Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Restoring a 1951 Chev. Bel-Air to factory specs.
hondarulesall
Member Posts: 9
Can anyone tell me what the OEM engine would, or could, have been in a 51 Chev. Bel-Air, 2dr hard top?? All I know is that it was a flat head.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Chevy "Stovebolt Six". This was perhaps the second greatest engine ever made by GM, it dated back to at least the mid-30s.
Better do some research if you're going to undertake a project like that. Perhaps Hemmings can help.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
I would definitely consider putting in a small, very mild V8 in this car, unless you want to do 'all factory'.
It's a car you could either rod or leave stock, since a restored stock one or a nicely done rod would be worth about the same---perhaps the rod even a bit more.
If, on the other hand it's a manual transmission it would have the 216 engine. These still used babbit bearings. They were pretty tough but not nearly as durable as a 235.
And I strongly disagree with ghulet. If the car is a nice original please do not Mickey Mouse it up by stuffing a V-8 into it.
If you really want a V-8 buy a car that came with one in the first place.
BTW...I just love those old Chevys!
The standard engine: OHV 216.5 cubic inches, cast iron block, bore and stroke 3-1/2 x 3-3/4, compression ratio 6.6:1, four main bearings, solid valve lifters, and Stromberg, Rochester or Carter one-barrel carbs used in mixed production. 92hp at 3400rpm.
I guess I can see the merits of keeping the car, including the engine, completely stock, if you value originality above all else, including drivability. I can't help but imagine, though, spending more money redoing the weak stock engine as opposed to just dropping a crate V8 (a quiet, mild one; I'm not talking about a monster BB with headers and a hood scoop here) in it and having reasonable highway performance. After all, stock, we're talking about 92 gross horsepower (unless it is a 235/PG, in which case it's 105hp) in a 3215 pound car. I personally don't see the harm, especially in a car that isn't super valuable or terribly dependant on originality for value, in giving it some extra power. Of course, if you do go with a V8, some other things might need changing or upgrading (brakes, steering, suspension, transmission and/or clutch), so keeping the six might just be easier in the long run.
I would keep the body and interior bone stock in either case; stock early '50s Chevies are rare compared to the chopped/frenched/overpainted/tuck-and-roll varieties, which seem to be a dime a dozen.
Just my four cents. Good luck either way. Let us know how you progress.
It's already been ....well...I'll be nice...."modified".
The "factory specs" went away long ago.
So at this point it doesn't really matter.
If the modification is tasteful, he gets a more useable car, and if he keeps the exterior reasonably stock, people get to appreciate the styling history of that model as well.
So all are served and it's a win-win all around.
The more interesting debate is what's the second-greatest GM engine. Andy says the stovebolt, and based on longevity you could make a case for it. First came out some time in the '30s and its last year as a passenger car engine was 1964 IIRC.
I'm not a big Chevy fan but my vote would go to the Chevy big block. Lasted longer than any of the other big blocks and the big port versions were the hairiest of GM's production big blocks.
Third is more wide open. Pontiac? Maybe the Olds line-up from 1949 to the last of the 455s?
When you say it was "mass produced" and "not a rare" car you imply the old cliche that they are a dime a dozen. That may be true where you live, but not where I live. There are quite a few 55's, and 57's around, and even a couple 56's. But only one 51. In fact I have only ever seen one other in my whole life. I saw it at a classic car show in a really small town somewhere between South Lake Tahoe, and Placerville California. I have been to many classic car shows, and never before had they been graced with a 51 Bel-Air, it was good to see. It sure made a nice sunny day in beautiful central California, a whole lot better.
Still, for me, they are cars that I remember from my youth fondly. I grew up in a " Chevy Town" and just love those old Chevys.
The only modification I would make would be to split the manifold and add a nice set of glasspacks. Nothing sounds sweeter than a six cylinder Chevy with a set of duals.
However, hondarulesall, I know that Chevy is very dear to you since it belonged to your great grandfather. Still, the cost of putting it back to stock will FAR outweigh it's value.
This will be a VERY EXPENSIVE labor of love if it's even possible. Hopefully it didn't get butchered too badly.
In my hometown most of these got turned into lowriders and one by one, they slowly disappeared.
Hard to believe they are more than fifty years old!
Those were the nifty two door hardtops. Not that many were produced. Not like it's a four door sedan as most were.
My goodness, I'm not advocating destroying the car. Everyone will see the same car on the outside and it will be safer and faster modified anyway.
Of course sentimental value cannot be replaced. I'm only saying the car itself was a very ordinary piece of work with no outstanding technical or styling features. It doesn't have to be preserved in its original state, especially the cranky engine. The Smithsonian won't sue you and car collectors worldwide won't weep in anguish if you put in a V-8, it's okay to do it on a car of this type (if you want).
Going back to stock is going to be a huge amount of work and when you're done, you'll have to live with very limited performance on modern roads.
This is why the modified 50s Chevy market is booming right now. People want power steering, disk brakes and the ability to go 70 mph.
Same for the Plymouth. The '49-52's aren't ugly, just kinda dowdy, compared to a Chevy. And the '53-54 were just too stubby, having a roofline of near DeSoto or Chrysler proportions, but on a smallish Plymouth chassis.
As for 6-cylinder engines, how would a 250 inline compare to that older 236? I'm sure the 250 would be plenty durable, and a bit more modern, as well.
Personally I'm okay that it has the 283 and four speed. It's a very "period" hop-up in that lots of people were doing it in the '50s and '60s. The swap also makes the car a lot more fun than the stock drivetrain--probably transforms it.
However, I can see how someone like Isell who has an emotional attachment to these cars would want to keep (or re-create) the original driving experience.
The '49-54 Chevies actually weigh more than the '55-7s, even with the same drivetrain. I think it was Andre who mentioned that the pre-'55 Chevies were the last built to stand up to dirt roads.
My impression of the differences between the low-priced Big Three in those days is that the Ford V8 was the hot rod, Chevy had the build quality and Plymouth would run forever with minimal maintenance. Of course by the early '50s the flathead V8 was obsolete. There seems to have been a fair amount of interest in hopping up the Chevy, and more interest in the larger Jimmy sixes.
Regarding the '51 Chevy, I don't see where it makes any more sense to bring it back to original specs than it would to take a modified Ford Model T bucket and turn it back into a Model T roadster.
Sure, if it were already completely original and in good original shape (the proverbial "old lady car"), then maybe, as a 2 door hardtop, you could justify a parial street restoration of an already sound and clean car....but to undo all the damage done from the V8 installation, and to track down a 216 engine, and then all the paintwork, etc.....well, personally, I don't see the wisdom of this type of project. The car's significance doesn't justify it.
However, if you were born in the back seat or something, well, you can throw common sense out the window and enjoy yourself, since you probably aren't into any kind of monetary or status/awards payback.
In the early '50s the Cad and Olds were two of the most modern (and two of the largest) engines but that was when even many mid-range makes were still getting by with small displacement engines dating from the '30s.
By the late '50s Pontiac in particular had caught up in size and was much more performance oriented.
The Ford flathead accounted for most of the hot rod movement into the mid-'50s but the Cadillac and Olds took it to the next level. The Chevy small block's contribution was to bring cheap reliable high performance to the low-priced three.
Since this message is getting longer than anticipated, I am going to leave you with a query... As I mentioned before, the 283's bottom end is seized, I have completly rebuilt the heads, but have yet to pull apart the bottom to see if it is even salvagable. If I stay with the V8, and the 283 turns out to be nothing more than a boat anchor, what would you recomend I put in its place??
Sorry it's so long, but again thanks for your help and advice.
Eek, rust, that's a big issue as well. Just make sure you get it all. Rust never sleeps.
of many kinds.
The Stovebolt six follows, based mostly on it's longevity and it's reputation for indestructability.
Third place? I dunno, the OHV, high compression
V8s from '48-'49 (Cadillac & Olds) were superb motors for their day but a previous poster makes a good case for the big-block Chevies, still in service today.
2001 BMW 330ci/E46, 2008 BMW 335i conv/E93
Chevy small blocks had a good racing record in some areas of domestic racing but not much of anything in international endurance racing. Still a mighty fine engine considering how simple and cheap it was.
I'm about to get my Granddad's '85 Silverado, which has a 305-4bb, and (I think) about 120-130K miles on it, so I'll let ya know how it holds up!
For the most part, I think the Chevy smallblock is okay, but it just depends on who you talk to. Any Ford or Mopar guy is going to tell you it's a POS. Actually, any Pontiac, Olds, or Buick guy will tell you the same thing!
It might be fine, built up for racing, but in stock form, and Olds engine of similar displacement is usually more durable, and has better low-end torque. I believe Pontiac engines could take more of a bore before they started getting unreliable. For instance, the Chevy 400 smallblock they had for a few years in the '70's was pretty well-known for premature self-destruction, while a Pontiac 400 was pretty solid, as was an Olds 403.
As with anything, once they start getting old, how the car was maintained and cared for is much more important than how the thing was built in the first place. You could take the crappiest Chevy smallblock and the best Ford or Mopar smallblock, but if you pamper and maintain the Chevy but dog out the other two, then obviously the Chevy is going to win out.
FWIW though, I heard the main reason the chevy smallblock won out over the Olds, Buick, or Pontiac units in production runs was cost. The Pontiacs also ran kinda cool, which didn't bode well with emissions controls. But in the end, the Chevy engines were just cheaper to produce than the others.
The Olds 403 was IIRC just a stroked (and how) 350 with maybe a taller block to accomdate the stroke. It hadn't been bored out to within an inch of its life like the Chevy 400.
And, they weren't all that gutless either. I remember driving my old '52 in excess of 80 MPH with no problems at all.
If you tried to floor it and do some 0-60 or 1/4 mile stunts, the resulting times would probably be laughable, and because of the short differential gearing, I'd guess they'd top out at what? 90-95 mph? Still, in everyday driving, it definitely wouldn't hold up traffic!
A 6-cyl Chevy wouldn't have as much hp, but wouldn't weigh nearly as much as my friend's tank either, so I'd guess performance would be at least equal, if not better.
I guess also, considering the interstate hadn't been invented yet, there really weren't too many places back then you could go 100+ mph anyway!
Thing was, back then people thought nothing of rebuilding or at least "refreshing" engines at 50,000 miles or less, and they drove a lot slower then we do.
I'd certainly upgrade to a 235 if I were rebuilding an old Chevy. Many old Chevys you find today have been upgraded years ago. There was a reason people did even back then.
I remember overhauling an old Chev 216 in highschool autoshop. The cylinders had .029 taper in the bore, and the rod journals were .006 flat. I remember the shimming the bearings, etc. I remember the day we started up my engine for a grade. Huge clouds of blue smoke! But it ran. We got a B on ours. I always wondered how long that engine would have lasted in a car! Oh yeah-I remember the teacher had a 57 Corvette, with the 283/270 horse, 2X4bbl, Duntov cam. Boy, did I want that car!
Also, I'm sure that 50K miles back in 1950 would also represent a lot more cold starts and short trips than it would today. My Granddad lived about 2 miles from his job. So did the guy I bought my '57 DeSoto from. I'm about 14 miles from work. Using that same ratio, for any given mileage, the older car would have 7 times more cold starts on it than mine would!
As for gearing back then, I don't know what it would be on a 1950 Chevy, but a '57 DeSoto with a manual tranny came standard with 3.91 gears, with 4.11 or 3.73 optional. Even with the Powerflite, one of the options was 3.91. Considering this is for cars with 325 Polys and 341 Hemis, I'm sure a 6-cyl car back then would've been geared even shorter, wouldn't it?
I think back then people were paying closer attention to their cars.
Besides, a 216 Chevy would be mercilessly harassed on modern roads. You'd have an SUV up your butt every second of the day. My friend's Model A (perhaps a tad slower than a 216 Chevy at highway speeds) has to be driven with very strict attention because if you go fast enough to get people off your back, then you are going way too fast for the brakes and suspension.
A Model A Ford is something else. No way would I take one on a freeway. When I had mine, it felt comfortable at 40 MPH, maybe 45 but that was about it. Mechanical brakes that actually worked fairly well, no turn signals etc...no thanks!
I guess I just don't have any confidence in an old 216, but maybe if it were completely and expertly rebuilt I would. Personally I would never rebuild one if say I bought an old Chevy pickup from the 50s (which I love) --it seems like so much trouble for so little return.
Think about it--if you are down on oil in the crankcase with a "splash" lubrication system.
The 216 is SO primitive! It's really the equivalent of an engine built in 1925 or so.
My first car was that '52 Chevy- 216. I paid 35 dollars for it. I seem to remember it only had something like 60,000 miles on it.
It had never been apart and it ran well. It did ned a quart of oil probably every 400 miles and no doubt could have used an overhaul, bt it really didn't smoke and it ran well.
I remember driving it from San Pedro to San Diego with a friend once and returning that same night.
Pushed it 80 MPH the whole time without a problem.
One time it did pick up a slight rod knock but luckilly an old timer (he was probably 45)who had a small shop in town, heard it and suggested I let him fix it before anything happened.
I remember he pulled the pan and did something to adjust the shims etc. No more knock.
I ended selling it a few months after that and remember seeing it around town for years after that.
http://www.chevrolet.com.au/articles/engine_swap.htm
It's a great swap, with all pros and no cons attached, unlike some engine exchanges.
And I would have no problem making the conversion. A V-8 I wouldn't do.
The 230 is a stoked version of the 194 that was the optional Nova engine in 1962. The standard engine was a 153 four banger that later became the Iron Duke--GM never throws away a perfectly good engine. I think the four was based on the 194 six tooling.
The first Chevelle in 1964 had a special 230 with a "general performance" cam and 15 more hp than the Nova and Impala version. Also had a chrome valve cover and air cleaner lid that year only.
There's also a 250 version that came out in 1966 and a 292 truck six that's still alive and well in UPS trucks.
There was also a 215 version that Pontiac used in '64-65. The 230-250 OHC Pontiac six was based on the Chevy six block.