Let's Build a 265 Chevy V8!!!!!

Cool Brett!!! Let me know if you need a builder once you get it. We have a couple around here pretty familiar with getting some decent power out of the Wee Little Lads!

 

A 307 has a 3.875 bore same as a 283 and a 3.25 stroke same as 327 and yes it has large main journals. 307s get a bad performance rap that can be cured with a cam and good heads. I have seen some really hot 307s in the day, also a neat way to make a fake 327 using a 350 block.

 

This will be a "down the road" power plant. I've got the '66 283 for the truck!

 

The 30/30 cam might be a little tough to drive around on the street in a motor that small. Dont get me wrong, the 30/30 cam sounds bitchin and has that "period" sound but its going to require you to buzz that thing up to get some Hp out of it. In doing so you will have to invest in some good valvetrain parts to keep things from letting go.

If I was building a nice "Hot Rod" 265 I would go with the Isky 264 Mega Cam.

264/264
214/214 @.050
.450/.450
108 LSA

With some good heads, carburetion and headers you should hit 225 horse no problem. The lower duration will give you more torque for better driving. The lower lift will keep your valvetrain cost down and the 108 LSA will add a little attitude to the idle.

 

Well I guess I was a little late on that one

 

Naw, this isn't just for me. It's for anyone building or wanting to build a 265. I finished mine but it doesn't mean that I won't be doing another!!! Thanks!

 

My 283 has the L79-spec cam (221 in/ex @ .050", .447 lift, 114 LSA), bored .030" over, in front of a M-21 Muncie.

Tooo much cam? Recommend a lifter?

(not to hijack, JJ)

 

Yessiree Bob! Still working on mine. LOVE this thread JJ, very helpful.

What I want to know is can I take advantage of a roller cam setup in a 265 buildup like this one? Seems like it should work. And after studying the advantages of a roller it just seems like a "modern" hot rod advantage. Real hot rodders did whatever they could (I'm 61 so I remember) to get HP. Why not do a roller and get the added HP and lower friction?

Anyone done this to a 265??

 

I guess I'll jump on the bandwagon here and ask what y'all think as well as bump this thread back up because it's just full of good stuff to get buried. Not meaning to hijack this thread at all, just wanting some feedback.

I have a '57 283 (I know, not a 265..) that has 3748772 heads on them (1.72/1.50) and according to ChevyMania.com it was for Dual Quad FI / 4-bbl Corvettes. The stamped code says it was 220 horsepower originally but I haven't tore into it to see if it's been souped up or anything. Story is the owner had the engine rebuilt and put it in the corner to finish rebuilding his car but passed away before he ever put the engine back in so his wife auctioned everything off.

I'll tear into the motor later but for now let's say it's completely stock. I've been buying a few Holley 94's and would like to run a WC4D later on down the road if I ever come across a manifold for a reasonable price.. Would I be able to run 4 94's with the proper jetting without over-carbureting it? I'm assuming the heads I have are pretty common ...right? Plans are to run a '39 Ford behind it so I don't really need to get too crazy here. However I'll definitely be taking some ideas from the articles that Jim put up in the first couple pages. Pretty similar to JJ's motor.

 

Great thread. My 2 cents is to go with a 283. Same time period, and one hell of an engine. Boring the 265 as much as you mentioned could easily cause overheating issues. I'm running a 327 in my car, but thats a different era. Good luck.

 

TexasSpeed

I think the cfm of 4 94's or 97's would be fine in your 283. Most "experts" agree that 500-600 cfm is a good range for a mild-to-moderate small displacement SBC, and each of the above flow around 150 cfm. Thats 600 cfm for your dream setup. Jetted properly, you should be fine!

 

Thanks!

 

Its not a "modern" advantage, they had roller cams in the fifties too. Lots of guys have done it, just not in the last 40 years or so.

 

Great thread and super helpful!!! I am going to start the build of my 51' merc on here and after thinking of doing a cadillac 472, I have decided that it would be a lot more fun to set a time period on it and not use anything newer on it.

With that said I have got a 51 merc 3speed with overdrive back in and am planning on dropping a 265 in it. The flathead seemed very very expensive for what the end product gave me and that wasnt enough horsepower for the weight of the merc and it would look way better in a 32 and be light enough to scoot. I got the 265 from a guy at my work that had it stashed on his sideyard. Its complete and he had no desire to do anything with it.

Yours sounded great with the 097 cam so were gonna follow in suit. I have a lead on 57 heads as well. Also scored a 302 69 camaro long block that will fetch some $ to pay for this build. I got a bucket of 94's and have yet to find a 4 pot intake. Might just go for a 3 pot intake.

I will post here when Im sorted out, also gonna do a dedicated thread for the car too starting next month.

 

Glad to see this thread is still alive! My 55 is getting its original 265 back, but slightly better than the last time they saw each other... .040" overbore and 57 Powerpack heads with a mild cam & a 4-barrel, haven't figured out what to run yet but it's gotta make the engine look "correct" for a truck around 1958-59. Trying to adapt a 200-4R to it (no starter pad on the block), I prefer an automatic due to deteriorating hips, but will be adapting the original 3-speed shift assembly to the new trans. It promises to be a challenge but I am determined.

 

AND when you get around to it , i have the orginal distributors for this engine with the notch etc. Be glad to build you up a corvette version or rebuild and curve yours if you have one .
Glad to help on a project like this one . (cheap )

 

ok i just had to jump in on this thread because I too am building a 265 for my 31 roadster.
I keep seeing the reference to the "staggered bolt pattern" on the heads for the valve covers. My question is, did all the 1956 265's come with staggered bolt valve covers?
The reason i'm asking is because I don't have the staggered bolt pattern on mine and i'm wondering why?

 

As far as my limited knowledge goes.. Yes, all 265's had staggered bolt patterns. Your engine probably had the original heads replaced with later heads that has the straight across pattern.

Thankfully, it's still possible to find staggered bolt heads nowadays. I see an excuse to move up to Fuelie heads..

 

I'd be suprised if these heads were changed as this motor came from a very stock 56 bel Air.
I just bought a vintage set of Hildebrandt valve covers so i'm not really interested in changing heads but it's been driving me crazy wondering why mine aren't staggered?
Thanks for the help.

 

All Chevy small blocks thru mid year 59 had the two upper bolts closer together than the bottom ones, they were what's called "staggered". So you have later heads.

Post the casting number and date codes on the heads, if you want help figuring out what you have.

 

Take a valve cover off and see what the casting date is on the head.

 

looks like 8774682. There are also other #'s that appear to be D81 GM12 and I also see the # 13.

I couldn't find the 877 # but I did find a 3774682 which as far as I can see is a 283/327 head from 60-67?

I'm not sure if this is a good thing or a bad thing that these are different heads?
Better power?

 

265 all have staggered valve covered bolts ... change came mid year 59 .. it is possible the heads were exchanged for rebuilts in the 60-s .. they would look old and original.

 

3 and 8 are really easy to confuse on the GM casting numbers. They were not cast very well.

The early heads had really small ports, so you're probably better off with the newer heads, although it's not "correct" for a 56, as if that matters.

D 8 1 is April 8, 1961. Now you know.

 

In the dumb ??? & O/T department, could you use modern stuff, like an aluminum long block from GM performance to receate a "new 265" that doesn't weigh a ton? Gary

 

Kind of depends what you mean by "modern". If it's one of the LSx engines, no, it's completely different. And if it's an aluminum 4" bore block for an older small bock design, then you'd need a really short stroke to get it down to 265 ci, and probably won't be what you're thinking of.

 

Thanx Jim,

I get a lot of hair-brained ideas that sound interesting or doable but for reasons not obvious to me just won't work. How about a 283 or 327 with the light weight block you mentioned? Gary

 

Thanks so much for the information,Jim.

 

Bubba, can any cast iron bowl type housing be assembled into a passable copy of a '58/'60 non tach drive one piece Corvette dual point? Is it just a matter of changing the point plate? Is the dual point plate for the early distributors hard to find? Doesnt have to be "numbers matching", just good enough to look the part from 3-4 feet away. Kinda looks like there is a period correct 283 in my future, and the distributor has been a big question mark. Using a mallory is one way, but that feels like a bit of a cop-out.

 

I still have that set of NOS MT pistons in the classifieds. 1/8 over 265 or std 283. I am not getting to that project so they need a good home IN an engine!