Engine: 232 vs 289 engine and auto transmission weight

[mhs56]

I have tried to search the archives (unsuccessfully) to find out what is the difference in weight of a 1951 Land Cruiser 232 engine with auto transmission and a 1962 289 engine, dressed like a 1951 232 with the 1951 transmission attached. Anyone know? Thanks.

[Alan]

None. They are both the same.

[SN-60]

There's really no doubt that the old "DG" automatic trans and its lock-up torque converter would weigh more than a later Flightomatic and converter....but you're saying that you're using the "DG", so transmission weight is a moot point.

[64V-K7]

The transmission (DG 200) would certainly weigh more than a Flight O Matic by 100# or so. The 232 and the 289 would weight the same

[mhs56]

Thanks a lot. Appreciate the info.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks. That's what I was expecting, but wanted verification.

[mhs56]

Thanks Bob.

[Chicken Hawk]

The 232 crank is probably a few pounds lighter than the 289 and heads might be also but not much.

Ted

[t walgamuth]

Ask a racer about weight.