Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

232 Rebuild; What Makes Sense?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 52landcruiser
    replied
    I was in the same boat, so i picked up a running 289 for cheap. unless your a hardcore stude guy, you cant really tell the differance

    Leave a comment:


  • TX Rebel
    replied
    If it is original Stude parts you want to run, get a set of good used standard 259 pistons and have your block bored to 3-9/16". They can be had cheap. You can use your same crank & rods. While you are at it, install a pair of milled 259 heads & you will have a good running car with the orig block!

    Barry'd in Studes

    Leave a comment:


  • 1962larksedan
    replied
    To whom it may concern: build up/drop in a 259/289 if said Stude is going to be a daily driver but stash the original 232 away (if said vehicle is sold or is going to be a show car only).

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Borrowed Bams50's sigline here:

    "Do they all not, by mere virtue of having survived as relics of a bygone era, amass a level of respect perhaps not accorded to them when they were new?"

    Leave a comment:


  • 53starliner
    replied
    Several years ago I dumped the 232 in my 53 HT in favor of a rebuilt 289. Obviously, the power went up considerably, but the gas mileage did too...by 25%. The 259/289 is so much more efficient than the 232, and so much more fun! I did as JP said...made it look like the 232.

    Fred

    Leave a comment:


  • JDP
    replied
    I usually dump the 232 block, use a 289 and move all the externals over to keep it looking just like a 232. I keep the bigger exhaust manifolds, but that's about the only way to tell.

    JDP/Maryland

    Leave a comment:


  • wecklund
    replied
    Thanks so much for your thoughts on this. There's really no right or wrong way to go, it's just a matter of taste and budget. I do know that the original engine was fine with the exception of a bad crankshaft bearing that resulted in realy low oil pressure. The day that I bought it I drove it from Indianapolis to Kalamazoo with no real problems. While it doesn't have to be totally original, I'm really not looking for a lot of performance either. I can see myself driving it for an hour or two in the summer and then parking it for a week or two. Even though the valves are still tiny, I might pick up a little HP with the new set of 7.5:1 heads that I'm planning on using. Reliability is probably my biggest concern. I gotta tell you though, from a displacement to weight standpoint, this is the heaviest 232 cu. in. engine I've EVER worked on!

    Leave a comment:


  • PackardV8
    replied
    In my experience, it depends upon which 259" plus condition and tune.

    The 232" has smaller ports and valves, so has higher gas velocities in the ports at low RPMs. It has lower compression ratio, so makes less power from each stroke. The slightly smaller bore has less ring friction.

    Most 259"s have a point higher compression ratio, thus are more efficient.

    Bottom line, if each engine is built and tuned to specs, the difference would be minimal.

    thnx, jack vines

    PackardV8

    Leave a comment:


  • Kdancy
    replied
    I've often wondered if the 232 gets any better mileage than a 259. Say 232 with 3sp overdrive in a 53 hdtp?

    53commander HDTP
    53 Champion HDTP
    64 Champ long bed V8

    Leave a comment:


  • BRUCESTUDE
    replied
    I've rebuilt 4 different 232s, the last one was mine and so I drove it awhile before I sold it. I had it bored .030 over, ground the crank, did the heads, etc., and boy did it run sweet, plenty of power, too! I took it by the machinist who did the work and he was really stoked-said it was one of the smoothest running V8s he ever saw, and he's seen many!
    It's really a matter of taste, I think you could sink about the same amount of $$ into a 259 or 289, as most of the parts are reproduction, or new. [8D]

    Leave a comment:


  • PackardV8
    replied
    Hi, MLN,

    FWIW, the camshaft you describe is essentially the R1 specs. The R1 cam was designed for premium fuel 10.25:1 compression ratio 289" displacement. It will reduce low speed torque more than is desirable for a 259" automatic. You can help the low speed torque by decking the block and milling the heads so as to end up with least 9:1 - 9.5:1 compression. With the R1 cam, the R1 valve springs are mandatory.

    For normal driving, the standard 259"/289" cam and 9:1 compression would be my choice. Find an early 4-bbl intake and a good WCFB or late intake and 500 CFM AFB/Edelbrock.

    thnx, jack vines

    PackardV8

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    I have a 51 starlight that still has the original 232 V-8 motor that I was planning on rebulding but wanted to update the motor to a 259 my plans were to bore the block to a 259 and install nos 259 flat top pistons using 259 exhaust manifolds and the 289 570 heads with hardened seats on the exhaust valves and leave the 1" lifter bore with new lifters which I believe are lighter weight than the originals and using the original 232 rocker assemblies with the original push rods and have the original cam ground to .425 lift with a 260 degree duration. Am I doing this wrong or what should I change or do? It is important to me to have the original engine in the car that it came with which is also the vin number used on the title but just wanted a little more power out of it since it has the automatic transmission. This car will be restored to its original condition with the exception of the engine. Any advice from any of you would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, MLN

    Leave a comment:


  • Flashback
    replied
    Hey Jack , you makin me feel purty good talking like
    that. I got me a rocketship.[:I]

    Tex in Alabama












    Leave a comment:


  • PackardV8
    replied
    The real limitation with 232" is the low-compression heads and the teeny-tiny valves. A 259" with a bump in compression, 4-bbl and duals feels like a rocket ship compared to a 232".

    thnx, jack vines


    PackardV8

    Leave a comment:


  • Alan
    replied
    Later lifters are .903" the early 51-54's were 1". You can bore the 232 block out to 3 9/16" but that is it. Why? Bore it .020" and drive it, then you can get another 5 or 6 bores and a half a million miles out of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Flashback
    replied
    nother question here. Is it possible and feasable to
    bore the 232 and use 259 pistons, and bore the lifter
    bores out and use later lifters? Just askin

    Tex E. Grier

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X