How long did your parents' '84 Monte ultimately last? Or did they trade it soon after it started smoking?
With Mom's old '86 Monte, and Granddad's truck, the smoke is sort of light grayish-white, and smells a bit like burnt oil.
I always thought that when an engine starts burning oil, that the smoke is bluish-gray, though?
As for the 305, I also heard that the first year the 4-bbl version came out, which I think was 1979, that the #8 spark plug tended to foul up pretty quickly.
They bought the car in December '83 and traded it in December '89, but it only had 40-some-thousand miles. I still liked the car. It felt like an absolute hot rod compared to their '80 Monte V6 and also my '81 Monte 267 and '82 Monte V6.
The guy who restored my first Lark said those '80's Chevy 305's usually needed valve seals, not a huge job.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Yep, the small block Chevy was a good revving motor for a pushrod. I think the external oil filter definitely had an effect on bottom end durability, especially given that just about everybody under 40 years old street-raced with these motors.
I've read that early Chevy V8's had problems, but I can't remember what either. '51 and some '52 Stude V8's were known for soft cams. Some Studebaker V-8's had soft camshafts in 1950 which was the 1951 model year. This was fixed by replacing the camshaft. The Chevrolet V-8 had problems during the transition from 265 cu.in to 283 cu.in which required a major redesign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_small-block_engine
The 265 ci V-8 was bored out to 3.875 in (98.4 mm) in 1957, giving it a 283 cu in (4,638 cc) displacement. The first 283 motors used the stock 265 blocks. However, the overbore to these blocks resulted in thin cylinder walls. Future 283 blocks were recast to accept the 3.875 bore.
Somehow Chevrolet gets credit for a wonderful small block V-8 except that it was introcuced four years after the Stude V-8 and the engine block had to be redesigned two years after the introduction just to get to 283 cu.in That seems to be major defect. It reminds me of the crass Washington Post reporter who said in April 1865, “Aside from that, how did you enjoy the play Mrs. Lincoln?”
V-8s and overhead valves have been around since the dawn of time. it's not like Studebaker invented anything special.
It's the combination of all good things that made the Chevy small block legendary, not anything unique in being a V-8.
Small light fast-revving block in a "small" light car, didn't leak oil, readily available in massive numbers, good fuel economy, lots of aftermarket goodies---the 265/283 had it all over any other V8.
Think of it as if it were a BMW 3 Series. Some other cars do some things better than a 3 series, but no car in its class does everything as well as a 3 series.
BMW Straight-six engine 1968 - Cadillac V8 engine L-Head Ford Inline-four engine Model T Ford V8 engine Flathead General Motors 3.8 L V6 engine 3800 General Motors V8 engine Small-block Honda Inline-four engine ED CVCC Porsche Flat-6 1964 - Toyota/Lexus V8 engine UZ Volkswagen Flat-4 E-motor 1936-
Ward's Automotive is calling that VW flat 4 one of the best engines of the 20th century? I can't think of any car I'd want which came with that engine.
A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing.
Well the VW engine has to be put into context---it's hard to deny that when you build 20 million of one engine that it isn't pretty impressive. AND you can have a rebuilt long block sent to your house UPS for around $1000 bucks.
In a lot of ways, I think the Olds 307 was a better engine than the Chevy 305. It was lighter-weight, yet more rugged, thanks to a higher nickle content in the block. I believe it was also cleaner running. For the most part they never put out much hp, although that could simply be Olds tuning them more for economy than performance. For instance, in 1985 the Olds 307 only put out 140 hp, whereas the Chevy 305 had 150 hp in midsized cars like the Monte Carlo and Bonneville (180 in the SS though), and 165 in full-sized cars like the Caprice and Parisienne.
But, the 307 had more torque, 255 ft-lb versus 245, and it came at a lower rpm. I wonder if that's why, in 1987, GM started putting 307's in Caprice and Safari wagons that previously would have used the 305? Or, it could have just been something as simple as having a lot of 307 capacity left over with the departure of the RWD LeSabre/Electra and Delta 88/Ninety-Eight, so they had to find some place to put them?
As for the 301, about the nicest thing I've ever heard about it was that if you're gentle on it, don't abuse it, really, REALLY keep up on oil changes and such, there's a chance it might be a reliable engine. And for 1981, when it went to electronic controls, there are rumors that actually hp was 170, although it was officially rated around 150-155.
By 1981 though, they were really phasing the 301 out. In midsized cars, I think it was limited to the wagons, while full-sized cars were relying mostly on the Olds 307. I guess a lot of Firebirds still used it, for those buyers who didn't want to go all-out and get the turbo.
Kind of a shame though, because if it really did have 170 hp, it would've been a fun combination in something like a 1981 LeMans or Grand Prix.
Yeah, I don't recall anything bad about the 307. My grandpa had a 307 in an '83 Delta 88. I was able to drive it some when I turned 16 right before he traded it in on an '87 Caprice. The 307 seemed like a smooth and decently powerful engine for the time. Though the 305 in '87 had more power at 170 IIRC.
The 301 OTOH, garbage. Buddy in HS had that motor in an '80 Trans/Am. Fast it wasn't, nor was it durable. It's hard for me to believe that engine had over 150 hp. It was barely quicker than my '86 Escort with a 4 speed manual. I usually could stay ahead of my friend through 1st gear, then by 40 or so, he'd finally catch up and slowly pass me. I'd guess an 80 T/A wasn't particularly light though. How the mighty fire chicken had fallen, from the 6.6 to a weak 4.9L.
That is an impressive list of great engines. There is no doubt that the GM small block V-8 deserves to be included among the best. I don’t have a problem with that claim., but I have a problem with the claim that the Chevrolet V-8 of 1955 deserves the title of being the first small displacement V-8 in a low price car because Studebaker deserves that title.
The first mass produced ohv. V-8 was the Oldsmobile Rocket V-8 of 1949 with 303 cubic inches or 5.0 liters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_V8_engine. In 1951 Chrysler and Studebaker introduced ohv.V-8 engines. The Chrysler V-8 was a large, heavy engine for an expensive car. Studebaker took a different approach. They built a small displacement ohv V-8 (232 cu.in or 3.8 liters) and made it available in a low priced car. Ford had the first L head V-8 in a low priced car (1932-1953) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_flathead_V8_engine says this:
Before this engine's introduction, almost all mass-produced cars affordable to the "average mass-market consumer" (which was a concept that Ford helped invent) used straight-4 and straight-6 engines. Multi-cylinder V-engines (V8s, V12s and even V16s) were produced, but they were not intended for mass production and were generally used in luxury models.
Studebaker was the first to put a small displacement ohv- V8 in a low priced car in 1951, and Ford followed in 1954 with its Y-block engine: General Motors came late to the game and a dollar short with its small displacement V-8 which was was not as good as the Ford V-8 at first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Y-block_engine
A quick reference to the engine specifications for 1955-57 will show the Ford V-8s ahead of the Chevrolet counterparts in displacement, horsepower and torque. The real enemy of the Y-block was its displacement limit. The original architecture was very small and tight. Even with the benefit of today's technology (aftermarket rods and stroker cranks), the real limit of a Y-block is about 348 in, while the Chevrolet could be modified well past the factory limit of 400 in.
By 1955 you could also get an ohv V-8 in the low priced Plymouth. As noted in my earlier post, the original Chevrolet engine could not get from 265 to 283 cu.in. without re designing the engine block in 1958.
No argument that the Chevrolet V-8 became one of the great engines of all time, but it was not the first and not the best in its original form. Ford gets the credit for the affordable first mass produced V-8, and Studebaker gets first place for the first small and affordable ohv V-8 and first place for a V-8 in a “compact car” with the 1959 Lark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_Lark
I think the point is that Studebaker put an unremarkable engine in an unexceptional car, and so it wasn't noticed. It had no impact whatsoever on the trends of automotive engine design---it was a backwater type of thing. Historians, and publications like Ward's, tend to view things that had impact on other things.
Not everything can have such an impact, and the lack of impact doesn't diminish what the thing originally was--it only diminishes its place in history.
You can find "firsts" about almost any car on earth if you shave down the categories enough---"first car to have movable sun visors in a 4-door station wagon!"
Uplander, you're just going to have to accept the bitter pill that aside from Studebaker lovers, most historians don't much notice what Studebaker did. Perhaps this is your new mission in life! :P
The big ammunition for 1951 arrived as the much-needed overhead-valve V-8, exclusive to the 1951 Studebaker Commander. Besides being a fine engine and the first modern V-8 from an independent, it put Studebaker at least three years ahead of Chevrolet/Ford/Plymouth.
With less weight and nearly 18 percent more horsepower, the V-8 Commander caused a mild sensation. Gushed tester "Uncle Tom" McCahill: "This powerplant transforms the maidenly Studie of recent years into a rip-roaring, hell-for-leather performer that can belt the starch out of practically every other American car. ..." ===================================================
The 232 and its successors have been called heavy for their size, but such statements were made on the basis of comparisons with engines developed much later. In fact, Studebaker’s V-8 was the first in a long line of robust, efficient small-blocks of less than 300 cid. Those that followed from Dodge, Ford, Chevrolet and Plymouth certainly benefitted from its technology.
Friend of mine works for a city planning/land use department that is lately getting bombarded with complaints about derelict unregistered cars sitting in front of houses (I guess Seattle has Appalachian roots). Today he sent me this pic, oldest car he has found so far:
(typical Seattle decay -not a ton of visible rust, but mold etc growing on car)
Oh, also saw a relatively well kept looking Subaru XT6 today.
Having administered the Olds mailing list for over 15 years, I can tell you that the (admittedly biased) folks on there have much contempt for the Chevy small block in comparison to the Olds small block (260-307-330-350-403). Discounting the anemic 260 which should never have been introduced as it was deliberately constricted with tiny valves and a tiny cam for fuel economy reasons, the Olds design had superior metallurgy, a stronger bottom end, and simply a more advanced design overall. One of the arguments against the SBC amongst Olds types is always the concept of head bolts going into the water passages, requiring them to be coated with sealant during installation, and the chronically weak valve seals which lead to blue oil smoke on startup. We had bouts of speculation on the list over the years about why GM chose to continue development of the inferior SBC design in the 1980s and beyond instead of the Olds architecture. Our conclusion was that it was simply a numbers game - the SBC was cheaper to make. But you get what you pay for.
Someone has to be sick to do that to a perfectly good Ford!!! I see the sign behind says Patients and Visitors, so the person who did it is in the right place.
I'm actually going out on a limb here to say that I have a bit of respect for the Olds 260. A buddy of mine had an '82 Cutlass Supreme sedan with that engine, and for only having 100 hp, it wasn't that bad. In most normal driving it was just fine. And, back when I had my '86 Monte Carlo, we raced one night. Now, my 150 hp 305-4bbl, and 4-speed automatic no doubt gave me an advantage over that 100 hp 260-2bbl and 3-speed automatic that probably had an ultra-tall rear-end, so naturally I beat him. But, he kept up better than I thought he would.
I'd be curious to know what the 0-60 time would be on something like that. The only thing roughly comparable that I can think of was a 1981 Grand Prix with a Pontiac 265 that MT tested, and got 0-60 in 14.9 seconds, which seems a bit ultra-pathetic to me. My buddy's '82 with the 260 definitely seemed quicker than that, if not quite enough to live up to the "Rocket" name
I'm actually going out on a limb here to say that I have a bit of respect for the Olds 260. A buddy of mine had an '82 Cutlass Supreme sedan with that engine, and for only having 100 hp, it wasn't that bad. In most normal driving it was just fine. And, back when I had my '86 Monte Carlo, we raced one night. Now, my 150 hp 305-4bbl, and 4-speed automatic no doubt gave me an advantage over that 100 hp 260-2bbl and 3-speed automatic that probably had an ultra-tall rear-end, so naturally I beat him. But, he kept up better than I thought he would.
A buddy of mine back in HS had a handed down from his mom '79 Cutlass Supreme with a 260. It was a very nice car with full gauges, bucket seats, console shift, t-tops, power locks and windows etc. It even had posi traction which I guess helped in the snow and rain as it sure didn't need it for dry pavement;) IIRC, his dad ordered it for his mom with about every available option except for decent power;)
I remember it handling nice and being reliable, but God was it slow. Granted when we cruised around in it, it had over 200k miles, so maybe it didn't have the full 100hp;)
I wouldn't doubt 14-15 seconds. That Cutlass wasn't called nutless for nothing.
I sincerely think it's disingenous to discount Tom McCahill...probably one of the most widely-read auto writers of his time...if not the most.
Shifty, it's time to admit that your opinion doesn't make something fact. I mean, you had posted that Studebaker had huge losses in '59 when that was their biggest one-year-ever profit, and tried to tell me a 250 hp 327 in a Corvette was a different block and heads than the same engine in a Biscayne, when the Chevy shop manual even disputes that.
Personally, I get tired sometimes of reading stuff about Benzes and Mopars, although I respect those guys and don't insist they start their own forum.
BTW, you addressed me when it was someone else doing the posting.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
I learned to drive on a '76 Cutlass Supreme 4-door with the 260 V-8. Before we pulled out of the driveway, my Dad said, "Don't ever pull in front of anybody in this car, it has no pickup at all." It was one of the slowest vehicles I've driven, my 6cyl. Gremlin was faster, and the Renault Alliance my Dad bought to replace the Cutlass wasn't noticeably slower, when it wasn't in the shop. It was smooth, though, and got much better mileage than the 350 V-8's in the other mid size GM's that everyone seemed to drive then.
2012 Mustang Premium, 2013 Lincoln MKX Elite, 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander.
Consumer Reports did a test of a 1977 Cutlass Supreme sedan with the 260, and I think 0-60 came up in about 21.6 seconds! I remember they also had an Impala/Caprice with a 305, a Ford LTD-II with a 302, and either a Fury or Monaco with the 318, and they were all good for 0-60 in around 13 seconds.
I'd always theorized that the reason they specified the Cutlass with the 260 instead of the more common 350 was that they were really impressed with the new Caprice/Impala, but were worried that if their Cutlass had a 350, it would have embarrassed the Chevy in the performance tests. But, maybe it was nothing that sinister...perhaps they just decided to go with each model's base V-8?
Still, that Cutlass seemed poorly mis-matched, with its 100-110 hp, compared to the 140-145 the others were putting out, not to mention the added torque.
One thing I've always wondered...how much torque does a 260 have, anyway? I've never been able to find its torque specs.
Heck Too Many, I had a 76 CS coupe with a 4bbl 350 and it was a pig in town too. Big time hesitation - you'd have thought it was a turbo back then without the later guts kicking in. It was a nice Interstate cruiser though.
Seems like the basic point is that the small block Chevy was an extremely significant engine, much more so than the Stude. I'll agree, I know of no 'best/most important' engine lists without the SBC, or with the Stude.
My bigger beef than that, is that significant info to the contrary is merely belittled by the host. Room for 'out of the box' opinions seem to have no place here. JLJac brought solid info to the table, just to be told to go somewhere else.
I've often found that what passes for 'fact' today is something written recently. It's often enlightening to re-read what experts of the day said about the product.
Trust me, there've been many SBC's in my family's ownership over the years. A '74 350 2-barrel and a 267 2-barrel are two that stick in my mind as not all that great--not bad, either, though. And I have read of teething problems with the 265. Of course, it all usually comes down to numbers--numbers of those vehicles purchased, and of course, no one tops Chevy there.
I'll say it...I think the host here is boorish, and I've posted my last comment on this particular thread.
2024 Chevrolet Corvette Stingray 2LT; 2019 Chevrolet Equinox LT; 2015 Chevrolet Cruze LS
Actually, 205 ft-lb sounds reasonable for something of that size. When the Chevy TBI 262 V-6 came out for 1985, it had 130 hp, but only 210 ft-lb of torque. There was a 4-bbl version that was used in trucks, that put out 147 hp, but I forget the torque rating.
When the Cadillac aluminum 249/4.1 V-8 came out, it had 125 hp, same as the Buick 252/4.1 V-6. However, one rarely-publicized fact was that the V-6 actually put out a bit more torque...205 ft-lb, versus 195 for the Caddy V-8.
I'm sure either engine would be a total dog in an early 80's Caddy, but I wonder if the V-6 might have actually been the better bet? Even though the V-8 was aluminum, Buick V-6es were pretty light, so the V-6 might have made the whole car a bit lighter, yet had a bit more torque. And, the V-6 had a 4-bbl carb, so I'm sure it was less troublesome than the fuel injection on the V-8.
Unfortunately, the 4.1 V-6 wasn't a poster child for durability, but I don't know if it was worse than the V-8 or not.
One way to look at the Chevy smallblock might be this...jack of all trades, master of none. Sort of like a 1991 Ford Explorer. It wasn't the very first in its field, wasn't always the best, but it was cheap, popular, versatile and, for the most part "good enough". :P
I entered the discussion because I thought 1955 was the year of the greatest model year change without saying anything negative about any make or model of car or making any comparisions. I did not turn the discussion in that direction. Prior to 1955 Chevrolet, Dodge & Plymouth were low priced cars that did not offer 8 cylinder engines but in 1955 they offered V-8 engines of less than 300 cu.in or 5 liters displacement. They were not the first to do that and it is important to know who did. The fact that Studebaker sold more than 340,000 V-8s between 1951 and 1954 may have influenced their thinking. How bad is your Chevy, Ford, Dodge or Plymouth if you are getting passed by Studebakers on the open road?
Studebaker was a major influence on the auto market during the first ten years of the “postwar era”both in design (“First by far with a postwar car”) and engineering and it deserves credit for that. I do not see any make or model of car put down by the host as much as Studebaker.
Not to get too picky, but Dodge came out with their little "Red Ram" Hemi for 1953. It was a small 241 CID unit that put out 140 hp.
It weighed about 640 lb, so compared to the Chevy smallblock, which I've usually seen quoted around 575 lb, it was a bit heavy. But probably about the norm for 1953 standards. I think the old Chevy stovebolt/blue flame 6-cyl was around 620 lb. And I'm sure some of those old flathead 6es that were still around weren't exactly lightweights.
Tom McCahill is not to be taken seriously as an historian. Tom was great, but he said a lot of really silly things. By "historian" I mean the term as one of respect--a person with credentials, who has devoted his/her life to study. A columnist doesn't count. Consumer Guide doesn't count. Even I don't count.
Everyone here posts "opinions". I don't think anyone here is posing as an expert.
The actual point of this topic is to stay on topic. That's really my job here, to keep us all on target and to make sure we enjoy each other's commentary. :P
Well, on the subject of ten best engines, I find it amusing, in a sadomasochistic sort of way, that one of the biggest turds I ever owned made that list. That would be the Buick 3.8 that resided under the hood of my 1982 OldsmoPile Gutless Supreme, which was pretty much shot by around 73,000 miles.
Now, in its defense, I paid $800 for that car, in the summer of 1993, and it had around 61,000 miles on it. It had been litte-old-lady-owned. On the plus side, that means that it probably wasn't dogged out, as the little old ladies from Pasadena wouldn't buy a car like this. But on the minus side, 11 years and 61K miles is plenty of time to neglect a car.
On the plus side, that car had a good mid-range...stomp on it to pass a slower car, and when it kicked down it had some guts. And it wasn't bad on fuel economy...about on par with the 1980 Malibu 229-2bbl I had, or the '69 Dart GT 225-1bbl, which was quicker, but was also lighter and didn't have emissions controls to deal with.
In spite of that turd of an engine though, I liked that car. It handled well, looked good, and seemed like the perfect blend of exterior size and interior room. I wouldn't mind having another Cutlass Supreme one day, but I'd make sure it was one with a 307!
Tom McCahill is not to be taken seriously as an historian. Tom was great, but he said a lot of really silly things. By "historian" I mean the term as one of respect--a person with credentials, who has devoted his/her life to study. A columnist doesn't count. Consumer Guide doesn't count.
Tom documented the cars of his era more than anyone else I can think of. He may not be a historian, but his writing is certainly worthy of note by those who are.
Even I don't count.
Well, that's big of you to admit. :sick:
My long-term attendance in this discussion forum has been clouded only when you as host weigh in with a disparaging opinion of some special-interest car, usually one from the '70s, that is being discussed which does not bring big money in the collector-car world. Fine, we know a '77 Bonneville isn't a 911 or a Cobra. That doesn't make it any less interesting to discuss, or any less attractive to some of us.
Keeping us on topic is fine. Slagging people's opinions on what is of interest to them is not, IMO.
I don't really think Shifty is necessarily trying to put people down. Rather, I think he's just giving his POV from his profession of appraising and trading old vehicles. At least that is how I take his comments. But I guess I can see how that can maybe sometimes hurt a person's feelings. Personally, maybe it doesn't bother me though because like you, I just like old cars and don't really care about their market value or collector status. I just like the looks and nostalgia they provide and appreciate anyone who goes through the effort to keep them up and show them to the rest of us.
People should be mad at Ward's, not at the host. He doesn't make up these lists! ( but I'm sure he'd jump at the chance) :P
Discussing cars requires a thick skin, like talking about sports and politics, don't you think?
Having owned many Studebakers (or whatever brand you might have chosen) makes one part of the family, and, like your brother in law, you can diss him if you want because you know his faults and his virtues.
As for Tom McCahill, he was very funny but something of a crackpot. He thought the Corvair was better than a Porsche. He also wanted the U.S. government to stop the importation of foreign cars and to force England and France to buy American cars as "war reparations".
So you know--the term "automotive critic" or better yet, "journalist entertainer" is much more accurate than "historian" in his case. He had a great career, and had the power of media behind him, though, so kudos for that. He was sort of a mix between Jay Leno and Rush Limbaugh.
One reason my views on some cars may differ from the modern view is because I'm older than everyone here I think--I actually drove, raced, commuted in, bought, sold and repaired a lot of 50s and 60s cars before they were "collector cars". They lived in real life. They weren't pampered, lovingly restored, nor did they receive all the modern advantages of radial tires, precision machining, modern lubricants, etc.
So I remember what it was like to try and start a 6V car in the winter. I remember street racing, and which cars were always dominant and which were hopeless----and these race results are not so apparent if someone in 2012 compared them on paper---"well the '55 Dodge had X horsepower and Y weight, so it would compete well against the '55 Chevy with...blah blah"..
Fact is, you couldn't win a street race with a '55 Dodge against a '55 Chevy unless he crashed.
I also learned which engines overheated, which had soft camshafts, which could, and could not, be driven cross-country. I remember which were clumsy, which handled fairly well, which ones could burn rubber and which ones couldn't slip a tire if you put it in a bowl of pudding.
I vividly recall the "buzz" about certain cars--the first Mustang intro, the GTO, the shift to Mopars ruling the street in the 60s, which cars fell flat with public opinion, which were admired. The "buzz" on Rockaway Boulevard and the legendary stories from Woodward Avenue in Detroit.
So I guess I'm like the old sodier who, watching a Hollywood war movie, might say "No, it wasn't like that".
Of course, memory is not infallible! I'm sometimes amazed at things that I *swear* were true and then I look it up and nope, I was wrong.
But I do remember a lot. I have owned, bought and sold hundreds of cars, and got to know some of them quite intimately.
So I think life experiences does make one opinionated, but at least there is a basis for the opinion that's rooted in experience, however faulty might be the recollection.
Comments
With Mom's old '86 Monte, and Granddad's truck, the smoke is sort of light grayish-white, and smells a bit like burnt oil.
I always thought that when an engine starts burning oil, that the smoke is bluish-gray, though?
As for the 305, I also heard that the first year the 4-bbl version came out, which I think was 1979, that the #8 spark plug tended to foul up pretty quickly.
The guy who restored my first Lark said those '80's Chevy 305's usually needed valve seals, not a huge job.
Some Studebaker V-8's had soft camshafts in 1950 which was the 1951 model year. This was fixed by replacing the camshaft. The Chevrolet V-8 had problems during the transition from 265 cu.in to 283 cu.in which required a major redesign. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_small-block_engine
The 265 ci V-8 was bored out to 3.875 in (98.4 mm) in 1957, giving it a 283 cu in (4,638 cc) displacement. The first 283 motors used the stock 265 blocks. However, the overbore to these blocks resulted in thin cylinder walls. Future 283 blocks were recast to accept the 3.875 bore.
Somehow Chevrolet gets credit for a wonderful small block V-8 except that it was introcuced four years after the Stude V-8 and the engine block had to be redesigned two years after the introduction just to get to 283 cu.in That seems to be major defect. It reminds me of the crass Washington Post reporter who said in April 1865, “Aside from that, how did you enjoy the play Mrs. Lincoln?”
It's the combination of all good things that made the Chevy small block legendary, not anything unique in being a V-8.
Small light fast-revving block in a "small" light car, didn't leak oil, readily available in massive numbers, good fuel economy, lots of aftermarket goodies---the 265/283 had it all over any other V8.
Think of it as if it were a BMW 3 Series. Some other cars do some things better than a 3 series, but no car in its class does everything as well as a 3 series.
20th Century
BMW Straight-six engine 1968 -
Cadillac V8 engine L-Head
Ford Inline-four engine Model T
Ford V8 engine Flathead
General Motors 3.8 L V6 engine 3800
General Motors V8 engine Small-block
Honda Inline-four engine ED CVCC
Porsche Flat-6 1964 -
Toyota/Lexus V8 engine UZ
Volkswagen Flat-4 E-motor 1936-
2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve
My guess would be the Pontiac 265. :P
But, the 307 had more torque, 255 ft-lb versus 245, and it came at a lower rpm. I wonder if that's why, in 1987, GM started putting 307's in Caprice and Safari wagons that previously would have used the 305? Or, it could have just been something as simple as having a lot of 307 capacity left over with the departure of the RWD LeSabre/Electra and Delta 88/Ninety-Eight, so they had to find some place to put them?
As for the 301, about the nicest thing I've ever heard about it was that if you're gentle on it, don't abuse it, really, REALLY keep up on oil changes and such, there's a chance it might be a reliable engine. And for 1981, when it went to electronic controls, there are rumors that actually hp was 170, although it was officially rated around 150-155.
By 1981 though, they were really phasing the 301 out. In midsized cars, I think it was limited to the wagons, while full-sized cars were relying mostly on the Olds 307. I guess a lot of Firebirds still used it, for those buyers who didn't want to go all-out and get the turbo.
Kind of a shame though, because if it really did have 170 hp, it would've been a fun combination in something like a 1981 LeMans or Grand Prix.
The 301 OTOH, garbage. Buddy in HS had that motor in an '80 Trans/Am. Fast it wasn't, nor was it durable. It's hard for me to believe that engine had over 150 hp. It was barely quicker than my '86 Escort with a 4 speed manual. I usually could stay ahead of my friend through 1st gear, then by 40 or so, he'd finally catch up and slowly pass me. I'd guess an 80 T/A wasn't particularly light though. How the mighty fire chicken had fallen, from the 6.6 to a weak 4.9L.
The first mass produced ohv. V-8 was the Oldsmobile Rocket V-8 of 1949 with 303 cubic inches or 5.0 liters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_V8_engine. In 1951 Chrysler and Studebaker introduced ohv.V-8 engines. The Chrysler V-8 was a large, heavy engine for an expensive car. Studebaker took a different approach. They built a small displacement ohv V-8 (232 cu.in or 3.8 liters) and made it available in a low priced car. Ford had the first L head V-8 in a low priced car (1932-1953) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_flathead_V8_engine says this:
Before this engine's introduction, almost all mass-produced cars affordable to the "average mass-market consumer" (which was a concept that Ford helped invent) used straight-4 and straight-6 engines. Multi-cylinder V-engines (V8s, V12s and even V16s) were produced, but they were not intended for mass production and were generally used in luxury models.
Studebaker was the first to put a small displacement ohv- V8 in a low priced car in 1951, and Ford followed in 1954 with its Y-block engine: General Motors came late to the game and a dollar short with its small displacement V-8 which was was not as good as the Ford V-8 at first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Y-block_engine
A quick reference to the engine specifications for 1955-57 will show the Ford V-8s ahead of the Chevrolet counterparts in displacement, horsepower and torque. The real enemy of the Y-block was its displacement limit. The original architecture was very small and tight. Even with the benefit of today's technology (aftermarket rods and stroker cranks), the real limit of a Y-block is about 348 in, while the Chevrolet could be modified well past the factory limit of 400 in.
By 1955 you could also get an ohv V-8 in the low priced Plymouth. As noted in my earlier post, the original Chevrolet engine could not get from 265 to 283 cu.in. without re designing the engine block in 1958.
No argument that the Chevrolet V-8 became one of the great engines of all time, but it was not the first and not the best in its original form. Ford gets the credit for the affordable first mass produced V-8, and Studebaker gets first place for the first small and affordable ohv V-8 and first place for a V-8 in a “compact car” with the 1959 Lark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_Lark
Not everything can have such an impact, and the lack of impact doesn't diminish what the thing originally was--it only diminishes its place in history.
You can find "firsts" about almost any car on earth if you shave down the categories enough---"first car to have movable sun visors in a 4-door station wagon!"
Uplander, you're just going to have to accept the bitter pill that aside from Studebaker lovers, most historians don't much notice what Studebaker did. Perhaps this is your new mission in life! :P
The big ammunition for 1951 arrived as the much-needed overhead-valve V-8, exclusive to the 1951 Studebaker Commander. Besides being a fine engine and the first modern V-8 from an independent, it put Studebaker at least three years ahead of Chevrolet/Ford/Plymouth.
With less weight and nearly 18 percent more horsepower, the V-8 Commander caused a mild sensation. Gushed tester "Uncle Tom" McCahill: "This powerplant transforms the maidenly Studie of recent years into a rip-roaring, hell-for-leather performer that can belt the starch out of
practically every other American car. ..."
===================================================
50-Years-American-Automobiles-1939-1989
http://www.amazon.com/50-Years-American-Automobiles-1939-1989/dp/0881765929/ref=- sr_1_
1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1290552341&sr=1-1 says this at page 368 :
The 232 and its successors have been called heavy for their size, but such statements were made on the basis of comparisons with engines developed much later. In fact, Studebaker’s V-8 was the first in a long line of robust, efficient small-blocks of less than 300 cid. Those that followed from Dodge, Ford, Chevrolet and Plymouth certainly benefitted from its technology.
Er....that's news to me! :P
ANYWAY LET'S STAY ON TOPIC!!
Y'all know where the Studebaker topic is? See you there! :P
(typical Seattle decay -not a ton of visible rust, but mold etc growing on car)
Oh, also saw a relatively well kept looking Subaru XT6 today.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Someone has to be sick to do that to a perfectly good Ford!!! I see the sign behind says Patients and Visitors, so the person who did it is in the right place.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I'd be curious to know what the 0-60 time would be on something like that. The only thing roughly comparable that I can think of was a 1981 Grand Prix with a Pontiac 265 that MT tested, and got 0-60 in 14.9 seconds, which seems a bit ultra-pathetic to me. My buddy's '82 with the 260 definitely seemed quicker than that, if not quite enough to live up to the "Rocket" name
A buddy of mine back in HS had a handed down from his mom '79 Cutlass Supreme with a 260. It was a very nice car with full gauges, bucket seats, console shift, t-tops, power locks and windows etc. It even had posi traction which I guess helped in the snow and rain as it sure didn't need it for dry pavement;) IIRC, his dad ordered it for his mom with about every available option except for decent power;)
I remember it handling nice and being reliable, but God was it slow. Granted when we cruised around in it, it had over 200k miles, so maybe it didn't have the full 100hp;)
I wouldn't doubt 14-15 seconds. That Cutlass wasn't called nutless for nothing.
Shifty, it's time to admit that your opinion doesn't make something fact. I mean, you had posted that Studebaker had huge losses in '59 when that was their biggest one-year-ever profit, and tried to tell me a 250 hp 327 in a Corvette was a different block and heads than the same engine in a Biscayne, when the Chevy shop manual even disputes that.
Personally, I get tired sometimes of reading stuff about Benzes and Mopars, although I respect those guys and don't insist they start their own forum.
BTW, you addressed me when it was someone else doing the posting.
I'd always theorized that the reason they specified the Cutlass with the 260 instead of the more common 350 was that they were really impressed with the new Caprice/Impala, but were worried that if their Cutlass had a 350, it would have embarrassed the Chevy in the performance tests. But, maybe it was nothing that sinister...perhaps they just decided to go with each model's base V-8?
Still, that Cutlass seemed poorly mis-matched, with its 100-110 hp, compared to the 140-145 the others were putting out, not to mention the added torque.
One thing I've always wondered...how much torque does a 260 have, anyway? I've never been able to find its torque specs.
I've often found that what passes for 'fact' today is something written recently. It's often enlightening to re-read what experts of the day said about the product.
Trust me, there've been many SBC's in my family's ownership over the years. A '74 350 2-barrel and a 267 2-barrel are two that stick in my mind as not all that great--not bad, either, though. And I have read of teething problems with the 265. Of course, it all usually comes down to numbers--numbers of those vehicles purchased, and of course, no one tops Chevy there.
I'll say it...I think the host here is boorish, and I've posted my last comment on this particular thread.
When the Cadillac aluminum 249/4.1 V-8 came out, it had 125 hp, same as the Buick 252/4.1 V-6. However, one rarely-publicized fact was that the V-6 actually put out a bit more torque...205 ft-lb, versus 195 for the Caddy V-8.
I'm sure either engine would be a total dog in an early 80's Caddy, but I wonder if the V-6 might have actually been the better bet? Even though the V-8 was aluminum, Buick V-6es were pretty light, so the V-6 might have made the whole car a bit lighter, yet had a bit more torque. And, the V-6 had a 4-bbl carb, so I'm sure it was less troublesome than the fuel injection on the V-8.
Unfortunately, the 4.1 V-6 wasn't a poster child for durability, but I don't know if it was worse than the V-8 or not.
Studebaker was a major influence on the auto market during the first ten years of the “postwar era”both in design (“First by far with a postwar car”) and engineering and it deserves credit for that. I do not see any make or model of car put down by the host as much as Studebaker.
It weighed about 640 lb, so compared to the Chevy smallblock, which I've usually seen quoted around 575 lb, it was a bit heavy. But probably about the norm for 1953 standards. I think the old Chevy stovebolt/blue flame 6-cyl was around 620 lb. And I'm sure some of those old flathead 6es that were still around weren't exactly lightweights.
The 91 Explorer was the 1986 Taurus of the SUV category. It was a game changer in many ways.
2023 Mercedes EQE 350 4Matic / 2022 Ram 1500 Bighorn, Built to Serve
Everyone here posts "opinions". I don't think anyone here is posing as an expert.
The actual point of this topic is to stay on topic. That's really my job here, to keep us all on target and to make sure we enjoy each other's commentary. :P
Carry on, gentlemen!
Now, in its defense, I paid $800 for that car, in the summer of 1993, and it had around 61,000 miles on it. It had been litte-old-lady-owned. On the plus side, that means that it probably wasn't dogged out, as the little old ladies from Pasadena wouldn't buy a car like this. But on the minus side, 11 years and 61K miles is plenty of time to neglect a car.
On the plus side, that car had a good mid-range...stomp on it to pass a slower car, and when it kicked down it had some guts. And it wasn't bad on fuel economy...about on par with the 1980 Malibu 229-2bbl I had, or the '69 Dart GT 225-1bbl, which was quicker, but was also lighter and didn't have emissions controls to deal with.
In spite of that turd of an engine though, I liked that car. It handled well, looked good, and seemed like the perfect blend of exterior size and interior room. I wouldn't mind having another Cutlass Supreme one day, but I'd make sure it was one with a 307!
Tom documented the cars of his era more than anyone else I can think of. He may not be a historian, but his writing is certainly worthy of note by those who are.
Even I don't count.
Well, that's big of you to admit. :sick:
My long-term attendance in this discussion forum has been clouded only when you as host weigh in with a disparaging opinion of some special-interest car, usually one from the '70s, that is being discussed which does not bring big money in the collector-car world. Fine, we know a '77 Bonneville isn't a 911 or a Cobra. That doesn't make it any less interesting to discuss, or any less attractive to some of us.
Keeping us on topic is fine. Slagging people's opinions on what is of interest to them is not, IMO.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
Hell, I'd take a '77 Bonneville over one of them Mustang II's any day of the week!
I know someone that fits that description....
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Discussing cars requires a thick skin, like talking about sports and politics, don't you think?
Having owned many Studebakers (or whatever brand you might have chosen) makes one part of the family, and, like your brother in law, you can diss him if you want because you know his faults and his virtues.
As for Tom McCahill, he was very funny but something of a crackpot. He thought the Corvair was better than a Porsche. He also wanted the U.S. government to stop the importation of foreign cars and to force England and France to buy American cars as "war reparations".
So you know--the term "automotive critic" or better yet, "journalist entertainer" is much more accurate than "historian" in his case. He had a great career, and had the power of media behind him, though, so kudos for that. He was sort of a mix between Jay Leno and Rush Limbaugh.
One reason my views on some cars may differ from the modern view is because I'm older than everyone here I think--I actually drove, raced, commuted in, bought, sold and repaired a lot of 50s and 60s cars before they were "collector cars". They lived in real life. They weren't pampered, lovingly restored, nor did they receive all the modern advantages of radial tires, precision machining, modern lubricants, etc.
So I remember what it was like to try and start a 6V car in the winter. I remember street racing, and which cars were always dominant and which were hopeless----and these race results are not so apparent if someone in 2012 compared them on paper---"well the '55 Dodge had X horsepower and Y weight, so it would compete well against the '55 Chevy with...blah blah"..
Fact is, you couldn't win a street race with a '55 Dodge against a '55 Chevy unless he crashed.
I also learned which engines overheated, which had soft camshafts, which could, and could not, be driven cross-country. I remember which were clumsy, which handled fairly well, which ones could burn rubber and which ones couldn't slip a tire if you put it in a bowl of pudding.
I vividly recall the "buzz" about certain cars--the first Mustang intro, the GTO, the shift to Mopars ruling the street in the 60s, which cars fell flat with public opinion, which were admired. The "buzz" on Rockaway Boulevard and the legendary stories from Woodward Avenue in Detroit.
So I guess I'm like the old sodier who, watching a Hollywood war movie, might say "No, it wasn't like that".
Of course, memory is not infallible! I'm sometimes amazed at things that I *swear* were true and then I look it up and nope, I was wrong.
But I do remember a lot. I have owned, bought and sold hundreds of cars, and got to know some of them quite intimately.
So I think life experiences does make one opinionated, but at least there is a basis for the opinion that's rooted in experience, however faulty might be the recollection.