Technical Smallest Production V8 Cubic Inches

I was thinking the other day about the smaller end of the V8 engines. Considering only the real production quantity V8's, and generally American, European or maybe Japanese; I came up with the following, but I am sure many of you have other additions. Lot of choices in the 240+ size, but with exception of the Ford V8-60 and the Buick 215, are there other examples in the less than 220 cubic inch size? Just for sake of some discussion rules, let's stick with regular production and keep the list to less than 240 cubic inches. Also not one-off or very limited racing unique engines. So no need for some Ferrari or other exotic mfrs that the normal guy could not easily buy and use. No 4 cyl or 6 cyl, just V8's. So what can you guys come up with?

136 cu inch = Ford V8-60 flathead
215 cu inch = Buick aluminum block, became the Rover 3.5 liter
221 cu inch = Ford 21-stud flathead, and the first Windsor OHC V8's
232 cu inch = Studebaker
239 cu inch = Ford 24-stud flathead

 

185 cu inch = Buick same block as the 215

 

Ford had a 221 also in the early sixties. I know it's one cubic inch over what you were looking for but thought I'd throw it into the mix.

 

British Daimler SP-250....2.5 liter (153 cubic inch) hemi head V8. More than 20,000 produced.

Studebaker built a 224 inch version of the 232 in 1955....also intro'd the 259 at the same time.

Ray

 

53-56 Fiat 8V was 121 cid
Ford SHO Taurus V8 was 207 cid

 

Unfamiliar with this engine. Can you provide more details?

The closest Buick I know of is the 198 cubic inch V6 with iron block that shared it's architecture with the 215 aluminum V8.

Ray

 

I was going to mention the valiant Barracuda for '64 but I checked and the v8 was 270" so it missus the mark by a little bit.

They did use the same basic engine road racing both Can Am and Trans Am that was a 260" motor but not readily available to the public at least not these days. Now that would be a sweet hot rod motor light and powerful for its size.

 

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That 185 was the horsepower on some of the 215 engines

The 215 got recast as the 300 CI for 1964

Oldmics

 

...gotta love that little Daimler......

.

 

273 CID beano. Had the hi-po version (235hp) in a Valiant in high school. Peppy little critter.

 

That's a sweet looking little engine. That's exactly the kind of stuff I was hoping would be suggested.

I also thought there was a Studebaker 224, but then doubted my memory...... thanks for that confirmation.

 

Triumph had a V8 in the Stag. A 3 liter, around 183ci. The Mercedes 3.5 was about 213ci.

 

I was just looking at my old notes, I have heard 273 and that is probably more correct, but there must be a reason I have 270 written down. Funny that after 40 years what you thought would be perfectly clear is not.

 

270 Red Ram Hemi
241 Poly V8

 

Toyota built a 2.6l hemi V8 64-67, believe it was in the crown sedan.

 

Anybody know anything about the pre-war Tatra air-cooled V8's? I think some of them were under 200 ci. Also maybe Steyr?

 

Not automotive, But Evinrude (and also badged under Johsnon) made a 220 ci 2-Stroke Outboard V8 for quite a few years in the late 80's and into the mid 90's. It would make a pretty off the wall hot rod motor with 8 expansion pipes sticking out.



Not to mention the 1974 Kawasaki 1600 cc (98 ci) V8 Motorcycle.

 

Didn't BMW make one in the mid '50s? Production in some sedans & in their 507 sports car?

 

Shit, beat me to it...

 

507, 193ci, neat little motor...

 

2 liter Siata V8. 122ci, winner?

 

So how likely is the normal guy to come up with a '50s Siata or BMW, Kawasaki, Tatra, Toyota or Daimler V8? Maybe a little Mercedes shows up in the U-Pik once in a great while. If anyone tries to give you a Triumph Stag V8, hit 'em with a brick; that was one of the worst designs ever.

The OHC engines, such as the Triumph, Taurus SHO and the Mercedes are physically large for their displacement.

Surprised, in this Y-block-worshiping forum, no one mentioned the 1954 239".

The 239" Y-block, 221" SBF, 224"/232"Studebaker and the Mercedes 3.5 all share the disadvantage of all being built on the same architecture as the later/larger versions. Why build the smaller/weaker engine when for less money one can have more horsepower in the same physical package?

In terms of being compact, nothing touches the Flathead Fords. The V8-60 looks at home in a motorcycle frame. Unfortunately, the Flathead can't make any horsepower.

In terms of overall packaging and horsepower production cost-efficiency, it's difficult to better the SBF. With aftermarket aluminum heads and intake, it can easily get into the magic one-horsepower-per-pound which was formerly aircraft engine territory and do it for cheap.

While not within the HAMB year guidelines or the 240" limit of this thread, the best all-around V8 for weight, packaging efficiency, power and affordability is the current GM LS.

jack vines

 

there production and they go into Cars , well rc cars

 

Tatra 2.5 liter air-cooled hemi...

TatraHemi by ClayMart posted Sep 1, 2015 at 11:03 PM

 

Volvo Made a B36 for a truck. It s a 3.6 liter and make about 120hp. But that's about 217-220ci. I've been dreaming about doing something with one.

And then there's this

http://www.conleyprecision.com

 

actually Fiat made a 121 CID v-8 in the mid 50's

 

actually George thats a fiat motor .

 

Dodge Red Ram Hemi 241ci

 

Jack, can't argue with your logic on packaging, but I am not concerned with the physical size. I really just was curious about real small cubic inch displacement engines that have been produced. I agree for most everyone the larger size in same block is the better choice, but sometimes people use the smaller displacement stuff. It was just a curiosity question, not an optimization question.