What are the best V8 engines ever made?

carnut4 · January 2001

When I got underneath this "new" 62 to replace all the rubber brake hoses, I noticed that oil had been dripping from somewhere near the rear of the engine. I wiped off what I could. My guess is that it came from either the rear intake manifold to block seal, or maybe even the distributor base, where it goes into the block? Any ideas? Not a big deal, but after 38 years, I expect to fix a few little things-like-new tailight bulbs, etc. The car's glove compartment, ashtrays, and center console all look like they've never been used. It still has a bit of that new car smell from the all vinyl interior. The door lock ferules [plastic chrome] were weathered, and I ordered new ones-but to replace them, you have to pry off the door panel. I don't want to damage anything. Any ideas about the oil leak and how to pry off the door panels to replace those ferrules?
By the way-the trunk is HUGE! I'd forgotten about those days when we used to sneak in 4 people to the drive in for the price of two!

badgerpaul · January 2001

The chrome plastic door lock ferules screw on, but if you do have to take the door panel off try the following. They are kind of a pain to take off. First start by taking off the arm rest and door release, these are easy since you can use a screwdriver. Next take off the window cranks, they are held on by a c-clip, the best way is to kind of push them off from the end of the C.
The panel itself is held on by plastic clips pushed into the door. Gently pry on each side of each clip, then tilt out the bottom and lift up out of the window channel.

isellhondas · January 2001

You might get lucky.

The culprit just might be the oil sending unit. It's in the back between the firewall in the middle. Reach back and feel it. If you hand is oily, it's bad! Many a rear main seal was replaced when it was the oil sending unit. The oil will run down the rear of the block.

But...it could be the rear main or pan gasket, or who knows where else. Clean the engine very good and look for it.

Where did you find this gem? What color etc?

speedshift · January 2001

They used to make a special pliers to remove the C-clip behind the door handle. The pliers were really thin so they could slip between the handle and panel. Don't know if they're still available.

carnut4 · January 2001

I will check the oil sending unit and take a good look at the rear main area. I was able to pry out the old door lock ferules, after which I discovered they were held by little fold over tabs-meaning I have to get inside the door panel to tighten the new ones. Thanks for the tips.

Isell-I found this gem at Peggy's Classic Cars in Portland, OR. The car had only been driven 740 miles since 1989, when it had 39,512 miles on it.Has an interesting history. I had been keeping my eye on this lot, looking for something else, for sometime.Wasn't really looking for a 62, but when I saw this one, I jumped on it. It was just too nice. A guy was flying up from Gardena Ca the next day to look at it. The ad said "probably the nicest one in captivity" and I think it might be-at least for original cars. Color is Twilight Turquoise with white top and Turquoise interior. Just Gorgeous in and out. It runs like a watch, and is quite responsive for a Powerglide! Has a bit of a growl to it, like I remember. Definitely a fun, smooth ride! One of these days maybe I'll cruise it on up to Bellevue and we'll take it for a spin. Thanks for the lunch offer!

isellhondas · January 2001

Good idea. You drive, I'll buy!

Sounds like a gorgeous Chevy!

egeihs · January 2001

I recall back in the mid-70s the NY State Police, who drove Furys with a 440 at the time, got outrun from Rochester to Buffalo (90 miles) by a guy in a '71 Cutlass with a bone stock 350 (never knew what carb, though).
I had a friend with a 72 Supreme coupe with a 350 4 barrel. I drove it every now and then - it was one fast car. All that kept you from speeding was the lousy brakes. He kept it till the frame rotted.

andre1969 · February 2001

Hey gang,

I got into a little friendly debate with my father last night. He's a big Chevy/Pontiac man, and knows a lot about their engines from the 50's, 60's, and early 70's, but his knowledge pretty much goes out about where the catalytic converter came in.

He was wondering if there was any real difference or advantage between the Chevy 305 that came out around 1976, and the Chevy 307 (NOT the Olds 307 from 1980 on) that was made from around 1968-73. He's insisting that they're the same engine. I know they're the same block, but the bore and stroke are a bit different (3.88 x 3.25 on the 307, and 3.74 x.3.47 on the 305). He knows a guy that's restoring an old 30's Ford pickup, but has a 305 he's putting in. I said he should just throw a 350 in, instead of trying to rebuild a 305.

Also, what about that little Chevy 262 that came out in the early 70's and went in the Vega (and Nova, I think) ? Was that related to the other Chevy smallblocks, or was it something else made totally unreliable, so it would fit the Vega perfectly? ;-)

-Andre

speedshift · February 2001

The 262's dimensions are 3.67 x 3.10. I'd have thought it would be a long-stroke smog motor. Wonder why they didn't just bring back the 265? Valve sizes are 1.72 and 1.3, compared to the 265-283-307's 1.72/1.5. The 262 was replaced in '79 with the 267: 3.5 x 3.48. One to avoid.

I'm not a Chevy expert but I'd guess there's no real advantage going with the shorter stroke 307, especially if you used a TPI 305 from an '80s Camaro.

stratissino · February 2001

How about the Maserati V-8?It went straight from a world-beating endurance/sports racer into a 20 year long series of fabulous GTs and sedans.Or the Fiat Ottovu(8V)?An all aluminum pushrod 2-liter?OK, so Fiat only made 126 8Vs but Siata made several hundred of an even better sports car using the same engine.Or how about the Alfa V8?It also went from a great race car straight to production and they made 5,000+ Montreals.Or the Lancia V8 of the 1930s?I don't no much about it but it was a purely production engine with relatively small displacement with about a 12 degree angle between the banks of cylinders and a single cylinder head that operated both banks!

isellhondas · February 2001

That I have trouble with "endurance" and Italian engines in the same paragraph?

Mr_Shiftright · February 2001

Well, you might be used to junky Fiats in the USA, but in fact Italian engines can be very durable....but it depends on which car you are talking about....Alfa engines routinely can go 150K miles, no problem....Ferraris are strong....there have been some clunker engines, as in all countries, like the Maserati Bi-turbo.....but if anything, it's often what is ATTACHED to the Italian engines that cause more trouble....same with Jaguars....basically sound powerplant, but accessories can plague you.

carnut4 · February 2001

A friend of mine now has "all Alfas" after having had one of everything for the 25 years I've known him. A true carnut. I've known others who got the "Alfa bug" over the years. I've driven them, and appreciated the feel of the controls, the sound of the engine winding up, etc, but have never owned one. Why did one Alfa owner remark, watching the Alfa club members doing their "club lap" at PIR before a race there, "look at the blue cloud of smoke, you know those are the Alfas ahead of it"--well-Shifty-I remember you said something like it took some doing to make your Alfas reliable. Maybe off topic here, but I'm wondering what you meant, and why this Alfa owner would say that about his own cars. What?

stratissino · February 2001

But I agree it was a problematic engine in a BMW-type chassis that couldn't handle the power.I'd sort of like to have one just to drive a car with a Torsen diff, though.Also the Montreal's chassis wasn't worthy of the great engine but hey, what gives Shiftright?That's the same chassis as your beloved Spyder!...And uh...none of my Alfas burned oil.(Leaking oil on the other hand...)

bort1 · February 2001

I would have to say that the Mopar 318 should be on the list. While I am too young to remember (or live throught for that matter) the muscle-car era, the 318 is still one tough boat anchor. While the engine was never great in terms of performance, they were tough to kill off. My family had one in a '83 0r '84 Dodge van. I learned to drive in that beast when it had over 200,000 on the clock. When we finally got rid of it not much body was left, the engine was missing on 2 cylinders and blowing massive amounts of smoke. The darn thing still had the same fuel milage that we had always seen and the van still had the same 0-60 times. (yes I know that these were both pathetic) My dad and I actually tried to kill it a few times, but never could. For some reason I remember an article from Hot-Rod (i think) from 98 or 99 that featured the 318 with NO2. They went out for the sole purpose of grenading a junkyard engine, but could not do it.

andre1969 · February 2001

Is there any difference in the durability of the later 318's from 1968 on, versus the old 318 "wideblock" from 1957 to 1967? I know the old wideblock was about 100 lb heavier, and too big to comfortably stuff under the hood of a Dart or Valiant back then. But it looks like they're rated about the same, hp-wise.

BTW, there is one weak spot in the 318, at least for 1989. They had a run of bad camshafts, and the #8 lobe would tend to go bad. Happened to the 318 in my '89 Gran Fury, at 73,000 miles. The place I bought it from had swapped in a 318 from an '88, with 75,000 miles. The car now has about 113,000 on the body, 2K more than that on the engine.

One of my friends from college, his dad had a 1993 (?) Grand Cherokee with a 318 magnum, and they had engine troubles with it within the first 30,000 miles or so.

I don't think most of the guys around here wouldn't put the 318 on the list of the very best engines. For mainstream applications though, I'd take one in a hearbeat (no pun intended) over any Chevy smallblock, Pontiac 301, Ford smallblock, etc. But I'm a Mopar man, I have to say that ;-)
-Andre

Mr_Shiftright · February 2001

A Maserati V8 actually won the Indy 500...was it Roger Ward (my memory might fail me here)...so an Italian engine can hang tough...and Ferrari V8s are very durable, but you need to do the services as these are small displacement (relatively) V8s putting out lots of power at high rpm.

stratissino · February 2001

The Maserati V-8's that I was thinking of were derivations of the 4.5liter 450S sports/racer that contested and should have easily won the World Sports Car Championship in 1957,but didn't , what a tale of woe!.This engine was designed by Giulio Alfieri after the Maserati brothers had left the company to start OSCA(their semi-retirement hobby).This V-8 went virtually unmodified into the 5000GT, the Mexico, the first series Quattroporte of the mid-60s,the Ghibli, The mid-engined Bora(maybe the best car to use the engine),back to front-engined for the Khamsin(other candidate for "best")and finally the second Quattroporte which finally went out of production in the mid-80s(Not to be confused with the Quattroporte II of a few of years ago).These engines gave very reliable service by Italian standards.In the mid-engine configuration they gave none of the overheating trouble that plagued the Pantera's Ford motor for example.The displacement went from 4.1 to 5.0 liters for various models.Carburetion always by 4 two bbl. Webers.Power was from about 290bhp for the 4.1 up to 420 for the 450S racer, but the torque was better than the power.The SCCA and Calclub racers got hold of some 450Ss and bored&stroked them beyond 5 liters.Jim Hall and Roger Penske drove them.Why, even Lloyd Ruby drove a 450S in the professional road racing series that USAC used to have! Oh Yeah, I forgot to say Wilbur Shaw won the Indy 500 twice(39&40) in an inline-8 Maser.That same car, a Grand Prix car originally, almost won it a couple more times.They did make some V-8s for Indy which never went quite as well and I think Roger Ward did drive one of those.

isellhondas · February 2001

O.K. I haven't been very fair.

I just remember the old Fiats and Lancias and all of the TROUBLE they were.

I guess I just assumed that with twice the cylinders the V-8's would be twice the trouble!

Mr_Shiftright · February 2001

Must'nt use Fiat and Lancia in the same sentence....Lancia enjoys a very good reputation in Europe and was always a higher quality and more interesting car than a Fiat. Americans never were exposed to real Lancias in their best dress.

jlflemmons · February 2001

Gentlemen, in another topic there is much praise regarding the Dodge Slant Six. In my humble opinion, the Oldsmobile 350 while not the fastest of the mid-size blocks, was one of if not the best 350 built. Olds was the first to use PVR (positive valve rotation) on both the intake and exhaust valves. This virtually ended the burned valve issue for V8 engines. With a redline of only 5200rpm, the valves would begin to float at around 5400, but thats all that would happen, valve float. The 68-70 model developed 310-325 horsepower with one Rochester 4BBL. My Mom's 68 with a Jetaway 2spd would hit 87MPH through the standing quarter. My friends all thought the sucker would blow before it got around to shifting. I owned several Cutlass with the 350 and all them were extremely durable and tunable. I saw one engine torn down at 165K and the valves were still good. The engine had been abused on maintenance and only required new main bearings. As a side note, each of the 350's I owned had two consistent characteristics: When it was time to change the plugs, those suckers would backfire through the carb so hard you would think the hood was going to come off. And if you tried to go over 5000 miles without and oil change, it would use about one quart of oil. No more, just one quart. Even after Olds dropped the engine from the street, they were used, along with the 455, for many more years in marine applications. One tough son-of-a-gun.

Jim

deerlake7 · February 2001

I had one of those 310 HP, Olds 350's in a '68 Cutlass S, with the 2 speed Jetaway (aka. Powerglide) transmissions. Overall, this was the best car I ever had. As mentioned in the last post, it was downright fast, unbelievably smooth and more reliable than anything I've ever seen. Although I sold it with 130,000 miles on it to a "friend of a friend," the last I heard it had travelled well over 200,000 miles, with no major component failure. I had a '65 Dodge Coronet with a 318 before that and getting 100,000 miles out of it was a great challenge (thank goodness for their 5 year, 50,000 mile warranty). The only real problem with this car were the miserable brakes which were terribly weak for a vehicle with that much power. When I think back on the great Oldsmobiles I've owned, it makes me sad to see how General Motors lost their way with the dawn of the 80's and has gone downhill since.

thebeaver · February 2001

Hands down, the best engine ever to sit in a production car was the Chevy LS6 454.
This was the most powerful engine to hit the street out of the showroom in the 70's.The LS6 454's forte was brute force and acceleration. Fed by a Holley 800 cfm four barrel carb, the LS6 was conservatively rated at 450 horsepower and 500 lb.ft of torque, but in reality it was much more potent(this was an advertised number in the books, the engine was actually putting out nearly 500hp stock!). Quarter mile times of just over 13 seconds at over 110 mph were easily achievable.
Specifications
This motor represents a high point in power for muscle cars. With 450 hp at 5600 rpm and 500 lb-ft at 3600 rpm you can easily see why. This is an engine designed to run hard! Some of the best pieces went into the LS6 to make it race ready.
In order to have an LS6 car the factory had to use special heavy duty parts on the car. Some of these features were: Deep groove pulleys, Heavy duty battery, 37 amp alternator, high pressure fuel pump, 6500 rpm redline tach (if ordered), dual snorkel or open element air cleaner (if cowl induction was not ordered), and a M22 heavy duty 4-speed or turbo 400 auto. These were some of the features that help make the 454 as mean as it was.

SPECS:
Engine Type :
Overhead Valve V8
454-cu-in. displacement
Large port closed chamber heads
Duration of 2.19 intake valves and 1.88 exhaust valves
11.25 to 1 compression
Solid lifter chamshaft with .520 lift
TRW forged aluminum domed pistons
Magnafluxed forged steel connecting rods with
7/16 rod bolts
Tuftrided forged 5140
steel crankshaft
Aluminum intake
800cfm 4 barrel Holley carburator
Manual Choke

Performance (in a 1970 Chevelle):
0-60 mph in 5.4 sec
107.1 mph in 13.12 sec
Top Speed of 130 mph
450hp @ 5600 rpm
500 lb-ft @ 3600 rpm

Long live the Chevy Big Block.

carnut4 · February 2001

Not to rain on your parade, but I thought duration referred to the number of degrees of crankshaft rotation that the intake and exhaust valves were held open by the camshaft. For the LS6, this was ____ degrees. {Fill in the correct number, after you check the book again on duration...]

amazon · February 2001

Was indeed a great motor. How'bout the 502/ 502?

judas · February 2001

Yeah, the 2.19 and 1.88 are the size of the valves, not the duration. You've also got to take 450 HP and 500 lb/ft with a grain of salt, since they were gross HP and not net.

The times listed for the LS6 at www.musclecarclub.com are 6.1 for 0-60 and 13.7 @ 103 in the 1/4.

thebeaver · February 2001

Look at the time of the post then add 3 hrs for EST.
Sorry for the mis-quote.

And as for the Gross vs. Net. The gross HP was an understatement this has been proven by numerous road tests.

Car Craft ran a LS6 Chevelle through the quarter mile in 13.12 seconds at 107.1 mph!
Super Stock ran one in 13.20 seconds at 106 mph!
Finally Hot Rod ran a LS6 in 13.44 at 108.17 mph!
All these tests were done on bone stock cars with traction problems!

In October 1969 Super Stock tested an automatic LS6 with stock 4:10 gears. The car was treated to a set of headers and 10.5 X 15 slicks. This Chevelle ran 12.69 at 113.26 mph with a photographer driving!
Put on a set of slicks and open headers and you can run mid 12s all day! You can go even faster with simple carb and ignition mods! How does 11s sound?

judas · February 2001

The gross horsepower claim may have been an understatement but gross HP, by definition, is an extreme overstatement. Any car making 500+ HP should have a trap speed of higher than 105 mph, something that isn't effected as much by traction problems.

"In October 1969 Super Stock tested an automatic LS6 with stock 4:10 gears. The car was treated to a set of headers and 10.5 X 15 slicks. This Chevelle ran 12.69 at 113.26 mph with a photographer driving!"

In an auto car with slicks the driver isn't going to make a huge factor in the time, so because a photographer did it doesn't really mean a whole lot.

"You can go even faster with simple carb and ignition mods! How does 11s sound?"

How does an increase of 3/4 to 1+ seconds with just carb and ignition mods sound? Um, impossible. Maybe if you bolt on 2 4 barrels and ram air and advance the timing to an insane amount, run race gas, etc,but I don't think counts as a simple carb/ignition mod.

The vast majority of cars back then weren't anywhere near as fast as people thought/think they were/are. A lot of people out there think a 350 HP 400 ci GTO back then will blow the doors off any modern pony/performance car. But it wont. It sounds like the LS6 maybe one of the exceptions, and it was really pretty quick. But I don't buy that it had 500 net HP. It's not that quick.

andre1969 · February 2001

I remember reading an old Consumer Reports test of a Dodge Charger from '68-69 vintage with a 440. It did 0-60 in about 7.0 seconds, with a 3-speed Torqueflite. I forget what geat ratio it had.

I remember they also tested an intermediate sedan with a 318-2bbl, 3-speed Torqueflite, and I believe a 2.76 rear end. Can't remember if it was a Coronet or a Satellite though. Anyway, it did 0-60 in 10 seconds.

Seems to me like a muscle car with a big-block should have been a far cry from a 4-door sedan with a base 318...much more than just 3 seconds of difference.

I forget what 1/4 mile times and top speed were though, so maybe the Charger had alot more pull at higher speeds.

BTW, the 318 back then had 230 hp gross, while the 440's had 350-375, I think. I don't know what these translated to in net hp though. A 1972 318-2 has 150 hp, but they also cut compression that year, so the 1971 and earlier may actually have a bit more than 150 net.

I've heard that Chrysler's 2 most underrated engines were the 426 Hemi and the 340 smallblock. They were rated at 425 and 275 hp, respectively, but in net terms, I believe they still had 350 and 245.

I'm just curious...does anybody know about what the 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times should be on a 1968 Dart 318-2, with dual exhaust, and an 8.75 rear-end with 2.76 gears? I know it's not a muscle car by any stretch of the imagination! I figured that if Consumer Reports got an intermediate with a 318 to do 0-60 in 10 seconds, then a Dart, which would be about 300 lb lighter, should be good for around 8.5-9, shouldn't it?

-Andre

speedshift · February 2001

There's a big difference between 0-60s of 7 and 10 seconds. Most '60s musclecars were in the 7 second range, with quarter miles in the mid 14s and the mid 90s. May not sound that earth shaking when today's family sedans can come close to those numbers, but in the '60s anything that could get to 60 in under 10 seconds was quick.

No offense, but the Beav's post sounds like it was taken directly from one of those musclecar books that uses words like "ground pounding" and "pavement ripping". Between that kind of hype, and the hype they were dishing out when the cars were new, you've really got to approach road tests and their numbers with lots of caution.

thebeaver · February 2001

Some of the specifications are taken from Car and Driver's track test of the LS6 Chevelle.
However I can assure you that you can easily get this engine/car into the low 10's even high 9's with minimal mods and without breaking the bank.
I myself own a #'s matching LS6 Chevelle SS and I have been able to run in the 10's consistantly.
Brushing into the high 9's when the weather/moon is right.This in a 3400+lb all steel auto.
My ride is Show-N-Go so it's 95% stock. I only sunk about $1100 into the engine and chassis setup/millwork/parts.
Some things are too good to be true
This car/engine aren't one of them.
I can assure you of that.

speedshift · February 2001

You sure know how to make $1100 work for you.

speedshift · February 2001

Just guessing, but I don't think Beav has ever seen what a 10-second drag car looks and acts like.

isellhondas · February 2001

Well...I used to go to the drags in those days and I never saw a street legal Chevelle LS6 run in the 10's.

Guess they must improve with age?

jlflemmons · February 2001

Used to camp out at Lake Somerville in Texas. Early morning hours you could hear the jet boats coming across the lake. High pitch, wound out wonders. Then you would hear it and see it: Deep rumble like distant thunder, but leading the pack, Olds 455 marine engine sounds like nothing else on the water...

carnut4 · February 2001

down around Saragosa. Then it came in the tall bottle-er no it was the turbocharged wheelbarrow.
Longhorns, they was...

speedshift · February 2001

but thirty years ago, just out of high school, I had a '61 Impala convertible with the 348/250 and 4 speed. My best friend's mother had a Cutlass with the 350 2-barrel, and my friend had keys. Neither car was a world beater but we were 18 and one night after a few beers my friend and I decided to race.

We drove the cars out to a deserted street in an industrial area, got side by side and nailed it at about 5 mph. The 348 actually kept a slight edge on the Olds until about 70 or so, when we backed off. The Chevy was probably a couple hundred pounds heavier than the Cutlass but had fairly short gears, and the 4 speed helped too, but I was surprised that a boat anchor 348 could keep up with a more modern engine.

speedshift · February 2001

The performance doesn't improve with age but the stories sure do.

Some engines have been hyped so much over the years in books--and their oral equivilent, the BS sessions--that guys like the beav don't know where fact ends and fantasy begins.

But Andre has a good point. If a family sedan could do 0-60 in 10 seconds, why couldn't a musclecar with twice the hp go twice as fast, or almost.

First, big block musclecars are heavy. The engine is maybe 200 pounds heavier than a small block, depending. The transmission is the stronger heavier version. So is the driveshaft and rear axle. Sometimes the brakes are bigger, and maybe the frame is heavier or the unibody is reinforced to handle the extra power. Musclecars usually had the heavier top-line interior (the Road Runner was one exception). And as musclecars "matured" in the late '60s they tended to have more power options.

All of this means a musclecar has more weight to get off the line than a no-frills economy sedan.

Second, a hi-perf big block has hotter valve timing than a family sedan engine so it can make power up to usually about 5 grand, and its torque peak is around 3600 rpm. The family sedan engine is tuned more for throttle response, economy and a smooth idle, and it usually peaks around 2400 rpm. So the economy engine puts out less torque but gets to it a little quicker.

Of course, the musclecar has a better weight-to-horsepower ratio and in the quarter mile it's no contest, but off the line the race is closer. Isell's story about a 361 Chrysler beating a 389 GTO in a stoplight race shows what can happen. The 389 was putting out more hp but the 361 out-torqued it off the line.

bort1 · February 2001

Another stripped-down car was the '64 Plymoth Race Hemi, although it preceeds most of the "musclecar" days. Strong motor, light body, no frills, not found much on the street as they were popular stockers at the dragstrip. (hell, they only came with one windshield wiper - driver's side)

speedshift · February 2001

Yeah, they probably picked up a tenth by leaving the passenger wiper arm off ;-).

Reminds me of the "swiss cheese" Pontiac Catalinas with their frames drilled for lightness. A little radical even for the street racers.

You got two wipers with the first Road Runner, but not much more. It was basically a taxi cab with a big engine.

thebeaver · February 2001

This post is directed towards John aka 'speedshift'.
I look through the board every so often and once in a while I see a post that I think is fun and interesting. This one 'best V8s ever' was one of them. So I post a message. Then I post another to give a little personal experience and some info on the topic with an apology for a mis-quote in a prievious post.
But then I come back to see if there are any related posts only to get pissed off.
I get to read that a 'smart guy' named 'speedshift' is using lines like "I don't know what a 10 sec. car looks or acts like" and "guys like me don't know the difference beetween fantasy and reality".
Well let me respond to that.
John if you would like to critique me fine, but here's a little F.Y.I. . I've been building up cars for 20+ years and racing them for about the same. I have no idea when, if ever you have been at the track to run a car or have seen one of my cars at the track. But until you have, maybe you should sling your mud some where else. Quotes like these I take very personal, especially with all of the time I've invested into my cars. There's a big difference between preaching and practicing. And I have a lot of practice in me. Maybe someday when you are on the East coast I'll bring you to the track and give you a ride in the 10 sec. car you are in so much denial about. This, to show you not only what the beloved LS6 can do, but what a little know how can do to it.
I'll even let you get a picture of you behind the wheel so you can tell your buddies that it's yours.
....OH sorry was that an insult?
There's no need to reply to this post my blood pressure is high enough right now.
That is all for me...........

meisterchow · February 2001

Like beaver i had a big 454 LS5 i think ..but in my opinion I like the chevy 502 from tonawanda.
i got a crate and custom FI and dropped it into my lil 69 camaro RS...oh boy! the weight-horses ratio is a force on the street.Blew my rear again though

speedshift · February 2001

Sorry about the marbles, Beav, but first of all I'm not the only one who's a little dubious and second, you say yourself it sounds too good to be true.

Okay, no more heavy sarcasm, just the facts. I'm looking at a Car Life test of a '70 LS6 Chevelle. Did the quarter in 14.55 @ 99.7. Coincidentally, the same magazine ran a '68 Ram Air I GTO through the quarter in 14.53 @ 99.77. Trap speed is a good indicator of hp. Yes, 3.31s held the LS6 back while 3.90s let the Ram Air get into its power band quicker, but the RA I made maybe 360 net hp and I don't see an extra 140 from the LS6.

When I hear 9s I think of the Pro Stockers I watched when I starting going to the strip in the early '70s. I dug out an old magazine, something called Hot Stock '72, to remind me what Pro Stock was all about then. Mid-high 9s at around 140, maybe 650 net hp and a legal vehicle weight of 3089 lbs. It took about $5000 in 1972 dollars to build a competitive Pro Stocker. They were heavily modified, and trailered to races.

Car Life's LS6 weighed 4196 lbs. You say your Chevelle weighs 3400+ lbs. so I guess you've lightened it a bit. It's still about 300 lbs. heavier than an early-70s Pro Stocker, but you're not claiming their consistent 9s, just very low 10s with an occasional 9. It still looks like you'd need around 650 net hp to get your Chevelle into the very low 10s. Plus the tires and suspension to hook up 650 net hp. Plus a drivetrain that can take that kind of abuse consistently.

So, an honest question: will $1100 do this for a 95% stock streetable Chevelle?

bw403 · March 2001

The Old:

Ford's 427 Hemi of '64. Although advertised as having 425 HP, I still have an old car mag with an article that claims that a dynamometer indicated 610 HP with a single four barrel carburetor. The engine was only available for a short time, 2 or 3 months I think. I've been told some of these engines are still in use today in dragsters.

The New:

The Lexus V8. No further comment should be necessary.

andys120 · March 2001

To me one of the great things about push rod V-8s is their sound, Herewith my opinion of the best sounding V-8 engines....
Chevy small blocks asp. 283/327
MoPar big blocks
Chevy 427/454
Ford 427 side oiler
Ford 289/302

bort1 · March 2001

Don't forget the "evil" cackle of a Flathead and set of glasspacks, especially on a downshift.

rea98d · March 2001

Sound? How bout the metallic clanging of an engine running on too low an octane? There's a sound I like. Unfortunately, to get your engine to do that causes it to self destruct!

link413 · March 2001

The dreams of this high schooler were brought to life in a 1962 Chrysler New Yorker with a 413-Hemi. Not real fast off the line, but you could bury the needle.

isellhondas · March 2001

An old six cylinder Chevy with a split manifold.

An 18 inch glasspack on one side and a straight pipe on the other side.

Go down a hill, put it in second and let out the clutch!

stealth1969 · March 2001

The current issue of Muscle Car Review has a smallblock shoot out. 10 smallblocks from the big three competed in the cars they were available in. The W31 Olds in a F85 won. The Olds was followed by two Corvettes, an LT1 and a 283.

What are the best V8 engines ever made?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles