Technical Chevy straight-six folks: 261 or 292?

The Hemmings Classic Car team is in the process of reviving the company's 1936 Chevrolet panel truck. Although it still rolls on 17-in artillery wheels and bias-ply tires, it is actually a mild street rod done in the 1970s and currently has a 230-cu.in. Turbo-Thrift straight-six and granny-gear 4-speed plus 12-bolt rear axle out of a 1960s or '70s Chevrolet truck. The 230 is expired and is a little undersized for us anyway, so we don't intend to rebuild it.

Our original plan was to put a 292 in place of the 230 since they're from the same engine family, but we're having difficulty relocating a rebuildable core. I am finding that the previous-generation Stovebolt in 235 and 261 cubic inches is slightly more readily available and almost seems to have better enthusiast support in the aftermarket.

I'm wondering if anyone on here has experience with both engines and has a recommendation for one over the other. Obviously the 292 will be slightly easier to install since it's taking the place of the same engine family, but we would certainly not be the first people to be putting a 235 style engine in one of these chassis, as even VCCA folks don't seem to think much of the 1933-'36 207-cu.in. engines.

I realize that the 250 is also an option here and is identical in dimensions to the 230 versus the 292 which is slightly longer and has an engine mount that will need to be relocated, but it is our least favored direction except perhaps a 235. We really want the 292 or 261 because we intend to actually use this panel truck as a truck, sometimes hauling swap-meet finds and even perhaps a small camper. We also intend to explore the possibility of adding air conditioning to what is a notoriously under ventilated vehicle, which means that we would appreciate maximum cubic inches in order to offset the drag of the compressor.

 

Expect the 261 to perform just slightly better than a good running 230

but it would look so much better under the hood!

(230 on the bottom)

 

I voted for a 261, but have you considered a 270 or 302 GMC?

 

I vote for the 261 but they are also getting hard to find.

 

I have a 261 but it's at the wrong end of the country. And needs it's crank reground and rods resized, as it spun a bearing.

We could relay it up there....

 

I have had both engines. The 292 was in a truck. Great engine but the staggered motor mounts was always weird to me. I have the 261 in the blue 50 Chevy Deluxe. It scoots on down the road just fine.

 

Considered it, but as we want to drive this thing a lot, the Chevrolet engines seem to be the best bet for widespread parts availability. We just finished working on a 1940 Buick Century and while I loved that car, it was too oddball for the kind of service we want out of this truck. That was, in fact, the idea behind using a 292 instead of a 207 or 261, so that we'd have the more recent and presumably more available part supply, it's just that of late it seems like interest in the later sixes is dropping off, while the earlier engines remain popular. I presume that's because if you have a stock pre-'55 Chevrolet with a 216 or 235, you're more inclined to stay with that engine family, whereas a stock post-'54 Chevrolet with a 230 or 250 is automatically a candidate for the bolt-in V-8 upgrade.

 

build a 292. cost will be equal to building a 230/250. 261 is good but hard to find and less speed equipment. go for the cubic inches.

 

261 for that build

 

I’m the only one who voted for the 250. The 292 would be great except for the staggered motor mounts. The 250 will bolt in place of the 230 and with a cam, intake, and header, it will run very nice.

 

Simple current at this moment facts.
a 261 will require swapping bellhousings to one that matches the 261 and matches the transmission that is in the truck.
You also have to get the short water pump for water pump to radiator clearance.

A 292 will bolt to the bellhousing that you now have but you need the 292 flywheel plus you have to deal with the aforemenioned offset motor mounts.
I bought what was probably the last pair of Chassis Engineering Inc. 292 Motor mounts sold by the family before Heidts bought the company. Pretty well on the day before they signed the papers to sell the company. you can see the offset here. These use Ford biscuits.

The 292 is over an inch taller than the smaller engines. The engine that I have is replacing the more than worn out 250 in my 48. I've got more money in cast finned aluminum, Aluminum 4 barrel intake and cast iron headers for that engine than I had in the whole painted and upholstered truck when I drove it to the Street Rod Nationals in Tulsa in 1973. I could have gotten by without them but the "this is what I want" thing kicked in. The engine will be factory 1948 Chev truck gray with lots of shiny stuff.

Another option would be to find a good solid 250, have it bored and rebuilt with a proper cam that has a good torque curve. They ran those in full size Chevy pickups up into the mid 80's. Not as strong as a 292 but in that truck a no hassle drop in that is dead nuts reliable and good for well over 100K.

the 261 is cute and "traditional" but you won't come close to getting the miles out of a 261 that you will get out of a 250 or 292. Even after a full rebuild it will need at least a ring job after 60/70K the vast majority of the time. Most of the need a full rebuilds you find in 1 ton or larger Chevy trucks have right at 70K original miles on them and were only used at Harvest time. When the engine wore out other mechanical parts were getting too hard to find to justify rebuilding the engine. Plus farmers went to much larger trucks when those got worn out. There would be a line of those 1-1/2 and 2 ton Chevy trucks hauling corn to the local cannery in the 50's and 60's and now it is all done with semi tractors and 40 Ft open top belt trailers set up for harvest.

 

My 62 has a 261. Gobs of low end torque. 70 mph and great mileage. I love it.

 

Well, now you guys have me thinking about 250s. They are certainly more widespread than 261s and 292s.

I forgot to mention that our transmission plans involve swapping out the granny-low four-speed for a TK five-speed with an overdrive fifth. That transmission uses the common Muncie pattern on the bellhousing side. We haven't torn down the truck yet, but it seems likely the existing transmission is either a SM420 or SM465, which uses that same pattern, but maybe with a larger bearing retainer/front register. Keeping the bellhousing and flywheel from the 230 would simplify things, then.

Thanks everyone for the thoughts so far!

 

I voted for the 292!

 

Welp. Don’t read the entire deal.
If the 230 is neatly installed, go 292

 

I vote 230-250-292 but I am a little biased
Also remember the 292 has a passenger motor mount that is forward. ( yes it can be done and has been many times). The 230-250 has the mounts same place on each side. The 230-292 shares so many parts with the sbc ( rings /bearings /pistons ( 230-250) /valves /springs /lifters /etc) cheap to build. (Ton of really serious head stuff out there now that is dirt cheap compared to what it used to be). Not to mention the flywheel /bell-housing /starter/etc is sbc also. Makes things super easy. 292 pistons are not as bad as once were check Tom Lowe/12bolt. Stock ain’t bad if you just playing.
complete running 250s go for about 50 $ around here.

 

With today's diamond honed cylinders, better repop pistons, moly rings, we'd guarantee the 261" for as many miles as it would ever be driven in a light panel truck. The one caveat is matching the transmission and rear gear to the highway speeds expected.

jack vines

 

More likely the SM420 than the 465, and the 420 fits a LOT of bellhousings.

The 261 I have has a bellhousing and flywheel, although it's all disassembled. And I'd probably donate the whole thing, if you could get it shipped up there.

The 250 would be the most sensible swap, 292 next, 261 last...but the idea of driving that old truck around isn't the least bit sensible, so I don't understand why the engine choice would want to be....

 

Both the 250 and 292 are good choices and have a good parts availability. I am going the 292 route in one of my Buicks.

 

Depending on the timeline, if the 261 made it to Arkansas, I could likely get it to Hemmings headquarter the first week of June. It's looking pretty certain I'll be headed that way with my daughter to visit family in the area and the Hemmings Station is on the list to stop at......

 

Can’t beat a clean 261
Built one a few years ago
3 zenith carbs on an offey intake and linkage
Offey valve and side cover
Tach drive duel point distributor
Short shaft water pump
Split sharp exhaust manifold
848 , 235 cylinder head

super clean sharp looking engine made a ton of power .


But I had a ton into it , could have billy a SBC with all the related nonsense of install and been miles ahead money wise . But super cool engine .

292 would be the cheapest easiest route , easier to get parts , but it’s a damn ugly engine compared to a 261/235 when they are dressed up .

 

I vote 250 also. With speed goodies.

 

hard to beat any of these but I'd go for a good 250

 

While it is not on your list. I like Mr. Heathen suggestion, the jimmy 302. I had one once in a P/U.
Man what a stump pull'n power house!!

 

But wait, there's more! FTF, you didn't recommend a 300 Ford 6. Yes, that's what I would do. Gets the restoration types upset, Ford in Chevy...

Okay, tongue in cheek comment. 292 Chevy or big GMC. Just enough different to make it interesting

 

LOL Dave. You're a great kidder. The 300 does check all the boxes -
gobs of torque
lots of speed equipment
trad
reliable as an anvil

but its not a bowtie so there you go...

 

You've stated the truck has a later Chev rear end which equates to better brakes but what does the front end have in the way of stopping power? No use powering it up if it won't stop.

 

Needs dropped in the dirt

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. 1962 261

 

I say 292, or a 250, combine that with an OD manual trans like the TKX or NV3500 (smaller truck) or NV4500 (bigger truck trans). Gear the rearend with around 3.55 to keep rpm down with the inline 6. But still enough gear to have good performance.