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

The caddy carbs were normal if you could afford them some times in pairs, they pulled more cfm's than most, most of your vette wcfbs were something around 450 cfm at that time, some people were taking the big older brother of the 97 the stromberg 48 and boring the venturi almost completely away from a 1 1/16 bore to a 1 1/8 bore

 

That's one thing I nver understood. What's the fuss about 97's when the 48's had a bigger venturi???

Anyways, that Cad idea is pretty cool!!! Unfortunately if I find the correct Cadillac WCFB's I will have to save them for my 56 Cad V8 motor going in my wife's '54 chevy. I think the Vette one will be just fine but I really like learnign more and more!

 

If ya want to do it easy in the carb department, holley 4bbls cam out in '57 and not much has really changed

 

Be aware that Cadillac used the very small bolt pattern carbs until '57; '56 and earlier carbs won't bolt to a SBC intake.

 

I'm definitely sticking with the matching corvette intake and carb that I have. Thanks for the heads up for sure though.

Any engine builder recommendations?

 

I believe the 265 does not have the front side motor mounts.

 

The 40 does indeed have a "097" camshaft. Everything in the motor was new ... except the block ( bored .060 with head torque plates ) , the crankshaft, the rods ( resized with new bolts ) and the head castings. I had the entire rotating assembly balanced

With the new camshaft, lifters, push rods and rockers ... once you have the valves adjusted ... the polyloks keep valve adjusting to a minimum. After I broke the engine in ... I adjusted the valves ... and then checked them only @ a oil change.

The engine is a 283 ( 58 model ) with a Weiand old school aluminum intake / 500 Edelbrock carb, "097" camshaft and a small body MSD distributor. It is very responsive and I got 15/17 MPG on road trips with it before Vic bought the 40 from me. The "097" is NOT too much camshaft for a small SBC.

If I was building it again ... I would most likely use a hydraulic 327/350 " 151 " camshaft. They lump/lump/lump a little harder in a small SBC than the "097"

 

Hard to find yes and no. many people rebuilt them and used them up on Impalas and trucks and anything else in the 60s. You have to look around. I found a 57 2/4 head on a 307 with another mismatch head.

What you want is the design on the ends of the head and you can always drill out the holes for the stagger look. They used to do it all the time on camel humps and reshape the 2 humps to make them look like power packs and also a serious angle mill. It how you wake up a 265 or 283 with larger ports and 1.94 valves. Make it a 301 and use 2.02s and you'll have a serious problem with your clutch lol!

The easiest way to rebuild these heads if theyre good is to go modern style, replace the springs with ls6 springs at 60 bucks its a rip off and the 787-16 retainers for bout the same price. I found this out while rebuilding some heads for my radical daily driven 305 motor. I took the springs over to my power packs for a try-on and assembled them and it worked out better then the comp cams stuff I have on my 65 283.

You need slotted rockers too and you can find them under 50 bucks.

 

Do you happen to have a builder that is relatively close Deuce Roadster??? I have been calling tri five restoration places trying to find someone that is familiar with these engines but have come up with nothing. I am going to try corvette builder in the area and see if that leads me anywhere.

 

I LOVE THIS THREAD ! !

Two 265's to build here at the shop, keep the knowledge coming........

Johnnie.

 

I built the engine ... and used a automotive machine shop near me that I trust ( he knows I was a machine shop guy for years and that I have micrometers and I know how to use them )

PM me ...

 

Some guys don't accept a small block Chevy as traditional but I don't see how anyone could deny a 265. It was the engine of choice for many hot rodders when it was introduced. The 097 cam is the best "gennie" solid lifter cam you can use on the street. The valves set at .012 and .018, not the .030 .030 of the later 327-375 cam. It has a mild lope and instant torque at low rpm. The 30 30 doesn't come on to power as soon. I have had several cars over the years with the 097 cam and it is my favorite. Bob "Jungle" Lane in Mt. Holly NC is the guy who was building these engines in the Fifties and still is. He is only 20 miles from you and if you have not heard of him he is in his seventies and still does machine work and builds all kind of engines with his two sons. PM me if you can't get in touch with him....I took him some stuff last week. You will have to get in line.

 

Holy Shit!!! Thank you so much Frank!!! This is what I was hoping for really. I love the tech that you have provided but by far the Bob Lane tip was what I have been hoping for!!! Thank you so much I am definitely going to try to get a hold of him.

 

Thanks 43gman!!! I always look forward to your posts because your the real deal. Can't wait to see that coupe and I wouldn't mind heading to Wilmington on the the 6th for the get together.

I will also look in to Warren Engines as well as Kendal and his dad. PM me any info such as number if you have them.

Oh and congrats in firing the motor. That thing look insanely good!!!

 

43gman- What is going on with the water pump in your picture?

 

For those discussing valve adjustment on the 30-30, Comp makes a hydraulic version of it. Part number 12-672-4. They call it a "nostalgia plus" and it's supposed to have the exhaust sound of the solid lifter version. I'm eyeballing one for my 283
Justin

 

This is a massive "mung" of awesomeness as far as the small block. All I can offer is an appearance tip. As most know, and few realize....they didn't have an aftermarket for everything in the '50 and even some crap into the '60's. Cut your stock oil pan, and add oil capacity. Put about an inch in the sump, and weld it w/a stick or braze it in w/a torch. ""Please don't do it w/the oil pan on the motor!!!!" I hope it's good man.

 

What exactly would be the difference internally between a standard 1956 2bbl passenger car 256 engine and the same year corvette engine?????

I am starting to like the idea of simplifying this build with perhaps a stock bore and an 097 cam. I am only looking for about 200-225 hp on this car. Would there need to be much head work?

 

The difference between a 2bbl engine and the singe 4bbl power pack engine (which was the base engine in the Corvette), besides the obvious four barrel intake and carburetor, were a distributor with a different advance curve, a dual exhaust system, a slightly hotter camshaft (still hydraulic, though---the solid lifter cam was only available with the dual quad option), and a pair of "306" heads. These were the first power pack heads, with the small triangle on top of the rectangle on the end of each casting, and while they had the same valve and port sizes as the 2bbl heads, the combustion chambers were smaller for more compression.

 

So there are a set of 1956 Corvette heads on ePay for $549 and a set of '57 fuelie heads starting at $500 for the first bid. Would I really notice a difference in let say my own stock head and the 56 PP heads for $549? Could I have them machined for less?

I guess what I am trying to say is that I would rather no buy more heads and make up the difference in the machine work unless is becomes counter productive and less cost efficient. Would I easlity have the $549 in machining some heads?

I know the fuelie ones are way out of my league so I'll just think about the Corvette ones.

 

Don't pay $549 plus shipping for a pair of '56 bare castings or I'll slap you. He's high; I still see '56 306 heads sell for less than half that amount. Another way to consider, and you'll still have the early look, is a pair of 1957 2bbl heads. Like I said, the only real difference between the 2 and 4bbl heads was the combustion chamber size, and with the '57 heads, you'd gain a few hp on account of the larger port volume, when compared to '55-'56 heads, and they could either be milled a serious amount (like .060) to raise compression, or you could use domed pistons with them. I still see sets of Jahns or J.E. pistons for 265s come out of the woodwork from time to time, and you could always punch it out to 3 7/8 and use standard bore 283 pistons with the 1/8 inch popup that came standard in the solid lifter 270 and 283 hp engines.

 

According to the francisco book he basicly says if you are going to port your heads you'd be better off with 57's apperently he didnt think there was enough meat in '56 heads, i'd say you should be able to find a set of early Power Pacs for a hundred or 2 and cut them for 305 1.84" valves and be pretty good off for nice street engine, or atleast that's my plan with my '57 power pacs on my '60 vette motor for my roadster

If anyone knows where i can get some 1 7/8 valves instead of 305 1.84's i'd rather go that just to keep it traditional

 

Didn't McGurk use 1.875 intakes from a 235 and cut the stems down?

 

Cool, I was hoping you tell me to pass on those. Truth be told I really do not know what any of this is worth. I paid $350 for the whole engine which has been sitting in a shop for over 35 years. $549 seemed high but so does a lot of stuff that I come across.

I guess I'll stick with the heads that I have unless I can find some 57 2bbl heads at a good price soon. I guess the real magic is going to come in at the machine shop and going to a 283 was in the original plan. Any issues with punching it out that much?? I thought it was a good idea but a few HAMB member think otherwise. Either way, things are starting to make more and more sense and I am starting to get a clear picture of what needs to be done.

 

I think that's what I read too!

 

All I can tell you about boring a 265 .125 is that I've done it twice, and had no problems with either one.

 

Good advice I think. I have the "306" small chamber heads, but only cuz I bought them CHEAP. Spend money on new internal stuff and machine work...my .02

 

Dont know about mcgurk, but i've read a couple places of people doing it theirselves, i'm just FAR too lazy to do it myself.

 

Well, how about going backwards? Lots of guys have installed Chevy 1.94 inch intake valves in early Olds V8s without much trouble; I know that Olds went to a 1.875 inch intake valve in '59, and I've got some. I'll stand one next to a Chevy valve and see how close they are in height and keeper groove placement.

 

Now that is some traditional thinking!!! Seems like it would be a natural choice if this were 1960!!! Keep us updated on that, I hear good things about those 1.94's.