Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: 396 in 1966 Beaumont four door


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 77
Date:
396 in 1966 Beaumont four door


Just out of curiosity, was the 396 an option for four door 1966 Beaumont? I am wondering how it would work if it was. I know from experience that the four door sedans have smaller engine compartments than the two doors due to the requirement of having a much smaller radiator.

 

I have read about four door caprices with big blocks.

 

Thanks



 



-- Edited by blackbird307 on Thursday 8th of January 2015 09:48:03 PM

__________________


A Poncho Legend!

Status: Offline
Posts: 48788
Date:

No, the only Beaumonts ever off the assembly line with a big block would have been two door hardtops and convertibles.

There have been claims of other body styles having factory big blocks but none have ever been documented.

The engine compartments would be identical between sedan and hardtop, at least according to experience and also to parts and service manuals, so I'm not quite sure what you are saying?

On the Caprices a big block was available on any body style, 2dr, 4dr, wagon.

__________________

1966 Strato Chief 2 door, 427 4 speed, 45,000 original miles 

1966 Grande Parisienne, 396 1 of 23 factory air cars

NOS


Poncho Master!

Status: Offline
Posts: 1698
Date:

Carl Stevenson wrote:

No, the only Beaumonts ever off the assembly line with a big block would have been two door hardtops and convertibles.

There have been claims of other body styles having factory big blocks but none have ever been documented.

The engine compartments would be identical between sedan and hardtop, at least according to experience and also to parts and service manuals, so I'm not quite sure what you are saying?

On the Caprices a big block was available on any body style, 2dr, 4dr, wagon.


had a lady drop in  several years ago wondering if we were interested I buying her 66 Impala 4 door htp 396 with factory AC. A Central Chev London car



__________________


Veteran Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 77
Date:

Carl Stevenson wrote:

No, the only Beaumonts ever off the assembly line with a big block would have been two door hardtops and convertibles.

There have been claims of other body styles having factory big blocks but none have ever been documented.

The engine compartments would be identical between sedan and hardtop, at least according to experience and also to parts and service manuals, so I'm not quite sure what you are saying?

On the Caprices a big block was available on any body style, 2dr, 4dr, wagon.


 Reason why I said that was because I aquired a small block radiator that supposedly came from a beaumont with a small block that would not fit in mine for some reason. My radiator was uniquely small. It baffled me because I thought both 6cyl and SB V8s were the same size, but I know some parts are different (Ie waterpump), so maybe the radiator came from a beaumont with a small block V8?. I have been confused with radiators, the small block radiator which I aquird has about a 2in thick core, but it wont fit since my original radiator is about roughly under 1.5inches. It's strange, perhaps it didn't actually come from a beaumont? This conundrum lead me to this question.  I had to replace it with one the same size from across the country because I had such a hard time finding one, which came from a four door beaumont.

 

I read something online a while back where the four door sedans of chevelles were different from the two doors in that the quarter panels were shorter by and inch, which lead me to believe there was also size difference in the engine compartments.

 

I don't plan on replacing my engine with a 396, just curious if it was possible were something to happen to my current engine, I may have another option if it were possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 



-- Edited by blackbird307 on Thursday 8th of January 2015 11:56:15 PM



-- Edited by blackbird307 on Wednesday 21st of January 2015 12:14:38 PM

__________________


Uber Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 3568
Date:

Hmmm, were 6 cyl rads smaller than the small block V8's? I know that my 327 had a 2 core rad (which I recored to a 3 core). I believe that the big blocks had a 4 core.
Not sure if any of this aids in the discussion....

__________________

"So when you spot violence, or bigotry, or intolerance or fear or just garden-variety hatred or ignorance, just look it in the eye and think... The good outnumber you, and we always will."  Patton Oswalt



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 611
Date:

03cts sport wrote:

Hmmm, were 6 cyl rads smaller than the small block V8's? I know that my 327 had a 2 core rad (which I recored to a 3 core). I believe that the big blocks had a 4 core.
Not sure if any of this aids in the discussion....


My BB rad was a 3 core ...and had it re cored into a 4 core.



__________________
"you can't burn out, if your not on fire" -Jim Morrison


A Poncho Legend!

Status: Offline
Posts: 48788
Date:

Yes, I am quite sure the 6 cyl rad was smaller than the V8 rad. As I recall it was thinner and the measurement across (side to side) was less as well.

Beaumontguru will be able to tell us for sure, he's owned 6's and 8's both.

__________________

1966 Strato Chief 2 door, 427 4 speed, 45,000 original miles 

1966 Grande Parisienne, 396 1 of 23 factory air cars



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 613
Date:

I'm thinking the 6 cyl. and 283-V8 rads are identical, both 2 core...my SD 396 has a 3 core rad.

Note - the SBC rads need a sheet metal spacer/box between the rad support and the back of the 2 core rad, so the rad sits closer to the V8 fan blades.

__________________
owned ten 1967 Beaumonts, over 3 decades


Addicted!

Status: Offline
Posts: 339
Date:

Beaumont67SD wrote:

I'm thinking the 6 cyl. and 283-V8 rads are identical, both 2 core...my SD 396 has a 3 core rad.

Note - the SBC rads need a sheet metal spacer/box between the rad support and the back of the 2 core rad, so the rad sits closer to the V8 fan blades.


 Probably need the spacer to bolt up the SB rad, the six cylinder rads are narrower, depending on the options and had no spacer, just bolted to the support.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 613
Date:

^^^^ If the 6 cyl. rads are narrower than the small V8's, do you mean the core &/or brass tanks are thinner across..or both.

I've parted out a dozen Chevelle/Beaumonts...except for the V8 spacer, the rads looked exactly the same to me (looking from the outside).
- I'd be interested in what I'm missing



-- Edited by Beaumont67SD on Friday 9th of January 2015 10:56:25 PM

__________________
owned ten 1967 Beaumonts, over 3 decades


Canadian Poncho Superstar!

Status: Offline
Posts: 4554
Date:

Shown below is an original 1967 Chevelle / Beaumont radiator for a 6-cylinder car. Note that the fins don't go full width (compare it to the full-width tanks).

67rad6cyl.jpg

I replaced the radiator in my 67 six-cylinder Chevelle with a small block V8 version that has the fins & tubes going full width. I bolted it straight onto the rad support just like the original, but for a small block V8 it would have to bolt onto a rad spacer in order to maintain the correct distance to the fan on the shorter small block V8.

You could order a heavy duty radiator on a 6-cylinder or small block V8 1966 Beaumont, but curiously not on the 396. The standard 396 rads were physically wider and had greater cooling area. HD rads made it to 396 Beaumonts for 1968, the year that factory air conditioning became an option on Beaumonts & Canadian-built Chevelles.

Standard radiators in 1966 had finger guards on the top tank, HD rads had metal fan shrouds instead of the finger guards.



Attachments
__________________

67 Chevelle Malibu Sport Coupe, Oshawa-built 250 PG never disturbed.

In garage, 296 cid inline six & TH350...

Cam, Toronto.


I don't judge a man by how far he's fallen, but by how far back he bounces - Patton

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us
.
Support Canadian Poncho!
Select Amount:
<
.
.
.