Help Identify Engine in a 1964 C20

[jmader]

I'm looking at buying a parts truck for my build but I can't figure out if it has the correct engine I need. It's an inline 6 with casting number 3851659 and the stamping behind the distributor is F0722OH. I can't seem to find these numbers anywhere does anyone have any insights? Thanks in advance.

[Woogeroo]

Hmn... let's see here...

well now, that is interesting.

The distributor pad code or engine code, you need the chart which shows what each letter/number combo means... there are old books, some of it is online in strange places.

google this too : inline engine distributor pad number

fun stuff to explore.

It seems that number by the distributor pad is referred to as a : engine application code



-W

[1963c-10]

3851659 is a 1963-1976 292 inline 6

[1963c-10]

Also suffix F07220H is a flint assembly (F) July assembly (07) 22nd (22)
0H im still working on.

[jmader]

Originally Posted by 1963c-10

Also suffix F07220H is a flint assembly (F) July assembly (07) 22nd (22)
0H im still working on.

Ok thanks. I'm looking forward to see if you can find anything. I've been searching too and am still unable to find what I'm looking for.

[1963c-10]

the car engine suffix codes are much more documented. small blocks and big blocks are easiest. the inlines are not documented as well, so sometimes it piece and paste. gm suffix codes are pretty much read universally, so the assembly date is easy, its the engine hp/torque ratings that can get tricky. i belive its the letter o and h since all the engine suffix's ive seen are letters.

[1963c-10]

you will also find a date code on the pass side of the block and a clock image. the clock image represents the shift that it was made on. date code will narrow done casting date and also there is a conveyor # which shows which conveyor it was off of. starts with con and then a #

[bruceman1968]

I'm thinking your O is a Q.
QH = 1969, truck, 292, 170hp, 1bbl

[TJ's Chevy]

Any pictures of the engine?

[1963c-10]

good eye...may be a q. a couple of pics would be best as tj said

[jmader]

Ok QH would make sense. Unfortunately I don't have any pictures- It's in a parts truck I'm thinking about buying. Even though it seems like the engine is wrong there are plenty of good parts on the truck.

So my next question would be what engine suffix should I be looking for in a 64 c10?

[66Submarine]

Originally Posted by jmader

Ok QH would make sense. Unfortunately I don't have any pictures- It's in a parts truck I'm thinking about buying. Even though it seems like the engine is wrong there are plenty of good parts on the truck.

So my next question would be what engine suffix should I be looking for in a 64 c10?

Why would you want the "right" 230 instead of the 292???

[TJ's Chevy]

Ok...I have a question...I am waaay confused right now...On the PARTS truck...do the side covers on the engine measure 4 or 6 inches? And on YOUR truck do they measure 4 or 6 inches? And what year is your truck?

[66Submarine]

Originally Posted by jmader

I'm looking at buying a parts truck for my build but I can't figure out if it has the correct engine I need.

Ohhhh... FWIW, the 292 is the much more desirable/valuable engine that was an option for more power in the smaller trucks.

JMO (although I think most here will agree with me), but I say forget about the "correct" 230 and plug the big 292 in there! The 230 is net rated @ 120HP/205TQ, and the 292 is rated @ 153HP/255TQ.

[bruceman1968]

Originally Posted by jmader

what engine suffix should I be looking for in a 64 c10?

1964 C-10 with 230 and powerglide = ND
1964 C-10 with 230 and 3sp. = N
1964 C-10 with 230 and 4sp. = NE

There are other 1964 truck 230 suffix codes, but they are for the 20's, 30's, 50's, 4wd's or P's(forward control).

[TJ's Chevy]

Originally Posted by 66Submarine

Ohhhh... FWIW, the 292 is the much more desirable/valuable engine that was an option for more power in the smaller trucks.

JMO (although I think most here will agree with me), but I say forget about the "correct" 230 and plug the big 292 in there! The 230 is net rated @ 120HP/205TQ, and the 292 is rated @ 153HP/255TQ.

Its funny...in 63-65 the 292 was rated at 145 hp...in 66 153...I do recall that in the later 60's early 70's they were claiming as much as 170 hp and 275 pound feet of torque. And on the note of the 230, two were available for 64...a 120 hp version and a 125 hp version.

[66Submarine]

Originally Posted by T.J. MCCAULEY

Its funny...in 63-65 the 292 was rated at 145 hp...in 66 153...I do recall that in the later 60's early 70's they were claiming as much as 170 hp and 275 pound feet of torque. And on the note of the 230, two were available for 64...a 120 hp version and a 125 hp version.

I've posted it before, but check this website out: http://gmheritagecenter.com/gm-herit...tion-kits.html

Tons of neat info to be had there (including the GM dyno charts). The 292 was 153HP@3,600 net from '64 until the ratings went down in '71 or whatever; the 170HP@4,000/275TQ@1,600 was the gross rating for those same years. '63 was rated 165HP@3,800RPM and 280TQ@1,600RPM gross--I guess the first-year '63's must have had a slightly shorter cam or something.

The 230 was listed @ 120HP net/140HP gross in '64, with 100HP net/125HP gross ratings for the "economy carb" (WTF?) version.

[1963c-10]

Originally Posted by 66Submarine

I've posted it before, but check this website out: http://gmheritagecenter.com/gm-herit...tion-kits.html

Tons of neat info to be had there (including the GM dyno charts). The 292 was 153HP@3,600 net from '64 until the ratings went down in '71 or whatever; the 170HP@4,000/275TQ@1,600 was the gross rating for those same years. '63 was rated 165HP@3,800RPM and 280TQ@1,600RPM gross--I guess the first-year '63's must have had a slightly shorter cam or something.

The 230 was listed @ 120HP net/140HP gross in '64, with 100HP net/125HP gross ratings for the "economy carb" (WTF?) version.

Funny....I didn't know GM used anything but the old Rochester model B's on the 230's and I have owned very few model B's or monojets that were economic!!

[66Submarine]

Originally Posted by 1963c-10

Funny....I didn't know GM used anything but the old Rochester model B's on the 230's and I have owned very few model B's or monojets that were economic!!

I wonder if it was a different type of carb or just a model B with different jets? I've personally had pretty good luck with the Monojet carbs, though. My worn out half ton actually got pretty surprising fuel economy when my father was driving it (I've been driving my one ton); 17-20MPG with an average of something like 18MPG. Here's a plug out of my current truck with a Monojet:

[jmader]

Originally Posted by bruceman1968

1964 C-10 with 230 and powerglide = ND
1964 C-10 with 230 and 3sp. = N
1964 C-10 with 230 and 4sp. = NE

There are other 1964 truck 230 suffix codes, but they are for the 20's, 30's, 50's, 4wd's or P's(forward control).

Thank you that is very helpful!

Originally Posted by T.J. MCCAULEY

Ok...I have a question...I am waaay confused right now...On the PARTS truck...do the side covers on the engine measure 4 or 6 inches? And on YOUR truck do they measure 4 or 6 inches? And what year is your truck?

My truck is a 64 c10 but the engine is a 250 out of a 66 truck. The side covers are 4" on it. I'm picking up the parts truck this weekend so I am unsure of what the side covers are on there.

I don't HAVE to use a 230 but I kinda want to put it back together numbers matching. It's not going to be a show truck by any means but it's probably not going to be driven all that often. Probably a summertime cruiser.

[66Submarine]

Your choice, but I wouldn't worry too much about the matching numbers thing myself. Put the correct script valve cover on the 292, paint it green, and it's a neat (and somewhat rare) factory option to anyone that doesn't know the codes (IME 99.9% don't).

On the other hand, I think I have a correct 230 in a '64 I have. I'm more than happy to trade it out for a good 292 if you want to drive down here!

[TJ's Chevy]

Here's something funny...I went and looked at my 64's engine plate in the cab by the kick panel..and it showed two 230's...a 100 hp version..and a 120 hp version. The 292 advertised hp for 64 was 153...same as in 66. Its funny how in some years GM claimed as much as 270 torque and in others as low as 215 pound feet. lol Didn't know power steering and A/C took that much power away.