History the "wonderfull" chevy v8?

I had the chebies in the past and didn't care for them. The "universal" bolt on didn't work too well for some of their intakes. Well they went fast, for awhile then they always blew up, big blocks too. I got away from them in the late '70's and never looked back and no matter what anyone says you will not change me.

 

One thing about A Chevrolet small block, the parts are so interchangeable ,I could put A 57 Chevy motor in my 97 Chevy truck and bolt right up or the other way around,try that with the other brands.

 

The little engine that could. And did.
Best way to class up a model A pickup with a '32 grille.

 

Interchangeability between them and sixes and big blocks isn't bad either. My first PU was a 65 short bed six. When I built the 327, I bolted the flywheel and clutch from the six onto the 327. Used the starter too. Took the motor mounts off the brackets on the sides of the six and they went right on 327. One trip around the block proved it needed a bigger radiator. The V8 and my youth turned the little three speed into a grenade

When I sub framed my '57 PU with a '77 SW front frame section all I had to do to put the big block in it was bolt the mounts off the side of the original small block on to the big block. Sits there like the factory had done it.

 

One of the new cars I learned on to get my drivers license, was a 55 Chev. It was a wonderful car and certainly not an oil burner. My buddy and I drove that car hard, and over the three years they had the car, it never once required a repair other than routine maintenance.
Another buddy bought a 55, and had it punched out to 283 cubes. No oil filter, but that engine was also problem free and performed well.
I owned 272, 292, and 312 engines back in the late 60s. I swapped them all into a 53 Merc 1/2 ton, because I was unhappy with the performance and reliability. They all had the upper oiling problem, and I installed an external oiling kit to overcome this issue.
The performance of the 312 was ok, but I wasn't happy until I sold the 312 engine and swapped in a 394 Olds.
I am not saying the Ford was a bad engine, they could be a real performer, but performance parts were a lot more expensive than for the Chevy.
I also agree to the statements that the Chevy engines could be difficult to find. I looked for a 327 for a project for over a year before giving up and going to the big block. And to prove irony exists, within a week of my buying the big block, a 327 became available. That was in 1971, and I still have the 396, although it is now retired, replaced with a 454.
Bob

 

"8-to-1 ultra high compression ratio!" I guess for the day.

 

Actually it would have to be 58 or newer...57 had no provisions for side mounts But yes the most interchangeable eng ever.

 

My 55 Chevy Gasser would argue that point along with my 57 Chevy stocker.

Sent from my SM-G550T using The H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

My biggest issue with the SBC is the cam journal diameters are too small, which means you can't get as much lift per degree of duration as with a BBC, Pontiac, Olds, etc. Other issues are the bore centers are too close and the deck height too short. However, back in the development stage Ed Cole probably never envisioned the platform growing any bigger than 327 cubes, if that much. That said, I've probably owned 12-15 of them, and built dozens more for friends and customers.

 

Those brandX guys are always ragging on the Chevys and other GM cars and trucks just because they are so tired of getting out run, out pulled and out classed. I just try to tolerate and understand their problems. Some day they will see the error of their ways, they are just

 

Amen Brother!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using The H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

57 Chev —— I wouldn’t expect anything different. LOL


Sent from my iPad using The H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

My 37 chevy is no ugly duckling in the looks Dept...beats the shit out of a 37 Ford in my book

 

Made Ford Tough, with Chevy Stuff.

 

I like 12 bolts...oops OT

 

I think initially the bolt was in the higher hp versions. I know that by 67 they were standard in low hp cars. CJ and I flipped a 67 Camaro that had its original 327/210hp and it had the balancer bolt. That bolt was the reason the previous owner quit working on the car because he snapped the head off it and then attempted to drill it out and was off center and ruined the crank end (motor was in the car and he didn't pull the radiator)

The 55 265's issues was that it didn't have an actual oil filter, that's why there was the toilet paper filter on the intake on 55's. 56 added the canister and fixed that problem.

 

Gonna take a wild guess and say the oil pans were installed after the timing covers.

 

I have always been a big block kind of guy when it comes to Chev, but this guy must have known a thing or 2.

 

"The association of Chevrolet with hot rods, speed, and such is probably inadmissible, but possibly the existence of the Corvette provides the loophole."

So, conservative top brass was not in favor of racing or building powerful engines, but Duntov and his team were looking at ways of getting around that with aftermarket parts. "Since we cannot prevent the people from racing Corvettes, maybe it is better to help them do a good job at it."

Also, this is an interesting statement: "In my estimation, power output comparable to the Cadillac can be obtained by not exceeding 270 ft-lb of torque at any point."

In other words, they could match the 331 Cadillac's horsepower by revving the 265 higher, without having to increase torque (via more cubic inches) beyond the capability of the the existing Corvette drive train. Today, all we hear about is how much horsepower this or that component can handle, which is total BS. It's TORQUE, not horsepower, that determines the required strength of drive train components.

 

Zora Arkus-Duntov was most definitely a visionary.
A person has to wonder what direction Chevrolet might have gone without the forward thinking of Mr. Duntov.

 

i am working on Dave Lewis's latest project and he has an interesting small block interchange combo in it.
302 chevy, using late model stuff. 1989 350 block [4"bore] 1996 4.3 litre V8 crankshaft [3"stroke] 1998 aluminum corvette heads, forged trw 350 pistons [pin placement puts the piston to the top].
then he bored it .030 over making it a 305........the right way. crower solid lifter cam makes it a high revving blast.
just an example of the versatility of a chevy.

 

See what you did? just spent the last 10 minutes researching L99 chevy small blocks Would be a fun combo but would be just a little afraid to spin the crap out of it. But I would

 

I think the two biggest "issues" were, the oil consumption (resolved with the Bon Ami trick to re-seat the rings), and the true flat top, without ANY valve relief, pistons. That alone led to many warranty problems with piston-to-valve clearance issues; don't over rev them, and don't miss a shift; also, don't just swap in a higher lift cam. Cams were't a problem until the 307 arrived on the scene in 1968. Small, light weight, V-8, with almost unlimited parts interchangeability, made it the most popular engine of all time. At some point in time, it's the LS version engines that truly will make history. I am Butch/56sedandelivery.

 

Fun topic, I enjoyed reading the posts. Out of all the makes, I agree that the small chebbie has a astounding aftermarket, and has great interchangeability, adapters for everything thought of, good breathing heads(better than a lot of big blocks from the factory) and a decent oiling system. But these early small blocks had their woes too. But none of them I owned could ever take a beating like a Mopar can. I started life with a 1957 Chevrolet 2 door sedan. I loved the car, I bought a Mopar as a beater to use for work. I couldn't kill that Plymouth Valiant, no matter how hard I tried. Through the years, I tried other makes also. My ending conclusion is this: I can/have/had/could and still will build sbc's for friends and clientele. But from my experience, no matter what you do, the high Nickel Mopar blocks will out live them. If the SBM had a better market for them, I would say that they may have been the best. But more expensive cars = less purchased. From my personal experience, I converted to Mopar about 20 years ago, and every engine I built 30 years ago to present is still running. What a well engineered engine! But no decent aftermarket, so it will never be as popular as the small block chebbie...

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using The H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

There's the lowly 305 and then there's this 305! Sounds like a great engine.

 

The OP posted bullshit that his Ford family patriarch said. Nothing was based in fact, other then the fast statement.
He is actually trying to start drama and other then this post I am not going to buy into it.

Good day

 

At this years SpeedWeek a 258 cubic inch SBC in a streamliner, went 398 MPH on gas. Gas. Almost 400. With a destroker 283. And turbocharger. It can't be all that bad. I have never run one. But I do know people who do. Lots of them. Must be some reason for it.

 

Problem with the sbc is they became so mainstream that their quite boring to look at. What could possibly be done to one that hasn't been done 5000 times already. I see Model a's all in row with some version in there and wonder what the owners talk about. They cant be talking about the fabrication work that went into dropping that crate 350 in there. I'll gladly pass on the cookie cutter syndrome and talk to the owner with the Hemi, Boss 302, or any other engine for that matter that the owner didnt get a "kit" from Walmart do dump in a sbc. I'm sure they are a great little engine though.