Register now to get rid of these ads!

Technical 1950 chevy styleline

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by mcyunger, Sep 26, 2015.

Tags:
  1. mcyunger
    Joined: Jan 17, 2010
    Posts: 123

    mcyunger

    we have some questions about our 1950 chevy styleline with a 216. is the 216 a bad engine because of the type of engine bearings and oil system? can it be updated? is there a more popular engine swap? is the front suspension worth keeping and does it need any upgrades or tear it out and put in something different?
     
  2. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 24,522

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Suspension is fine. A full-pressure insert bearing 235, or 261, is a bolt-in.
     
  3. gimpyshotrods
    Joined: May 20, 2009
    Posts: 24,522

    gimpyshotrods
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    That said, if you have a 216 that is running fine, be nice to it, drive on.
     
    samurai mike likes this.
  4. HUSSEY
    Joined: Feb 16, 2010
    Posts: 628

    HUSSEY
    Member

    I had a 52. I replaced a couple of worn components in the front suspension and it went down the road just fine. Also, had a babbit bearing 216, no problems with it either. I don't think I would put the money into rebuilding that motor but wouldn't swap it out if it ran fine.

    53 w/ a Powerglide and all 54 forward had the full pressure with the insert bearings. 53 and 54 were side-mounts, I think they went back to front-rear mounts in 55.

    The Filling Station had a great article on these engines but I can't seem to locate it.
     
  5. 56sedandelivery
    Joined: Nov 21, 2006
    Posts: 6,694

    56sedandelivery
    Member Emeritus

    There are some improvements that can be made to the 216, such as insert bearing conversion for the rods ($$$), and it seems to me there's a way of converting to full pressure also (I'm probably wrong on that), and updated HEI ignition conversions. I think the 80 to 90ish HP of the 216 is a biggest downfall. With the costs involved of these older engines, you might as well start looking for a 261 now, they all cost about the same for parts/machine work. ChevyTalk.Org is where you'll get the most accurate information in the 49-54 forum as there are some
    "old time" Chevrolet mechanics there. Most guys want to get away from the 4.11:1 rear end gearing, and swap to the 3.55:1 the automatic equipped cars came with. The 49-54 cars share essentially the same front suspension as the 55-62 Corvettes. I know there are many guys who have their hearts and souls in the 216-235-261 engines, but personally, I'd lean in the direction of the later style 194-215-230-250-292 sixes. Seven main bearings as opposed to four, more HP, better parts availability, and superior oiling are just some of the selling points. But what do I know? We went the V-8 route with the 51 Business Coupe after I gave the car to my nephew. My original plan was the later six, stock 3-speed trans/torque-tube rear end, and I had ***embled all the parts needed for the swap. I sold all that to a fellow HAMBER, and now I'm putting another kit together for future sale. For a while, the 49-54 Chevrolet cars were being referred to a "Rockstars" here on the HAMB, but that term seems to have died out; I'd like to see it brought back. These are just cool cars. I am Butch/56sedandelivery.
     
  6. mcyunger
    Joined: Jan 17, 2010
    Posts: 123

    mcyunger

  7. Keemo
    Joined: Apr 30, 2019
    Posts: 13

    Keemo

    I wanna do a 250 ci swap for my 50' deluxe. But am told it's longer than the 235. Don't what to do any radiator mods. Might have to go with a V-8 swap ☹
     
  8. samurai mike
    Joined: Feb 24, 2009
    Posts: 560

    samurai mike
    Member

    I've put thousands of miles on 216s. it's not a race motor, nothing wrong with them if driven easy.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.