Inliners International Forums General Discussion Engines Casting Number Confusion!

I have a Chevy Inline 6 with casting # 3788378. All of the charts I looked at say that this is a 292. It definitely is not. The side covers are 4", the motor mounts are not staggered, and the fuel pump location is wrong as well. Are all of the charts wrong or was this motor stamped incorrectly?

Thanks!

This thread says it could be a 194-250.

https://www.novas.net/threads/3788378-engine-292.13432/

Also, this thread on the H.A.M.B. has some good info about differences in the engines.

https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/what-the-hell-chevy-216-or-235.581584/

my list shows it as 62-74 292

Yes, most all the lists show it for that, but there is more than one person that has 4" side covers as the OP does.

Sometimes GM did odd things with the engines...

I'll go with Twisted6 on numbers. He knows his 194-292s and the pieces that fit them. If it's mounts & side cover are not right then there is a problem with the number. Check the deck height you may have the rarest L6 ever.

This particular casting number is on my bugaboo list. My 50th edition Hollander Interchange shows this casting/identification number in two places: Hollander #521 – a mid-60’s Chevy 230 & Hollander #522C – a late-60’s Chevy/GMC 292. Neither of these comport with the Chevrolet Master Parts Catalog which is where this number was ultimately assigned (before anything was cast or cataloged.) The GM Parts Wiki has quite a few of the Parts Master Catalogs online (though they are a pain in the neck to navigate). Here is the 0.033 Partial Engine listing from October of ’62 - Master Parts Catalog . Oddly the 194 is not cataloged in this October 30, 1962 printing – perhaps it is in a Chevy II supplement (more to come). And look closely at the casting numbers for the then new ‘63 230 (3788406) and 292 (3789404). Both are higher sequentially then 3788378 – which suggests that this casting number predates the 230 and 292 - leaving the 194. But I have yet to find a solid reference. The Hollander references are clearly wrong – but it is a manual dedicated interchange not necessarily identification.

regards,
stock49

I think that I’ve sorted this out. One thing that is very curious is that the block (3788378) and head (3788380) casting numbers from the earliest 194 production where never referenced as identifiers in the service parts catalog (at least any of the copies I have seen). In the Hollander Interchange for Chevrolet they seem to consistently reference the Group 0.033 ‘Fitted Cylinder Block’ catalog number 3792489 (with pistons, pins, rings and bearings) to identify a particular block. My October of ’61 Parts Master for Corvair and Chevy II documents the replacement parts as block (3788406) head (3788415). The same reference from October of ’62 is online at the GM Parts Wiki - Oct '62

But those apparently aren’t what was being cast in the fall of ’61.

When I look at early examples of 194s found in ‘62s they all have these original castings and the rest of the identifiers comport with late ’61 early ’62 production. These engines were not serialized – so one typically finds F and T prefixes (Flint and Tonawanda) followed by Day Month and then an application suffix. Relate this with the Conveyer casting date and vintage is revealed: CON3 A 24 2 (Conveyer 3 – January 24th of 62) T0302HF March 2nd Powerglide transmission -- CON3 K 9 1 (Conveyer 3 November 9 of 61) F1127HB November 27th Three Speed with an HD clutch.

There was one example that was causing head scratching over at HotRodders The block was cast early in ’62 - but based on the S prefix (on the pad by the dizzy) it took a trip to Saginaw Service Parts to be re-manufactured – which also where it picked up the circa ’64 replacement head:
GM Parts Wiki - Oct '65

Curiously, my 29th edition Hollander describes the ’62 Chevy II as a 6 cylinder with no mention of displacement. It references part number 3792489 with casting number of 3788406 and gives it interchange #498. My 50th edition Hollander doesn’t mention this interchange number because it falls out side the date range in focus (74-84). So I got my hands on a 39th Edition Hollander and bingo! Interchange #498 references the casting 3788378 – but it uses a newer replacement part catalog number (3931064). This catalog number did not come into use until May of 70. And visiting the GM parts wiki GM Parts Wiki - Oct '70 - there is no casting number referenced.

So my vote is that somewhere along the line 3788378 was associated with a 292 by mistake – and over time all of the various references picked it up and continued to spread it about – including Hollander.

But this in turn has added a new item for the bugaboo list – casting number 3788406. The parts master catalog documents this casting number as having been used for both 194s and 230s. But I have yet to see an example of a 194 that carries this casting number. Has anyone ever seen one?

3788406 The only things I have show it as the 230, 62-69 And the 3788415 Being the 194 for head for 62-67 with a CC of 72.80
the 3788378 being a 62-74 292 And The 3788380 was a 194 with a CC of 62.03 ( This was a Un-used head never even painted NEW cast )

Larry,

I was never trying to discount or debate you on this topic, just that I have searched a couple times on this casting number and there are so many hits for people with this low deck vs. high deck discrepancy on this particular 3788378 that it seems to be one of the common casting numbers that doesn't make sense.

I have a '72 parts catalog for pickups, but it does show car castings in it. I can't find that casting under 153s, 194/216/230/235/261, 250 or 292. The casting doesn't exist in the catalog.

NOTE: The Chevy Nova II shows this casting quite a bit, and the head on the engines seems to be for a 194.

OP, what are your other casting numbers for your head, serial number, etc...? There are a couple letters after the serial that show where the engine was manufactured, or at least should be. Should be on the VIN plate.


You're more than welcome to do that. As a single person none of us can retain all of this information, and the fact that so many discrepancies exist would suggest GM ain't perfect, which most of us already knew. As a collective we can figure things out that no single person can. In fact without anyone before us we probably wouldn't have the resource of information we do today.

Thanks Twisted6. That's all consistent with the reference materials printed back in day - save one. Do you have any physical examples or photos of a 292 casting with the 3788378 identifier? The earliest castings that I have seen are all 3789404 from mid/late '62 for delivery in '63 models - the first model year the engine shipped. Regular passenger cars and trucks in '62 continued to ship the 235 or the 261 (heavy duty long wheel base).

That and my new bugaboo - casting 3788406. The Chevrolet parts master catalog clearly shows it being used for both 194s and 230s. Does it even makes sense to cast such thick bore walls for 194? I am working to track this down.

What is the date code on the engine in question? I have a Goodwrench 292 engine, made in Mexico, that the engine markings are not the same as my, US made, 292 blocks.

Could this be one of those cases?

I did not peruse the above so I may have missed the date code comment.

TraditionalToolworks

No Harm done so no worries. One other that can come into play is if it was a Canada.or Mex. Cast block I have a 292 which is a USA Block But stock with a Mex crank , So some cross Over at some point Maybe?? who knows. I don't remember when GM started doing some stuff else where. Heck I didn't live far from the GM plant in Buffalo NY. I was born their. lol

Also, some parts, even the head or block could have been changed at some point. Note that stock is talking about '62/'63 time frame and that is what the Nova II engines were around the same time frame, '62-'64 if you google. Looks like 4 Nova IIs with that stamp.

Here's another interesting piece of info Larry, I googled where the Nova II was made by GM and it returned a page on the history of the Nova. On that page is says, "Known internally as the X-body, it was also sold as the Acadian in Canada and Chile.". That could coincide with what you were saying about location of manufacture.

EDIT: Does this help out at all Larry? You know the compression ratios most likely, can you tell if it's a 4" or 6" deck? I'm guessing the 194 is a 4" deck, but the bore would need to match also, AFAIK.

--------------- from Acadian webpage ------------
"Data for the 1966 Acadian were: engines available were six-cylinder (194 cid, 8.5 compression ratio, 120 bhp rated)", blah-blah-blah-blah to detail V8 engines
--------------- from Acadian webpage ------------

The Bad thing about the 194 even knowing It has the same crank as a 230. It can NOT be bored enough to turn it into a 230 because it would need to be bored OVER .125 And you would still be under a 230.
yes they are 8.5-1 and was 120 advertised HP and depending on the year came in between 4000 & 4400 rpm and TQ was 177 @ 2400

I have owned many Nova/ChevyII's from 62-70 Two of them being SS my64SS L6 and MY 69SS BB 396

Larry,

Yours must have had a different casting number?

I don't know, I am certainly no expert but your Canada/Mexico (Chile in this case) theory sounds plausible to me.

The other thing that is interesting that you probably understand better than me, is how the 292 head relates to the 194 block? And/or how the 194 head relates to the 292 block. In this forum there's a guy that seemed to have that combination.

If I ask too many questions, ignore me.

Indeed. Conventional wisdom tells us that over boring (an in hand casting) beyond an 1/8" is a no go. That is why casting number 3788406 is on my bugaboo list.

Here we have the Corvair Chevy II Parts Master documenting this casting number as the identifier for a 194 replacement block with fitted pistons group 0.033 GM Parts Wiki - Oct '62

Yet here we have the main Chevrolet Parts Master documenting this same casting number as identifying a replacement block with fitted pistons for the then new '63 230: GM Parts Wiki - Oct '62

The only difference is the catalog numbers:
3792489 fitted to 194 cu/in
3828990 fitted to 230 cu/in

Which suggests that this casting number has lots of room for over-boring in 194 spec and likely very little room for over-boring in 230 spec.

Curious.

To me it might suggest that the replacement for the 194 was a 230.

Great minds think alike - I came to the same conclusion. But my Corvair Chevy II parts master from 1 year earlier references the same casting number:

And as I discussed above - this doesn't jibe with the main line production engines being cast in the fall of '61.

And why two different catalog numbers if they are in fact the same part? The dip stick position cannot be the only difference. Besides the 230 was not offered in the Chevy II until 64.

The paper trail doesn't add up.

ALL the heads will inner change 230,250,292 all being semi close to in CCs the 194 Has the smallest CCs. On a Stock bore 194 The other heads can drop the compression. Was as the 194 put On the other block can Up the compression But even More so If a Flat top piston is used which get you into the 10-1 range , BUT a 292 with a flat top can PUT you at 12-1 or over.

As for the 230 in 64 it was not in The ChevyII at least Not in either chevyII/Nova book I have it did not come into play till 65
But I do believe it was in the 64SS chevelles at that time They also came with many Chrome goodies as well.

Larry,
The 230/155hp engine was available in both the 1964 ChevyII and Chevelle.
The Chevelle could be any model not just the SuperSport. They 230's all got the chrome trim in a Chevelle.
Don't know about ChevyIIs as to what models could have a 230 vs a 194.(in brochure it looks like the 230 could be had in any ChevyII )
see page 7:
https://www.lov2xlr8.no/brochures/chevy/64nova/64nova.html

Thanks for explaining it that way, I really didn't know, but I do know the 230 and 250 are newer, but the 230 must be the evolution of a different line than the 216/235/261, but was there anything between those or is the 230 the redesigned 216? Or better stated were the 230/250/292 lumped together, was that the 2nd generation going from 216/235/261 ???


That's interesting as the Beaumont, which was the Chevelle marketed in Canada, had either a 194/230/250 inline 6s offered, but most wanted the V8 models, so my guess is there was very few Inline 6s in them at that point. They did have the 230 and 250 in the trucks I think during the 60s, but same thing, V8s seemed to being pushed.

Last comment is you mentioned about lower compression with the larger heads. That's kind of cool in the sense that depending how one was to build their engine and/or crank, you could get better tuning with the head, that's pretty cool in itself. Never thought about it in that sense.

EDIT: Larry, the plot thickens, I mentioned the Acadian above which was Canada's Chevy II. From the Beaumont webpage, it states:

"In 1964 and 1965, GM of Canada sold an "Acadian Beaumont" based on the Chevelle A-body platform, and continued to sell the Chevy II-based Acadian."

What is so interesting about this is they seem to be doing some testing in Canada in trying to formulate a game plan for their model line. Not unusual for an odd stamp like the 3788378. My family owned a liquor store just around the corner from the GM South Gate plant. I think they were making Impalas during the 60s. And they did offer a 230 I6 in the Impala as I recall, but most people wanted the V8s and the 327s were offered in the Impalas for a while, also in the Chevelle. Anyway, those GM workers would come in and cash their checks on Thursdays and they were always joking about extra nuts and bolts in their overall pockets...

Larry,

Funny enough, you just reminded me, I think I had a 250 in a 1980 Chevy Van. I bought one new when I was young, it was advertised in the L.A. Times, by a place in Long Beach. It had a 3 on the tree, and I know it was a 6 cylinder, but I think it was a 4.1L or something, and that might align with a 250. It had the big engine cover between the front of the driver and passenger seats. That was before <cough> Mini-Vans.

I never worked on it at all, but put close to 100k on it, and sold it to my partner. Never had to do anything major to it. That was a great van, I hauled so much stuff in that, as did my partner after I sold it.

Yep even the older vans had l6s in them, Where the motor pretty much sat right between the seats. I made a sniper 2b plate to go on a offey the guy had in his van ( I want to say a 65) The carb sat at about a 45degree angle. Is the way he wanted it.

Don't forget, Canada also offered a 215 version of this 6 cylinder also that seems could have had the 194 cylinder head on it because of its smaller cylinder bores....

also so did Pontiac I will have to check the Number on the head I have sitting here that I am Putting one of my Lump port kits into. It is a small chamber head , I completely for got about Pontiac This maybe why The Number is not matching right with the Chevy Numbers. The Ventura Had a L6 that was NOT a Over Head cam L6