Inliners International Forums General Discussion Hi Performance 250 head on 194

Would someone be so kind as to refresh my memory....
250 head on a 194... good idea or not so good?
I am the worst 'search' user as I can almost never find what I M looking for.

I ask because I have the opportunity to buy a rebuilt 250 head for $100.
I am running the original 194 in my nova, turbo to come by the end of April!

Bad idea! The chamber of the open chamber heads extends beyond the bore size of the 194 by quite a bit. This creates a shelf over the top of the cylinder and can restrict airflow horribly. A 194 head is made just for the small bore of the 194 engine, so not any options for those engines.

That's what I thought, but needed confirmation!
Thank you!

I have access to a supposedly good 250 engine that I could just p
swap and add the turbo to. More power right off the hop!

250 head on a 194= compression drop.
194 head on a 250= compression increase.

Are the cylinder walls in a 194 thicker or just bigger water jackets? It might be the ultimate turbo engine of the family.

So, the 250 I'm looking at turns out to be a 292!
Is it a direct replacement for the 250? Other than being taller, is it the Same size?

The engine mount is different on one side.

MBHD

Worth grabbing at $400? Supposed to be a strong runner.

Based on your climate, i'd want to ask the seller to let me mag everything first to make sure there are no cracks in the block or head from freezing because of neglect and the crank wasn't already turned .020" under or more, or other problems. But yeah, if all is good then $400 would be fair.

I saw people pushing a 292 swap over using a 250 in another thread. And I thought the same thing, how do you put a 292 truck engine in a 250 car? Does a custom mount need to be made, or can the mount base be moved back far enough on that side to use the factory truck mount?

You have to off set the passenger mount.

I have motor mount adaptors to help the install.
http://12bolt.com/250292_products/inline_engine_accessories

And slide down the page.

The 292 is 1.75" taller than the 250. FYI

[quote=gbauerThe 292 is 1.75" taller than the 250. FYI [/quote]

Being a 292 is 1.75" taller than a 292 does not really matter, it fits in Nova's early 62-67, 68-73. 67-69 Camaros, 64-72 Chevelles El Camainos, etc etc etc.


MBHD

Being a 292 is 1.75" taller than a 292 does not really matter, it fits in Nova's early 62-67, 68-73. 67-69 Camaros, 64-72 Chevelles El Camainos, etc etc etc.


MBHD [/quote]

I highly doubt it fits the '70-'79 250 L6 Camaros like mine. The hood slants down in front I'm sure there isn't enough room to fit another 1.75" of valve cover or water neck up there. The air cleaner off to the side is also under the lowered area between the center hood and the raised area behind the headlights. I plan to do some measurements to see exactly what the stock clearance for the 2nd gen Camaros.

I am sure it can fit there also, just need a little modding.
Just saying, there are ways it can & will fit.
It fits in Harry's Chevy, I am sure it can fit in many other chassis also.

MBHD

My point was that it's not just the motor mounts that need to be looked at.

I took some Playdoh and did a clearance check on my '78 Camaro with the '78 250cid with 2nd version of the Monojet integrated head. The oil cap on the integrated valve cover has about 2" of clearance which would be the tightest point between the lowest part of the hood and the raised cap of the stock cover. So if the 292cid non-integrated stock valve cover is not taller than the 2nd version of the Monojet integrated valve cover, the 292 should fit with 0.25" to spare on the 2nd generation Camaro. The aluminum elbow for the vent in the stock THERMAC air cleaner should not be an issue, as the non-integrated valve cover has the vent in the side.



However the delay valve, for HEI vacuum advance, that is mounted on the top of the water neck is an issue. There is only an inch of clearance with the hood there. So it would either need to be relocated to the mount for the EGR/EVAP delay valve, or just eliminated.




The stock Monojet THERMAC air cleaner has limited clearance of only 1 1/16" with the hood. I don't think this is an issue for a 292cid swap if an Offy intake and Holley 390cfm are used. I believe the carb mount would be around the same height relative to the head for the Offy with non-integrated head, as with the Monojet mounting pad on the 2nd type of non-integrated head. And I believe the Holley 390cfm is shorter than the stock Monojet, which would add to the 1 1/16" clearance to allow the necessary 1 3/4" height. And either an aftermarket open element air cleaner, or a 305cid THERMAC air cleaner, would fit.

Nice job with the measurements!

Lifeguard,
Good to know the 292 would fit with the "Low Riser" valve cover. I measure its height at 2-3/4", vs 3-1/2" for the early tall valve cover. I GUESS they interchange though I've never tried it, since I'm sure the taller valve cover adds power on the street since it says "Chevrolet" on top. I guess you could use the shorter 2-3/4" no-name valve cover, add a "292 HiTorque" decal and gain back some of the lost valve cover power, LOL.

Hard to believe they left 3/4" of free space under the early cover but I guess they did.

So there are basically four types of Chevy inline six valve covers? The early non-integrated head which is taller with "Chevrolet" embossed on it. The later non-integrated head cover which is shorter with a blank face (used on all 292s, the 250 thru 1974, and the 1979 250 in the Nova and Camaro). The early integrated Monojet head cover used on 250s in 1975 and 1976, which is shorter and plain. And the later 250 integrated head covers for the 1977 and 1978 Monojet head, and the 1979 onward 250 Varajet truck head.

More wood on the fire...
292 head on a 250? What would this do?

It most likely will NOT change a thing Most 292s had the same CC chambers as the 230,250.

Yeah, same head on both the 292 and 250, until they introduced the integrated head on the 1975 250s. The first version of the Monojet integrated head was used in 1975 and 1976, then the second version was used in 1977 and 1978 (this is the version my Camaro has), and then the Varajet 2bbl integrated head was used on 250 trucks into the '80s. The Camaro and Nova were the last two passenger cars with an inline 6 in 1979, and for that year they used the non-integrated head that the 292 trucks used.

1977 to 1978 Monojet integrated head:




Later Varajet integrated head:

In Brazil, they made the 250 inline until 1997 A.F.A.I.K.

12 port ,multiport fuel injection.

Douglas sent me a pic of a 1997 Chevy pick -up with that original engine in it. Strange huh?

MBHD

Yeah, those Brazilian 12 Port heads have always been an option over the siamese port heads. Its just hard to justify the cost of the head plus the $300 or so to ship them up here.

I haven't had a chance to browse through the Santucci book for differences on the 292 and 250. Are there any other parts that do not swap over from the 250 onto a 292? Alternator and power steering should bolt on and maybe need a larger belt change. I don't know about the starter. Obviously the engine mount is different. But the HEI should swap no problem. I'm not sure of the difference in flywheel and clutch.

The difference in swapping a 292 in place of a 250 instead of a V8, is on the V8 everything needs to be changed out. The brackets, accessories, starter, flywheel, and even the alternator are different. A 292 is a significantly cheaper upgrade.

For the starter interchange, it pretty much is like the V8 Chevy, in that it depends on the flywheel/flexplate you are using, and most 292's use 1/2" bolts while the 250's use 7/16".

I was looking at the fuel pump location on the 292cid. Does the custom 292 motor mount adapter interfere with the fuel pump? Does a remote fuel pump need to be mounted as part of a 250 to 292 passenger car swap?

Cams for 292 engines are made on a different cam blank than the 194-250 engines. You can swap them, but you'll have to remove the fuel pump lobe from the cam or the connecting rod will hit it.

No I wasn't asking about swapping a 250 cam into a 292, I was asking if the relocated motor mount will prevent installing a fuel pump on the 292 when installed in a passenger car? Will the motor mount be in the way of the fuel pump opening?

I guess it will depend on how good or bad an adapter is designed to allow for using a mechanical pump. If you want to retain a mechanical pump, you cannot use the style adapter Tom offers.

That's what I was thinking when I looked at the fuel pump placement on the 292. The truck 292 engine swaps the pump and motor mount around, which is why the cam is different. But the mount blocks the pump from being installed. Extra cost to the 292 swap.

Just move the passenger side frame mount to locate the engine as it should be like the factory did and it won't cost you anything extra. An adapter is sorta' a lazy man's approach to the issue, but as you see, it comes with an extra price tag other than just the price of the adapter as well.

OK, I wasn't sure if the frame was in the right place for the multiple adjustments points for the frame mount to be moved to match the 292 motor mount. Moving the frame mount is certainly cheaper (and I say no more difficult) than buying a special motor mount.

I was looking at Santucci's book and saw the 250s and early 292s had the smaller bolts for the flywheel and less of them. The 292 a relative has is a late '60s and so I'm assuming it has the same flywheel as my late '70s 250? And assuming they both use the same starter motor?

"The Camaro and Nova were the last two passenger cars with an inline 6 in 1979, and for that year they used the non-integrated head that the 292 trucks used."

That is strange, I bought a new 1979 Camaro With the 250 I6 from Bob Frink Chevrolet in Sacramento CA, and it had the integrated head. Maybe this was a California only thing, as every '79 Camaro, Nova, and a couple of Caprices I have seen, whether on the street, or at a dismantler all had the integrated intake head. The Caprice also had the 250 I6 with integrated head as the base engine from 1977-'79.

---Craig #1172

IntegratedJay pointed out the '79 250 car head change. I've confirmed this on parts charts for the '79 versus my '78. The gaskets and exhaust parts are different from the '77-'78 charts. I've only seen a picture of one '79 Nova that had a non-integrated stock setup and haven't seen any others. Not sure what to make of it all, Maybe Jay can shed some light on it.

Federal cars got a non intergrated head in 79. I have seen a couple of nova's with this engine. 5 more rated HP also. California engines for 79 wrer still intergrated. Pick up trucks and vans got the "new" 2bbl head that was intergrated. I have often wondered why the change was made. Anyone know? Hope this helps. Jay

The only thing I can think of is what you mentioned, warranty repairs on cracked heads. Since they were still making the 2nd version Monojet integrated head for California....or maybe that was just leftover stock to clear out inventory. Continuing to use that head in California probably was due to keeping costs of certifying the six for Cali again. I would think it would cost them less to use the same engine as passed in '77 and '78 again in '79. They only had one year and two cars for the inline left, so they probably wanted to keep '79 costs to a minimum before the across the car line V6 in '80.