IF you just want an oil filter that works, MOST people go to Summit and pick up the complete remote oil filter unit. However, if you are looking for OEM parts, Tom thinks he has all the parts in the barn... but that would NOT include lines. Contact us and let us know if you want him to look for it I have basic info for this in case it wasn't answered. I didn't honestly read every page after the question. BUT Tom built this set up for his 1939 Suburban, and used 292 rods with Cadillac pistons. However, these pistons are no longer available so this isn't a viable alternative currently...
The work was done by George and Tom Green of B&G Engine from Stamford N.Y. The brother and nephew of Don Green http://www.hemmings.com/mus/stories/2007/03/01/hmn_feature18.html
No, they do not have a flow bench. They only do this work for a few people anymore. A .040" mill is next.
They do beautiful work and it's great to see you put that kind of effort into one of these grand old engines.
I started this thread about my build- http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/my-261-chevrolet-6-for-my-30-model-a-truck.976419/
I learned a long time ago that the cylinder head was the best/most way to improve the performance. But with the 261 I just finished about all I had done to the head was a little mill on the 848. To really make a change I think you would have to find one of the long gone aftermarket ones
Have a 235/261 block prep question ? Is there any downside to decking the block to raise the compression ratio and just cleanup pass/passes on the head.... Seems like this would eliminate the need to sink the intakes and maintain good valve train geometry .... Just curious what inliners think about this approach. thanks, Dyno Dave
What you're trying to do is raise the compression ratio by reducing the size of the combustion chamber, which is all in the head on these engines, so that's where you have to machine off material. Decking the block should be done just to clean up a bit of warp, if needed, and won't reduce the combustion chamber. Another alternative, if you don't want to sink intake valves, is a set of "pop up" type pistons that have a bulge to match the odd chamber shape....but, they'd be custom and $pendy.
270ci, thanks for your reply... What I'm trying to understand is this, if the piston height is well below the deck surface...wouldn't decking the block surface place the piston closer to combustion chamber and in doing so raise the compression ratio ? Again thanks, Dyno Dave
Yes bringing the piston closer to the deck .. by decking the block will raise the compression. Of course you have to leave enough piston to deck clearance to get your desired squish clearance.... Head gasket thickness plus piston to deck measurement.
The available 261 heads gaskets are .055 compressed so quench is gonna be marginal at zero deck. .And the stock chamber is tilted the wrong way for proper quench effects. Detroit Gasket used to make some that were about .042 compressed but I doubt you can find them any longer.
A couple of questions for the Stovebolt community. I have a '57 261 that I'm rebuilding, don't have the original oil filter and was wondering if the by pass filter from my '49 216 will work. Anyone try this? Also, I have a nice dual carb Weiand manifold that I want to use with some WA-1's. Does anyone make a carb adapter to mate a 2 11/16 carb base to a 2 15/16 manifold flange. I really don't want to alter either the carbs or the manifold. Thanks
Your by pass filter will work but they don't really do a lot. If you are rebuilding you are better to go to a full flow filter. Go to the Inliners International site http://www.inliners.org/ and there is a tech article on how to do it. You could make carb adapters out of 1/2" plate if you turned your carbs 90 degrees.
That is a false statement. A bypass filter filters 100% of the oil, it just takes a longer cycle to achieve a filtration of all the oil. This is a popular misconception.
Cosmo, that is true, but if any debris go through the oil pump it isn't likely the by pass filter will catch it in time. By pass filters work a little differently. I know some large trucks run both a full pressure filter and a by pass. The by pass filters are quite large and are better at getting finer particles out of the oil. If you check this link out, you'll find another opinion. I'm not sure if I'm ready to agree but he does make a point. http://chev235guy.blogspot.co.nz/search/label/Oil Filter Myth
Go, excellent clarification on your part. Yes, I'm in that frame of mind myself... on my '49 chevy 1/2 ton dd/only vehicle I change the oil once every season, no filter these last 18 years, uses no oil and with 95k miles I will be going over 100k early next year, all of those miles w/o a filter.
Thanks for the replies. I change the oil frequently enough that it doesn't get dirty. I was hoping to find a source for the carb adapters, but no sweat, I'll make them
Chevy 261 Engine I.D. help needed... A few months ago I got a Chevy 261 from a guy in BC, Can. The engine ID numbers are different than the 235 examples I've seen... The casting is a #376717 below the casting # is an M with a raised box around the M, on passenger side of the block above the dipstick is stamped # W9-242838 and on the driver's side, in the the block casting is F 11 0 with a 3 above the 0... Is this February 11th, 1960 ? or Flint November 30th ? In advance, thanks for any insights on this #'s thing... Dyno Dave
Gary, thanks for the site, it shows the block & head casting #'s, but no date or serial # stuff. So still looking for the date & serial info... Again thank you, Dyno Dave
Checking out various Chevy 6 websites, read where the 54-60 261's had the smaller oil ports and 61-62 were the blocks with the 1/2" ports... Mine has the smaller ports, but the oil passage plugs are flush with the block so thinking its a later block up to a '60 with the full pressure oil system ??? thanks, dyno dave
If it's from a Canadian Pontiac it probably wont have those. Mine's a '60 and it doesn't. I would've thought that F 11 0 would be June 11 1960. I'll have to drag my block out from under the bench and see how that compares.
I would have thought that they would have been the same as the ones made in the U.S.. This thread has a lot of info on it.
The Jalopy Journal
