The 4-(m-OH-phenyl)piperidines are a flexible fragment of the morphine/benzomorphan fused-ring opioids. Analogs in this family were synthesized with varying 4-alkyl substituents increasing in bulk from H through methyl, n-propyl, to t-butyl, each with the three N-substituents methyl, allyl, and phenethyl. These twelve compounds were evaluated for analgetic agonism in mice using two different models for antinociceptive activity, acetic acid writhing and tail-flick, the latter by both subcutaneous and intracerebroventricular routes of administration. Antagonism to morphine analgesia was also measured by the mouse tail-flick procedure. Binding affinities of these new analogs to different opioid receptor subtypes were determined. Energy conformational calculations on these compounds were also carried out using the empirical energy program called MOLMEC, in order to better understand how the 4-R substituents modulate receptor binding affinities and efficacies. The results obtained show that, in general, the compounds studied are mu-selective and vary in agonist potency from weak to morphine-like. Significant differences in rank order of analgetic potencies and their relationship to receptor affinities were obtained from the results of subcutaneous and intracerebroventricular administration. Results of energy-conformational calculations for twelve N-methyl compounds indicate that those with 4-alkyl substituents favor a common, non-morphine-like phenyl axial conformation. The 4-t-butyl compounds are, in fact, the first simple mono-alkyl-substituted 4-phenyl-piperidines predicted to definitely exist in a phenyl axial conformation, as confirmed by X-ray analysis. On the basis of this common phenyl axial conformation, the observed variation in mu receptor affinities and efficacies of the 4-methyl, 4-n-propyl, and 4-t-butyl compounds could be understood and the behavior of 4-ethyl and 4-isopropyl analogs predicted. Two equatorial conformers (rotamers) were found to be the preferred forms of the analogs with 4-R being H or an ester group, or with a 3-methyl group added trans (beta) to the 4-R group. Taking into account the rotational flexibility of these analogs, these two conformers could be used to understand differences in high and low efficacy compounds observed among analogs with preferred phenyl equatorial conformations. None of the analogs exhibit a fused-ring-like N-substituent modulation of efficacy. This result can, perhaps, be understood by their inability in any proposed conformer to totally mimic key receptor interactions of both the phenol-OH and N-substituent portions of the fused compounds.