250 or 350

[KevinR]

The nostalgia is important to me. You guys have got me leaning toward the 6. Coming from Jeeps, I agree, they’re pretty cool

[bill3rail]

Nothing more attractive than opening the hood and seeing a nice clean 250!
I love mine with three on the Tree.

Bill

[Average Joe]

Personally ill take a bent 8 any day over a 6 cylinder. I suffered through (2) seperate 6 cylinders in my '69 C10 LWB truck before I put a V8 in it. Mileage in town was no better with the 6 and highway was only slightly better. Power sucked. Albeit these were 250's.

If you dont want a 350, build a 327. If you get a large journal crank it will drop right in a pre '86 350 block. There is a reason most hot rods have SBC's.

Just my opinion....

[kazoocruiser]

Originally Posted by KevinR

The nostalgia is important to me. You guys have got me leaning toward the 6. Coming from Jeeps, I agree, they’re pretty cool

Maybe you could put a FI Jeep 6 cylinder driveline in it and call it a day.

[Hubscrub]

Nothing finer than a inliner, i miss my 250 something terrible. I switched my 71 truck from a 3 ott to a 350 with a 700r4 and the truck just lost it's character with me i lost most of my interest in it, sits mostly now.I soooo miss that third petal and that sewing machine smoothness of that 6. I'm building a 59 and plan on it getting a 6.

[cypressbog]

I mentioned Clifford Performance for their 6 cyl performance parts, but failed to mention www.inliners.org. They are the true experts on anything inline 6 related. I've seen YouTube videos of a 6 getting over 500 HP on the dyno. Stick that up the tailpipe of any bent 8.

[truckster]

Originally Posted by cypressbog

I mentioned Clifford Performance for their 6 cyl performance parts, but failed to mention www.inliners.org. They are the true experts on anything inline 6 related. I've seen YouTube videos of a 6 getting over 500 HP on the dyno. Stick that up the tailpipe of any bent 8.

Spend the same time and money on a V8 and you'll have way more HP and torque.

I'm not saying don't build the 6 if that's what you want, but except for preferences it's not going to be superior to a V8, apples to apples.

[MARKDTN]

Nothing wrong with a 6. In your case I would build the 6 and maybe find a 5-sp later. A 6 with a granny 4-sp is a nice driving combo. If you added OD it could be even better.

[KevinR]

$ per hp V8 will win every time. I appreciate all the inline love. After much deliberation, I think the only rational conclusion is one 67-72 is simply not enough!

[1972RedNeck]

Originally Posted by KevinR

$ per hp V8 will win every time.

No. There is only one engine ever made that can get 1000 HP on $10,000 including purchase of the engine, and it's and inline 6.

[MARKDTN]

Originally Posted by 1972RedNeck

No. There is only one engine ever made that can get 1000 HP on $10,000 including purchase of the engine, and it's and inline 6.

While I mostly agree with you Hot Rod did with a junkyard LS and turbos.

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp...g-bang-theory/

[Grumpy old man]

I always like this 292 video .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKvdHkfTms

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K95OEKP22k

[special-K]

If you want to talk 292 we can talk about 8 second from an inline 6

1936 Chevy Pickup running 8's!!! GIANT TURBO -...

[factorystock]

Originally Posted by GRX

Back in the day I rebuilt more of both for fleet service and various walk in customers than I care to remember. Saw heck of a lot more 250 over 200k miles than 350s.

I agree on longevity of the 6. Yeah, they weren't powerhouses, but reliable and very easy to maintain. These engines appeal to those interested in long term cost per mile, than thrills per mile.

[1972RedNeck]

Originally Posted by Grumpy old man

I always like this 292 video .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKvdHkfTms

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K95OEKP22k

I sure do love a well built 292.

Only thing I wish is that they would have made a 400 ish cubic inch inline 6 that they installed in these pickups. Could have had displacement, power, and simplicity, all in one.

['68OrangeSunshine]

Originally Posted by 1972RedNeck

I sure do love a well built 292.

Only thing I wish is that they would have made a 400 ish cubic inch inline 6 that they installed in these pickups. Could have had displacement, power, and simplicity, all in one.

If you want a 400+ CID L6 you'll have to go diesel. Ford engineering bought a sample 292 in 1963 when they first came out, and -- 2 years later -- had reverse engineered it into the Ford 300 ''I6''. [L6 is GM terminology, ''I6'' is Ford and Toyota nomenclature, BTW.]
To get a 301 CID L6, you'll have to bore a 292 out .060-over.
A 400 CID L6 could not have shared the same head as the 230, 250s did with the 292. It would've had to be fatter and taller in the engine bay.
A big 400 L6 would probably have been produced in a lot of C/40, -50, -60s, school buses, delivery vans and dumptrucks. I doubt they'd build them into light trucks. At the time GM had the GMC V6 351 they used in that profile.
A 400 CID L6 is still an awesome concept.

[1972RedNeck]

Originally Posted by '68OrangeSunshine

A 400 CID L6 is still an awesome concept.

More of a reality than a concept. GMC made 360, 426, 477, 503, and 707 inline sixes in the forties and early fifties. From what I can tell, the 4 smaller ones I listed are in the same family and would fit under the hood of a pickup.

503 has a 4 9/16" bore and 5 1/8" stroke - 217 hp and 455 ft/lbs of torque in stock form.

A little work with a lot of custom parts and I bet you could get 500 HP (1 HP/cubic inch) and 800+ ft lbs of torque...

['68OrangeSunshine]

Originally Posted by 1972RedNeck

More of a reality than a concept. GMC made 360, 426, 477, 503, and 707 inline sixes in the forties and early fifties. From what I can tell, the 4 smaller ones I listed are in the same family and would fit under the hood of a pickup.

503 has a 4 9/16" bore and 5 1/8" stroke - 217 hp and 455 ft/lbs of torque in stock form.

A little work with a lot of custom parts and I bet you could get 500 HP (1 HP/cubic inch) and 800+ ft lbs of torque...

Interesting.