What is a more traditional engine

Before this gets locked, here's my Y



'54-239ci


Sent from my iPhone using TJJ sucka!

 

Hey fab32 ..Please be the Hero..use the lame Report-button on my post .
Prolly missed earlier dramas . Drunk ?.. Nope, I acctually like 2sixfives..
Wierd cyberspace..

Klaz

 

not many rods running around with 312 or 292-s ... if they had Ford engines and not SBC it was a 352 ...

 

What he said... I used to be a hater, until I got a sbc! Now I love it!!!

 

I'm ao tired of hearing that same bullshit over and over again, more reliable my ass.

What he said. And that goes for all the Caddy's, Nailheads, and Olds as well.

 

The real fact is that a 55- 56 Chevy (corvette excluded) with any 265 was and still is a stone turd in performance. All the guys I knew with 265 powered Chevy's pulled them out and sold them to guys with roadsters or a lightweight rod that needed a cheap OHV motor to replace a Flaty or Stove bolt. The motors that went in to replace the 265 in the Chevy sedans was usually the biggest cube junk yard motor they could find. OLDs, Ponts, Buicks, Cads, or a Chrysler Hemi if they could find one & afford it. Not many ever tried to go fast with a 265 in any car it originally came in. The only remotely fast Chevy powered full bodied cars I ever saw had 348s.

 

One of the guys around town in the mid sixties had a 55 Chevy with a 389 Pontiac tri power engine ... another guy had a 57 T-Bird with a 389 Pontiac backed up with a Vitar Hydro ... there is no substitute for cubic engines.

 

What Vandy said. I had a 55 chev. in the real early 60's and couldn't get any performance out of it. Pulled the 265 out and installed a 322 buick what a difference.

 

I do love those fentons that is a very good looking engine

 

IHC has been around as long as Ford and Chev or maybe even longer. I can't remember the first year production on a vehicle (1902 i think) but they were building implements as well. Pre 1934 Willy's was building some engines and bodies for IHC.

The 72 was my first IH. Then came the 60 and then the 36.

I am putting a horrible, unreliable, useless, low powered, untraditional 292/312 with tripower in the 36. Wish me luck that it reliable enough and has enough power to push it's self down the road.

 

Sorry man cant sell it Im kinda attached to it because it doesnt have the side motor mount bosses on it on the front ones. That would be one of reason why I would go with the 265. It might set it a part for the standard sbc

 

if you really wanted to be traditional, in the old days they didn't sit around asking a bunch of people they didn't even know what would be cool to put in their car, they just did it.

who cares what some ass wipe from across the country thinks you should do, get it running, drive it, that's traditional hot rodding. half of the people chiming in about how much they hate this and that don't even have a running hot rod and probably never will. arm chair quarter backs at best

Shut Up and Drive!
this public service announcement has been brought to you by The Spares, the Number 2 and the letter A

 

Seventhirteen
I do agree with you and everyone else that says build what you want. I will and plan to. I just wanted to hear what people thought or had to say about it either way.

 

Now that we have the obligatory "it's your car, do what you want" post, maybe we can can get back to answering the original poster's question. I'd go with the 265.

Bob

 

If your only criteria is "what is more traditional?, then you can't lose either way. They were both available in the era of the style that you are aiming to achieve, so they're both winners in that sense.

If you want to look deeper into it, like adding criteria about horsepower, weight, parts availability, packaging, and so on, then we could get into a debate about which is the more suitable mill.

As a 26 year old, I obviously can't speak to first hand knowledge. But I've grown up around older car guys, and virtually every single one of them said that the SBC was the motor to have in the late 50s. A few buddies ran Olds rockets through the 50s and so on, but the SBC was the benchmark by which all others were judged.

 

265's were always the lamest under powered motor when i grewup.
They had little power from the factory (a good 6 could best it) and little potential for building hp.
If you wanted to make hp in the early V8 days you and everybody else would rip that boat anchor and instal a Y block, rocket or nailhead

 

the question has been answered, neither would be more traditional in a 59/60 car. if you want to add to that explain why a 265 is more traditional in a 59/60 era car over a 292. here's a picture of uncle larry's 32 built in 1959

 

If cool is having a belly button then you are in

 

Lemme guess, you are Mr Onestar and didnt even have a nice car when growing up?

The Eurosport truly makes you an expert....................

 

Read the original post. He wanted to know which one would be excepted, not accepted as traditional. Damn loopholes!

Bob

 

This is flawed logic. If the point is to build a traditionally styled vehicle, then the SBC is absolutely appropriate. Sure the SBC is a common power plant, but it's due to its extensive use in the time since "traditional" started. The OP simply asked which would be traditional, and the answer is that they both would be.

Y blocks are cool for sure, but remember, it took a supercharger and a few more cubes to get them to beat the injected 283 in '57. There is a reason the Y Block was gone in cars by '62, and the SBC is still manufactured.

By the way, it's spelled "turd"

 

Joe, remember the quote about the special olympics? You just can't teach some folk. I think nuke might be one

 

SHIT! Your right! In that case, can I change my vote to LS-1??

 

No...

 

i surrender!

 

a wise man knows when he is faced with mass buffoonery...

 

Just finished a build using a 265. Small light weight and as reliable as a crate motor. Find and early 265/283 with the front Hurst mount and you will not be mistaken for using just another 350. There is an infinite amount of speed parts available to make yours your own and you keep it running at any big box auto store. Hard to beat.

 

Yeah, right....so, if you want to talk pre-1955, the flathead Ford was the worst "belly button" engine EVER. Better toss all of them and make things right.