how much better is a 250 over a 230 i-6???

Sorry guys for the Q of 230's in truck

I remember reading about it on the web se enclosed link.

http://www.6066gmcguy.org/Inline6.htm

 

The 250 didn't debut until '66, so any '63-'65 C-10 will most likely have a 230 under the hood.

 

Breeder,
Most people can't tell the difference between a 230 or a 250 buy driving.If you want a reliable, but still pretty quick ride use the 230 and which ever driveline you prefer.Any of the things mentioned will bolt up. Install an Eaton M62 or M-90 very easy, can be bought at at swap meets for $50-$200.Can be adapted to carb very easily. Anything that bolts to any of the 6s except the crank and side cover from 292s will interchange. Integral manifold head is bad choice (poor carb choices)
I have built 14 of these engines over the years in all sizes,and all are more than respectable.My present ride is blown and throttle body injected 292 '58 pickup. 12.70s on street tires 10.90s on slicks. My old '53 Chevy 250 ran 13.2s on street tires and 12 lb.s boost. Boosted vehicles run like stockers if you keep your leg out of it. My truck performs as mentioned and gets 17 mpg with 3.55 gears.The I-6 with a few intelligent choices will give what you're looking for, and kick more than a few V-8 ***es in the bargain.If you're interested I'd be happy to supply you with details.
Gemini EFI

 

Wrong again they are straight up and down. Cast in mount is angled but some washers or a a wedge shaped insert fixes the problem. S10 tail shaft moves the shift lever forward to clear the seats on most older cars,

 

. GM did this to cure vacuum leak problems around the older bolt-on intakes and they work like a charm. Quote-Fat Hack

This a is another misconception. Gm has never changed a whole head design or anything else for that matter to solve a gasket leak problem.
Now just think about it. You would have to change foundry patterns (cost- hundreds of thousands of dollars), create a completely new machining line and s**** the old, change the sequence of your ***embly procedure, all costing potentially a few million dollars. AIN'T GOING TO HAPPEN
No, Gm changed the design for the same reason they EVER change an ongoing design. TO SAVE MONEY!!!!
Check this out: One casting instead of three (eliminates over 1/3 of the foundry cost which is HUGE, eliminate over 1/3 of the maching cost, cut the ***embly time for the engine by minutes. A potential total savings of a few million dollars in a very short time.
Now if my statement about learning good mechanical procedures was harsh just remember Fat Hack doesn't like REALITY. He deals more on a fantasy plane. How can using the head you've got, the intake you have (along with all related hardware) going to be MORE expensive than aquiring a different head, getting it machined for installation (with the accompaning expense of travel and time to accomplish this), dealing with linkage problems as they are bound to arise. Plus the fact that CAN upgrade to a multiple intake system in the future.
NO, I'm afraid it might be a liitle harsh but learning to do a simple mechanical procedure is far better than changing horses in the middle of the stream.

Frank

 

The integral heads were very prone to cracking. Use the one thats on it.

 

My mistake...I guess the GM certified technicians at the Chevrolet dealer had it all wrong, then. I used to work at Les Stanford Chevrolet in the service department back in the 80s and drove a Nova at the time with an integral head 250 in it.

Being a young hot rodder, I asked one of the seasoned GM Technicians about swapping to the older head and maybe running a twin carb manifold. This technician filled me in on the reasoning behind the integral head design and ***ured me that swapping heads and intakes and such onto a later 250 would be a great way to do lots of work for no performance benefit. We discussed it at great length, and I agreed with him that the HEI distributor and the integral head design with the single carb WAS the best approach, and that GM indeed got it RIGHT with their upgrade.

(In Frank's world, corporate giants like GM might just spend lots of time and money to re-tool their foundaries as he outlined on a whim to save a few pennies...but in REALITY, most running design changes are done to improve the product line or to solve a common problem with the product. Of course, the fact that the Big Three automakers were usually pretty good about keeping their dealer service personell in the loop in regards to service bulletins and such is also lost on our crotchety know-it-all friend. I'll take the word of a seasoned dealer mechanic over the word of some random blow-hard any day, thank you!)

Now, as for all of this claimed machining expense involved in doing the 250 head swap onto the 230...as well as all of these linkage issues Frank mentioned...well, we ARE talking about a BOLT-ON head here, and this will be an ENGINE SWAP, so CUSTOM LINKAGE will be required no matter WHICH set-up you use...so again, I have to wonder what color the sky is in his World?

As for horses and streams, I think Frank's horse drowned in ******** before it ever GOT to the stream!

At the end of the day, is it WORTH the effort to swap on the 250 integral head?

From a performance standpoint, it won't make a huge difference. But, since the 250 head will have hardened valve seats and was always built with UNLEADED FUEL IN MIND (remember Frank..."reality" here...it's 2006 now!) and the 230 head is the one that will need the machine work to make it compatable with unleaded fuel (unless you want to run a lead subs***ute in your gas tank)...the bolt-on 250 integral head makes a reasonable RELIABILITY upgrade.

I've owned several 250 six bangers with both style heads, and NONE of the integral heads EVER cracked, and they ALWAYS ran better than the older style 250 engines. No, I never had any of the older ones leak (except for one, and that one turned out to have a cracked INTAKE MANIFOLD! Imagine that! Musta been one Frank worked on!), but if I were building a car with the focus on reliability, I would take the time to drop on the later head and slip in an HEI distributor. We're talking about a family cruiser built for fun and reliable driving here, and it IS an engine swap, so it makes sense to me to do a little extra work and know that it's done and you won't ever have to mess with it again!

Okay, so let's review:

* In 2006, leaded fuel is pretty hard to come by in the United States.
* 230 sixes were never built at a time when unleaded fuel was mandatory.
* Integral head 250 sixes were a product of the unleaded fuel era.
* The 250 integral head bolts on to a 230 engine.
* The 250 head swap affords the 230 engine the same benefits GM gave the 250 later.
* The HEI distributor provides a reliable, hotter spark with a one wire hook-up.
* Some custom linkage work is going to be required with most engine swaps anyway.
* These days parts such as 250 head get across streams by trucks over bridges, not horseback.

 

little johnny has good grades but he doesnt play well with others!!
okay, so, the 230 is in..try to gather other head n things soon..will go to my freinds boneyard and grab a t-5 ******/ then get a rear out of 4 wheel drive 83-87 s-10..get motor kit from stovebolt place[cant recall the name] ...what else???? what to use fer a driveshaft???the s-10???have it cut to fit ??to me that makes sence seeing how trans/and rear are out of one...sound right????

 

In my 49 Chevy, a 69 Chevelle four door driveshaft was the correct length, and DIRTYT bolted in a stock S10 driveshaft when he swapped the 305/TH350 combo and 60 Chevy rear axle into his 50 Chevy.

(I had to have a different rear u-joint installed on mine to mate up to the 56 Olds rear axle, but the length was correct).

Of course, you will have to measure for the correct driveshaft length once you get your engine, trans and rear axle mounted and do your measurements with the rear suspension at ride height, but a longbed S10 driveshaft is a great place to start. If it's too long, it doesn't cost much to have it professionally shortened and balanced (under $100 with two new u-joints at the shop I use), but if you use an S10 ****** and S10 rear axle, then you'll already have the correct yoke, flange and u-joints if you get the S10 driveshaft as well.

 

My reference to changing horses was why change from one design head to another. The multiple head/intake pieces are something that you have so why not utilize them. I just can't see the practicality of changing the design of the head/intake when the one you have is already there, can be used without hardened valve seats for litterly thousands of miles, has the ability to be upgraded to multiple carbs if you ever desire (that might be a more practicle time to get the hardened seats if indeed you do need them). I just think utilizing your existing components is more cost effective to start out with.

Frank

 

The intake and head thats on the motor now is fine, no need to change unless theres a problem with it, but with only 6000 miles on it as stated ,there shouldn't be one. HEI would be a nice inexpensive upgrade.
The intergral head that Mr. Hack is promoting for free or damn near it will most likely have a crack in it so if you go that way make sure you get it checked first. As far as running unleaded fuel.....how many guys have had hardened seats put in their Y-blocks, Olds, Caddy, Nailheads, and Pontiac motors? Im sure a few have, but alot of guys just freshened them up and dropped them in. As far as intake leaks on the old style.....I never had any.
I may be a old **** but I agree with Frank on this one, so I guess I'm a blow hard ***hole as well......

 

Damn! Brain farted again! I'm just gonna step away from the keyboard for a while.

At least I got the bench seat part right.

 

what year was the hei used? which one would work on the 230. need to know so when i go to the zone the guy, dont ask me a million questions about what car it came on. thanks oh, by the way this is for 64 230

 

HEI started in 75.

 

Any 250 HEI will work. The first couple years, they had a remote coil. After that, they went to the integral coil like all the V8 HEIs have.

 

what all will i need for this conversion. do you know what year had the integral coil?

 

You will need a complete distributor with coil (either integral coil or remote).

Once the distributor is installed in the proper position, all you need to do is run a keyed 12v wire from the ignition switch to the coil, hook up your vacuum advance line, set the final timing with a light and you're done!

(If your car has a ballast type resistor or resistance wire going to the conventional ignition from the key switch, you will need to byp*** it.)

Likely you'll need a set of plug wires that fit the HEI cap as well. Fresh plugs with the gap opened up to 45 thousandths are a good idea too.

(Initially, GM specs called for gaps of .060" or .080" on some HEI cars, but that's been found to be a bit excessive in many cases. You'll probably find that fresh plugs gapped at .045" work best)

As for what years...my 78 Nova had the integral coil, as did my 78 Camaro. One 77 Nova had the integral coil and one 77 Nova had the seperate coil. Seems to me that 77 was maybe a changeover year, but 78 is a good bet for the integral coil.

 

Thanks for the help Hack

 

just got a camaro 5 speed and the shifter DOES lean to one side in a vechile where the trans is straight up the camaro shifter will lean over to the p***enger side.the front of the case is the same as s10 i agreethat the trans mount will either need a wedge shaped spacer added or flatten the mount itself in some manner.the firebird/camaro bellhousing was drilled to lower the clutch arm in the trans tunnel

 

now if would just stop friggin rainin, i could go to dano's boneyard and start lookin breeder

 

where can i get headers fer the 230????