292 4bbl Carb

[66Submarine]

The head design actually really isn't good anywhere. My only guess is that it was cheaper than the 12 port design and they had already been doing it like that forever. For low-end power (and economy, for that matter) you'd like to have long runners of a relatively small diameter...the siamesed design essentially has no runner. The shape of the ports themselves is also pretty WTF...thus the bolt-in lumps to help that.

Another thing to keep in consideration is that even the 292 is a fairly small engine; the fact that it made all its power at a relatively low speed is kind of the reason it works as well as it does.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't really see going for N/A HP to be that productive with a 292 (or 250, etc.). The head/intake design is poor and it's just very slightly larger than a 283 is. I know the port lumps are supposed to help some, but it's still really pushing rope up a hill (IMO).

If I wanted to try to make any power with one I'd stick a junkyard turbo setup on it (I actually plan to at some point...should be fun).

I like them, but not really as a N/A hot rod engine (or for heavy towing and stuff like that). The small displacement and poor breathing kind of kill it for me.

http://www.hotrod.com/cars/project-v...ckage-install/

That first dyno run is pretty much the engine I'm putting together for my '68 Impala. Just a 350 with Vortec heads and a mild $100 flat-tappet cam...apparently you get 371HP and 409FTLBS through mufflers from that combo.

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...-collar-build/

And there's pretty much the 454 that's going into the truck. Just a turd-o-matic oval port 454 with another $100 cam...408HP and 511FTLBS (I may use the existing peanut port heads on mine if the oval port heads I have need work).

As far as fuel economy goes, the much better head and intake design gives the bent engines a pretty big advantage there IMO. Not that I think that a 292 will burn twice the fuel of a 283 or anything, but the SBC has the edge there. I'd also have to imagine that when you start camming them up this will probably become more of a factor.

[TJ's Chevy]

Originally Posted by 66Submarine

The head design actually really isn't good anywhere. My only guess is that it was cheaper than the 12 port design and they had already been doing it like that forever. For low-end power (and economy, for that matter) you'd like to have long runners of a relatively small diameter...the siamesed design essentially has no runner. The shape of the ports themselves is also pretty WTF...thus the bolt-in lumps to help that.

Another thing to keep in consideration is that even the 292 is a fairly small engine; the fact that it made all its power at a relatively low speed is kind of the reason it works as well as it does.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't really see going for N/A HP to be that productive with a 292 (or 250, etc.). The head/intake design is poor and it's just very slightly larger than a 283 is. I know the port lumps are supposed to help some, but it's still really pushing rope up a hill (IMO).

If I wanted to try to make any power with one I'd stick a junkyard turbo setup on it (I actually plan to at some point...should be fun).

I like them, but not really as a N/A hot rod engine (or for heavy towing and stuff like that). The small displacement and poor breathing kind of kill it for me.

http://www.hotrod.com/cars/project-v...ckage-install/

That first dyno run is pretty much the engine I'm putting together for my '68 Impala. Just a 350 with Vortec heads and a mild $100 flat-tappet cam...apparently you get 371HP and 409FTLBS through mufflers from that combo.

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...-collar-build/

And there's pretty much the 454 that's going into the truck. Just a turd-o-matic oval port 454 with another $100 cam...408HP and 511FTLBS (I may use the existing peanut port heads on mine if the oval port heads I have need work).

As far as fuel economy goes, the much better head and intake design gives the bent engines a pretty big advantage there IMO. Not that I think that a 292 will burn twice the fuel of a 283 or anything, but the SBC has the edge there. I'd also have to imagine that when you start camming them up this will probably become more of a factor.

The 292 I'm beefing up for power really didn't cost All that much...Especially from a 6 cylinder point of view...My engine is expected to make 310+ hp and 330+ torque...which for 292 cubic inches...is perrty darn fair...How I see it....If a man has the money...why not beef up a 6 banger...Its way more unique...gives a big smile...and is much nicer then the boring and waay to common 350...Remember...the 6 cylinder only has a lift of .371 on the cam...most v8s are running at least .450 I'm sure...but don't quote me...so when running a 6, .500 lift really isn't that bad....but rocker ratio has alot to play as well...1.75 for the 6. Its funny...I read of a naturally aspirated 292 6 cylinder drag engine that put out 650 hp...that's not bad at all...So...all depends on what you want I suppose...I'm a die hard 6 cylinder guy and all because there's plenty of resources for parts and they are far more unique imop. And I just like to encourage people to do something like this if they're considering because there are to many discouragers out there.....its becoming a chevy vs ford thing. LOL!

[66Submarine]

Originally Posted by TJ's Chevy

The 292 I'm beefing up for power really didn't cost All that much...Especially from a 6 cylinder point of view...My engine is expected to make 310+ hp and 330+ torque...which for 292 cubic inches...is perrty darn fair...How I see it....If a man has the money...why not beef up a 6 banger...Its way more unique...gives a big smile...and is much nicer then the boring and waay to common 350...Remember...the 6 cylinder only has a lift of .371 on the cam...most v8s are running at least .450 I'm sure...but don't quote me...so when running a 6, .500 lift really isn't that bad....but rocker ratio has alot to play as well...1.75 for the 6. Its funny...I read of a naturally aspirated 292 6 cylinder drag engine that put out 650 hp...that's not bad at all...So...all depends on what you want I suppose...I'm a die hard 6 cylinder guy and all because there's plenty of resources for parts and they are far more unique imop. And I just like to encourage people to do something like this if they're considering because there are to many discouragers out there.....its becoming a chevy vs ford thing. LOL!

I think it's neat to see them in stuff, but I personally just don't really see them as being a great N/A power platform. Like I said before, I think I'd have to go with forced induction if I was building one as a hot rod piece.

The lift is certainly not the only thing to consider about the cam...what are the other specs?

BTW, what N/A 650HP 292 are you referring to? Cotton Perry's car made 549HP in the article I read (and also seemed to be pretty hard on itself). http://www.12bolt.com/inline_6_articles/cotton_perry

For a comparison, the Hot Rod guys later made 567HP with the same 454 on 91 octane (and 614HP on 114) with a solid flat-tappet cam. http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...lock-for-4000/

I guess part of it is also the application; your SWB stepside half-ton only weighs something like 3,500LBS and my truck weighs over 1,000LBS more than that at around 4,600LBS. To make matters worse, mine is also going to use a wide ratio truck trans and be asked to pull heavy trailers.

[TJ's Chevy]

Originally Posted by 66Submarine

I think it's neat to see them in stuff, but I personally just don't really see them as being a great N/A power platform. Like I said before, I think I'd have to go with forced induction if I was building one as a hot rod piece.

The lift is certainly not the only thing to consider about the cam...what are the other specs?

BTW, what N/A 650HP 292 are you referring to? Cotton Perry's car made 549HP in the article I read (and also seemed to be pretty hard on itself). http://www.12bolt.com/inline_6_articles/cotton_perry

For a comparison, the Hot Rod guys later made 567HP with the same 454 on 91 octane (and 614HP on 114) with a solid flat-tappet cam. http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/engine/...lock-for-4000/

I guess part of it is also the application; your SWB stepside half-ton only weighs something like 3,500LBS and my truck weighs over 1,000LBS more than that at around 4,600LBS. To make matters worse, mine is also going to use a wide ratio truck trans and be asked to pull heavy trailers.

I agree on the weight as well...In yer 1 ton..a big block would be the smart way to go...or a cummins diesel. ( lol) But on a C10 like mine...a 6 cylinder is plenty capable of making it an 11 or 12 second truck, which is what many small blocks can barely brag about....The cam I'm getting for my 292 is as follows: 268 duration 218 @ .050 .486 lift on a 110 lobe center.....bout .100 lift over stock and a little more duration...I believe the stock cam duration @ .050 was 186 and the advertised was 230 degrees..lift .371 on a 114 or 116 lobe center...But from your stand point...I can understand having a much heavier truck that more cubic inches and more cylinders helps...And that 650 hp 292 I was talking about is in the Inliner's Power manual...Known as the "No frills" 6...No specs on it really...But there's also the Mighty 6 pumping out some 1100 horse power...and it ran 8.44 at 157 in the 1/4 mile....it's beaten its fair share of small blocks for sure. lol But..Its running 30 pounds of boost...But when I get my engine done... I'll show ya that these little 6's can be a blast. 340 torque is plenty of power for a C10...Tom Lowe at 12bolt.com has a naturally aspirated 250 in his 66 chevy station wagon...some 4000 pound car with 2.57.1 rear axle ratio..and a 28 inch tire...he had that thing up to 100 miles and hour..and no..it did have to go across the US to get there. LOL!

[Classic1965]

Ok so I guess I started the debate of the week or something. I don't plan to drive this truck in the snow or winter or in the cold, it is going to be a daily driver in the warm part of the year. I'm more concerned about fuel economy then horsepower and I plan to tow a 20' boat with the truck. Like I said it is a 292 with a 3 speed. I just wanted to know what is the best setup for fuel economy that can still pull a boat without issue. This truck will be driven long distances in the summer as everything up here in my area of Canada is spread apart. So I guess the marine carb idea is a bust, just wondered if it was worth my time because I had a few different carbs from different small block engines. So what do I need for the best fuel economy without losing towing capabilities?

[TJ's Chevy]

Originally Posted by Classic1965

Ok so I guess I started the debate of the week or something. I don't plan to drive this truck in the snow or winter or in the cold, it is going to be a daily driver in the warm part of the year. I'm more concerned about fuel economy then horsepower and I plan to tow a 20' boat with the truck. Like I said it is a 292 with a 3 speed. I just wanted to know what is the best setup for fuel economy that can still pull a boat without issue. This truck will be driven long distances in the summer as everything up here in my area of Canada is spread apart. So I guess the marine carb idea is a bust, just wondered if it was worth my time because I had a few different carbs from different small block engines. So what do I need for the best fuel economy without losing towing capabilities?

Your best bet would be to do this...Head work...Have lumps installed..and then convert over to a 1.84 intake valve leaving the exhaust valves stock. Then have a 500 edelbrock installed on a clifford intake and a set of headers with an HEI...that'll give you a little more power and torque and mileage...the original cam is setup for this type of towing so you'll be fine there.. also converting over to an over drive tanny would help...in your case..maybe an NV4500...its a 5 speed that still has the low 1st gear so yer not burning up yer clutch when loaded. But don't expect to get super good mileage when towing...and that goes with any engine.