What are the best V8 engines ever made?

corsicachevy · February 2002

I just looked it up - all of the new Mercedes three valve per cylinder modular engines use twin plug heads - both V6 and V8 versions.

Nissan - didn't the Pulsar have an engine with twin plug heads?

Mr_Shiftright · February 2002

I know I saw it on some 80s Japanese car but can't recall which. Thanks for checking on the MB twin-plug.

rea98d · February 2002

I had a friend my freshman year that had a mid-80's Nissan Stanza (or something like that) that had 2 plugs per cylinder. The thing is, her car was worse than my 20 year old (at the time) '78 Grand Marquis I was driving. I ended up giving her a few rides when her car wouldn't run. Japanese cars may be the most reliable on the market today, but 20-25 years ago, they most definately were not.

lmihok · February 2002

You guys have got to be kidding!!
Chrysler Hemis and Semi Hemi Fords?
These engines ran good on racetracks but were very difficult to run on the street. There cannot be any doubt that the small block chevy is the best engine of all time. With over 65 million produced and its legendary ability to be easily modified and longevity thats a very easy pick for best engine. It's track record is untouchable also for you bench racers.

andre1969 · February 2002

...I had a friend who didn't have his own car yet, but usually switched up between his parents' '72 Dart or '83 Stanza. Japanese cars may have been reliable back then, but they sure couldn't take much abuse! In late '88, they used the Stanza as a trade-in on a brand new '89 Escort. It barely made it to the dealership under its own power.

Basically, what happened is these people didn't maintain their cars. The Dart got oil added once the light came on, which, in my experience, means it was down to about 2 quarts. The oil and filter were rarely, if ever, changed. Coolant wasn't checked until the temp gauge spiked, and usually, a belt or hose wasn't replaced until it broke!

Well, the Dart was able to put up with that for about 100,000 miles, and finally succumbed to just sitting around and not being used. The Stanza, however, was dead meat after about 5 years! About a year after they got the Escort, the county threatened to tow the Dart. They'd let it sit at the curb in front of their house, but cancelled the insurance and turned in their tags. They offered to give it to me if I could get it started. Well, I did, but then it started spraying fuel. It was just a little leak that could easily be fixed, but to these people, fuel leak = "A-Team" style explosion, so they wouldn't let me have something so "dangerous." Please. If they could've seen some of the cars I've driven since then!

spokane · February 2002

I once saw a "Best Engines" listing that ranked the Studebaker 289 CID OHV engine (c. 1956) rather highly. Among V8's, it clearly was not considered to be as significant as several others such as the Ford Flathead, the Olds Rocket, or Ed Cole's 265 Chevy, but there must have been something distinctive about this Studebaker engine. Anyone know what it was?

Mr_Shiftright · February 2002

It was just a tough old engine, nothing exceptional but it was very reliable and long-lived.

speedshift · February 2002

The first Stude V8 was a 232 that came out in 1951, two years after the first Cadillac overhead valve V8. I read somewhere that GM gave Studebaker the blueprints for the Cadillac V8. I don't know if that's true, but if the Stude was heavily based on the early Cad it would have been a good engine by '50s standards. The Cadillac was a bolt in swap so at least the external dimensions were very close.

My impression is that Stude V8s were decent engines by early '50s standards but didn't have the benefit of updating. They were heavy but small displacement engines, typical of low-cost V8s until the thinwall Chevy came along. Most Studes were either 259 or 289 CID although I think a handful were bored to 304.

Probably the same story as the Rambler V8--not much money to modernize engines--but at least that engine was fairly light and could be brought out to 401 CID.

Back around 1971 when I had my Studes I knew an old-time machinist who swore by Studebaker V8s. I remember him telling me you could really bore out that engine, much like the Y block and the other old boat anchors. That pretty much ended with the Chevy small block. The early 283s could easily take an overbore to 301 CID (.060" over) but by the early '60s even that was pretty marginal, and I think the 289 won't take much more than .030 over.

carnut4 · February 2002

I was thinking about the Buick nailhead V8, which ran from '53 through the '66 model year, and thought "that was a short run." But it's successor didn't do much better. When was the last year for that second generation Buick V8?Then I thought of the Y-block Ford [272,292,etc], which ran from 54 through 62 in passenger cars. Not a real long run either. Did it run longer than that in trucks? Then I got to wonder-what was the shortest production run for a modern V8? The 348-409 Chev went from 58 to 65 [8 model years]. Were there any shorter than that? Maybe the "real" Packard V8, from 55 to 58? Anyway, thought I'd bring it up here. Of course, the small block Chev has to be the longest ever run-anyone know of a longer one?

jaserb · February 2002

I know the Taurus SHO from 96-99 (4 model years) had a 3.4 liter(?!?) V8. Those years of SHO were pretty bad, so it's not surprising it was dropped. As far as long lived V8's go, the Dodge 318 came out in the early 60s (I think) and you can still buy it today. Is there another engine that has gone 4 decades without even a change in displacement?

-Jason

corsicachevy · February 2002

I concur - the strange 60 degree SHO V8 was not one of the best V8 engines of all time. Unfortunately this engine epitomized the short-cut, lazy development attitude that plagued Ford for many years.

A bean counter must have told the powertrain development group - "Why design a new engine when you can just slap another set of cylinders on an existing V6?"

ehaase · February 2002

I don't think that a 90 degree V8 would fit in the Taurus. I wish that SHO had enough room for the Continental's 4.6L 32v DOHC V8 to fit.

corsicachevy · February 2002

The Taurus would have had a hard time swallowing a 90 degree V8. But that still doesn't excuse the production of this most mediocre of V8s.

jaserb · February 2002

I guess the moral of the story is "Better a good V6 than a bad V8". The Yamaha engine in the earlier SHOs was fairly well regarded, IIRC.

-Jason

speedshift · February 2002

The Yamaha V6 was righteous. I drove two SHO 5-speeds in the mid '90s. The shifter linkage was as bad as the engine was good. No wonder they sold so many automatics the last year when it was finally available.

Some of those engines with short production runs actually served as the basis for the engine that replaced them. My understanding is that the '67-up Buick big block, Chevy porcupine and Ford FE were evolutionary changes with similar blocks but different heads and bigger bearings. Not necessarily clean slate designs, just major updates. I think the "new" 318 ('67-up) was the old polysphere block with redesigned heads (which would explain why they're so heavy) and for all I know the polysphere was based on the hemi, and if so that's one heck of a production run.

The Packard 352 and 374(?) did have a very short run, just two years I think, from 1955-56. '57 Packards used the supercharged Stude V8. The Stude actually had a long run for an engine without any significant changes, from '51 to '64. In '65 Stude used the Chevy 283.

modvptnl · February 2002

I'm pretty sure they are the same FWD platform and the 3.8 V6 is a 90 degree motor.

As far as the Yamaha/Ford V8, I almost feel sorry for Ford on that one. The original V6 5 speed was a SCREAMER that sold poorly because of what market research said was a lack of an automatic. Ford introduced an auto and still poor sales. They toned down the performance(even though the 3.4 V8 had 15/20 more horsepower than the V6) upped the "touring content" and the car still didn't sell. Of course that controversial styling didn't help!!!

All in all, 240ish horsepower out of 3.4 liters is respectable and it was a jewel of a motor. I just don't think people ever got over the family/rental car roots of the Taurus.

BTW, I had a '93 SHO and LOVED the fact it was such a sleeper!!

speedshift · February 2002

I checked and the Packard V8 may hold the record for shortest run of an American production V8--two years. Came out in 1955 as a 320 (I'd forgotten that one) and a 352. In '56 there was one 352 and two 374s including a dual quad version. Must be tough to amortize your tooling costs with a two-year production run of 65,600 units.

The early hemis weren't around that long either, and since the Dodge version appeared last (1953) and left first (last year 1957) that might be the record for a production run by a manufacturer that wasn't in serious trouble (well, *really* serious trouble, Chrysler was always in mildly serious trouble) by the end of the run.

Clevelands weren't around that long either, only from 1970-74 if you don't count the 351M and 400.

That's about it. Just off the top of my head I can't think of another American V8 that didn't last at least ten years.

BTW the Y block hung around through 1963 as the 292, then was replaced in '64 by the 260. I'm just about positive it was used in trucks later than that.

silverbullet4 · February 2002

Seems I recall the '56 Plymouth had a 318 polyspherical engine available on the Fury at least. Don't know if that is the same as later 318's. The 272(3)? came in about '63 on the Baracuda.

speedshift · February 2002

You're pretty close. The Plymouth polysphere came out in 1955 as a 270 and the 318 CID version came out in '57 as the V800 with dual quads. The standard four barrel was a 301 poly which was actually quicker off the line than the 2x4v 318. The dual quad 318 was offered in '58 as well, and for a few years from '59 on you could get the 318 as either a two barrel (230 hp) or four barrel (250 hp). As a two barrel it lasted through '66.

The 273 came out in I think '64, first as a two barrel and later as a very strong 235 hp four barrel. When I first met my wife she still had a '64 Valiant Signet (two door hardtop with buckets) 273 Torqueflite she'd bought new--Andre, eat your heart out. Fun car, very attractive in dark blue and very quick off the line. We sold it for big bucks ($2500?) in 1987 when she bought a new car but I'm kind of sorry we did.

newcar31 · February 2002

I'm sure someone has already mentioned it, but I didn't feel like reading all of the posts. I think the DOHC 4.6L is a pretty slick V8. Apparantly, other small specialty car companies think so also....Rover, Qvale, Panoz. The new 03 Cobra looks to be a blast. 390 supercharged hp, 390 lbs-ft of torque. Ford should have done that years ago.

andre1969 · February 2002

...I saw a '67 Dart GT for sale at Carlisle PA with a 273 4-bbl. Dark red with a black interior, IIRC. I always wondered, how would the 273-4 compare, performance wise, with the 318-2bbl? The 273-4 had 235 hp and the 318-2 had 230.

Oh yeah, one other tidbit...the 318 did change a little bit for 1968. The '57-67 editions were the old poly-head "wide-block", that was easily identifiable by the "sawtooth" edge on the valve covers. That and the fact that the engine just looked physically large compared to the later editions. The '68 and onward 318's were on the 273 LA block, which also spawned the 340 and the 360. I think the LA block was about 100 lb lighter than the older poly-head A block.

Speedshift, sounds like your wife had a pretty sweet Valiant. What did you get in '87...the T-bird? I like the older Valiants because you could get a wide array of trim levels and body styles, whereas they cheapened them in '67 so they wouldn't compete too much with the Barracuda.

carnut4 · February 2002

My guess is that the 318 2barrel would have more low end torque than the 273-4, but the 273 would pass it at the top end because of the hotter cam and 4barrel-better breathing. Of course, it might depend on how much weight they were carrying. In a heavy car, maybe the 318-2 would win. By the way, the newer 318, with the narrower head design, etc, came out in 67. 66 was the last year of the old poly head.

speedshift · February 2002

Yes, that's when she bought the Turbo Coupe. The Infiniti that replaced it recently is only her third car. The Valiant was mint but had manual steering and brakes, not the easiest car to drive.

The 273 four barrel is one of the unsung heroes of the '60s. Smaller than the 340 so it doesn't have the great rep and completely overshadowed by the HiPo 289/271, but according to Roger Huntington both put out 190 net hp.

Considering how rare and expensive the HiPo was, the 273/235 was a bargain then and now. You could get it in the Dart and Valiant as well as the Barracuda, with automatic as well as four speed. The only Falcon V8 was the 289 two barrel, and while you could get the HiPo in various Comets, Fairlanes and Mustangs, the two barrels are far more common.

dustyk · February 2002

.......in my opinion was probably the most durable "small block" motor and likely the best V8 ever produced. I was in the auto repair business for many years and it remained the one engine I only saw apart a couple of times, and that was for timing chains and one or two rear crankshaft seal failures. Never saw a failed camshaft (like Chevies), never saw one launch a connecting rod (like Ford Y blocks), spin a bearing (Pontiacs & big block Chevies), or wear out the valve guides (Chevies) and valve train components(Fords). I've seen more 318's reach the 200,000 mile mark and very, very few that were oil burners.

Almost always fitted with a two-barrel carburetor the 318LA was not a pretentious motor, but a darn good utility motor used in boats and everything Chrysler ever built, including big trucks and police cars. They're still used in those Ingersol-Rand compressors and our auxilary power plant engine at work is a 360, the big brother of the 318.

The 318LA was introduced in late 1966 in big Dodge trucks, phased in the 1967 Plymouth and Dodge cars. It is, as already been mentioned, the big brother to the 273, and predecessors to the 340 and 360 motors. The 318LA utilized some characteristically conservative but typical Chrysler design and manufacturing features. The piston, connecting rod, rod cap and wrist pin each weighed the same within 1 gram. For most years the wrist pins were full-floating and used locks. Unlike the Ford or GM approach, the 318LA used a constant pressure rotor-style oil pump. Like all engines manufactured by Chrysler between 1957 and 1996, a valve lifter can be removed from the block by just removing the valve cover and using a special tool. Oddly though, the "LA" series is the only engines to come from Chrysler that did not have the oil pump on the outside of the block.

The 318LA's efficient combustion chamber design allowed Chrysler to meet emission standards for a number of years in the 1970s without having to be fitted with some of the power-robbing and trouble prone add-on devices used by its competitors.

Dusty

andre1969 · February 2002

...and never had a bit of trouble with them. Now that's not to say the rest of the car was as durable, or that they didn't give their previous owners fits! The first was my '68 Dart, that I bought with about 253,000 miles on it. The guy that had it before me rebuilt it around the 242K mark. Currently I have about 338,000 miles on it. The second was a '79 Newport I bought from the junkyard for $250.00. It had 230,000 miles on it, and I got rid of it with about 250,000 on it. Original engine, as far as I know. At least, I figure a car like this, once the engine blows, most people would just junk it instead of investing in a new engine!

The next was an '89 Gran Fury ex cop car. It was retired at 73,000 miles, because of a bad camshaft. Supposedly, Chrysler had a batch of bad camshafts in '89 that would fail at the #8 lobe. If you got a bad one, it usually let go between 70 and 90,000 miles, but if you got a good one, the engine lasted the life of the car. Unfortunately, this one had a bad one! The dealership I bought it from got a 318 out of an '88 Diplomat that had been wrecked with 75K on it, and dropped it in. Now at 117,000 miles, it has a bum starter, or something else refusing to make it catch, but the engine itself has been fine.

Recently, I picked up a '79 New Yorker with a 360 2-bbl. Considering the added weight, and all the smog stuff they put on cars in the late '70's, not to mention taller gearing, the NY'er really doesn't feel that much slower than the Gran Fury. I've heard that the 360's though, weren't as reliable as the 318, because of a smaller water jacket or something like that. At least, I heard that the R-body cop cars that used them around '79-80 usually failed around 90,000 miles. My NY'er has about 85K on it, so hopefully it won't follow suit!

speedshift · February 2002

Great rundown on the 318. Unfortunately the only 318 I ever owned, in a '70 Challenger SE four speed, had been fried by its previous owner. I bought a 360 core at a wrecking yard and rebuilt it--only engine I ever rebuilt--and dropped it into the Challenger. Years later I read that I should have had great difficulty doing this swap because one of the motor mounts is in a different location, but I never noticed. If it doesn't fit, get a bigger hammer ;-).

spokane · February 2002

Carnut4 and Speedshift, I agree that the Packard V8 may hold some sort of record for a short life. This engine, in displacements of 320, 352, and 374 CID, was produced for '55 and '56 models only. In addition to Packard, it was used in the Nash Ambassador, other Nashes which now had the Hudson Hornet label on them, and the fabled '56 Studebaker Golden Hawk. I recall that many of us marveled at the Golden Hawk with the big Packard engine as though that engine had a long-established repution for superiority. What were we thinking of, the WWII aircraft engines from Packard?

speedshift · February 2002

That's an interesting comment because I had one of those Golden Hawks, white over dark green with OD. It was fairly quick in a straight line but plowed unmercifully just doing a U turn. That Packard was one heavy boat anchor, over 800 pounds as I recall. Even heavier than the Chrysler Firepower.

Mr_Shiftright · February 2002

That Packard V8 had a severe problem with upper engine oiling, too.

Packard generally put their engines together well, however. They were really a lot better car than the Studebaker that absorbed them.

dustyk · February 2002

This is the first report I've ever heard about a 318LA camshaft failure. Of course, almost all parts made by humans will have a failure rate, so I'm sure it had to happen somewhere and sometime.

And I'm sure that there were 318's that popped, by comparatively they had few problems and very few had problems when you compare them to their competitors.

Dusty

speedshift · February 2002

Oh sure, you can fry any engine if you work at it hard enough and I'm sure the previous owner did. It's more a comment on what happened to musclecars and ponies when they were $500 used cars.

sundaydriver3 · March 2002

I have heard that the 450 SLC 5.0 was really fast. My parents owned a '72 280SEL 4.5 back in the mid 80s. They were in the $5-8k range then. That car could spin its wheels and was fast for is size. Engine was indestructible, but used some oil, and had some rough starting / idle problems.

rea98d · March 2002

And I just thought I'd add my '95 T-Bird with a 4.6 just hit 200,000 miles today. (Yeah, I know that's a lot for a 7 year old car). Other than using a bit of oil, it runs fine. I'm hoping for another 100,000 out of her.

paisan · March 2002

Send that car back to Ford so they can see what they did right!

-mike

timz58 · March 2002

One notable variation of the venerable Chevy small blocks were the 302s that came in the early Z-28 Camaros. The engines were strong, quick and had an unmistakable rumble, even in street form. Rumor has it that Ford played with different cams and timing to try and get that all important Chevy sound in the Mustangs. The high revs and instant power left many big blocks at the starting line. Biggest advantage of the Chevy was the reliability and ease of maintenance and tuning. On any given day, stop light to stop light, a good running "power pack" 283 chevy would have the 312/332/352 ford for lunch. The 57 Chevy 210 Delray 2 door sedan with early fuel injection (283 hp from 283 CI), factory four speed and 4:11 gears was one impressive machine. The newer engines from all manufacturers are probably far superior and infinitely more reliable but just don't have the same class as those old rumblers.

carnut4 · March 2002

I remember reading a collection of old road tests from Road and Track, where they had tests of a number of different Corvettes and other Chevy road tests with the small block engine, in various 283-327-350 CID forms. The '57 Corvette with the fuely option had a 0-60 time of something like 5.7 seconds. This was in 1957! That kind of acceleration didn't happen again until the mid 60's, with the big block Corvettes. Obviously, the small block Chevy has a place in history, in spite of what some purists might criticize in favor of the polished aluminum of Jags and Alfas, etc. Never will there be another engine like the small block Chevy! Hey, just go to a sprint car race, and you'll see just a small part of its legacy!

jrosasmc · March 2002

The best V-8 engine of all time has probably got to be the Chevy 350. It's been around since 1955 in one form or another. I recently test-drove a '92 Caprice wagon which had a TBI-equipped 350 in it, the first year that engine was available. Even in stock 185 hp form, that thing was fast and furious! It could easily burn rubber from a standing start, and once you got past 30 mph, all hell broke loose. This car had 102k miles on it and still sounded as if it was brand-new.

andre1969 · March 2002

...my grandparents had a '72 Impala with a 350-2bbl in it. It had all of 165 hp, which doesn't seem like much when put to the task of moving about 4200 lb of car. Still, that car was no slouch. I do remember Granddad had to do a valve job on it around 70,000 miles, although it was running well in 1982 when they sold it, with a bit over 100K on it. The vinyl top was shredded and that was probably a good time to buy stock in Bondo, but the thing still ran!

Those 100,000 miles weren't exactly easy ones, either. Grandmom only worked about 2-3 miles away, and Granddad was retired by then, so most of that driving was short trips. They also had a trailer that they pulled with it, when they went on vacations.

ab348 · March 2002

Don't confuse quantity with quality. GM built gazillions of small-block Chevys and it eventually became their corporate V-8 engine but lots of folks will tell you it is a pretty mediocre piece of machinery. Bad metallurgy, bad valve seal design (that's why they always start to smoke on startup after a while), lots of flaws. They built a lot of them because Chevy sold a lot of cars, not because they were a great engine.

The small-block Olds V-8 was superior in most aspects to the Chevy, IMO. Unfortunately it suffered from a lack of development in the emission control era and was dropped in favor of the higher-volume Chevy V-8.

rea98d · March 2002

"Don't confuse quantity with quality"

Lol, that's what my Grandfather said about Army cooking in WWII!

speedshift · March 2002

It's kind of refreshing to hear from someone who doesn't worship at the Chevy altar.

jrosasmc · March 2002

Well, Chevrolet is still considered a low-rent brand, correct?

timz58 · March 2002

The simple answer to that is low cost, good power output, easy maintenance and excellent reliability. Auto developments are consumer driven. If you produce a cheaper, more reliable car than the competitors, you will sell more of your product. Chevrolet had some rough years through the late 60's, 70's and 80's but that engine reliability was still superior to most other domestic power plants. Doesn't make much sense to argue about it. Let the sales records and track records speak for themselves. The new generation V8s in the Silverado pickups look as if they will carry on the tradition. I have a motor home with a 454, throttle body and after market shift kit and banks power pack exhaust system. Wouldn't trade it for either a Ford or Diesel. Once again, good power, reliability and low maintenance cost. Next step up for me will be the "new" 8.1 litre with the Allison 5 Speed auto or the Duramax Diesel.

andre1969 · March 2002

I just cleaned out the trunk of my Intrepid, to get ready for a trip I'm taking to Texas, and somehow, that carried over to cleaning out the trunk of my '67 Catalina. I found a sheet of paper, among a bunch of other stuff, that was probably up in the window at one time when it was for sale.

It reads..."Original rebuilt 400 engine, rebuilt Turbo 400 transmission, dual exhaust, power steering, brakes, a/c, power top, tilt steering"

"1000 miles on stock 400 rebuild. New pistons and rings; new rod, main, and cam bearings; new timing chain and gears; new water pump; new oil pump and screen; new Pontiac blueprint Ram Air cam and lifters; Rebuilt 4-bbl Rochester carb (original 2-bbl and intake included); heads rebuilt, block machined (all maching work done by NAPA)"

Most of it sounds like it's just a typical rebuild, but I'm curious about the "blueprint Ram Air cam and lifters". Is that anything significant?

speedshift · March 2002

I have a very vague recollection that it's an amped up aftermarket version of a factory cam, in this case one of the Ram Air cams. I'm just guessing but maybe it has the same listed duration as stock but with steeper take-up ramps on the lobes--GM's long duration cams had gradual lobe ramps to cushion the first moments of valve lift. That prolongs valve train life by not slamming the valves open and closed, but it takes away some of the effective duration.

If I'm right it'd have to be based on the Ram Air III cam, an excellent street cam with a "distinctive" but fairly smooth idle. The other Ram Air cams were definitely lumpy.

jlflemmons · March 2002

Yeah, I'm an Olds enthusiast. Not so much the new stuff, but the '60's and 70's. For durability, the Old's small block (330, 350) has to be ranked as one of the best. While doing some hobby research, I found out that lots of racing engines that were labled as other GM brands started with an Olds block because of the better metallurgy used in the "true" Olds designs. Higher nickel content and such. The really funny one I came across due to the overall reputation of the engine, was that one of the best blocks to base off of was the Olds diesel! While the overall engine did not have a good reputation, the author (some racing engine guru)said that the composition and casting of the later 350 diesel engine was one of the strongest ever manufactured by anyone. The one consistent characteristic of Olds V8's was the bucking of the high rpm trend in small blocks. I never saw a stock Olds V8 that was happy above 5500RPM. You could get valve float, even on the infamous W30 455 of 1970, at that speed. Another interesting note is that among professional engine tuners of the late 60's it was apparently common knowlege that Olds *never* published the true hp ratings on their performance engines. Always lowballed it. While I cannot site dyno numbers but only seat of the pants opinion, the 1970 W30 442 I got to drive had the most amazing low end torque I had ever seen. Just shift that sucker at 5K or it would go into wheeze mode. The other "true Olds" invention in the early '70s was the introduction of positive valve rotation. I mentioned this in another post months ago. It caused the valves to rotate something like 8deg on every opening. Virtually eliminated burned valves in Olds v8's and was later picked up by other GM lines. I saw the heads from a '72 350 that had been overheated. At 127K, the mechanic was showing the valves to the other guys in the shop. The seats in the head and the valves themselves looked like they had just been ground. Measurement showed they were still well within spec. I hope the person who came up with that idea retired happy and wealthy.
I spoke to a shop owner just yesterday who is selling his daughters '84 Cutlass with 120+K miles. It has the 307 engine. He is a died in the wool Chevy guy but said he was amazed that all that had been done to the engine was a waterpump and maintenance.

On another note (yes, I'm rambling) I alway thought that in the '60s Chrysler had good engines and ugly cars. Now I think they have some of the most beautiful cars on the road, but some of the worst engineering. If they could ever get it all together, GM, Ford, and a lot of the imports would be in for trouble. IMHO.

Jim

speedshift · March 2002

I went to Comp Cams site and typed in "blueprint" and here's what I got:

http://www.compcams.com/information/whatsnew/NewsDetails.asp?ListHistoryID=-1997070293

It looks like I was sorta kinda right. The idea is to increase net lift by opening the valves more quickly than a stock cam, while still conforming to the stock cam specs because of a class racing restriction.

I think these were also called "cheater cams" but it's been a while since this stuff was important. They must be a lot harder on the valve train than the stock cam--there isn't that gradual take-up of slack when the valves are opened and closed. Of course racing engines aren't expected to go 100k and if the entire valvetrain is HD aftermarket stuff maybe the durability is still there.

Maybe that's why your Pontiac spins the tires going into second ;-).

holesnipe · March 2002

This may be a little off the subject, but since there's been some previous posts about big motors in little cars.......Hot Rod Magazine really did this..put a 500 CID Cadillac V-8 in a Chevette, hard to believe, but they had pictures....

This project car was refreshing because instead of just spending thousands and thousands of dollars on aftermarket parts and bolting them into a red Camaro, they instead went to the junkyard, took the smallest car the General ever made and dropped in the biggest engine the General ever made.

The car was strictly low budget. The engine was so far back in the chassis that the carburetor was at about the base of the windshield. You drove from the back seat. The front suspension did not have to be modified due to favorable weight distrubution from the engine being so far back. The rear end was from a 4.3 powered S-10 pick up. The car ran about elevens in the quarter with the boneyard motor through single exhaust.

speedshift · March 2002

Not your typical driveway project but I like the idea. I'll bet traction was a bit of a problem, even with the good weight distribution.

andre1969 · March 2002

...thanks for the info and the link. I'm not planning on taking this thing racing anytime soon, so hopefully it'll last a good, long time! I've always kinda wondered though, what kind of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times it would do...

What are the best V8 engines ever made?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles