What are the best V8 engines ever made?

isellhondas · May 2001

I can picture that clean looking 330 Olds engine just sitting there...Nice.

Still, would you REALLY want to go back to Armstrong Steering and swelter without A/C?

Not me!

chris191 · May 2001

when talking about what makes a V8 or any engine great - and plastic covers to hide the jumble of injection plumbing are just plastic covers. It is what is underneath that counts. A good example is my buddy's 70-something Dodge Prospector: that rusted-out beast of a truck has the ugliest, oiliest 318 V8, complete with mismatched spark plug wires, but it does not burn oil (it leaks it)and reliably hauls as much stuff as can be fit in it (using a tarp to keep stuff from falling over the bed-rails) all over the roughest backroads of Utah.

As far Isellhondas says about going back to no A/C and Armstrong Steering, I guess I have gotten kind of used to the comforts of A/C and PS, but the '66 Impala SS I am restoring right now doesn't have A/C, and that is part of the reason I like it. I have even thought about switching to a manual steering box. With a big-block Impala that might be a little masochistic . . .

For commuting and city use it is nice to have A/C and be able to "control the climate." For weekend and pleasure use: I say roll down the windows and listen to the V8 hum and/or roar.

paisan · May 2001

I had a dodge ramcharger with the 318, no A/C and that beast went close to 250K miles before the rest of the car fell apart around it.

-mike

rea98d · May 2001

And no, I'm not knocking it, I just couldn't live with that much engine cladding!

paisan · May 2001

i must revise my favorite V8...

Isuzu's Duramax Diesel that goes in the new GM pickups is a dang nice engine too. I love how all the good-ole-boys (no offense to any on here) slam their hood and go "what a fine die-sel ingine I have, good-ole american style" meanwhile it's actually a japanese engine under the hood (although it is built here state-side)

-mike

andre1969 · May 2001

well, having gone from a '68 318, to a '79 318, to an '89 318, I can attest to the fact that they became an aesthetic nightmare as time went by. Interestingly, the '79 318 was the easiest to work on, when it came to messing with the distributor, changing the belts, hoses, spark plugs, oil filter, etc.

Probably because my '79 was a full-size R-body Newport, while the other two were compacts, a Dart and a Gran Fury (remember, when that design came out for '76, it was still compact).

On the Gran Fury, you almost can't take the air cleaner off for fear of breaking a vacuum hose or popping something else off that you'll never be able to find out where it goes.

They're all a pain when it comes to changing the oil filter though. The Dart and the Gran Fury have exhaust pipes that are in the way, and Newport's was a long stretch down from above. It was also angled upward, and it was also difficult to get a new filter started on.

My grandmother's '85 LeSabre is pretty hideous looking under the hood, as well. Its one redeeming feature is the extra tall oil filler tube. My '82 Cutlass Supreme had a Buick 231 V-6, which was literally buried on the passenger side...you could't even see the valve cover on that side! I'd imagine the 350 upon which it's based got pretty bad by the late 70's, as well.

-Andre

rea98d · May 2001

Try doing it on a 4.6L Ford V-8. I first got under there, didn't even know where the thing was. Come to find out, the front lower control arms almost perfectly hid the thing. I got up under there (After a call to the ford dealer told me where to look), and decided it was worth the $20 walmart charges to change the oil not to have to remove that filter! Of course, like most modern engines, you have the usual assortment of hoses, wires and whatnots under the hood, but I'm getting used to what's under there, and no longer think a modern engine is powered by voodoo and black magic. I'me beginning to understand sensors and electronics, at least enough to know my way around under the hood for basic maintainence. I'm also tempted to pull of my valve covers to get a first hand look at how the OHC valvetrain is put together, but I've resisted that urge so far :-)

andre1969 · May 2001

...and voodoo. I had to get over that fear towards my Intrepid. When I got it, the first oil change was free, and when it came for #2, it was January, cold, and snowy, so I had it taken in.

After that, though, I figured dang it, I'm not going to let this car psyche me out like that!

Turns out the Intrepid is one of the easiest oil changes I've ever done! I think I'm going to let someone else mess with the spark plugs, though!

-Andre

rea98d · May 2001

I did it on my 1978 Mercury, and spark plugs are spark plugs, right? They all go righty tighty lefty loosey. So why not try it on a new car? So I popped the hood and started looking. The air intake tube from the throttle body to the air filter covered half the engine, so off it somes. Then half my wires go under the alternator, but again, no biggy. Unplug one wire from both ends, screw out plug, screw in new plug, plug up new wire. Then do that 7 more times and you're in business. Actually easier than on my 1978. I'm determined to jump in a little deeper and a little deeper until nothing under there scare me, then I'm getting a DOHC engine with variable valve timing and coil on plug ignition! Technology will not frighten me! They guys that work on cars are no smarter than I am! I will beat this monster down and put it in its place! The machine will work for me!

scatrat · June 2001

From its first production through today, the Chevy small block is without doubt one of the best engines ever designed and built. From the 265 to today's ZO6, it has been (for the most part) a single cam, pushrod, two valve per cylinder engine. Some of the best performance engines ever raced were based on the Chevy small block. The Z28 302 to the LS1 racing version today. Simplicity has been the key to this engine. A stock ZO6 will dyno 340bhp to the rear without missing a beat. This engine is fundamentally based on the original small blocks. Chevy has stayed with a formula that has been refined as technology has advanced. I can't wait to see what they have in store for us in the next 5-10 years.........

jmmctighe · June 2001

Gotta agree with scatrat...chevy small block. Parts have always been more than abundant, you can build them up for cranking HP gains and they run great with or without technology.
Now I wont mention the piece of crap TH200 that was behind it....

speedshift · June 2001

Thanks for the info. This engine is good news for Chevelle owners.

moparmad · June 2001

Never thought I would get this much input when I started this thread,Thanks everyone.
Aesthetics are a personal issue,to me nothing is more beautiful than a big orange chunk of cast iron with huge, wide, chrome valve covers pierced by black plug wires. A large argent silver shaker bubble topping two Carter AFB's(a work of art in themselves). Well,only thing more beautiful would be if it was sitting between the frame rails of my '70 Cuda.
One thing I would like to say about the new generation V8's is that many people seem to confuse the greatness of the engines with the greatness of modern electronics. Engine management has come a long way,the basic long block hasn't changed much. Maybe this is a testament to the strength and engineering excellence of the V8 in general. Imagine if you will a 340 with modern electronics how could it not be vicious?It already has 6.123" rods like the Chevy guys pay big bucks to get. It already sports 2.02" intake valves and 1.60" exhaust valves. It has a relatively large 4.040" bore and a short 3.313" stroke giving it(if memory serves me correctly)a nearly perfect 1.88 bore/stroke ratio.
And I know the 340 is only one example there must be more.
Modern engines are great,but I believe the best have already been made and now we are just refining them.

jpstax · June 2001

During my web surfing, I found this great site:

http://members.spree.com/entertainment/mr409/bob_s_409_chevy_page_index.html

smokin_olds442 · August 2001

I'm not even really a Ford guy, but, I think the best engine ever was the 429cj used in the '69-'70 mustang bosses. The reason for this is because the 429 had hemispherical heads...therefore making it a "Hemi". Next after that engine would probably be the 428 "semi-hemi" with semi-hemispherical heads as were still used up through '94 in crown vic's with the 4.6L sohc v-8.

ndance · August 2001

the Boss 429 is an interesting engine (jeez, its big enough) but really didn't have scads of racing success (some Grand National wins, hard to tell if the engine was dominant because of the way the sanctioning body jiggers the rules, some top fuel use (Mickey Thompson?) and I believe an aborted attempt at Can-Am). On the street they really aren't super impressive (weak cam + just the sheer weight of the engine IMO). Looks cool though (and just check out those $5000 dollar batteries if you're doing a restoration).

By 428 do you mean the 352/390/427/428 'FE' motor? They run pretty well (my CJ Mach1 was suprisingly quick for as docile as it was) but really don't have the obvious pull of say, an L72 or L88 Chevy. These days you're looking at a lot higher prices than the Chevrolet equivalent anyway.

This strikes me as kind of an odd thread since the obvious winner(s) are the Chevrolet small or big blocks, depending on the size car they are pulling. There might be some design advantages here and there in other makes, but due to the enormous amount of factory and aftermarket r&d plus the low prices due to mass production, nothing else comes close.

speedshift · August 2001

Yeah the 429-460 was even heavier than the FE, which was a real boat anchor, and it never really did that much on the street although I wonder how much of that was bad market timing. By the time Ford finally had a competitive big block, at least on paper, the musclecar market was winding down.

The 428 CJ took care of the 390 GT's biggest problem, 1958-style cylinder heads. I think the cam was the same so that wasn't the reason 390 Fairlanes and Mustangs were such underachievers, but the Competition Cams 270 cam I put in a 390 really woke it up.

Speaking of Olds, there was a 4-cam hemi engineering exercise called the OW-30 that was on the cover of I think Hot Rod's 1971 Engine Annual.

ndance · August 2001

In my dragon trove of old car magazines, it seems like every third issue of Hotrod in the late '60s has ****Chevrolet's Secret Engine! blah blah blah*** I think all those guys built OHC or exotic turbo versions of their V8 (and then discovering the lack of advantage for street engines I'll bet). I imagine it was probably driven (in the Olds case at the very least) by some addle brained engineering VP thinking that they had any chance against the McLaren colossus.

Reminds me of a hemi version of the SBC that Chevrolet engineering built. I saw where some guy found one, found whatever parts where needed to make it run (some from unobtainium I'm sure) and put it in a '69 Z/28. That same engine was described by Smokey Yunick as a 'pile of junk' which there was no hope for. Hope the dude with the Camaro never saw any of the articles.

speedshift · August 2001

Are you sure Smokey didn't call it "below horrible"? That's a Smokey-ism I've always liked.

That Chevy sounds a little like the tunnelport Ford 302. Another idea that sounded good...

smokin_olds442 · August 2001

Yes I do mean the "FE" style engines when I say the 428 but the 428 is the biggest, so why not just name that one? lol. To tell you the truth their is a much larger aftermarket for fuel injected 302's and 280/281/282 sohc and dohc Ford engines than there is for the 350LT-1 or the 346LS-1. Pick up any popular performace order catalogs(summit,Jeg's,etc.)and you'll see what I mean. But yes, I think that both the LT-1 and the LS-1 are better engines than the 5.0 and 4.6sohc/dohc straight from the factory.

modvptnl · August 2001

442's quotes:

"I'm not even really a Ford guy, but, I think the best engine ever was the 429cj used in the '69-'70 mustang bosses. The reason for this is because the 429 had hemispherical heads...therefore making it a "Hemi". Next after that engine would probably be the 428 "semi-hemi" with semi-hemispherical heads as were still used up through '94 in crown vic's with the 4.6L sohc v-8.

"Yes I do mean the "FE" style engines when I say the 428 but the 428 is the biggest, so why not just name that one? lol. To tell you the truth their is a much larger aftermarket for fuel injected 302's and 280/281/282 sohc and dohc Ford engines than there is for the 350LT-1 or the 346LS-1. Pick up any popular performace order catalogs(summit,Jeg's,etc.)and you'll see what I mean. But yes, I think that both the LT-1 and the LS-1 are better engines than the 5.0 and 4.6sohc/dohc straight from the factory."

429's were never true hemis and the semi-hemi was a Boss 429, not CJ or SCJ. The 428 ALWAYS had a wedge head, never a semi-hemi head.

The modular 4.6 Fords, both DOHC and SOHC are no where near the FE head design or a semi hemi. C'mon man, the 4.6 is an Overhead cam. The '94 Crown Vics use the same motors from '91(?) to present.

The LT1 is NOT a better design than a 4.6 modular Ford. The LS1 and current Fords share a deep skirt cross bolted main design which is more modern than both the 302/351 and LT1. And believe it or not the current LS1 heads share more design features with the OLD Ford design than ANY past Chevy small block heads.

One question for you: WTF is a 280/281/282 SOHC DOHC Ford engine?????

You still don't believe Toronado's ever had RWD; do you????

lancerfixer · August 2001

"and about the Toronado thing...look at the message board entitled Toronado's and you'll see i'm the first on there talkin about rwd toronados..."

Yeah, and looking kind of foolish doing it, too, as Toronados were always, ALWAYS, front wheel drive. I notice you haven't been back there.

bushone · August 2001

Now wait a minute son, ya payin' no attention. Ya startin' too big. Ya gotta walk before ya can run. Start small, I say start small and work up. Now try again boy. Toro's were always FWD! Kids nowadays.... they know it all.

carnut4 · August 2001

In another conference, my post was deleted for even making a reference to a four letter word. Here, we have someone shooting his mouth off with four letter words, and getting personal in the process. Have the rules changed, or what?

isellhondas · August 2001

You are embarrassing yourself. No such thing ever as a RWD Toronado.

And just HOW many horsepower does your 442 have?

modvptnl · August 2001

I wonder if he knows what "442" even originally meant. Gosh, I'd hope so.

andre1969 · August 2001

4 cyl, 4 valves per cylinder, dual exhaust-tips! One of the best performing Calais models ever! Okay, don't shoot me, just a little joke ;-) Okay I mean it, put that gun away...

Mr_Shiftright · August 2001

carnut----thank you I will take care of it immediately! (sometimes I have a lot of deleting to do, and we always notify the "offender", so this takes time....but thanks for your concern and yes, we will apply the rules FAIRLY to all!)

And let's not provoke any more beefs, okay? The profanity has been deleted just now.

Mr. Shiftright
Host

smokin_olds442 · August 2001

what it really meant was...4 barrel carb., 4 speed transmission, and dual exhaust.....4cyl, 4 valves per cyl, dual tips...lol....and by the way, the 4.6L was 282ci on all '98 model mustangs and it was 280ci(sohc) on the '99-up model GT and 281ci(dohc) on the '99-up model Cobra.

modvptnl · August 2001

That is biggest crock EVER told on these boards!!! They ALL are 4601 CC with a bore X stroke of 90.2 X 90. This is from day one Lincoln motors to the current DOHC Cobra, PERIOD. Truck 4.6 or Crown Vic 4.6...THEY HAVE THE SAME DISPLACEMENT!!!

I will concede that some publications will say 280 or 281 CID depending on who they are.This is like some magazines will call the 302 a 5.0 or 4.9 because it's actually 4949 CC(?) BUT ALL THE INTERNAL DIMENSIONS ARE THE SAME!!!!

smokin_olds442 · August 2001

Then why does the same publication list different sizes for different years? hmmmmmmmm, i don't think every single 4.6L ever made was exactly 4601cc's. And this is a publication that gets it's information from the factory...so why should some average "joe" like you know more than a publication with factory specs?

modvptnl · August 2001

My sides are killin' me from laughing!!! You are too much!!! Please list your publication. Like I proved you wrong on Ford's crescent head Boss by posting a link, I expect the same from you.

rea98d · August 2001

280.31080363140681455709627972348 cubic inches, and no, I did not make those numbers up. The engine has a bore of 3.55 inches (diameter), and a stroke of 3.54. I looked those numbers up in my Haynes manual. Divide the bore by 2, take that answer, and square it, then multiply by Pi (remember the old pie are square formula for area of a circle?). Once you have the area, you can get volume pretty simply by multiplying area by stroke. Multiply that number by 8 (the number of cylinders), and you have your displacement. Anybody advertising it as a 280 is rounding. Anybody advertising it as 281 (the only number, btw, I've ever seen printed as the displacement in cubic inches for any 4.6L ford engine), needs to be sent back to remedial math and learn how to round. Anybody advertising it as a 282 needs to be sued for false advertisment. If you want, I'll give you the page number I got that from so you can look it up yourself. If you find any service manuals for any Ford 4.6 giving different measurements for bore & stroke, please post them! The 280 displacement figure is the most accurate (well, second to that convolutedly long one I calculated). The 281 is bad rounding, most likely for advertisment purposes, and the 282 is a number I've never seen anywhere. Until I see math to the contrary, the 280.3......number is the one I'm going to beleive for all Ford 4.6's.

andre1969 · August 2001

...but learned in shop class in high school that if you take the diameter of a circle, square it, and multiply by .7854, the result is close enough for government work! For example, 3.55 * 3.55 * .7854 * 3.54 * 8 =280.3114591...(that's as far as my calculator will go!).

Maybe the 3.55 and the 3.54 are rounded off a bit? I'm just wondering because I've always heard it referred to as a 281, but never a 280, and obviously never a 282.

For example, I know the Olds 350 has a bore of 4.06" and a stroke of 3.385". Maybe the bore is rounded off too, but I have an old car book that lists bore and stroke on various engines, and some Olds engines have the stroke listed as 3.38 and some as 3.39. I think the 260, 307, and 350 (maybe the 403 as well) all have the same stroke, just different bores. BTW, when I do the math on the Olds 350, using 3.38 I get 350.065 CID. Using 3.385 I get 350.584 CID. And using 3.39 I get 351.101 CID.

lancerfixer · August 2001

Arguing and nitpicking over all this minutae...you guys make rabid Star Trek fans look like normal, well-adjusted folks!

andre1969 · August 2001

...really I'm not. Just bored ;-)

modvptnl · August 2001

Quote from smokin olds 442:

"You mean there is NOT 3 different engines that Ford built using the 4.6 designation??? You mean the CC of the head has NOTHING to do with displacement either??? I'm sorry guys, I was mistaken again. Me bows head in shame."

moparmad · August 2001

That was scary...anybody know what these guys are talking about? I just can't put any of the new untested engines in my list of the best ever.
As far as a deep skirted crossbolted engine being something new I must misunderstand. The 426 Hemi was a deep skirted crossbolted engine way back in 1964,and I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't the first.
It is funny to me how in a topic awhile back every one was claiming the new Dodge Hemi was just hype,but people seem to love to say their favorite engine is a Hemi, or Semi-Hemi.
As far as Ford producing several different 4.6 liter engines in different sizes just apply some common sense. I am definitely not a Ford guy but I do know that no company is going to produce a new engine from the ground up,then throw away millions of dollars of tooling every couple of years so they can change the bore or stroke a few thousandths.

smokin_olds442 · August 2001

the publication is the "Mustang Chronicle", check it out, i'm goin by what that says for the whole 4.6 thing.

modvptnl · August 2001

Who said the deep skirt was new??? Just pointed out that the NEW motors (modular and LS1 GM) use it again. Not sure who used it first but the FE Ford motors had it and the old Ford "Y" block uses a deep skirt.

Anyway, back to "hype". Until I see a head pulled off the yet to be released "hemi" (or an actual engineering print) I still have my doubts about a hemi being an efficient EPA friendly design. Great high RPM race motor, YES!!! Great all around modern motor, NO!!!

Trivia time. What is/was the highest factory rated horsepower motor from the big 3. Hint for Mopar, it wasn't the hemi.

modvptnl · August 2001

Sorry, you're wrong and they're wrong(if indeed that's what is printed) How many people will it take before you'll admit it???

smokin_olds442 · August 2001

wasn't it the '70 chevelle SS 454 with the LS-4 or LT-4 engine? and if not then my next guess would be the '69 yenko camaro with the all aluminum 427.

corsicachevy · August 2001

Just a guess, but was it the 427 from the 1964 Ford Thunderbolt?

corsicachevy · August 2001

Just a guess, but was it the 427 from the 1964 Ford Thunderbolt?

The most powerful motor offered in an American car will be the 8.1 liter Dodge Viper V10 for 2002/03 - 500hp/500lb-ft (net). I don't think anything else ever produced that much net power. I could be wrong, but nothing comes to mind.

isellhondas · August 2001

Were the 4.6 engines ever offered as an option in the rear wheel drive Toronados?

Just curious...

Mr_Shiftright · August 2001

I BET you are....

Oh, you don't have to go to a big V8 display to see car guys arguing...I've seen them argue over the correct bolt head pattern on a Model A Ford for HOURS.....I'm sure Henry Ford would have had a chuckle over that, inasmuch as I'm sure his workers grabbed whatever was on the shelf.

andre1969 · August 2001

...it was offered, but you're thinking of the Chevy 4.6 (I think 283 CID comes out to about 4.6). And only in Canada, where it was marketed as the Pontiac Vortex ;-)

ndance · August 2001

smokin_olds442:
You might want to check out all of your car/engine choices (they don't exist). Try: www.camaros.org/geninfo.shtml#DealerModified www.camaros.org/engine.shtml www.chevelles.com/shop/ss_ident.html

isellhondas · August 2001

Not at all! I've learned a lot from 442. Stuff I was totally in the dark about!

Thank God for these forums!

smokin_olds442 · August 2001

who says i have a camaro or chevelle??? i have a '68 Olds 4-4-2 supposedly a W30 even but i haven't really researched it because i could care less, i bought the car and modified it. that's all.

What are the best V8 engines ever made?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles