Inliners International Forums General Discussion Engines Help picking an engine

Hey all, newb here from Southeastern Indiana. I'm looking for a set-up for a '64 Bel Air Wagon project my wife and I currently have. I've had a couple of inline sixes in some Novas when i was younger but I really don't know much about them. I'm thinking I want a 250 or 292, but like I said, I really don't know much about 'em so I don't know what would be the best. The wagon is going to simply be a cruiser, air ride suspension all around and nothing fancy. I have a couple small blocks and a big block but I thought an inline 6 would be cool. I don't need anything that is going to be fast, just sturdy and reliable. Later down the road maybe a turbo or some custom fuel injection, but that wouldn't be for quite some time.
Can you guys tell me what my best bet would be? 250 or 292?
Thanks in advance!

250s are passenger car motors and 292s are truck motors. Not to say that you couldn't put a 292 in your wagon though. I would go with a 250. That's what I have in my 69 Buick and I love it. Rides smooth and gets like 16-18mpg driving easy.

That is one heavy car for any six to handle.
Given that I'd lean toward the 292.
But, bottom line is, if you find a good deal on a 250, grab it and try it out in there. Ditto for the 292. You might like - or not like - either one.

I like the sixes in the little Nova, but it is about 1400 lb lighter than that big Chev. So be prepared, it aint gonna be fast. Then again, wasn't the base engine the 230????

I have seen a couple 4 cyl 153 ci in the junk yard in 1964 -63 Impalas
Not sure if that engine was an option?


MBHD

Thanks for the replies guys. I was/am concerned about the size of the car being an issue. I do know they came with some sort of inline 6 as an option (not sure which), granted, that was 50 years ago. I've looked at the late model 4.2 inline (atlas family) as it makes nearly 300hp and 275lb/ft in stock trim, but thought maybe I'd put something more 'period correct' in the wagon. Plus it would be different and cool. I don't need or want it to be fast, but if a 250 or 292 is going to be underpowered for it, I will probably go a different route. Didn't they put the 292 in trucks (even 4x4) into the early 80s? Full size vans as well? I'd have to think that they would be close in weight to the '64 Wagon.
Thanks again, and if any other thoughts or ideas pop up, please share!

Copo-Rat
Well I calculated some numbers in the DeuceCoupe Gonkulator, I think it could be done. It is NOT going to run like your Copo-Rat (unless you pulled about 4 plug wires off....) but it can be done.

Here is how I got there.
The times on my 292 Nova Powerglide 3.08 come in at
2.49 60ft
10.88 at 63.5 1/8 mile
17.07 at 79.2 1/4 mile
9.7 0-60mph
The computer matches the real test data almost exactly after a few tweaks, so that will be the starting point. This is a stock 8.3cr 296cid "292", just well tuned with a tall air filter. I calculate it at 164hp gross.
The car is not "fast", but it holds its own on the road.

Now add about 1100 lb, bigger tires, and some drag so your Bel Air, computes to
2.82
12.11 at 57.8
18.96 at 71.5
13.0 0-60mph
That is almost 2 seconds slower in the 1/4 just due to that weight. The stock Nova 194-3spd's ran about like this. I think it's too slow for today's crazy traffic.

Now add a 200-4r and 3.73 gears to your wagon.
2.40
11.24 at 59.5
17.89 at 73.1
11.4 0-60mph
This is about how the stock Nova 283-2bbl powerglide cars ran, and when that "hot 283" came out in the Nova everybody raved about it. Not really fast, but way faster than the Nova 6. To me, this is liveable. I've had a lot of cars/trucks run in this range, I always wish they were faster but they do ok.

As an aside, I then swapped in a stock 250-1bbl (which I also road tested in my Nova) instead of the 292. It computed to
2.50
11.66 at 57.2
18.59 at 70.6
12.9 0-60mph
That is feeling more like a Nova 194-3spd again, quite a bit slower than the 292. You can't beat cubic inches, the saying goes.

Now, so far, this is all with a pretty bone stock 292.
If you then built your 292 the way I plan to (4bbl, headers, lump-port 1.84 x 1.60 valves, mild cam that idles grocery-store smooth), your wagon computes to
2.31
10.34 at 65.9
16.38 at 80.7
8.4 0-60mph
You could catch some 283 Chev or 302 Ford owners by surprise with this one and it is still a "family cruiser" build.
It is not going to run 12's like your Copo-Rat but it looks like a six (292 especially) COULD make a good cruiser in your wagon.

My wife (and our cat) enjoy my six-powered cars much more than that "other stuff".

Just to make your 292 wagon seem fast, here is my calculation of the base-engine stock Bel Air wagon, with its 230cid "140hp" powerglide, 3.36 gear:

3.24 (yup, 60ft, you could almost walk faster than that)
13.65 at 53.2
21.20 at 64.4
18.0 0-60mph
What a dog they must have been stock.

Even worse, Car Life's actual road test of the base engine Chevy II, 153-4cyl, powerglide gave
21.7 at 62.0 1/4 mile
20.0 0-60mph
Makes the stock 230cid Bel Air seem fast.

Hope that was helpful, some of the numbers surprised me, a liveable six in a big Bel Air wagon.

If the 292 will fit hoodwise, I'd go with that. Although I had a 62 biscayne with a stock 230 and a 3-on-the-tree and honestly it was just fine.

The 64 wagon weighs in at 4500+ pounds and I've been an Inliner since the very begining #35 and a inliner always; But I would opt for a 572 the 650 HP option. Probably cost less in the long run @ $14K and be able to get your money back.....OK you can all call me names now...................JD

Rick,
Changing the calculation to your Biscayne (400 lb lighter than the Bel Air wagon, 3spd) calculates to
2.73
12.06 at 58.3
19.02 at 69.4
12.8 0-60mph
That also seems to me like it would be "seems ok" especially back in the days of less TRAFFIC, and it is about as fast at the "stock 292 powerglide 3.08" in Copo's big wagon. So it confirms again, I think Copo-rat could have an enjoyable cruiser with a 292 or a hot 250 in front of a 4spd automatic.

Too bad about not wanting the 4200, as it comes with most of what it sounds like you want (or might want) already screwed to it.

I'm not knocking wanting something that looks period appropriate, but if I were building one to drive alot (ie stick the key in and go) I would stuff the late model mill in and keep the hood shut if the newness of the engine was inappropriate for whatever event it was at.

But that's me.

If you can't go that route, grab a 292 and a 700R or a umm, drat, I'm spacing the other 4 speed OD auto, but either one should help.

Good luck, sounds like a neat project.

Deuce,
Thanks a TON for the calculations and the time to figure what I'd be looking at.
I am planning an OD trans and figured a gear change was in order as well. Lump ports were in the plan, as well as some bigger valves. Probably an HEI and a carb also.
I'm not looking for anything 'powerful' for this vehicle as it will be strickly a cruiser for my wife, our 16month old daughter and myself. The wife and I took my custom '84 half ton truck on the 07 power tour and would love to do it again.......a smooth running wagon would be cool for that! It would also be big enough to haul all the toddler gear that goes with a small child. If this thing was built with power, I'd be tempted to use it and push the envelope, if it's a good combo that isn't tempting me to smash the loud pedal, I think that's a better set-up. We have other cars for 'spirited' driving.
I truly appreciate everyone's input, even if it's suggesting that I not try this combo. How else am I gonna learn?
Thanks again!

I am not opposed to dropping the motor as low as it would go to make a 292 clear. I don't care to fab mounts, cross members or whatever it takes to get the taller motor in. Heck, motor plates would be cool!
I don't know the physical size differences between the two, nor the power/torque differences. I figured I'd get info like that with this thread.

It isn't that I don't want a 4200, it was actually my first choice. It may end up being what I go with. The carbed 292 or 250 is a simpler swap. I've done fuel injected motors into non fuel injected cars before, so that isn't too scary. A 4200 and 4L60E out of a 2wd trailblazer would be a nice set up. I'd DEFINITELY leave the hood open if a 4200 ends up in there! I'm not a purist. I have nothing against purists either. Different strokes.........

Jimmy,
Whoa, is that true?????????
I guessed Copo's Bel Air curb at 3950, based on the following:

64 Ford Gal Wagon, 4450 lb on the scale, all iron 390 a/t

All the books say the Chev was about 200 lb lighter than the Ford, including the wagon weights I show (I am not trusting the book weights except in a relative sense)

So 4450-200=4250 curb for the Bel Air 390a/t Wagon
Now the 390a/t weighs about 300 lb more than the 292powerglide combo, so 4250-300=3950 curb, "Guess" for the 292 Copo Bel Air w/o driver.

Do you have a scale weight for a 63, any model, but wagon if possible, if so what engine?

500 extra pounds would make it quite a bit slower - just curious if you can share a real scale weight since I guessed.

Ok guys, I've found what the seller claims to be a 250 out of a 67 nova......I'm trying to contact him and set up something for later this week to go check it out and possibly buy it......are there any telltale signs that i should look for, either good or bad things.......this thing is priced so cheap that even if I don't end up using it, I can sit on it or pass the savings on to someone else!

Deuce, somewhere on my desktop computer I have a weight for the wagon (don't know how accurate it is), I'm out of town til later tuesday and I'll check to see what I have for the weight and report back.

Copo...

I started with a hot rod 292 in my GMC, like you I wanted something simple to bolt - well not quite bolt in.

After getting 16 MPG and lukewarm performance with it, I was wishing for a bit more. The next iteration was a stock '05 4200 with a 4L60E ... what a difference. 24 mpg and an extra 75HP.

Now when I open the hood a crowd gather and ask what is it?....

If I had a dollar each time that asked I good get the truck painted.

efi,
I've followed your thread over at trailvoy (limequat's thread as well), and learned a lot. I am not ruling out the 4200.....I'm having a hard time finding one locally.....all the local guys are VERY proud of theirs (want too much money), and the out of town ones kill me with shipping.......I guess it all boils down to cubic dollars.......how much do I want to spend.
OHCbird from pro-touring.com turned me on to the 4200 some time ago, and I'm not sure what ever happened to his build, but I've been pondering this for quite a while.

I think you would get the same questions if you had a efi turbocharged intercooled 292 also.
EFI-DIY, I was wondering if you ever measured your exhaust back pressure to the turbo?
You have a pretty large turbine housing A/R,forgot what size turbine wheel you are running.
Sorry for the highjack of this thread.

MBHD
Back to the regular schedule thread.

Well, here she is guys.....just picked her up tonight and dropped her off at the garage. I had no idea the oil pan was going to look like that (last pic). The guy said it was because it was in his 67 Chevy II. Didn't know they required a special pan.

[img][/img]

Nice!


MBHD

lookin good man!

So, does anyone know if the pan is a Chevy II only piece? It doesn't much matter to me because I will run it if it fits as long as it's not a hindrance or something like that.

Yes it is a chevyII only pan I have never seen one clear a Aframe body(Impala.68 & up Nova,camaro,chevell,Omega,Ventura,)anthing that had a rear sump.

Larry,
Thanks for the info! I guess I'll plan on finding a new oil pan then. Do you need a spare?

copo-rat,
When you pull the carb off that 67 nova 250, could you measure the throttle bore?
It should be either 1-9/16 or 1-3/4.
Just curious, assuming maybe it's the original carb (is there a tag on the carb?), if it is the "mid-size" BV or the "Big" BV carb.

The 230/155hp "HiPerf" in the 64 Chevelle ran the "Big" BV. The 194/120 and the 230/140 ran the "mid-size" BC/BV. Not sure what the 250/155hp ran though, maybe yours will tell us.

Deuce,
I will surely pull it off, measure it and report back my findings. However, the previous owner told me that he replaced the carb right before he pulled the motor, so I know it's not the stock carb. Could be a stock replacement though. I will call him and ask if he remembers. Maybe he has the stock one.....I'll check it out.

So, is it safe to assume that I have a 250/155hp?

copo-rat
Sorry to jump in here late.
The weight issue may not be so bad.
see:
http://www.carnut.com/specs/gen/chv64.html

The 250, warmed over, will probably work good especially with most any trans that is not a PG. Even a T350 is better due to the lower 1st gear.
You can swap pans and oil pump pickups on your engine but you still need a dipstick hole. The "spot" in the rear location is probably there but undrilled.

FWIW: My 63 Biscayne 4 dr (with a used 250 dropped in) would get 21mpg on the highway.

Pete

Pete,
Thanks for the info! Very much appreciated.
Is there any chance you would have a pic of the 'spot' in the rear for the dipstick that probably needs drilled or will it be pretty obvious for me to see?
Thanks again,
Jason

Jason,
You can look at engine on home page for location.
Though the raffle engine is missing the dipstick tube.
A scrap motor should still yield a pan, pickup, and dipstick and tube.
Pete

Pete,
Thanks again for the info......I checked the pic.....found the location. Wonder if that's something I could do myself....drill for the dipstick tube.
What is that bracket that is bolted to that boss on my engine? Do you know?
I'll be on the hunt for a pan, pickup, dipstick and tube!

The hole by the dipstick is for an "L" bracket that attaches to the top of the starter case. So if you get a rebuilt starter make sure that hole is there.

That was gonna be another question of mine, will it take a sbc starter, but I think your comment has given me my answer (no) before I asked it!

Yes a SB starter works.After many yrs not all had them on the starters anymore. I have a 194 sitting here That does not have one The 250 does Mine never did and I have not used one on it in many yrs. You can also go with a mini starter and you don't have to worry about it.

Example:
http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Hitachi-Mini-Starter-S-B-Chevy,2401.html

MBHD

Cool....good to know....I have some sbc starters around, may get a mini......at least I know I don't have to seek out a 250 only starter. FWIW, My motor has the bracket still bolted to it.....now I know.
Thanks guys!

I don't know about hand drilling that hole.
Anyone do that?
Seems like you'd want block in a drill press or mill to get a good hole at the right angle
(pretty sure the dipstick tubes go in at an angle)

Pete

To my knowledge,all or most all 250 starters are the low torque design,They are shorter than the high torque model.
Anyone else agree or disagree?

MBHD

Hank you're right, the standard low torque starters are shorter that the large armature style found on Big Blocks and other heavier duty applications. The large armature starters are easy to spot, they have a copper extension tube about 1/2" to 3/4" long that connects the solenoid underneath the positive lug to the lug for the windings on the topside of the armature housing.

If you need a rear sump pan, put an ad in the classifieds. You should have little problem finds someone here who will swap their rear sump pan and pick-up for your Chevy II version.

If you need a rear sump pan, put an ad in the classifieds. You should have little problem finds someone here who will swap their rear sump pan and pick-up for your Chevy II version.