Tweet
My '56 Vette, with powerglide, had a single carburetor on it when I got it. It was a Rochester and incorrect. When I rebuilt the motor I just assumed it was a single four barrel car. The block had the correct numbers for the car. I restored the motor with a WCFB #2366SA carburetor. I just read that '56 motors with the oil dipstick on the left side were 2X4 cars. Is this true? How do I go about finding the true option for the specific car? The VIN # is E56S004071 therefore making it close to the end of production. I don't look forward to changing the carburetion after making it correct with the 4bbl, but, I would like the added horsepower. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
-
-
Re: Confusing C1 Motor Options.
There were only a handfull of 56's produced without the 2X4's, most of which I believe were late production. -
Re: Confusing C1 Motor Options.
if the block is the original, whats the suffix stamped on the pad. that'll tell you whether it was a 210, 225 or 240 hp engine. mikeComment
-
Re: Confusing C1 Motor Options.
E56S4071 is certainly late enough in the model year production to have been a single four car. The single four option was announced in late April of 56. Technically, the two four engine became option 469, and the single four engine became the base motor.
I have been doing research, and writing articles, about 1956 single four intake manifolds, and Covette use of the same. Can you tell me what the casting number and date code are on your single four intake manifold? I would like to include that info in my survey, assuming it fits.
Noland's book describes a first design and a second design 56 engine. I seem to recall that the dip stick location was one of the ways to tell the difference. My guess, based on your VIN number and the estimated build date, is that you car would have had the second design engine.
I have look for many years, and have yet to find a way to verify whether a 56 came originally with a single four or a two four engine. Other than the engine, nothing else on the car appears to be different. One possibility, that I am still trying to confirm, is that the size of the hole in the throttle lever MAY be different between single four and two four cars in 56. Something like 1/4 hole and no grommet for two four cars, and a 1/2 hole with a grommet for single four cars. Take that with a big grain of salt.Comment
-
Re: Confusing C1 Motor Options.
Steve, Since 56s with the right side dipstick were very early cars, and most of the very early cars were 2X4s, it is entirely possible (more likely probable) that the single 4 barrel cars had left side dipsticks. In short - there is no coorelation that I'm aware of between dipstick location and carbueration. If the pad stamp indicates single 4, leave that car as is and enjoy it - I suspect that you would barely notice the difference in performance between the two options. SteveComment
-
Re: Confusing C1 Motor Options.
On a 265 or 283 with a mild cam, the 2X4 is really a bit much carb. Alright, I'll say it; it's way too much carb! Doubt you would see any real improvement in performance and the single carb is a lot less headache, though the 2X4 can certainly be made ot operate properly. Most seem to run a little too rich at best, though. However, the 2X4 has a certain "cool" factor which cannot be completely ignored.Comment
-
Re: Confusing C1 Motor Options.
Ed, I couldn't agree more. The 2X4s are kinda neat and a lot of work - but the sound of the solid cam is what really trips my trigger. SteveComment
-
Re: Confusing C1 Motor Options.
It was my understanding that the 2X4 became an option, instead of standard, when they changed from the first design motor (right side dipstick) to the second design with the left side dipstick. The power top also became an option instead of standard at this time.
So all of the first design motors were 2X4. If you have a 1X4, it would have to be the second design.
I think that this is in Noland Adam's book. Since I don't have it with me, I cannot reference the page(s).
BTW - I have a 56 with 2X4, Duntov profile cam, and Powerglide. Fast and high performance are not descriptors that I would use for this car. It would need at least 100 more HP, not the 10 extra HP from the extra carb, to get those descriptors! Looks Cool! is about the best I can say about the extra carb.
Dave ChristensenComment
-
Re: Confusing C1 Motor Options.
Dave, I think Ed is more correct in the changeover date. 2x4 was still the norm after the switch from the early style motor. Those were only the first 600 or so cars. Single 4bbl didn't become available until later in the model year. I'm curious as to what size fuel line is in the car. I thought that possibly after the fuel pump changeover in May from 4262 to 4346, with the corresponding change in fuel line from 5/16 to 3/8, that 1x4 cars might have retained the smaller fuel line. That changeover date roughly corresponds to the date that Ed noted for 1x4 availability and 2x4 as an option. Does anyone have an opinion on that theory?Comment
-
Re: Confusing C1 Motor Options.-Bernard
Bernard,
Changeover from the 4262 to 4346 fuel pump was later than May. I have a late May '56 with 5/16" gas line. I'm thinking sometime in July, but without some checking around research cannot state this for sure. There was no need for a 3/8" line until the 4362 pump became available. Once the 3/8" lines were attached to the frame, I believe it did not matter which engine came along to be mated to it, single 4 BBL or 2 X 4BBL. Regards,Comment
-
Re: Confusing C1 Motor Options.-Bernard
Jim, For what it's worth, my 56 is #3190 - built Jun 27th or so, and has the 3/8" line. SteveComment
-
Re: Confusing C1 Motor Options.-Bernard
What are the numbers on the block stamp pad?Comment
-
Re: Confusing C1 Motor Options. -Steve
Thanks Steve, I've got to start taking notes of this stuff! Regards,Comment
Comment