Technical 265 Chevy build ideas

LMFAO I know right?

Real rodding is not for the faint of heart.

@borderboy1971 the TPI is not going to be a bolt on. If you are willing to work the Power Pac heads they will work well enough. I like a Duntov Cam in a 265 but I am an odd duck. I also like a single 4 or two fours better then tri power. I have run both and know what I like.

the 265 can be quite snappy but it is never gonna run with the big boys your friend needs to know that from the git. Have fun with it.

 

Yeah, I guess the 9-1/4 to 1 engine would be the Power Pak option, the 8 to 1 the base engine.

 

There was actually an "early year 1956", dual quad, 265, the 225 HP engine, and a later year 1956, 240 HP engine, along with the 2 barrel (162 HP with manual trans, 170 HP with Powerglide), and single 4 barrel (205 HP) engines. A lot of this stuff is getting really hard to find, especially when the restorers have cornered the market on most of it. Even finding literature is getting hard to find. The main difference between the 225 and 240 HP was in the heads, intake manifold (both were 2 X 4 but different castings; one was small ports, the 225 HP, the other were larger ports, the 240 HP), special cam for the 240 HP, and the carbs that were used. The 240 HP was a later year, Corvette only engine. I've found the easy way to find anything about the 240 HP is to Google, "1956, Chevrolet, 240 HP, 265 engine", otherwise you won't find them in the usual literature; they don't even list them at all.. There are some other smaller differences between the 225 HP and 240 HP engines, such as the early Vette 265's had rams horn exhaust manifolds, but the exhaust dumps were a 2 bolt design, later year they were the 3 bolt design we're all used to seeing. Try finding the 2 bolt rams horns! I am Butch/56sedandelivery.

 

The power pack option would have been what was used on the 2x4 motor. Perhaps on the single 4 motor, I am digging deep here and don't have any referenced books handy ( @squirrel ) Jim can probably answer that one. So what info I am dealing out here is memory.

What I do recall for sure is that the 265 power pack heads had very small valves. I am thinking that they were in the 1.76 intake valve range. I would probably not throw 2.02 valves at a small bore motor like the 265 (although I did know someone who did with good success) but I'll just about bet if the heads needed valves anyway that 1.94s would probably work real well with just a little work.

I am a big fan of power pack heads if cast iron heads is the way someone wants to go. They can be woke up real well with very little work and normally are not as high on the cost scale as the fuelie heads.

 

I have been running a 1956 265 v8 in my 1932 roadster. It is the standard non power pack version. I have been running three holley 94 carbs. I am tired of them and I want to run a four barrel intake and carburetor. I am satisfied with the performance of the engine for my application.

Can I run an Edelbrock C3b or C4b intake on it. Or will I have to run a stock 4 barrel intake. What is the most reliable carburetor I can run that is period correct to the sixties. I am thinking about 500 cfm. Any advise on cfm requirements? Thanks.

 

A C3B or C4B should work fine.

 

@KKrod If you are using the original '56 heads, the intake ports are quite small. There will be considerable mismatch on the ports if you use a later intake. Your best bet is to use an original 265 four barrel intake. They are around and usually sell for very little money.

 

If you are using a capillary tube type temperature gauge plan a head on where your installing it, stock manifold has a place for it, after market manifold may not be close enough for length of tube.