motor mounts & perches for 348 in a 63 c10-

[1963c-10]

will the 63 standard v8 or 230 perches work on the 348 in a 63 half ton? one of the few engines i've never owned from chevy. will be doing a swap in the fleetside to a 348 and just trying to figure out what i need to mount it using stock parts. im aware of the aftermarket options.

[60-66]

Should bolt right in. In 1965 they use the same exact mounts in the Impala as a Big Block from a 409-396. Chevy made it easy. Have pictures of a 409 in a 1965 truck

[1963c-10]

so either perches will work then?

[1963c-10]

i have an extra set of 230 perches, and im sure i could locate factory v8 perches if i need to. do you know which mounts they used...the short or tall ones?

[padresag]

what do you mean by the short or tall ones?
ron

[1963c-10]

there were 2 differnt syle motor mounts that were used on early model engines, a tall and thin mount and a shorter version...

[padresag]

the only different ones between 63 and 66 was the r/side perch and the rest were all the same
believe that there were differences in the later years
ron

[1963c-10]

so truck mounts should bolt no issue then...

[60-66]

Think V8 all the way and your good

[1963c-10]

thanks for the help.....just trying to get some parts off the list and ordered to get the fleetside up and going

[60-66]

Should be an interesting swap. Hopefully you have all the brackets and accessory stuff. Can't wait to see this . There's a 1960 around here from out west. I was told by the owner he was able to get the dealer to install a 348 for more pulling power for his camper. Believe its a half ton to.

[padresag]

348 will fit where a 283 did
ron

[Captainfab]

With the '63-'66 trucks there is no difference between the 230/250 I6 engine mount brackets (perches) and the V8 brackets. The 292 I6 used a shorter passenger side engine mount bracket that was located farther forward in the front set of holes. Also the engine mounts themselves are the same from '63-'72 for all I6's and the small blocks.

[1963c-10]

thanks for the new info....i continue to learn new stuff all the time and really thank all that responded for the help. the engine is complete from carb to oilpan, all brackets, pulleys, etc. complete trans minus linkage.....came from a 58 impala, so probably different than the truck anyway. i did find a factory auto column, so should be able to find the trans to column linkage.

[Rogue 64]

This is going to be awesome…I have always wanted a tripower W-Block in my '64.

[1963c-10]

They have a bunch of different intakes available. 1 - 4bbl, 2 - 4bbl, 3 - 3bbl, 6 - 2bbl, the cross ram intakes......I'm looking for around 325hp out of this one, which shouldn't be hard. A little more cam and some head work, maybe headers should open it up some.

[1963c-10]

Stock 348's in the 1958 car application which is where mine came from was 250hp @ 4400 and 355 torque @2800 w/9.50:1 and up to 315hp @ 5600 and 356 torque @3600 w/11.00:1 in some engines. The 348 has a 4.125 bore which is the same as a gen IV 402, although it has a 3.25 stroke and the 402 has a 3.76 stroke....so they are definitely torque little blocks. This will be a fun build and looking forward to my first "w" build. I have another borg warner t-16 HD 3 speed, which I'd considered using, but now I'm leaning towards a powerglide w/factory auto column.

[61K10]

I wanted one for my 61, but out here in ca everyone thanks they are gold. if yours is a 58 ck the heads out real good. something about 59 up they added another water jacket in the head. something about better cooling. google and find out more. (just get a set of eddie alum ones) I really wanted one.

[1963c-10]

Originally Posted by 61K10

I wanted one for my 61, but out here in ca everyone thanks they are gold. if yours is a 58 ck the heads out real good. something about 59 up they added another water jacket in the head. something about better cooling. google and find out more. (just get a set of eddie alum ones) I really wanted one.

I've looked at them....be around $2400 for Edelbrock aluminum heads. I'll know more when I pick it up Saturday and run some part #'s. I'll be sure to follow up here with what I have then.

I don't find them very often around here. Kind of odd, but I see more 409's around here than the 348's. I've never personally seen one in a truck that was smaller than a 40 series in person. I've seen a few here on the forum and plenty of pics though. Doesn't look like it'll take much to convert one in, which is nice.

This site seems to be great with anything 348-409 related, especially casting numbers and specs. http://www.348-409.com/

[61K10]

a friend back in the 60's had a 61 impala with the 348-350hp-3/2's-solid cam- 4sp and 4.56 posi rear. ran real good for a heavy car.

[Old Truck Man]

Ive owns a few 348 & 409 engines over the years. and I never had one that was really any good. Prone to cracked heads. W engines are cool looking but really never made much HP. they where designed to be truck engines. The bottom of the cyl heads is flat and the piston has a angle that makes the combustion chamber in the block. They do have folks who champion them. but so does the Y block fords. To me they are just boat anchors.

[1963c-10]

Seems that chevy liked the solid cams in these engines and the 409's. I've always run hydraulic/flat tappet , but will probably go with a solid cam on this build....have to consult my engine builder on the benefits of both. I'm not very familiar with the mechanical/solid cams.

Pulled this up from Lunati doing some research....may help some others also.



Understanding The Different Types Of Camshafts & Lifters

Lifter

The cam lifter (also called a "follower" or "tappet") is the component that makes direct contact with the cam lobes and "follows" the profile of the cam. There are generally four types of lifters:

Hydraulic Flat Tappet

The hydraulic flat tappet is self-adjusting, due to the valve controlled plunger within the tappet body. It operates to pre-load the push-rod by using the oil system pressure to maintain this pre-load in the closed valve position. Hydraulic tappets are quieter than mechanical tappet lifters since there is no lash or free-play. However, it is generally agreed that they fall short of offering optimum performance above 6,000 - 6,500 RPM. Many cheaper designs fall even shorter than this. This poor performance at high RPM is due mainly to the inability of the lifter to "bleed down" the excessive oil pressure , and thus does not allow the valves to seat.

Mechanical Flat Tappet

The mechanical (solid) tappet is essentially a solid "link" between the cam lobe, and the push-rod. In most cases it is a simple heat-treated cylinder with a radiused contact face. It allows more RPM potential than that of the hydraulic tappet since there are no worries about the inability of the lifter to "bleed down." Solid lifters do, however require lash or clearance to allow for part expansion as the engine heats up.

Mechanical Roller Tappet

The mechanical (solid) roller tappet allows for the most aggressive lobe designs. Roller tappets allow faster, "steeper" opening and closing ramps. This allows the cam to produce more lift for a given duration. They are not limited to a particular lifter diameter to obtain higher cam lifts. They also contain a roller that reduces friction between cam and followers. Roller cams require the use of higher valve spring forces making high engine speeds (over 10,000 RPM’s) possible.

Hydraulic Roller Tappet

The hydraulic roller tappet camshaft can provide the best of both worlds. Diesel engines and some motorcycle engines have used this design for many years. They provide most of the virtues of a solid mechanical roller tappet while providing the benefits of quiet operation and ease of valve lash setting.

This type of design still has the limitations of an oil bleed-off control type follower. If your application requires high RPM potential you should use a solid roller tappet design.

[63burban]

1965 C30 with a 348

[aerotruk63]

The only problem with the 409 I had in my pickup for a couple of months was the passenger side valve cover had clearance issues. I used a hydraulic body jack to give it a little more clearance.

[1963c-10]

Originally Posted by aerotruk63

The only problem with the 409 I had in my pickup for a couple of months was the passenger side valve cover had clearance issues. I used a hydraulic body jack to give it a little more clearance.

Was it in the rear set of holes on the frame?