help Identifing 261 Chev inline 6

[johnnycanuk]

Hi Guys: Am hoping someone can help me figure out what I have. I acquired it a month ago from a friend who had it in his garage for 30+ years. He thought it was from a Canadian Pontiac.Came originally from Saskatchewan.
Block Casting no. 3733813
Block Date code D 11 8
Block serial (stamped on dist. pad. W 9130591
Has two set of Captains Bars.
Has stamped M inside a box in side triangle formed by pass. side motor mount holes.

Head Casting No. 3836848
Head Date Code. C 1 6.
I read from this it is a 1958 261 block with a 1956 235 head with 79.1 cc chambers.
When I opened it I found it had milk can lifters, a cam that has a lift of .045 ish. )Not 100% sure of that as cam still in block and I am a neophyte measuring it). It has .030 pistons and .020 bearings. Rotating assembly appears to be really good with minimal wear. Again novice opinion!!
Engine has flow through oiling (still trying to get head around that system.
It has the fiber cam gear (few cracks)
My thought was to freshen this engine for street and run split manifold and maybe small 4 barrel or 2X2.
Not sure what I have. I am thinking someone got to this engine before me. and changed heads. Probably lifters as well.(My understanding they did not use this type of lifter in 261). I could use some info. and good advice on where to go with this. I understand that this is a good block and head to do up but want to do it right without a major cost. Thanks for your time, John

 

[johnnycanuk]

Hi Guys. Wow, I am overwhelmed at the response to my post. I guess I did not make it clear that I need help and advice. .ie are the milk can heads original to this motor. My understanding is they were last used in 1955. If they are not original would it be ok to use them with correct lifters.
I am still trying to get my head around the oil system to the rocker assembly. I have read (somewhere) there should be a special with a hole through it to allow oil to go to the rocker assembly. I have also heard this is BS. Does anyone have any information.
If it was an original hydraulic lifter engine and has the original cam in it is it ok to use non-hydraulic lifters. Thanks John

 

[Dr Crankenstein]

Well John, myself and 43 others have viewed you question... but clearly we don't have the answers you're looking for. Maybe the following links can point you in the right direction.

http://www.inliners.org/

http://www.stovebolt.com/

http://www.chevytalk.org/fusionbb/portal/index.php

http://canadianponcho.activeboard.com/

..

 

[R Pope]

Two sets of bars means a 261. You have it apart, just measure it.
I put solids in my '57 Pontiac 261 when the juice lifters crapped out. It worked OK, but was a PITA to keep the settings right so it didn't rattle. They had to be set at .006, hot and running, or it sounded like the hammers of hell.
Get a metal cam gear! Those fiber jobs break, and the valves hit the pistons and wipe out the whole engine. Been there, done that!

 

[johnnycanuk]

261 chev

Hi Guys thanks for the information. I have contacted most of those sites but there seems to be a lot of confusion re. the oiling to the rocker assembly. I was wondering if R. Pope has had problems with it and does his engine have the elusive bolt with the oil channel in it that supposedly allows oil to travel from the block to the head. Thanks again. I appreciate whatever help you can throw my way. John

 

[klink]

Here's a link to the inlers site, this covers converting a Chevy inline 6 to full pressure. http://www.inliners.org/tech/fullflow2.html There is no elusive bolt to turn, you'll have to drill and tap. There's a lot of info out there, you just need to be patient while searching. I find that vague search requests seem to work better when looking for Chevy inliner info. You should get this book http://www.amazon.com/Chevy-GMC-Buick-Speed-Manual/dp/1931128057/ref=pd_sim_b_3 it's old info but there's a lot of good info in it.

 

[johnnycanuk]

261 chev:

Thank you for the information. I have found quite a bit of stuff re. the oiling system from the sites you have sent me. Thanks again, John