VCCA Home Forums GENERAL DISCUSSION General Discussions 235 vs 216 Engine

Since I now have a 235 engine - I already have a 261 and was considering it also for the same reason as this question is about - i have a question:

Does it really make any sense to not install a 235 in place of a 216 when you're not going for show status or even real close to it? In other words, if one is not going for competition purposes?

This question is even more important to one who thinks the 216 is always about to throw a rod and the 235 is not. This is a fear like an itch that I just can't scratch. I have confidence in the 235 but such faith is not had in the 216. It may be because I had a rod failure while driving my friends 48 Chevrolet convertible from Greensboro to Jacksonville late one night back in 1953. The old 216 was running along smoothly until all of a sudden it started knocking like reggie band.

So I'm committed to the rebuilt 216 I have for the project car but the 1950 needs a newly rebuilt 216 - which I have one already built for it - or, I am now thinking, the 261.

An important consideration in the above is the 3:55 differential I plan on sticking in it. I consider that ratio a little tall for a 216.

i would appreciate any advice or experience you have on my question and relative to the 216 vs 235 or 261 change out. They look like each other than either does to the 216

Thanks

Charlie

BTW: If changed to the 235 or 261, i don't intend to try and deceive any who asks me if the car has an original engine in it or not. After all most anyone in the old car field - especially when knowledgable, that either engine is NOT a 216.

Does it make sense to install a (modern) 235 in place of a 216....The 235 will be easier to find replacement parts if you rebuild it. Being a 1954 235 you won't need to fool around with the water pump deal and will look more original. It is such an accepted thing today to see a 235 in an older model.

In the dealership years ago we had no more rod trouble with a 216 than a 235. Also you say you like to drive 45 MPH so a 216 and a 4.11 is ideal. A 3.55 is a little tall for a 216. Ideal if you live in Nebraska or Kansas and want to drive 70 MPH on the interstates. On steeper hills and mountains you will be in 2nd gear a lot. Also a covertible weighs 250 pounds more than a coupe. That where you need at least a 235.

I wouldn't be concerned about the 3:55 being too tall for the 216. I put those gears in my 47 back in 1976 before leaving W. PA for Colorado to attend the big Meet there. Drove up Pikes Peak, drove all thru the Rocky Mountain National Park before heading back home. The car did well in the mountains as long as you didn't let it bog down in 3rd. That's what 2nd gear is for.On the Pikes Peak excursion a fellow Club member who had 4:11 in his 48 and knew I had the 3:55 gears said he would beat me to the top since he was geared lower. I accepted the challenge and got there b/4 he did due to the fact I could go faster in low gear than he could without harming the motor on the really steep portions of the road. If your 216 mtr is in good shape it will handle the 3:55 gears just fine.

dick

Charlie,

About seven years ago, I bought an un-restored, well-preserved 1940 Chev 1/2 ton pickup truck with its original drive train in place (216 motor, 3-speed transmission, 4.11 rear end, 6.00-16 wheels/tires). Soon after getting the truck, I rebuilt the engine, and over the next three years I put about 25,000 trouble-free miles on the truck, about 90% of which was on the open road at 50 to 55 mph. Wishing to be able to travel a little faster, I installed an after-market set of 3.55 gears in the stock rear end, and have since put another 24,000 miles on the truck, again, about 90% of it at highway speeds, this time at 60 to 65 mph. The 3.55 rear end is a definite improvement for highway travel, but you do sacrifice some rear wheel torque, such that you'll find yourself losing speed on long up hill climbs or in heavy head or cross winds. With the 3.55 rear end, 65 mph translates to 2800 rpm, which is well within the capabilities of the 216 motor. At 70 mph, the engine will be turning at 3,000 rpm, which is getting into a range where you might not want to run all day long. I live in the mountain west at 4400 feet elevation, so I lose some engine power due to the thinner air, and there are lots of hills to climb, so over time, I began to feel, like you, that the 3.55 is a little too tall for the 216 motor.

So, I decided to upgrade my power plant to a 261. I was lucky enough to find a 54 engine, which I rebuilt and modified for a full-flow oil filtration system. The beauty of the 54 engine is that it utilizes the older style water pump which requires no modification to give the necessary clearance between the fan and the radiator. Also, that pump is mounted higher on the engine, so the fan is positioned closer to the vertical center of the radiator. Additionally, the front plate on the engine is already drilled for the front motor mount. Using my 40 bell housing, the engine was a drop-in replacememt, and the only modification required was a new exhaust pipe to mate up to the swept back exhaust flange (the 216 engine exhausts straight down). Going into a passenger car, you might encounter some problems that I didn't have with my truck.

I just finished the 261 installation a couple weeks ago and am still shaking it down on local road trips, but so far, I am really pleased with the performance. Now I can travel at 65 to 70 mph and still have plenty of reserve power--I can actually pass someone on a two lane highway if I need to, and there's no more slowing down on hills.

The one problem I have that I don't like is that my fuel economy dropped from 16+mpg with the 216 to about 12 mpg with the 261. I went to some extra expense to get the correct Rochester carburetor for the 261, and the engine runs great with that carburetor, but 12 mpg is going to take a big bite out of my road trip budget. I'm hopeful that I can install a 235 Rochester carburetor and reclaim some of that lost fuel economy without sacrificing too much of that nice high end torque.

According to the Chevrolet spec sheets, the 261 only has about 7 more horsepower than the 235, so my guess is that a 235 engine with a 3.55 rear end would be a totally satisfactory power train combination.

My interest in vintage Chevrolets is driving them on long road trips, and so far, I'm totally satisfied with the 261/3.55 setup in my truck and am looking forward to some fun highway cruising this summer. If you only use your car for local weekend trips, you might be well-advised to keep the original drive train and save yourself some money. The 216 is a good reliable motor as long as it is not abused.

Mark

Back in 1953 I experimented with installing a 261 carburetor on my then new 1953 stick. (was an advantage of working in the parts Dept.) The gas milage also took a drop. The only advantage of a 261 carb. is the 1/8" larger carb. venturi is more power over 3000 RPM. The main advantage of a 261 engine is the increased torque (20 to 25 foot pounds) in the 1500-3000 RPM range.

My choice still is a 3.73/3,70 ratio. Brings the RPM down below 3000 RPM, increases gas mileage and with a light load has little affect on power above 35 MPH.

Thanks, guys.

i'm surprosed that the 235 is only a few horsepower lower than the 261. i's have thought it would be much more.

The low gas mileage on the 261 is a killer. i think i have a boat anchor in that sucker.

interestingly enogh the radiator on the doner 51 pickup that the 235 was pulled from had the radiator moved forward so as to clear the fan. According to you folks that wasn't necessary. The radiator was out but i could see where it was mounted forward of what was normal. hmmm.

Charlie

Using 1954 as an example the truck 235 engine had 112 HP and 200 foot pounds of torque. The 261 had 135 hp and 220 foot pounds.
In 1957 the 235 had 140 hp and 210 foot pounds and the 261 had 148 hp and 232 foot pounds.
The 283 truck engine had 160 hp and 260 foot pounds.

Horse power and torque is selected by the advertising committee.

The only experiance I had with a 261 is a Canadian Pontiac with Power Glide came into the shop in 1956. I had a chance to take it around the block. There was a considerable difference compared to a 235 PG car. It felt like a poorly tuned V-8 which is quite an improvement. This was mainly at the initial start where a PG car can feel weak.

Thanks, Gene. i don't know what year my 261 is. i'll take a look at in a day or two and after i get the 235 inside the garage. it is setting - covered up - on the roll-around dart right now.

Charlie