Mopar V-8 Engine Families
Ed
There is considerable confusion because some engines of different
families had the same or almost the same displacement, and recognizable
trade names (Hemi, in particular) have been applied to several distinct
engine families..."
eBay Guide: http://301url.com/MoparV8
Steve
Its not all that complicated, especially after the switch to a single
corporate line of engines with the introduction of the B/RB big blocks
in '59, and the standardization on the A-block 318 (and its derivative
LA block 273, 318, 340, and 360 as well as the 3.9v6) for the small
engines. Throw in the slant-6 and 2.2/2.5 4-bangers and you have covered
every Chrysler engine between 1959 and about 1988 when the 3.3 v6 was
introduced. 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.
Nate Nagel
I count four; Chevy, Buick, Olds and Pontiac.
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
"corporate" engine program. What they *should* have done was
standardized on the Olds 350 for the "small block" and the Caddy 429/472
for the "big block" corporate engines (in my fantasy world, that is...)
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Steve
> >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
> "corporate" 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" corporate 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.
Nate Nagel
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 stickshift 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.
clareatsnyder.on.ca
wrote:
>
>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 stickshift 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
Was the Marshal/ R1 / R2 289 the same block as the Commander 224 and
232?
And what about the 283?
Was the 194 six the same as either the Lark/Hawk 170 inch six or the
245 inch Commander? I know the Lark engine was an OHV conversion of
the earlier flathead of the same displacement..
I thought the V8 before 1954 was a Stude design, and after 1955 or so
was a larger Packard developed engine. (not the 352 / 374)
I actually like the AMC V8, myself.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Nate Nagel
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:17:49 -0500, Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>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 stickshift 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
>
> Was the Marshal/ R1 / R2 289 the same block as the Commander 224 and
> 232?
yes, with a redesign mid-'62 for a full flow oil filter. The 232 is a
little unique as it uses a different bore size than the 224/259/289 but
it is the same basic block. Heads and manifolds were redesigned with
the intro. of the 224 and 259 for the '55 model year and remained
similar to the end. The R1 (hi-po NA 289) and R2 (hi-po supercharged
289) engines were simply regular 289s with flattop pistons, a more
aggressive cam/springs, larger fuel pump, larger fuel lines with a
return, and more crankcase ventilation for high RPM operation. The 304
(R3/R4) engines had a larger bore yet, but I believe they were the same
casting, just hand selected and overbored. The R3 and R4 had a lot of
unique parts but were never sold in anything resembling decent volume
(double digits, likely.)
> And what about the 283?
That's a McKinnon industrial engine (that is, small block Ch*vy) used
after the South Bend foundry closed down after the '64 model year. Not
made by Studebaker...
> Was the 194 six the same as either the Lark/Hawk 170 inch six or the
> 245 inch Commander? I know the Lark engine was an OHV conversion of
> the earlier flathead of the same displacement..
The 194 was also a McKinnon. The "Champion" six came in 170 or 185ci
displacements, and the 170 OHV engine was simply a conversion of the
earlier flathead.
The 245 (and earlier, smaller related engines) "Commander" sixes are a
whole different family, and actually the oldest design, dating back to
the early 30's Rockne. One of the longest-lived American engines, used
until 1960 in trucks. Nobody remembers it today :) It's actually not
bad; I worked on a '41 Commander once and remember when driving it that
it was very torquey and smooth but as you would expect had no top end
whatsoever. For some reason next to no speed parts were ever made for
this engine, save for the occasional aluminum head. You *can* get dual
carb intakes and split exhausts for the flathead Champions, which I
don't understand...
> I thought the V8 before 1954 was a Stude design, and after 1955 or so
> was a larger Packard developed engine. (not the 352 / 374)
Nope, the 320/352/274 was the only Packard developed V-8, and the Stude
V-8s up to '64 were all evolutions of the '51 232. The '56 Golden Hawk
did use a single 4bbl version of the 352 which is about the only good
thing that came out of the Studebaker-Packard merger (unless you really
hate Packards and consider the death of the Packard nameplate a good
thing...) A decent engine design but it was *enormous* and heavy, and
also had oiling system problems that were never worked out.
>
> I actually like the AMC V8, myself.
>
One of the old-school Stude performance fanatic guys was partial to them
as well. He seemed to think they would hold up to massive boost almost
as well as a Stude but with larger displacement.
Another good engine along those lines is the Toyota straight six used in
the Supra and Cressida.
clareatsnyder.on.ca
wrote:
When I worked on the farm in the sixties we had a '49 Stude pickup -
the little one - 1/4 ton - possibly half. It would haul 2 ton of feed
like a champ. Replaced it with a '61 Chevy 1/2 ton and it could not
get out of second gear with a ton on it.
> Nobody remembers it today :) It's actually not
>bad; I worked on a '41 Commander once and remember when driving it that
>it was very torquey and smooth but as you would expect had no top end
>whatsoever. For some reason next to no speed parts were ever made for
>this engine, save for the occasional aluminum head. You *can* get dual
>carb intakes and split exhausts for the flathead Champions, which I
>don't understand...
>
>> I thought the V8 before 1954 was a Stude design, and after 1955 or so
>> was a larger Packard developed engine. (not the 352 / 374)
>
>Nope, the 320/352/274 was the only Packard developed V-8, and the Stude
>V-8s up to '64 were all evolutions of the '51 232. The '56 Golden Hawk
>did use a single 4bbl version of the 352 which is about the only good
>thing that came out of the Studebaker-Packard merger (unless you really
>hate Packards and consider the death of the Packard nameplate a good
>thing...) A decent engine design but it was *enormous* and heavy, and
>also had oiling system problems that were never worked out.
>
>>
>> I actually like the AMC V8, myself.
>>
>
>One of the old-school Stude performance fanatic guys was partial to them
>as well. He seemed to think they would hold up to massive boost almost
>as well as a Stude but with larger displacement.
>
>Another good engine along those lines is the Toyota straight six used in
>the Supra and Cressida.
>
Yes, the M series were a VERY strong engine - particularly the 5MGE
and the Turbo variant (5mgt?)
>nate
Ed
Ed
nature in her full and grand majesty, and turn his vision from the low
objects which surround him. Let him gaze on that brilliant light, set like
an eternal lamp to illumine the universe; let the earth appear to him a
point in comparison with the vast circle described by the sun; and let him
wonder at the fact that this vast circle is itself but a very fine point in
comparison with that described by the stars in their revolution round the
firmament. But if our view be arrested there, let our imagination pass
beyond; it will sooner exhaust the power of conception than nature that of
supplying material for conception. The whole visible world is only an
imperceptible atom in the ample bosom of nature. No idea approaches it. We
may enlarge our conceptions beyond an imaginable space; we only produce
atoms in comparison with the reality of things. It is an infinite sphere,
the centre of which is everywhere, the circumference nowhere. In short, it
is the greatest sensible mark of the almighty power of God that imagination
loses itself in that thought.
Returning to himself, let man consider what he is in comparison with all
existence; let him regard himself as lost in this remote corner of nature;
and from the little cell in which he finds himself lodged, I mean the
universe, let him estimate at their true value the earth, kingdoms, cities,
and himself. What is a man in the Infinite?
But to show him another prodigy equally astonishing, let him examine the
most delicate things he knows. Let a mite be given him, with its minute body
and parts incomparably more minute, limbs with their
Bret Ludwig
>
> > What they *should* have done was
> > standardized on the Olds 350 for the "small block" and the Caddy 429/472
> > for the "big block" corporate 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.
The hot setup for years was to build a gas motor out of the Olds 350
diesel block. Good machine shops could even turn the piston tops down
and shorten the center-to-center distance on the rods enough to make a
livable CR with common heads.
It's easy to put a BOP or Cadillac engine in any GMC/Chev pickup.
That said-the Chevy when properly rebuilt was the best of the GM
engines because the "good guy" parts were easily available. Most
rodders never read the Chevy power manuals that TOLD you the hot setup
GM spent millions to find and instead bought a lot of aftermarket
dogshit.
The Chevy Power book said to groove the oil pump base plate just so,
reinforce this, deburr that, braze this other. Did people? Mostly no.
Notice the SB and BB Chev and Corvair can easily be set up reverse
rotation. Change cam and distributor gears.
Steve
>
> That said-the Chevy when properly rebuilt was the best of the GM
> engines
Not even close
BDK
says...
I for one wouldn't have picked an Olds 350 as my choice of GM 350
engines. I owned two of them, and would take a Chevy anytime.
BDK
Joe Pfeiffer
Remember, his definition of a good engine had nothing to do with the
quality of the engine, just easy and cheap availability of hot-rod
parts.
Steve
I know.
I still think that even by that definition the Chevy v8 is not the
"best" GM engine. If you throw aftermarket support in the mix, I would
argue that Pontiac moves past Buick and Olds to the top and Chevy is
*still* second, at best, among the GM engines. It has the most
aftermarket support, but even with Pontiac's weaknesses compared to Olds
and Buick, the basic engine design is enough better than Chevy that it
still comes out ahead.
And we're really down to splitting hairs. Truth of it is, ALL of the big
3 and all of their divisions made very acceptable and long-lived v8
engines. Mopars were the best (of course...) but I wouldn't kick any of
the others out of the garage for a foreign 4-banger or six.