Chevy 6 in my 48 P15 coupe

[Busted_Knuckles]

Has anyone ever powered a 48 Plymouth with a Chevy  250 6 cylinder? Reason I ask is my car came with one and a 3 speed manual trans out of a 69 C10 truck. I was considering keeping it in for several reasons #1 It would be the quickest way to get on the road after possibly putting  TH350 behind it. But the first thing I see is that danged steering box is in direct line with the the D/S motor mount. #2  I have  lot of speed equipment for a 250 -6 and #3 its would be different. Anywhere you go you look under the hood of a rod and what do you see an SBC so why not do something a bit different? I have resolved myself tot he fact that I am going to need the Fatman fabrications steering rack cradle and use the Cavalier R&P unit. Not to sound cheap but I am my goal is to get the coupe on the road ASAP and with as little expense as possible seeing as I need to find some body parts some I've located and some are still waiting to be found. I have a nice SBC that needs a little machine work and and assembly along with a 4 speed Muncie M-21 trans. The installation of whihc seems pretty straightforward and I have just about every part I'd need so with out having even started I am at a bit of a crossroad so any advice, input etc. will be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks for reading

[knuckleharley]

*I* think you should do whatever it is you think you need to do and want to do.

However,IF it were me,I'd sell the SBC and 4 speed stuff and then buy a cheaper used 318 and 904 to use,unless you want to make it REALLY simple and just put a flat 6 Mopar in it. Either way you get to avoid the whole expensive Fatman/Cavalier BS. 48 Plymouths actually rode and drove pretty good with the stock suspensions. You can use some of the money you saved to put disc brakes up front.

Don't know what flat 6 Mopar engines sell for where you live,but I bought a good running 251 from a running and driving 51 DeSoto a couple of months ago for $250. If you have never driven a flat 6 before,you may be shocked about how easy they are to drive and keep up with traffic. I drive a 51 Ford several times a week with the stock 226 flat 6 in it that has a lot less power than a 230 or 251 Mopar,and have no trouble at all cruIsing around at 55-60 MPH. If you live in the mountains or plan on pulling a trailer behind you,go V-8.If all you are doing is driving and having fun,the flat 6 is really all you need.

Edited March 5, 2017 by knuckleharley

[Los_Control]

I like the idea of a chevy 6, I have no correct answer for you, just a question or two. I am pretty certain the older 235 6 and 283 v8 came with the front horseshoe motor mount.

I have not tried to adapt any of these to a mopar front mount, just seems like it would be doable. Is there any way to adapt the 250 block to the early 235 horseshoe mount?

My guess is, the 250 block is not drilled for the front mount and only side mounts. But maybe if you can locate a cheap 235 block, you could still use most of your after market speed equipment?

[knuckleharley]

Sent you a PM. If you haven't set up your notifications on this site,now would be a good time to do it.

[Busted_Knuckles]

24 minutes ago, Los_Control said:

I like the idea of a chevy 6, I have no correct answer for you, just a question or two. I am pretty certain the older 235 6 and 283 v8 came with the front horseshoe motor mount.

I have not tried to adapt any of these to a mopar front mount, just seems like it would be doable. Is there any way to adapt the 250 block to the early 235 horseshoe mount?

My guess is, the 250 block is not drilled for the front mount and only side mounts. But maybe if you can locate a cheap 235 block, you could still use most of your after market speed equipment?

The 230/250 block is side mount only and the drivers side is smack inline with the steering box , funny thing is I have guys telling me not to bother running a 4 speed trans in the car as linkage never lines up and hydraulics are just not right fell wise. I'm sitting one night thinking about the car and say well it came with a manual transmission so how hard can it be? As it appears right now the SBC seems an easier way to go. Regardless I am going to need to up grade the steering tot he R&P for now I was going to leave the stock front suspension  in the front and just put in the rear from my 56 Chevy leaf springs and all in the rear as the stock ratio will just cause it to rev way too high. So much for simple solutions.

[Los_Control]

Sure someone will chime in and give some good advise. My current project is a 1949 truck. The ford 8.8 rear end from a explorer is a dime a dozen and swaps in with minor fabrication. Also the jeep cherokee is popular. And the T-5 trans from a ranger is a good choice for a trans. The stick location is forward so you do not need bucket seats, I assume all/most are using hydraulic clutches. Just seems like it would be the most simple fabrication wise.

As far as motor and steering box, it is a problem and why I thought about a 235 chevy 6 cylinder, but have a couple available, sitting out in the shed.

Seems with these older jalopies, moving the steering box to the outside of the frame is a viable solution, now you have to fabricate from the steering column to .... well the end of the world possibly.

Maybe even going with welding in a new front clip would be the answer. This is where it just stops being fun for some, turns into a 6 year project that eventually gets sold off in boxes.

As stated above, you can cheaply and easily go back to the flat 6, do some weekend mods getting a T-5 and modern rear end, switch the front hubs to disk brakes easily. Get the car on the road driving. Then consider the new motor.

[Busted_Knuckles]

A T-5 seems to be a good way to go but I have 3 4 speeds available but a bud that owns a junkyard. I'm gonna be needing one of those aftermarket under floor master cylinder set ups so that'd gonna cost me. Then there is the topic of disc brakes.  Do I adapt to the stock spindles or go with a front clip? I've read where guys have used a GM front subframe but I'm not exactly sure which one. I have a Nova piece available for a $200. I was advised that they don't always work as the Akerman is off in some applications.  The S10 is another option as we as the Dakota. So more time researching I guess is in my future. 

[dale]

251 Chrysler is the way to go...A near boltin.  Plenty of power.  The disc brakes for the front is a good thing too.

[DrDoctor]

   Whatever route you finally elect to pursue, if you get the Ackerman Principle geometry out of whack, the car will handle terribly. My advice, have someone who’s familiar with the principle help you, so you can avoid a lot of problems. Thx.

[Silverdome]

On 3/5/2017 at 7:18 PM, Busted_Knuckles said:

A T-5 seems to be a good way to go but I have 3 4 speeds available but a bud that owns a junkyard. I'm gonna be needing one of those aftermarket under floor master cylinder set ups so that'd gonna cost me. Then there is the topic of disc brakes.  Do I adapt to the stock spindles or go with a front clip? I've read where guys have used a GM front subframe but I'm not exactly sure which one. I have a Nova piece available for a $200. I was advised that they don't always work as the Akerman is off in some applications.  The S10 is another option as we as the Dakota. So more time researching I guess is in my future. 

Andy Bernbaum has disc brake conversions that use the stock spindles, I believe. IMHO I would also go back to the flat six, but it's your car so you have to decide how much work you want to do and money you want to spend before it's driveable. Sometimes just because you have parts available doesn't mean it will be easy or affordable to use them.

[classiccarjack]

1 hour ago, Silverdome said:

Andy Bernbaum has disc brake conversions that use the stock spindles, I believe. IMHO I would also go back to the flat six, but it's your car so you have to decide how much work you want to do and money you want to spend before it's driveable. Sometimes just because you have parts available doesn't mean it will be easy or affordable to use them.

Been there done that, ended up removing all the convenient parts to go back to something that actually worked on a 1962 Dodge truck once.  Complete disaster, welded up linkages, modified exhaust, oil pan and ETC....  Too embarrassed to admit my defeat.  I was a young guy back then!  Much wiser now.

 

The factory engineering in these cars was well thought out.  Trying to reinvent the wheel may cost more than you think.  If you live near me, I have extra Engine's that I can part with at a fair price.  I am somewhat close to San Diego and somewhat close to Mexico.  I wish you the best of luck in your adventure.

[Don Coatney]

Pictured is a crashler with a stovebolt 6. I have no other information about this car.

[mrwrstory]

I've scanned all the input to your original post and here's my 2 cents.  Sounds like you're not adverse to doing something different and, a "cost effective" build is what would give you the most satisfaction and quickest turn around.   Aesthetics and efficient use of money and resources is my thing so here goes.

As the Chev 6 and 3 spd is in and hopefully functional, for now leave it be.  Stock steering will work just fine.  Definitely do disk brakes and,.....I would do the Fatman dropped spindles to begin the aesthetic part.  Since you have wrecking yard contact, there are any number of Mopar, Ford or Jeep rearends with the correct width and bolt pattern,...and with a more highway friendly ratio.  With those upgrades you could be up and running in pretty short order.  And running/driving, even with the modest changes is very satisfying.

Then, while driving, you can plan your next wave of upgrades.  A 4 spd would be fun,...5 would be more fun ('tho your rear ratio should be taken into account).  And I'm guessing that the clutch linkage could be pretty easily worked out with the GM transmissions.  Or,...why not a Th350 or 700R if you want automatic.  I have a friend with a Chev 6 in front of a 700R4 and it worked quite well.

Tough decisions , eh!  Good luck and keep us posted, especially with pics.