boxes around all the time. It can just save you and your machinist a headache later if you bring them in advance. Also, just tell him the ring type you will be using and he should be able to take it from there.

He does excellent work, which is why I am using him. I am waiting for him to tell me what the block cleans-up to so I can order the pistons. I am glad that I found out about the Ross requirements before we got to the machining point of honing the block. Speaking with Silvolite, Ross was more piston than I needed for my intended purposes.

It's good to research and talk to several people instead of hastily jumping into it. Ross makes good pistons as do other companies, you just have to choose what suits your needs.

I completely agree, unfortunately questions I asked in various forums typically were not answered, leaving me to figure it out for myself on nearly every aspect of this project. I find it ironic that it happens that way, but it is what it is. And I have nobody locally to ask that is knowledgeable on inline sixes, so I am learning as I go.

I researched the crap out of everything before buying or deciding to buy. In the case of the pistons, I did research and it seemed 292 pistons were a unicorn nowadays unless they were Ross. At least the threads I found on the subject pointed to no pistons available for 292's, which is why most people don't rebuild them. This info came up in many searches. So I decided on Ross, but didn't buy them. I guess I wasn't using the correct words in my searches, because it took me minutes this morning to find a valid alternative set of pistons and rings for my intended purpose. Weird. Anyhow, I now can move forward on my build.

Any major piston mfg. will make you 292 pistons, by following your instructions and drawing (they supply a generic dwg., you fill in the dims).
Why not?
$$$, long wait

I can see that, money talks, and some people have a ton of it. I am not one of those people, but sure am spending a lot on this engine, and that was before the prices went up. I purposely bought things when I did because I knew a certain someone was going to cause everything to get expensive.

When I bought this engine I didn't know there was a huge inline six following, nor did I know that these 292's are not the most economical engines to rebuild and run. I found out all of this after hauling it home on a 14 hour round trip, and still get mixed information on the economy of running one. So I will just have to get those results on my own with my way of driving. Will it be the 5-6 mpgs someone told me I will get and be lucky if it sees 8 mpgs, or will it be the 21 mpgs someone said they could get from their 292? Time will tell. Once I got the engine home from that 14 hour round trip, I was committed to doing the best build to make it a great highway cruiser. Fast forward a couple years, and I have researched, and researched, bought a few parts here and there, and now it's time for internals. That's when I ran into a roadblock. The funny thing is, each time something like this happens, no matter how much I ask around, how much research I do, it isn't until a roadblock is hit that I easily find the information I am looking for. I cannot explain it, but it can be frustrating.

I'll give an example. I bought this truck and had never experienced a freewheeling setup before. I could downshift into 1st gear and let out the clutch and the rpms never went up, so there was no engine braking. I planned on taking this truck on camping trips that involve going up to 10,000 feet and having to drive down those same roads. A freewheeling setup will not be safe, as the brakes will heat up and become useless. Even driving around town was scary as heck without engine braking. Everyone I talked to or asked about it had no idea what I was asking them. Then after a weekend of experimenting, I mentioned to the same people what I discovered and they somehow remembered how borg warner overdrives operated. I could have used that info days prior, but share with them my findings and they are suddenly experts...lol...

I guess I ask the wrong questions, or explain things too much, I need to learn to be much more vague to get the answers I need...lol...

When it comes to the pistons I am glad there are options out there, and options that won't cost huge amounts of money. Having said that, I now wonder if Silvolite are made in the states? They are in Nevada. More research.

A lot of people make the assumption that because it only has 6 cylinders compared to 8, that it must be cheaper to build. But that simply isn't the case with most 6 cylinders.

the economy of running one
If you read into it, they have made at least one of the following bad decisions:
1. no vacuum spark
2. plugged/removed the primary power valve
3. too numerically high axle (4.11:1, etc.)
4. Holley 750
5. stall speed high enough that the converter is slipping at cruising speed
6. bad automatic choke adjustment

Obviously, some of it is high weight, large frontal area, driving style, prolonged idling ("to warm it up"... with the choke on)

Some money is saved on an L6, they need only 75% as much:
valves
rod rebuild
seat cutting
cylinder boring
tappets
rockers
pushrods
valve springs
rod bearings

But:
7 mains instead of 5

But the piston price is based on sales volume, so the cheapest piston will be SBC 350.
Head/block milling may be more $$ because the surface is larger.

IMHO regardless of use, higher compression (up to the knock level) adds vacuum, torque, power, and mileage, but in a 292 requires a non-OEM dome shape and close P-H clearance.
If a flat & zero deck dome is below 9:1, you need a dome that's specifically shaped for the 292 chamber. This resembles the Chevy V8, but not close enough for my taste. Some piston mfg. have this shape (even if they don't advertise), do you know how close the 292 chamber is to the 250 (which they may have)? Are you comfortable with a die grinder???

That has been my thinking for a while. I can build three four cylinders for what it cost to build two six cylinders. It didn't work.

It's true, and I learned the hard way like you guys did, parts are not cheap. It will be a cool truck once everything is done.

Panic, fortunately for me all my die grinder work is done. I didn't hit water either, that was my biggest fear. I did not compare chamber designs on my 292 head and the lumped 250 head. Now I am curious and want see what differences there are, but have to wait until I get the 250 head back.

To the shape of a 292 head It's the same as all the others Just the 194 being the smallest chamber. As to upping the compression Three ways 1) Propane pistons 2) flat tops 3) 194 head. But do not use the 194 head and a flat top in the 292 The compression will be way more then 11-1.

I was okay with 9+ compression, but since that has now passed, 8:1 is fine by me. Still better than stock, and may be more than 8:1 with the head shaved 0.030, and the block cleaned-up/trued-deck. He doesn't like to shave a lot off the block, just enough to true it up, so compression will definitely be better than it was, and with the head work the engine will flow better for sure.

If you want data on 292 mileage, I can help.
My 292 L6, bored .30-over w/Badger pistons, 8:1 compression, Crane 260H cam, GM HEI, Oversize intake valves [1.84''], Offy 5416 intake, Clifford headers, Edelbrock 1404 [500 CFM] 4 Bbl, in a '68 Chevy C/10 Stepside body, w/SM465, 3.73:1 Corp 12-Bolt Posi rear, and 235/85/R16LTs all around, gets about 10 MPG. I have a heavy foot.

Thanks 68OS. I don't have a heavy foot, so I may or may not get better than 10. It should pull better than that crappy v8 in it now, and that engine gets 12, it just has no oomph.

Feel free to flame me on this one. As some have seen in my previous posts, I have collected a lot of stuff for my future builds. I have 3 292s and 5 250s. I traded my 230 for a Ford 200 (I have a 60 Ranchero with a 144).

I have come to the conclusion that the 292, though it is a bigger and badder engine than the 250, has a very limited number of aftermarket parts and a smaller number of spare engines out in the gene pool. The performance parts are particularly expensive. Not so much for the 250 as we can steal some parts from it's cousins.

That being written, what I intend to do is spend my money on what will pay me back with the most performance and reliability for the least amount of money regarding the 292s. I have 1 65 C20 and 2 65 C10s these will go into. These will be street trucks.

A stock short block rebuild with a balance of the rotating assembly. Only bored if needed, same with any journals. Make the bottom end as smooth and as bulletproof as possible. A turbo or RV cam. The top end, I am probably keep stock as well to keep low end torque and fuel economy. Will mod the spring as needed. Clean up the ports and I may go to 1.84/1.60 valves, if costs permit. That's where stock-ish ends. I have a couple of SPA turbo manifolds and a GT45 turbo (and others). I have multiple intake options. So for more or less the cost of all the go fast parts specific to the 292. I can get a SPA turbo manifold and the turbo stuff (buy extras if you get parts from the bay) and make it go fast (and adjustably fast). Spend the other monies on long block reliability. If you have the time, desire, and money...add the expensive go fast internals later.

I think you mentioned you had been told, "Don't over think it". I agree. Make the build solid and long lasting then add a turbo or nitrous for times you need go fast. This is a street build correct? Just don't boost beyond the capabilities of stock components. Which is still pretty decent.

I discovered what you mentioned about the 292 after I bought the engine. Some say it is a great engine and can get decent economy, and others say it is a great engine that will suck a ton of fuel. I did a ton of research before each part's purchase, and feel I have bought the right things for a solid reliable build. The bottom end will be balanced, the top end in conjunction with the exhaust will flow more cfm than it did stock, and the lumps should keep some the low-end torque from what I hear, as they increase the velocity in the runners, or at least through the intake ports of the head. The cam is supposed to be a good low-end-mid-range cam. The engine will either run great or be pretty boat anchor...lol...either way I am too far in the build and too much money invested to let it go now. May as well finish the truck with the 292 build and see how it runs. I have a feeling it will run just fine. The truck will be used as a truck, and will be a highway cruiser as well. It will have 4.11:1 rear end gears, and with the gear-splitter overdrive, the final drive will be 3.00:1, and then it will come down to tire size to dial-in the sweet spot in the powerband. Using the truck as a highway cruiser was the plan until a certain someone ruined things, and if prices ever get back to normal, that plan for the truck will hold. Having 40 gallon capacity will break the bank at each fill-up if prices don't drop.

The "don't overthink it" was from my machinist regarding using a torque plate. The first time I mentioned using a torque plate, after he told me I was overthinking it, we agreed not to use one. Later on, Tom shared with me in this thread about ross pistons needing a special hone for their rings, but didn't answer when I asked about more specifics on the subject. That lead me to do more research where I discovered the ross pistons/rings require a torque plate. I did some more research and found Silv-o-lite pistons, and then called to speak to a Silv-o-lite rep about their pistons and the Hastings rings they recommend, and he said a torque plate is recommended but not required for a build like mine. When I relayed to my machinist that info I had just learned about ross and silvolite, he thought I was wanting to use a torque plate again and then told me again I was overthinking a stock build. To which, I let him know I was just sharing info about the piston change in case he needed to know that before checking the bores for honing/boring, and finishing the block.

I have thought about turbocharging with a low boost, but that will have to wait. If I do go with a turbo later on, I may ditch the quadrajet and go with a sniper 2g setup. I actually considered the sniper 2g setup in the early going of my parts collecting. I won't add nitrous, even though the bottom end can handle it.

DoubleDingo
I made a 2g carb plate for the Assuie Speed intake for a guy not too long ago. I also did one for the Sniper 2b to fit a Offey intake and the guy wanted it at about a 45 degree turn.

Yes sir, I have that 2g adapter plate. It's a beauty! I just had a change of plans to go with the Sprint Quadrajet. If the truck didn't get munched, it would have that 2g adapter on the extra squarebore sbc intake I have. I wanted to see how that v8 ran with the 2g, but never got the chance. But, now the truck will get the 292 with a Sprint carb mounted on the Aussie intake.

See how I did that, I mentioned a v8 and then came full circle back to inline so I didn't get smacked...lol...

LOL right at least you went from the bent Vthing to getting back inline LOL.
Sorry I forgot you had it. Site names get me messed up sometimes.

I didn't want casual to tell me I can't mention sbc's in my thread...lol...

It's all good, it's been a few sleeps since you built it for me, and a lot has transpired in that time. If the truck didn't get munched last August, that adapter plate was going to come in handy after that camping trip, it was going to get put on that sbc and the truck was going to run like that until the 292 was swapped in. But, plans changed without us wanting them changed.

I think you are safe. The liberal left is out for all of our engines there isn't a law he could quote that would not harm his own interests.

I believe most of us have owned more V8s & V6s than inline sixes. That is part of what makes this fun and of special interest. Of the 6 registered vehicles in my yard 5 have V8s and 4 are SBC. One is scheduled to be replaced by a 292.

Many things change when we don't want them to. I guess I did not know you were going to try it on the Vthing. LOL

My first L6 was the 4.0 in my Cherokee. Still running strong. I was always a v8 guy until I bought the Jeep, and then the Outback and Forester. The '65 was going to stay a v8, but Pop talked me into getting the 292, and even went with me on the 14-hour round trip to get it.

It was an after thought, mainly to see if the engine ran better or got better mileage running the 2g, since they came on the 283 engines, and I am sure it is a 305 because it is a gutless wonder, unlike any 350 I've ran. If I do decide to go with the snipe 2g setup on the 292, that adapter plate will be used.

Sometime in the 80s my wife & I bought our first Cherokee after having two AMC Eagles. We drove almost every Jeep on the lot when the salesman nearing his limit told us to take one for a dive, have lunch, take it home to drive our dirt road but not to look at the engine. When we got back in a couple of hours we had decided to buy it. When we raised the hood it was a four cylinder. It was great car, bad ass in the snow and rough roads. I didn't tow with it but it handled the mountains well. Later we had a Cherokee & a grand Cherokee with the 4.0 six. The grand was my favorite jeep to date. I think the 4x4 package you choose is more important than the engine if you intend to "use" them.

yeah most of the 305's were on the gutless side. I think i only ever had one that seemed to have some power. the 283s &307s had more get up and go then the 305s. Heck many of my bone stock l6s had more get up and go then a 305. I had a 70s camaro that had a 250 and that thing could get off it's own shadow at High noon. Now the 67 chevyII i had with a 230 and 150,000 plus on it would lay out 7ft of rubber bone stock and not think twice about doing it.

I had a supervisor buy a Wrangler back in the mid-late-90s when they were the 4 banger, and he liked it. I considered getting a Wrangler but never did. In 2002 I was looking for a Cherokee and visited numerous used car dealers around town. I didn't know the 1991 and newer ones had the 4.0, and argued with one of the guys about it being a 4, and then he popped the hood and showed me the 4.0, then started it and revved it up. I didn't find anything that suited me in town, but found one for sale from a guy in a mountain town, and arranged to meet him on my way home from a visitation weekend. Test drove it and liked it. It was a bone stock Laredo with 88k on it, he was the original owner, and I got the money from my credit union that week and went up to get it. Been a very reliable vehicle, and now has 208k on it. Besides the Old Man Emu lift kit, gear change to 3.73 and a few maintenance items, the only thing I have done is change the oil on a regular basis and drive it. Once I get the truck done, the Jeep will get a new engine, and the trans and transfer case will get rebuilt, and it will be good to go for another 200+k.

The casting numbers on the block come back with a few different possible engines, and I told myself it was the L48 350, but I was humbled by the lack of power and had to reluctantly accept it was the 305 version on the list. When I got it the PO had a lopey cam and had the vacuum advance hooked up wrong, and it seemed to have 40hp. I took off the smogger Carter AFB and installed a quadrajet for '68 350, HEI, set the timing and put the vacuum advance on manifold and it ran better, but still a gutless wonder. Installing an old school 300hp/327 cam in it helped but it's still under powered. My previous '65 C20 had a 283/SM420/4.57 in it when I got it, and I had to wind it up to 4,000 to keep up with traffic. What made it more scary was the truck didn't have a center hump to cover the hole cut in the floor for the sm420. There was just a piece of plywood laying on top of the shift tower of the sm420. You could watch the rear yoke and driveshaft spin as you drove, cooked in the summer and froze in the winter. I later swapped in a 350, and someone found a center hump and gave it to me, and I found a '68 C20 Suburban Dana 60 with the 3.54 gears. That truck was so fun to drive after all of that. It wouldn't tow uphill very well, and pulling long steep highway grades was not its strong suit, but it sure hauled @$$!, and set a few land speed records with that truck. Well, I'd go as fast as the truck would go, and it was easily 120. One morning I was running late for work. It was a 17 mile drive. I looked at the time when I backed out at home, and again when I pulled into the parking spot at work, and it was 8 minutes. I got lucky there weren't any highway patrol on that stretch of road that morning...lol...

LOL yep that was luck, but it wouldn't have been mine.