engine swap from 248 to 263

[gerard]

Hi all,

I have a question
In my Buick special from 1950 I have a 248 with dynaflow tranny
Would a 263 with dynaflow fit in to my car from a buick special from 1953?

Thanks
Gerard

[GOBO]

As far as I know ,the only difference between the two engines is the cylinder bore. Shouldn't be too much of a problem to switch out if you really wanted to. If the 263 was in much better shape than the 248 that would be a good reason.

GOBO

[telriv]

I'm pretty sure the 1950 had a 263.

Tom

[Buford26]

The 248 and the 263 are interchangeable, so it should fit. In 1950 the Special still had the 248, but the Super had the new 263, and the Roadmaster had the 320. The Special got the 263 in 1951.

[telriv]

Sorry, the ole memory is a fadin'.

Tom T.

[gerard]

Can I also attach the 263 engine to the dynaflow transmission of the 248?

[justjoe]

The 263 was used on 40 and 50 series with the dynaflow trans, If you have a dynaflow you should have the 263. The 248 was used on the manual trans, You may not be able to put the 263 in place where you have a manual trans because the 263 did not have a pilot hole in the end of the crank for the trans shaft. Hope this helps

[alleycat]

The 248 and 263 are totaly interchangeable, as are the dynaflows. But! The 53 dyna is a much better trans, you absolutly want to use it! There may be a few "fiddley bits" that may not bolt on just "bang" but work around that, it's worth it. alleycat

[gerard]

Why is the dynaflow transmission from a straight eight from 1953 better then
a dynaflow transmission from a straight eight from a car from 1950?

[Great Balls of Fire]

The 263 was used on 40 and 50 series with the dynaflow trans, If you have a dynaflow you should have the 263. The 248 was used on the manual trans, You may not be able to put the 263 in place where you have a manual trans because the 263 did not have a pilot hole in the end of the crank for the trans shaft. Hope this helps

Not true in 1950. My Special has a 248 with a dynaflow.