Ask the Car People.SM


I spotted an (insert obscure car name here) classic car today!

29829 messages,  Last post on Jun 18, 2013 at 4:44 PM

You are in the Classic Cars Forum.

What is this discussion about? Classic Cars

Messages Page 2717 of 2984

#27158 of 29829 Re: 10 best engines of the 20th century [Mr_Shiftright] by uplanderguy

Dec 09, 2012 (3:19 pm)

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 09, 2012 1:53 pm)
"General Motors V8 Small-Block"?

#27159 of 29829 Re: 10 best engines of the 20th century [uplanderguy] by andre1969

Dec 09, 2012 (6:52 pm)

Replying to: uplanderguy (Dec 09, 2012 3:19 pm)
"General Motors V8 Small-Block"?
 
My guess would be the Pontiac 265.

#27160 of 29829 Re: 10 best engines of the 20th century [andre1969] by fintail

Dec 09, 2012 (6:54 pm)

Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 09, 2012 6:52 pm)
I was thinking the diesel 350

#27161 of 29829 Re: 10 best engines of the 20th century [fintail] by dieselone

Dec 09, 2012 (6:57 pm)

Replying to: fintail (Dec 09, 2012 6:54 pm)
Well the 350 diesel was influential and important in its own way;)

#27162 of 29829 Re: 10 best engines of the 20th century [dieselone] by uplanderguy

Dec 10, 2012 (3:24 am)

Replying to: dieselone (Dec 09, 2012 6:57 pm)
Perhaps the Pontiac 301 or Olds 307, andre!

#27163 of 29829 Re: 10 best engines of the 20th century [uplanderguy] by andre1969

Dec 10, 2012 (7:01 am)

Replying to: uplanderguy (Dec 10, 2012 3:24 am)
In a lot of ways, I think the Olds 307 was a better engine than the Chevy 305. It was lighter-weight, yet more rugged, thanks to a higher nickle content in the block. I believe it was also cleaner running. For the most part they never put out much hp, although that could simply be Olds tuning them more for economy than performance. For instance, in 1985 the Olds 307 only put out 140 hp, whereas the Chevy 305 had 150 hp in midsized cars like the Monte Carlo and Bonneville (180 in the SS though), and 165 in full-sized cars like the Caprice and Parisienne.
 
But, the 307 had more torque, 255 ft-lb versus 245, and it came at a lower rpm. I wonder if that's why, in 1987, GM started putting 307's in Caprice and Safari wagons that previously would have used the 305? Or, it could have just been something as simple as having a lot of 307 capacity left over with the departure of the RWD LeSabre/Electra and Delta 88/Ninety-Eight, so they had to find some place to put them?
 
As for the 301, about the nicest thing I've ever heard about it was that if you're gentle on it, don't abuse it, really, REALLY keep up on oil changes and such, there's a chance it might be a reliable engine. And for 1981, when it went to electronic controls, there are rumors that actually hp was 170, although it was officially rated around 150-155.
 
By 1981 though, they were really phasing the 301 out. In midsized cars, I think it was limited to the wagons, while full-sized cars were relying mostly on the Olds 307. I guess a lot of Firebirds still used it, for those buyers who didn't want to go all-out and get the turbo.
 
Kind of a shame though, because if it really did have 170 hp, it would've been a fun combination in something like a 1981 LeMans or Grand Prix.

#27164 of 29829 Re: 10 best engines of the 20th century [andre1969] by dieselone

Dec 10, 2012 (7:49 am)

Replying to: andre1969 (Dec 10, 2012 7:01 am)
Yeah, I don't recall anything bad about the 307. My grandpa had a 307 in an '83 Delta 88. I was able to drive it some when I turned 16 right before he traded it in on an '87 Caprice. The 307 seemed like a smooth and decently powerful engine for the time. Though the 305 in '87 had more power at 170 IIRC.
 
The 301 OTOH, garbage. Buddy in HS had that motor in an '80 Trans/Am. Fast it wasn't, nor was it durable. It's hard for me to believe that engine had over 150 hp. It was barely quicker than my '86 Escort with a 4 speed manual. I usually could stay ahead of my friend through 1st gear, then by 40 or so, he'd finally catch up and slowly pass me. I'd guess an 80 T/A wasn't particularly light though. How the mighty fire chicken had fallen, from the 6.6 to a weak 4.9L.

#27165 of 29829 Re: 10 best engines of the 20th century [Mr_Shiftright] by jljac

Dec 10, 2012 (10:57 am)

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 09, 2012 12:22 pm)
That is an impressive list of great engines. There is no doubt that the GM small block V-8 deserves to be included among the best. I don’t have a problem with that claim., but I have a problem with the claim that the Chevrolet V-8 of 1955 deserves the title of being the first small displacement V-8 in a low price car because Studebaker deserves that title.
 
The first mass produced ohv. V-8 was the Oldsmobile Rocket V-8 of 1949 with 303 cubic inches or 5.0 liters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldsmobile_V8_engine. In 1951 Chrysler and Studebaker introduced ohv.V-8 engines. The Chrysler V-8 was a large, heavy engine for an expensive car. Studebaker took a different approach. They built a small displacement ohv V-8 (232 cu.in or 3.8 liters) and made it available in a low priced car. Ford had the first L head V-8 in a low priced car (1932-1953) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_flathead_V8_engine says this:
 
Before this engine's introduction, almost all mass-produced cars affordable to the "average mass-market consumer" (which was a concept that Ford helped invent) used straight-4 and straight-6 engines. Multi-cylinder V-engines (V8s, V12s and even V16s) were produced, but they were not intended for mass production and were generally used in luxury models.
 
Studebaker was the first to put a small displacement ohv- V8 in a low priced car in 1951, and Ford followed in 1954 with its Y-block engine: General Motors came late to the game and a dollar short with its small displacement V-8 which was was not as good as the Ford V-8 at first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Y-block_engine
 
A quick reference to the engine specifications for 1955-57 will show the Ford V-8s ahead of the Chevrolet counterparts in displacement, horsepower and torque. The real enemy of the Y-block was its displacement limit. The original architecture was very small and tight. Even with the benefit of today's technology (aftermarket rods and stroker cranks), the real limit of a Y-block is about 348 in, while the Chevrolet could be modified well past the factory limit of 400 in.
 
By 1955 you could also get an ohv V-8 in the low priced Plymouth. As noted in my earlier post, the original Chevrolet engine could not get from 265 to 283 cu.in. without re designing the engine block in 1958.
 
No argument that the Chevrolet V-8 became one of the great engines of all time, but it was not the first and not the best in its original form. Ford gets the credit for the affordable first mass produced V-8, and Studebaker gets first place for the first small and affordable ohv V-8 and first place for a V-8 in a “compact car” with the 1959 Lark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studebaker_Lark

#27166 of 29829 Re: 10 best engines of the 20th century [jljac] by Mr_Shiftright HOST

Dec 10, 2012 (11:00 am)

Replying to: jljac (Dec 10, 2012 10:57 am)
I think the point is that Studebaker put an unremarkable engine in an unexceptional car, and so it wasn't noticed. It had no impact whatsoever on the trends of automotive engine design---it was a backwater type of thing. Historians, and publications like Ward's, tend to view things that had impact on other things.
 
Not everything can have such an impact, and the lack of impact doesn't diminish what the thing originally was--it only diminishes its place in history.
 
You can find "firsts" about almost any car on earth if you shave down the categories enough---"first car to have movable sun visors in a 4-door station wagon!"
 
Uplander, you're just going to have to accept the bitter pill that aside from Studebaker lovers, most historians don't much notice what Studebaker did. Perhaps this is your new mission in life!

#27167 of 29829 Re: 10 best engines of the 20th century [Mr_Shiftright] by jljac

Dec 10, 2012 (12:43 pm)

Replying to: Mr_Shiftright (Dec 10, 2012 11:00 am)
Maybe you missed it, but many historians and automotive experts noticed the importance of the Studebaker V-8 on engine designs that came later. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1950-1951-studebaker-commander1.htm says this:
 
The big ammunition for 1951 arrived as the much-needed overhead-valve V-8, exclusive to the 1951 Studebaker Commander. Besides being a fine engine and the first modern V-8 from an independent, it put Studebaker at least three years ahead of Chevrolet/Ford/Plymouth.
 
With less weight and nearly 18 percent more horsepower, the V-8 Commander caused a mild sensation. Gushed tester "Uncle Tom" McCahill: "This powerplant transforms the maidenly Studie of recent years into a rip-roaring, hell-for-leather performer that can belt the starch out of
practically every other American car. ..."
===================================================
 
50-Years-American-Automobiles-1939-1989
http://www.amazon.com/50-Years-American-Automobiles-1939-1989/dp/0881765929/ref=- sr_1_
1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1290552341&sr=1-1 says this at page 368 :
 
The 232 and its successors have been called heavy for their size, but such statements were made on the basis of comparisons with engines developed much later. In fact, Studebaker’s V-8 was the first in a long line of robust, efficient small-blocks of less than 300 cid. Those that followed from Dodge, Ford, Chevrolet and Plymouth certainly benefitted from its technology.

Messages Page 2717 of 2984

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement