Steve wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> >Nowhere near as twisted as the mess over at GM
>>
>>> with 3 unrelated 455s alone, not to mention a 454, 472, 500, and at
>>> least 3 unrelated 350s.
>>>
>>
>> I count four; Chevy, Buick, Olds and Pontiac.
>
>
> I couldn't remember for sure if Pontiac had a 350, so I said "at least
> 3" :-)
>
>>
>> Guess which one was the cheapest to make (and therefore most
>> compromised in design) and guess which one GM standardized on when
>> they went to a "cor****ate" engine program.
>
>
> Oh, you're preachin' to the choir on that one. The small chevy was a
> great engine up to about the 327, but when they had to shorten the rods
> for the 350 (and especially the 400 which also required siamesing the
> bores) and never gave it the same block alloy that the Olds, Buick,
> Caddy, and Pontiacs got.... well, it was not so great. It survives on
> sheer numbers, aftermarket parts availablity, and familiarity on the
> part of engine builders and machinists. But a knowledgable person can
> extract more performance/durability from almost any other v8 engine than
> from a smallblock Chevy.
>
> Admittedly the Gen-III GM smallblocks are outstanding engines... but
> then not a part from them really interchanges with the small-block
> Chevy, either. Apart from keeping the bore-center spacing, they're
> pretty much a clean sheet of paper.
>
>> What they *should* have done was standardized on the Olds 350 for the
>> "small block" and the Caddy 429/472 for the "big block" cor****ate
>> engines (in my fantasy world, that is...)
>
>
> The 472 (or Olds 455 for that matter) would have been an outstanding
> heavy-duty truck engine. FAR and away better than the Chevy 454.
>
> As for a hi-performance GM engine, I might have to put myself in the
> Buick camp, although Pontiac is close too. Being a Mopar guy, I like the
> long rod length, big bore/short stroke architecture of the Buick. Its
> the most "Mopar-like" of all the GM engines in those regards, although
> the Olds is more like a big Mopar in block rigidity. The Buick's light
> weight is nice too (a Buick 455 weighs about the same or less than a
> Chevy 350.) But GM never fully addressed its problems- bad oiling system
> and a tendency for too much block-flex partly BECAUSE its so light. But
> the aftermarket did a good job with both, so it COULD have been done at
> the factory.
yeah, I can't decide if I'm really a Studebaker or MoPar guy at heart.
The Stude has unbelievable block strength but the MoPars have more
revvability. I guess I'd really rather have everything - rigidity,
revs, and lots of sweet, sweet boost :)
I currently have a '55 Stude with an Avanti engine simply because Stude
prices haven't gone completely nuts like hi-po MoPar prices, although if
a nice A-body with a 340 and a stick****ft came my way I wouldn't kick it
out of my driveway for leaking oil. I still haven't gotten any forced
induction yet, but all I'd need to do a quick upgrade would be the
blower, brackets, pulleys, and heads from an R-2 Avanti.
Studebaker engines are easy, there were only three basic designs from
the 30's on :) Commander (nee Rockne) six, the smaller Champion six
(flathead and OHV) and the OHV V-8.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
