Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
It seems like most W-31s found their way into F-85 pillared coupes, judging from the Hemmings ads I used to read. I guess because it was supposed to be a budget musclecar, like the first Road Runner.
The only W-31 I ran across was driven by a guy who came to look at my Judge when I was selling it. It was a plain Jane coupe with bench seat, soup bowl hubcaps and rubber floor mats, didn't even have trim on the b pillar. As I recall you couldn't get power brakes with the W-31 because the cam had lots of overlap and didn't allow enough manifold vacuum to operate the power booster. Maybe that turned off the guys who liked a little luxury with their performance. Also the W-31 wasn't known for its torque, although the one I got a ride in seemed to have enough.
On average, weren't 2-door sedans/pillared coupes a bit lighter than their hardtop counterparts? This might partly account for the reason that so many W-31's had B-pillars.
I remember reading an old muscle car magazine that was spotlighting a Road runner, that had bench seats, a column shifter, and no hubcaps at all...just chrome lug nuts. Having put GT bucket seats into a Dart 270 with a bench, I can attest to the fact that a single bench is a lot lighter than 2 buckets! At least it felt it...
Yeah, the pillared coupe ("Sports Coupe") was lighter than the hardtop, but not by as much as I thought. The F-85 V8 coupe weighed 3281 pounds, the Cutlass hardtop V8 3316. I've always had a soft spot for the coupes. My idea of a nice daily driver would be a '68-9 Tempest coupe with the 4-barrel OHC six and four speed. Well balanced, nice lines, fairly economical and cheap because no one else wants them.
215 Cu in alum V8 and 215 HP. These cute mini-cars got smoked by many a slant six Dodge Dart at the drags. In '64 Cutlass went to 330 cu V8 , then the 442 came out. Loved those cute GM's early sixties cars...
215 was cute but a troublesome engine. Lots of grief for owners. Most had only 155 hp, but the Jetfire was interesting, as it was turbocharged and fuel injected too if I remember correctly...it put out 215 HP, that's quite right. But it was not successful. Rover bought it and developed it and improved it but it was still a mediocre, rather gutless and gas-eating engine. Finally did become sort of reliable. Not on my honor roll anyway!
As I recall, the Jetfire (turbo) used nearly the same (or same) turbo setup as the Corvair including the side draft carb. They added a "fluid injection" system that would squirt a mixture of water and alcohol under boost conditions to prevent detonation. This allowed them to use the same high compression as the the 4 barrel non-turbo. If you kept your your foot on it, the fluid would be consumed rapidly. Once it ran out it was back to the Olds dealer for another bottle of the "special fluid". Most folks found that routine unsatisfactory and had the turbo system replaced with a conventional carbarator setup.
I saw an original turbo set-up on a Cutlass in a junkyard in the early '70s. I thought most of them grenaded and the rest were retrofitted by the factory.
Saw a twin turbo set-up at an auto parts store some time in the '80s. Must have had some racing use to justify that engineering.
Maybe 1959 Cadillac, Shucks!! forgot the engine size, but I remember some had a 3x2 bbl carb setup and could burn 50 feet of rubber... Some of those CADDY engines had very long lifes...ie 1961, 1975 500 cu in.
Also 430 cu in Lincoln V8 of 1962. Hot rod Lincoln could climb the infamous GRAPEVINE HILL in So. Ca at well over a 100 mph, unlike the slower 1960 Chrylser 300C with Hemi and dual quads.
Phew! More than you ever wanted to know about the 215 V-8. To the man's credit, though, he didn't puff it up...just the facts more or less.
Interesting that it took the world's automakers so long to develop effective and reliable turbocharging for cars. Really, nobody got it right on a production car until Saab, and that wasn't until the late 1970s.
I can't say I agree on the concept of using magazine road tests to show the real potential of a car/engine combination. Short of actually doing it (heaven forbid), I'd probably look at NHRA stock class times. I seem to remember in Car Craft (aagggh, more magazine 'knowledge') the record for the class that included 440-6pack Challengers was in the 10's. These cars, of course, get rebuilt to super exacting specifications *a lot*, and have totally dialed in machine work, transmissions, tires, etc. etc. etc. It wouldn't suprise me if an LS6 Chevelle or L72 Camaro was in the same neighborhood.
Best V-8 I ever had was the one in my 1966 Cadillac Fleetwood. It was a 429 that I had bored out to 435 c.i. For those who may not know, this was about 7.8 litres.
My gearhead buddies took the stock motor, 385 hp, 450 pounds of torque, bored it out and put a nitrous bottle on it. 420 hp, 485 pounds of torque after that. Quarter mile on the bottle was high 12s, still enclosed in the 5000 pound body. This was fast enough to beat 5 liter mustangs.
If this motor could ever fit in a Miata, It would be incredible, except the front would be way too heavy.
I had the best road trip in that car, I put a 90 gallon fuel cell in the trunk, and hit the road. First gas station I pulled into was full serve. The pump jockey pumped and pumped and 110 gallons later it was full. The guy kept looking under the car, wondering where all the gas went. I told him I had a 25 gallon gas tank. He only charged me for 25 too.
As expected, mileage was poor, 10 city, 15 hwy. But, none of my buddies had a car that could go 160.
Never tried a 472 or a 501, but this I know, there is no substitute for cubes, guys.
I heard that some tuner shop can put a 650 V8 in a new corvette. WOW.
Ah... I didn't catch the $1100 price limit. I'll be the first to admit that there is a lot of malleability in horsepower and 1/4 mile times in the context of a conversation. How about this angle... take an existing LS6 powered Chevelle and begin removing all non-essential parts on the car... seats, trunk and hood, fenders and rear quarters, glass... bolt on some slicks and voila!!! Super dooper fast car...
I would agree that the chevy 327 and the 427 belong on the list from GM.
The 327 has a very large following . . . not sure what fuels this other than it is a quicker reving motor than the 350 with the same bore.
The LS6 454 (I also think the LS5 454 deserves mention since it was a very torquey motor for street use), 426 hemi, 426 wedge, 440 6pack, the 340, the ford 302 (most successful), 351C, the 460 (big cubes if nothing else) also all belong as some have mentioned.
But the best Ford motor has been mentioned. The 427.
of course there were several versions 427 medium riser 427 low riser 427 high riser 427 hemi Soch motor 427 tunnel port
And the commonly refered to 427 side oiler after 1966-68.
No one mentioned any american motors engines?? hehehe.
"Best V-8 I ever had was the one in my 1966 Cadillac Fleetwood. It was a 429 that I had bored out to 435 c.i. For those who may not know, this was about 7.8 litres"
265 in my '55 BelAire hardtop with powerglide. It lasted many many years, had no oil filter, a 4-bbl carb, 45 rpm record change on the hump, reverb, baby moon hubcaps. Used Pennzoil straight 30. Would change just before it turned to sludge (7-8 months), wash engine down with kerosene and just drive it until i dropped in a 327 in early 60's, then sold it before entering USAF. Oh, sludge was easy to remove, just pop off valve covers and use Mom's butter knife.
I had to drive a ways from Bellflower to get to Lyons. First time I went there was in 1963. Saw Don Prudhomme in that yellow topfuel rig with the Kieth Black Chrysler Hemi. His best time then was something like 187 in 8.1 seconds. I just watched the drags today from Las Vegas, and John Force did a 4.86 at 311mph in his funny car. My how times have changed! I guess it goes without saying that the Chrysler Hemi was one of the best V8s ever.
This is what I've heard from a Mopar mailing list, so it's bound to be biased...but, here goes.
The old "whale" hemi...the Dodge, DeSoto, or Chrysler Hemi from the 50's. Those would usually outlast the car itself, and could be built up to be very strong performers;
The "Elephant" hemi...the 426. If you could get 120,000 miles out of one without a rebuild, you were lucky. Weren't they also just about impossible to keep in tune?
There was one year, 1968, I believe, that you could get a Dodge Dart GTS or Plymouth Barracuda with a 340, a 440, or a 426 Hemi. I've read that the 340 was actually the best engine for day-to-day use, because it was so much lighter than the Hemi, would outperform the heavier 440, and would outmaneuver the hemi. I've never driven any of them, though, so I can't vouch for personal experience!
I believe Hayden Profitt cleaned up with his super stock '63 409 and Donaldo Garlitz in his rail. Al Ekstrand's Dodge hemi was smoked by a 421 Pontiac catalina, or was it the other way around?? I forgot. Ole Calculus instructor had a Dodge Polara wagon with a 426 Wedge engine and push button torqueflite. VERY VERY fast on the street. Love those 406 tri-power 405 HP Ford Galaxies, good for racing against other 406 Fords until the 427 Ford Fairlane THUNDERBOLTS came out in '64. FX class......132 in the 1/4 ...FORD (FIRST ON RACE DAY!!)
'70 AAR Cuda 340-6 pack, with the megapipes out the side, could hold its own against Boss 302 Stangs and 302 Z28's in 1969-70 at Wednesday night grudge races at Irwindale Raceway.
the most popular V8 for racing purposes in this country is the Chevy small block. Check out any dirt track, NASCAR sanctioned event, Hooter's Pro Cup, etc. Probably 80% will be chevy small blocks. It's amazing how they are getting 800+ HP and 430 c.i. out of these custom decked all alluminum beast they run in the WOO dirt sprints and UDTRA dirt late models.
Without question the Chevy SB is the most popular V8 ever made and due to its market presence it had a lot of influence on the automotive scene.
However many people will tell you that out of the box, it was a pretty mediocre engine. Bad valve seals were common and needed frequent replacement. Metallurgy was poor leading to "soft cams" and a requirement to add 4-bolt mains if you wanted to spin them to any degree. Crummy design in the exhaust port/sparkplug hole area led to many burned fingers. Look at the impact when Olds division sneaked these into what buyers expected were Olds Rocket-powered '77 88s. Many buyers refused their cars outright because they wanted nothing to do with the SBC.
By contrast some of the post-64 Olds SB V8s were quite good -- the high-nickel content block made them super-tough. Many people swear by these. Olds 425 ('65-'67, the ancestor of the 455) also has many fans, as does the Pontiac 389/421. I was never particularly impressed with Buick or Ford V8s myself, though the Buick 455 Stage I and the Ford 351 Cleveland did well around 1970.
I always was partial to the Mopar 340 myself. Just about any Chrysler V8 engine has a lot to recommend it.
I liked my 318ci Chrysler I had in my '82 Dodge Ramcharger. But my favorite was my '74 Oldsmobile 455 Rocket. Anyone know how much a dual exhaust non-catalytic converter verison of that engine put out in a '74 olds 98? I had one and it was powerful, just never knew the specs on it.
According to my auto encyclopedia, the 98 came standard with a 210 hp 455. 230 was optional, which, I'm presuming may have been the dual exhaust package. There was also a 275 hp version, but my book only lists it as optional on the Cutlass and Vista Cruiser. If you're interested, I have some old Motor's Repair manuals buried somewhere, that list the torque ratings of the engines, as well.
which domestic, cast-iron ohv do you prefer over all the others?
To me it's like asking what kind of cancer you prefer: brain? bone? blood?
My favorite V8's have 4 cams and 4 valves per cylinder, though there might be some I don't know of with electro-magnetic valve actuation and maybe 5 valves.
But for the moment, I'll go with a nostalgic favorite: Cosworth DFV. Or for a production V8 how about the 3-liter Ferrari?
I have a certain appreciation of the quaint domestic designs, but favorite? No way.
I would like to have some information on the various CM 350 V8 engines that were made over the years. Some were called Old some called Chewy were they the same block? the last CM I Body cars used an engine called the LT1.Was this the same block with higher compression? The ewer Corvettes have an engine designated as LS1. What changed from the LT1? Information on all the different CM 350s (trucks also) would be appreciated.
Boy, there's a question you could sink your teeth into. How much time do you have?
The short story is that there have been five GM 350s. The LT1 was the last Chevy 350 "mouse" engine, a design that goes back to the 265 in 1955. The LS1 is a completely different engine, available in different sizes and tunes in the Corvette and GM trucks.
Then there was the Pontiac 350, a small bore Pontiac 400. Came out in '68 but a smaller version, the 326, had been around since '63. The 4-barrel version was fairly warm--Pontiac always had some of the better street cams--but the long stroke worked against it and why bother when the much better 400 was usually available in the same car.
The Buick 350 was basically a bored and stroked cast iron version of the old 215 aluminum V8 first used in the BOP compacts starting in 1961, now used in Land Rovers. Appeared in '68, although as a 300 it first came out in '64. Known for its durability but not its performance, although there was a 325-hp version in '70.
The Olds 350 also came out in '68, a short stroke Olds 400, first version was a 330 that appeared in '64. Had a good performance reputation and the W-31 was the hottest version from '68-'70(?).
All of these engines are completely different, with no significant parts interchangeability that I know of, although I could be wrong and if I am I'll find out soon enough.
I remember someone here wondering why the Chevy big block was called the "rat" motor. Always thought it was because the small block was the "mouse" (because of its small size) so naturally the big Chevy would be named after a big rodent.
Hi Folks, Anyone hear remember the buick 215 (3.5 litre V8)?That has got to be one of my favorite V8s. In the late 50s to early 60s an engineer from British leyland visited the GM design center in Warren MI. The GM engineer mentioned the engine to him and explained the situation. Explaining that the engine was a great engin, but too small for their cars. So, the brit engineer called HQ and relayed the info. After a few meeting and driving sessions in cars with the little V8, they bought up all the old stock, and the rights. That engine was used in a LOT of great cars. Lotus', MGBV8s, Rovers, and untiul recently Land Rovers. The LR 3.9 litre V8 was a bored out version of this engine. My great uncle has Rover P6 3500 (A rare car in the US) taht also has this engine. The sound it produces is pure music. A sort of staccato warble and oozes out of the exhaust and from under the hood. A great engine for the Rover sedan. It has proven very versitile for some 40 odd years, and is still used in its pretty much original form.
Yes, if you scroll back in this discussion you will find lots of info on the 215, both positive and negative data. I don't think we'd all like to go over it again, but perhaps you can read through it and then if you have any further questions/comments, please post them
You've got to admit the IDEA is good. Why are they still so thirsty after all these years? Internal friction? You'd think a cylinder head redesign could make it more efficient. Maybe there's never been money for one.
The 427 SOHC Ford is most definitely the best V8 of the 1950-60-70 era. The SOHC engine produced an amazing abount of power and could do so without being a temperamental beast. From idle to redline - no other engine of the day could match it. Too bad Ford didn't fully realize the potential marketability of this motor and OHC technology in general.
In terms of modern V8s, the new Acura NSX will have a V8 engine with variable valve timing and lift. This powerhouse is supposed to be the V8 equivalent of the Honda S2000 scream-machine. It should be thrilling indeed. V8 + 9000 rpm + Honda reliability = fun.
While it certainly had a lot of potential, I've heard and read that it also had a lot of problems, mostly with keeping the two cams timed when the drive chain would flex. I think Ford had the ability to make great engines, but they either came out too late (428CJ, 429SCJ), or were given up on too soon (Boss429, SOHC427).
Captaincarl, you are correct. The SOHC Ford did have some problems staying in tune because of timing chain flex. BUT, when it was in tune, it was relatively smooth and extremely powerful across it's entire rev range. That can't be said for any of the really wild 427, 454, 426 engines of that era. They all burbulled and coughed at idle and were pretty obnoxious (by today's standards) when pushed hard.
I once had the opportunity to see and hear a Cammer in action. It displayed none of those negative characteristics. I'm not sure how hard the owner was pushing the engine, but it sure looked and sounded fast.
Those solid lifter Hemis and BB Chevys make quite a clatter, but I know the Hemi at least was a very docile engine when in tune, even at low engine speeds. The L72 and LS6 Chevys had a little more cam, so I would expect them to be a little rougher at low speeds. I've never had the pleasure of hearing a SOHC. I guess my point was that I consider the SOHC to be a good might-have-been, but definitely not one of the best V8s ever; I don't even consider it a production engine, and it still needed a lot of development.
Did anyone mention the 330 Olds V8? The best engine I've ever had was the 2bbl 330 in a '64 F-85 Club Coupe. It ran beautifully for 200k miles before I decided to look at it. The only thing it needed was a new valve seat on the #7 exhaust. Of course, during its' first 25 years the engine was meticulously maintained by a fluid physicist who worked for Lockheed. I sold that car to my buddy and he drives it to and from work everyday. It has over 280k miles on it now. I heard that engine was originally designed to run irrigation pumps - can anyone verify that? This engine evolved into the 350 Olds V8, no? I've also had Chevrolets with 396s and 427s and thought pretty highly of those, but would still prefer a nice Olds with a good running 330 or 350 in it. This is funny because I am currently restoring a '66 Impala with a 325hp 396.
I don't know about the industrial application--seems like a waste of a good high-revving engine--but maybe.
'64 was the first year for the 330, used in the Cutlass and also the full-size Jetstar. The first 442 ("4 barrel, 4 on the floor and dual exhaust") was based on the F-85 B-09 police package and had a 4-bbl 310 hp version of the 330. The 330 had an unusually short 3.38" stroke.
The 350 came out in '68 and was a bored 330. The hi-perf W-31 package from '68-'70 used the "Ram Rod 350" 325 hp with Ram Air, big valves (2" intake, 1.63" exhaust) and a hotter cam with .474" lift and 308 degrees duration.
I remember something about how Olds couldn't offer power brakes with this engine because the cam overlap didn't let the engine make enough vacuum to run a booster, so they offered manual brakes with soft linings so they wouldn't need as much leg to operate. Just what a hi perf GM intermediate needed: 9" drum brakes with soft linings. When they faded you just opened your door and dragged a foot.
I'm sure the 403 used in the late '70s in Pontiacs and Olds was based on the 350, and I'm 99% sure it was a stroked 350, but my Encyclopedia of American Cars says it's a bored 350.
Can there be any doubt about this question? With over 65 million engines produced in over 45 years there is no question the small block chevy is the best V-8 engine ever produced. It is the foundation of the speed industry. The market has answered your question.
Depends what you mean by "best" I think. The Chevy V8 is plentiful, reliable and parts are everywhere, which gives it tremendous popularity. So maybe it's really a combination of things that people mean when they say "best". But using some other comparison, perhaps other V8s are "best" for hi-tech design, efficiency, even good looks.
I still don't see what the hangup with good looks is! I could put chrome plated everything on my Mercury's 400M V-8, dress is up nice, and make it good looking, and still have a 150 HP dog under the hood. Do we want a show car, or do we wants as much power as possible coming from as little gasoline as possible? A good engine builder can make a 350 Chevy turn out 400 or 500 horsepower, and, although the thing would not win the Miss America pagent, it would certainly turn one heck of a 1/4 mile time.
Well, perhaps aesthetics is just my hang-up. To me, the designer, even the industrial designer, is a kind of artist. Useful things don't have to be ugly, and you can't always chrome plate something to make it look any better, if, say, the basic shapes and forms aren't very appealing.
So a beautiful object, even an engine, is just one more thing--not enough in itself, certainly to make something the 'best"--that adds to the "credits" an engine gets for being the "best" IMO.
Many years from now, when people look at our cars and decide what the "best" is, I personally feel certain they will consider the aesthetics of the car and its powerplant, just like they factor that in heavily now in the cars we call "classics".
Many cars that people are paying lots of money for, or shining up in museums, wouldn't be so revered if instead of that awesome Hemi or beautifully chromed dohc six w/ blower, there was this brown lump of a flathead six in there.
Haven't you ever been disappointed when you go over to the open hood of say an old Packard and see a big green block of iron of a flathead straight-8. I know I'd rather look at a Deusenberg or an Auburn.
Also, sometimes you can tell a book by its cover. Beautiful exteriors on an engine often mean something interesting going on itside. I think modern racecar drivetrains, for instance, are beautiful..
In reference to aesthetics: part of what I liked so much about the ultra-smooth and reliable 330V8 in my '64 Olds F-85 Club Coupe was that because the car had only a few options (Jetaway trans, AM radio, hubcaps, and deluxe steering wheel) the engine was totally clean - no pulleys other than the water pump and alternator. No power brakes meant just the little single master cylinder on the firewall. Changing the plugs, or just inspecting them for that matter, could be done easily, without even rolling up your sleeves. The same engine with A/C takes Plasticman wrists. I wish I still had that car. Also the lack of accessories meant that all the power went to locomotion. It seems that, design-wise, the engineers are heading back to a cleaner looking engine, even though there are more options/accessories than ever on the average car. I actually think the 6.0L V8 in my Chevy truck is pretty nice looking (we'll see about durability). The VW VR6 engine looks really nice, too. In fact, that is one smokin' motor. What do you all have to say about recent engines? Best? Best looking? Easiest to work on?
New engines? Probably best in reliability compared to old mills. As for aesthetics, all they've done is put some nice looking plastic cladding all over the old V8s to make them look higher-tech and dressier, and it works even though it cuts down access to everything. So in a sense the Big Three agrees with me that their engines needed dressing up to appeal to modern tastes. A pushrod V8 in its old 1960s form certainly does appeal to people's appreciation of simplicity, but I don't think they would find it appealing aesthetically in a new car showroom. Too old-fashioned looking, too cheap-looking by modern standards. Same would be true for an old VW or MG engine.
Simple is good. I like simple. But you can't build simple engines anymore, so that's not a consideration.
Probably the ugliest engines were from the 1980s domestics...they weren't as clean as the 60s cars and were really a jumble of hoses, wires and plastic gunk. Also interestingly the least reliable and least powerful.
So maybe there really is a connection between aesthetics and efficiency after all!
I saw a picture of what was supposedly an Audi V-8 inside a car in Auto World Weekly a while back. You could not see any part of the engine at all for all the plastic covering! If I ever bought one of those cars, before I even drove it home I'd rip out all those plastic covers and donate them to the dealer's Lawn Decor department. I'm beginning to wonder why they even put hoods on cars now? Just cover the engine with a bunch of decorative plastic. In my opinion, the engine is there to do a job-move the car. In the case of a V-8, that job is either A), move the car faster, or move a lot more car (or truck). Someone wouldn't hire a guy to flip burgers based on how good looking he is. That's also not the way I judge engines. Asthetics don't give any more horsepower than Vtec stickers or Japanese writing on the fender.
It's probably in the A8 or S8. The S8 will run rings around the american luxury cars as far as performance so I wouldn't go ditching on them just so fast
Comments
The only W-31 I ran across was driven by a guy who came to look at my Judge when I was selling it. It was a plain Jane coupe with bench seat, soup bowl hubcaps and rubber floor mats, didn't even have trim on the b pillar. As I recall you couldn't get power brakes with the W-31 because the cam had lots of overlap and didn't allow enough manifold vacuum to operate the power booster. Maybe that turned off the guys who liked a little luxury with their performance. Also the W-31 wasn't known for its torque, although the one I got a ride in seemed to have enough.
I remember reading an old muscle car magazine that was spotlighting a Road runner, that had bench seats, a column shifter, and no hubcaps at all...just chrome lug nuts. Having put GT bucket seats into a Dart 270 with a bench, I can attest to the fact that a single bench is a lot lighter than 2 buckets! At least it felt it...
-Andre
Cutlass went to 330 cu V8 , then the 442 came out. Loved
those cute GM's early sixties cars...
Saw a twin turbo set-up at an auto parts store some time in the '80s. Must have had some racing use to justify that engineering.
I remember some had a 3x2 bbl carb setup and could burn
50 feet of rubber... Some of those CADDY engines had very long lifes...ie 1961, 1975 500 cu in.
Also 430 cu in Lincoln V8 of 1962. Hot rod Lincoln could
climb the infamous GRAPEVINE HILL in So. Ca at well over
a 100 mph, unlike the slower 1960 Chrylser 300C with Hemi and dual quads.
Love those HOT ROD Lincolns....
http://www.inil.com/users/dlbrown/ofjet.htm
Interestingly the current 3.8 V6 has much the same DNA
Interesting that it took the world's automakers so long to develop effective and reliable turbocharging for cars. Really, nobody got it right on a production car until Saab, and that wasn't until the late 1970s.
I can't say I agree on the concept of using magazine road tests to show the real potential of a car/engine combination. Short of actually doing it (heaven forbid), I'd probably look at NHRA stock class times. I seem to remember in Car Craft (aagggh, more magazine 'knowledge') the record for the class that included 440-6pack Challengers was in the 10's. These cars, of course, get rebuilt to super exacting specifications *a lot*, and have totally dialed in machine work, transmissions, tires, etc. etc. etc. It wouldn't suprise me if an LS6 Chevelle or L72 Camaro was in the same neighborhood.
My gearhead buddies took the stock motor, 385 hp, 450 pounds of torque, bored it out and put a nitrous bottle on it. 420 hp, 485 pounds of torque after that. Quarter mile on the bottle was high 12s, still enclosed in the 5000 pound body. This was fast enough to beat 5 liter mustangs.
If this motor could ever fit in a Miata, It would be incredible, except the front would be way too heavy.
I had the best road trip in that car, I put a 90 gallon fuel cell in the trunk, and hit the road. First gas station I pulled into was full serve. The pump jockey pumped and pumped and 110 gallons later it was full. The guy kept looking under the car, wondering where all the gas went. I told him I had a 25 gallon gas tank. He only charged me for 25 too.
As expected, mileage was poor, 10 city, 15 hwy. But, none of my buddies had a car that could go 160.
Never tried a 472 or a 501, but this I know, there is no substitute for cubes, guys.
I heard that some tuner shop can put a 650 V8 in a new corvette. WOW.
The 327 has a very large following . . . not sure what fuels this other than it is a quicker reving motor than the 350 with the same bore.
The LS6 454 (I also think the LS5 454 deserves mention since it was a very torquey motor for street use), 426 hemi, 426 wedge, 440 6pack, the 340, the ford 302 (most successful), 351C, the 460 (big cubes if nothing else) also all belong as some have mentioned.
But the best Ford motor has been mentioned.
The 427.
of course there were several versions
427 medium riser
427 low riser
427 high riser
427 hemi Soch motor
427 tunnel port
And the commonly refered to 427 side oiler after 1966-68.
No one mentioned any american motors engines?? hehehe.
Try about 7.1 or 7.2 litres. A 460 ford is 7.5L.
160 MPH in a '66 Caddy??? B.S. Flag has risen!!!
a 4-bbl carb, 45 rpm record change on the hump, reverb, baby moon hubcaps. Used Pennzoil straight 30. Would change just before it turned to sludge (7-8 months), wash engine down with
kerosene and just drive it until i dropped in a 327 in early 60's, then sold it before entering USAF. Oh, sludge was easy to remove, just pop off valve covers and use Mom's butter knife.
As a kid on a still night, if the wind was just right, I could hear the dragsters blast off from my parents patio in San Pedro on the hill.
The old "whale" hemi...the Dodge, DeSoto, or Chrysler Hemi from the 50's. Those would usually outlast the car itself, and could be built up to be very strong performers;
The "Elephant" hemi...the 426. If you could get 120,000 miles out of one without a rebuild, you were lucky. Weren't they also just about impossible to keep in tune?
There was one year, 1968, I believe, that you could get a Dodge Dart GTS or Plymouth Barracuda with a 340, a 440, or a 426 Hemi. I've read that the 340 was actually the best engine for day-to-day use, because it was so much lighter than the Hemi, would outperform the heavier 440, and would outmaneuver the hemi. I've never driven any of them, though, so I can't vouch for personal experience!
-Andre
hemi was smoked by a 421 Pontiac catalina, or was it the other way around?? I forgot. Ole Calculus instructor had
a Dodge Polara wagon with a 426 Wedge engine and push button torqueflite. VERY VERY fast on the street. Love those 406 tri-power 405 HP Ford Galaxies, good for racing against other 406 Fords until the 427 Ford Fairlane THUNDERBOLTS came out in '64. FX class......132 in the 1/4 ...FORD (FIRST ON RACE DAY!!)
Z28's in 1969-70 at Wednesday night grudge races at Irwindale Raceway.
However many people will tell you that out of the box, it was a pretty mediocre engine. Bad valve seals were common and needed frequent replacement. Metallurgy was poor leading to "soft cams" and a requirement to add 4-bolt mains if you wanted to spin them to any degree. Crummy design in the exhaust port/sparkplug hole area led to many burned fingers. Look at the impact when Olds division sneaked these into what buyers expected were Olds Rocket-powered '77 88s. Many buyers refused their cars outright because they wanted nothing to do with the SBC.
By contrast some of the post-64 Olds SB V8s were quite good -- the high-nickel content block made them super-tough. Many people swear by these. Olds 425 ('65-'67, the ancestor of the 455) also has many fans, as does the Pontiac 389/421. I was never particularly impressed with Buick or Ford V8s myself, though the Buick 455 Stage I and the Ford 351 Cleveland did well around 1970.
I always was partial to the Mopar 340 myself. Just about any Chrysler V8 engine has a lot to recommend it.
My $0.02...
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
-mike
-Andre
To me it's like asking what kind of cancer you prefer: brain? bone? blood?
My favorite V8's have 4 cams and 4 valves per cylinder, though there might be some I don't know of with electro-magnetic valve actuation and maybe 5 valves.
But for the moment, I'll go with a nostalgic favorite: Cosworth DFV. Or for a production V8 how about the 3-liter Ferrari?
I have a certain appreciation of the quaint domestic designs, but favorite? No way.
The short story is that there have been five GM 350s. The LT1 was the last Chevy 350 "mouse" engine, a design that goes back to the 265 in 1955. The LS1 is a completely different engine, available in different sizes and tunes in the Corvette and GM trucks.
Then there was the Pontiac 350, a small bore Pontiac 400. Came out in '68 but a smaller version, the 326, had been around since '63. The 4-barrel version was fairly warm--Pontiac always had some of the better street cams--but the long stroke worked against it and why bother when the much better 400 was usually available in the same car.
The Buick 350 was basically a bored and stroked cast iron version of the old 215 aluminum V8 first used in the BOP compacts starting in 1961, now used in Land Rovers. Appeared in '68, although as a 300 it first came out in '64. Known for its durability but not its performance, although there was a 325-hp version in '70.
The Olds 350 also came out in '68, a short stroke Olds 400, first version was a 330 that appeared in '64. Had a good performance reputation and the W-31 was the hottest version from '68-'70(?).
All of these engines are completely different, with no significant parts interchangeability that I know of, although I could be wrong and if I am I'll find out soon enough.
Anyone hear remember the buick 215 (3.5 litre V8)?That has got to be one of my favorite V8s. In the late 50s to early 60s an engineer from British leyland visited the GM design center in Warren MI. The GM engineer mentioned the engine to him and explained the situation. Explaining that the engine was a great engin, but too small for their cars. So, the brit engineer called HQ and relayed the info. After a few meeting and driving sessions in cars with the little V8, they bought up all the old stock, and the rights. That engine was used in a LOT of great cars. Lotus', MGBV8s, Rovers, and untiul recently Land Rovers. The LR 3.9 litre V8 was a bored out version of this engine. My great uncle has Rover P6 3500 (A rare car in the US) taht also has this engine. The sound it produces is pure music. A sort of staccato warble and oozes out of the exhaust and from under the hood. A great engine for the Rover sedan. It has proven very versitile for some 40 odd years, and is still used in its pretty much original form.
Yes, if you scroll back in this discussion you will find lots of info on the 215, both positive and negative data. I don't think we'd all like to go over it again, but perhaps you can read through it and then if you have any further questions/comments, please post them
Mr. Shiftright
Host
In terms of modern V8s, the new Acura NSX will have a V8 engine with variable valve timing and lift. This powerhouse is supposed to be the V8 equivalent of the Honda S2000 scream-machine. It should be thrilling indeed. V8 + 9000 rpm + Honda reliability = fun.
I once had the opportunity to see and hear a Cammer in action. It displayed none of those negative characteristics. I'm not sure how hard the owner was pushing the engine, but it sure looked and sounded fast.
I guess my point was that I consider the SOHC to be a good might-have-been, but definitely not one of the best V8s ever; I don't even consider it a production engine, and it still needed a lot of development.
F-85 Club Coupe. It ran beautifully for 200k miles before I decided to look at it. The only thing it needed was a new valve seat on the #7 exhaust. Of course, during its' first 25 years the engine was meticulously maintained by a fluid physicist who worked for Lockheed. I sold that car to my buddy and he drives it to and from work everyday. It has over 280k miles on it now. I heard that engine was originally designed to run irrigation pumps - can anyone verify that? This engine evolved into the 350 Olds V8, no? I've also had Chevrolets with 396s and 427s and thought pretty highly of those, but would still prefer a nice Olds with a good running 330 or 350 in it. This is funny because I am currently restoring a '66 Impala with a 325hp 396.
'64 was the first year for the 330, used in the Cutlass and also the full-size Jetstar. The first 442 ("4 barrel, 4 on the floor and dual exhaust") was based on the F-85 B-09 police package and had a 4-bbl 310 hp version of the 330. The 330 had an unusually short 3.38" stroke.
The 350 came out in '68 and was a bored 330. The hi-perf W-31 package from '68-'70 used the "Ram Rod 350" 325 hp with Ram Air, big valves (2" intake, 1.63" exhaust) and a hotter cam with .474" lift and 308 degrees duration.
I remember something about how Olds couldn't offer power brakes with this engine because the cam overlap didn't let the engine make enough vacuum to run a booster, so they offered manual brakes with soft linings so they wouldn't need as much leg to operate. Just what a hi perf GM intermediate needed: 9" drum brakes with soft linings. When they faded you just opened your door and dragged a foot.
I'm sure the 403 used in the late '70s in Pontiacs and Olds was based on the 350, and I'm 99% sure it was a stroked 350, but my Encyclopedia of American Cars says it's a bored 350.
With over 65 million engines produced in over 45 years there is no question the small block chevy is the best V-8 engine ever produced. It is the foundation of the speed industry. The market has answered your question.
So a beautiful object, even an engine, is just one more thing--not enough in itself, certainly to make something the 'best"--that adds to the "credits" an engine gets for being the "best" IMO.
Many years from now, when people look at our cars and decide what the "best" is, I personally feel certain they will consider the aesthetics of the car and its powerplant, just like they factor that in heavily now in the cars we call "classics".
Many cars that people are paying lots of money for, or shining up in museums, wouldn't be so revered if instead of that awesome Hemi or beautifully chromed dohc six w/ blower, there was this brown lump of a flathead six in there.
Haven't you ever been disappointed when you go over to the open hood of say an old Packard and see a big green block of iron of a flathead straight-8. I know I'd rather look at a Deusenberg or an Auburn.
Also, sometimes you can tell a book by its cover. Beautiful exteriors on an engine often mean something interesting going on itside. I think modern racecar drivetrains, for instance, are beautiful..
Simple is good. I like simple. But you can't build simple engines anymore, so that's not a consideration.
Probably the ugliest engines were from the 1980s domestics...they weren't as clean as the 60s cars and were really a jumble of hoses, wires and plastic gunk. Also interestingly the least reliable and least powerful.
So maybe there really is a connection between aesthetics and efficiency after all!
In my opinion, the engine is there to do a job-move the car. In the case of a V-8, that job is either A), move the car faster, or
-mike