Studebaker vs. Chevrolet question

[JACK M]

I have a friend that is in the car sales business and he seems fairly knowledgeable.

However, we got into a conversation about the early SBCs.

He swears that the original SBC was built by Studebaker and bought by GM for the 55 Chevrolet.

All of my googeling shows that the Corvette engineers at GM were the inspiration because they wanted to do away with the six cylinders in their sports car.

I do see where Studebaker put 283s as well as 194 cubic inch 6s in the 65 and 66 cars as they were struggling to survive those years. I have seen these and they are indeed badged as Studebaker but obviously Chevrolet engines.

 

Any thoughts on this?

[8E45E]

Far from it!

 

The SBC was a GM design through and through.  There was nothing 'borrowed' from Studebaker's V8 for the SBC as it used the Cadillac 331 V8 as it's inspiration.

 

Craig

[padgett]

It is to laugh. The Stude V8 engine was introed in '51 but uses valve cover studs (2 ea) and a SBC has four clamps, two on each side. Gets odder below that.

[joe_padavano]

Ford and Chevy both made 302 engines.  They don't share any design elements either...

[46 woodie]

Zora Arkus Duntov and Ed Cole must be rolling over in their graves with laughter.

[Guest]

Jack, 

 

If all else fails go to "logic".

 

The most successful V-8 in automotive history, with a life span of almost five decades, designed by a company in it's death throws? (No insult intended to earlier Studes). The design of this engine was so ground breaking at that time that it could have cemented Studebaker's future if they had come up with it.

 

I think your knowledgeable friend missed the boat on this one.

 

Greg

[capngrog]

I'm for sure no expert on Studebakers, but I'm sure there are some here on this forum.

 

What little I know about the Studebaker V-8 is that the Studebaker V-8 was, in part, based on the 1949 Cadillac V-8, with which it shared some similarities.  The Studebaker V-8 engine was quite a bit heavier than the Small Block Chevrolet (SBC) V-8.  One thing that the Studebaker V-8 had that was pretty cool was a gear-driven (not chain-driven) camshaft.

 

As pointed out by Jack M, when Studebaker shut down its American production facilities, production continued in Canada for 1965 and 1966.  During these years, Studebaker used both the Chevrolet SBC (283 c.I.) and the G.M. in-line six cylinder engine.

 

I've heard from friends that the Studebaker V-8 was considered to be nearly "bullet-proof" and developed pretty good power.

 

I've never owned a Studebaker, but I've always liked them.

 

Cheers,

Grog

[padgett]

Same here, if a nice Golden Hawk with manual trans and AC came along I'd be tempted.

[Hudsy Wudsy]

The need to keep up with the new post-war OHV V8s (Stude, Olds, Cad and later Chrysler.) drove everyone on to design, build and, especially, market a modern V8 engine. Packard, Ford and Chevrolet were a couple of years later. The Corvette may very  well have been the impetus, but once Ford had an OHV V8 in '54, Chevrolet couldn't have possibly considered going forward with just it's old six. Hudson, in a case of colossal mismanagement, spent  money they had garnered from the war, on a unibody car that was near impossible to update, appearance-wise. Instead of building a V8, they went on to misread the market's desires and spent what little they had left on the unwanted Jet. The rest is history.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Hudsy Wudsy (see edit history)

[Guest]

Far from it!

 

The SBC was a GM design through and through.  There was nothing 'borrowed' from Studebaker's V8 for the SBC as it used the Cadillac 331 V8 as it's inspiration.

 

Craig

We all know there are many design similarities between the Studebaker V-8 and the Cadillac V-8, and also the Olds V-8. Many say that the Studebaker copied Cadillac, and after all Cadillac/Olds OHV 331 and 303 were first to market, and what more could be self evident when racers using Cadillac engines used the lifters and rocker arms from solid lifter Studebaker engine for racing. Also Oldsmobile's 303 V-8 made a debut the same time as Cadillac and therefore also before Studebaker. Studebaker does share something with Olds. In the Olds engine the lifters are supplied oil through small 'bleeds' instead of placing the lifters directly into the right and left side oil supply galleries. Studebaker followed this. Depending on how you look at it, I like the fact that the Studebaker crank and the camshaft are gear to gear eliminating timing chain and chain stretch and possible jump. The Studebaker dimensionally does have a problem with bore spacing which means it cannot grow in size like Olds and Cadillac, even the 289 is under-square. All three designs have problems with exhaust flow because of the center cylinders dump to a single port where reversion is a problem. Pontiac quickly realized this when they went racing in 1956 and later put a port divider to stop this and those head were quickly nick named "D" port heads as the two ports with a divider looked like two Capital letter D's with the left one turned backward so that the center section met.

So what is so great about the Gen 1 small block Chevy V-8? First machined without a oil filter provision and oiling problems to rocker arm assys. and camshaft problems. The engine went through many revisions and gen 1 stopped in 1973.

Chevrolet took from Pontiac engineering ( the Pontiac engine ) the valve train assembly, stud mounted ball and rocker arm design from Pontiac engineer clayton Leach patented in 1948. This copy was against GM's corporate policy of a one year exclusivity for new designs, but the corporation gave in to Ed Coles crying to use it on the chevy V-8. The difference here was the Pontiac V-8 gave proper oiling to the above components. A lot of teething problems for the Chevy V-8 because of it's rush to production in just 15 weeks. Unlike all the other divisions which had engines designed to grow in size to handle heavier and heavier cars it became the #2 engine in the Chevy book as the W series took it's place and later the mark 4 to take the W engines place. Where as the 331 Cadillac design grew to the Gen 1 429, the Gen 1 Olds went from 303 to 394, and the Buick V-8 went from 264 to 425, and Pontiac (which was the only one to have advanced design and to not have to change design through different generations like the other four division) Pontiac V-8 would grow from 287 to 455.

[Ed Luddy]

After South Bend closed up and Studebaker was set up and run as Studebaker Canada in Hamilton Ontario they used SBC's and the Chevy "son of stovebolt"inline 6's. These engines were cast and built in St. Catharines Ont. just down the highway at the McKinnon foundries and engine assembly plants.

 If you read the sales brouchures for 1966 it states that "Engines supplied by McKinnon Industries"Someone had a slight reversal of the story it's sounds like.

The 259,289 Bearcat V8 looks nothing like the Chevy SB. They are also wider and shorter.

[JACK M]

Zora Arkus Duntov and Ed Cole must be rolling over in their graves with laughter.

 

This is what I am trying to explain to the guy.

I think I will forward this thread to him so he can hear what the real experts think about his silly idea.

 

Thanks for all of the input.

[Guest]

This is what I am trying to explain to the guy.

I think I will forward this thread to him so he can hear what the real experts think about his silly idea.

 

Thanks for all of the input.

Ed Cole did more to disrupt harmony between divisions than anyone at GM I know of. Master of politics and vanity. Architect of quite a few disasters.

Edited January 23, 2016 by helfen (see edit history)

[padgett]

Just to be complete, when the other divisions came out with "big blocks" (Chevrolet had two, one of which was OTC only), Pontiac didn't & just kept stretching that original block ultimately to 455 cid mainly by stroking since the bore could not open up any further. The SD455 was marvelous engine in several respects including an 80 psi oil pump that required special bearings to avoid erosion at the pressure needed to support "high" rpm operations of an 4.21" stroke (joke at the time was that a Pontiac engine could go 7,000 rpm. Once. )

 

ps I know Chevvy now has a 572 with 4.375" stroke rated for operation at 6750 rpm. The SD was thutty yar ago.

[Guest]

Just to be complete, when the other divisions came out with "big blocks" (Chevrolet had two, one of which was OTC only), Pontiac didn't & just kept stretching that original block ultimately to 455 cid mainly by stroking since the bore could not open up any further. The SD455 was marvelous engine in several respects including an 80 psi oil pump that required special bearings to avoid erosion at the pressure needed to support "high" rpm operations of an 4.21" stroke (joke at the time was that a Pontiac engine could go 7,000 rpm. Once. )

 

ps I know Chevvy now has a 572 with 4.375" stroke rated for operation at 6750 rpm. The SD was thutty yar ago.

Anyone who's raced a Pontiac knows even a SD 421 or H-O 428 with 4.0 strokes do not tolerate above 6,400 RPM. They and the 455 are a low to medium rpm engines with a lot of torque. Taking a 455 past 5500 rpm is a waste of time anyway as power at anything above nosedives. So what's the point you are trying to make? BTW only three divisions had big block engines - Pontiac and Olds, even the tall deck Olds are medium block engines. The exception to this would be the short deck 301 and 265 in the divisions dying breath to make a Pontiac a real Pontiac.

From the Pontiac 287 to the 455 there is a succession of alternating bore with stroke adjustments for cubic inch.

Edited January 23, 2016 by helfen (see edit history)

[Guest Bob Call]

Ask an old time rodder about the Stude 289. It's relation to the Caddy 331 is reinforced by the rodders using after market intake manifolds designed for the Caddy on Studie 289's.  One of the most popular 1950's engine swaps was Caddy into a Studie to create a Studeillac.

 

On a recent episode of one of those "restoration" shows a guy brought a roached out 1950 Stude to Brode Stroud to restore. Brode says it can't be restored, too much rot and rust, and suggests a project using the bullet nose.  They push the Stude into the shop and start pulling the engine and trans, and, low and behold it's a 331 Caddy and Hydramatic.

[60FlatTop]

When I meet great resistance in trying to correct ignorance or misinformation there seems to be a small amount of satisfaction in leaving it alone that makes me smile to myself.

Bernie

[padgett]

I would not turn down a Bill Frick Studillac either. Particularly with the Caddy three speed manual.

 

ps part of the lack of use of the Stude 289 was its long stroke, 3 5/8" at a time when both the 289 F*rd and 283 Chev (and the later 302 which was a 283 crank in a 327) had 3" strokes for higher revs. 

[Guest]

Far from it!

 

The SBC was a GM design through and through.  There was nothing 'borrowed' from Studebaker's V8 for the SBC as it used the Cadillac 331 V8 as it's inspiration.

 

Craig

Correction, SBC was a Chevrolet division design that borrowed elements in it's design from other GM divisions such as Cadillac and Pontiac.

[JACK M]

When I meet great resistance in trying to correct ignorance or misinformation there seems to be a small amount of satisfaction in leaving it alone that makes me smile to myself.

Bernie

 

Since I forwarded this to him last night I am afraid that he still claims to know more than the members of this forum.

I guess I will languish in the satisfaction of knowing his ignorance.

 

Thanks all....

[46 woodie]

helfin, the reason some at GM didn't get along with Ed Cole is because he was a "no nonsense" type of guy. His motto was "don't tell me why it can't be done, tell me how you are going to get it done". Some of the "fat cats" at GM didn't like the fact that Cole was a "hands on" type of guy and just wanted him to sit behind a desk. He started his carrier in the General Motors Institute as a kid and was taken from the school to work in their design studio and worked his way up to GM President in the late 60s'.  He holds some two dozen patents. In 1943 he became Head of Design for the entire GM Tank and Combat vehicle division.  He is known as the driving force for the first air bag system and he is the inventor of the catalytic converter. 

[Spinneyhill]

Jack M, ask your knowledgeable friend to supply evidence for his assertion.

 

There is a book on Studebaker history of the period. It must say something about the development of the V8.

[nzcarnerd]

With reference to posts #14 and #15 in this thread regarding Pontiacs remember that the 'big' Pontiac engines - 421, 428 and 455 - had larger main bearings than the rest.

[misterc9]

What change to the Chevy small block V8 marks the end of Gen 1 in 1973 ?

[Ben Bruce aka First Born]

When I meet great resistance in trying to correct ignorance or misinformation there seems to be a small amount of satisfaction in leaving it alone that makes me smile to myself.

Bernie

 

 Well said, Bernie!

[padgett]

" 'big' Pontiac engines - 421, 428 and 455 - had larger main bearings than the rest."

 

Could go into long snout vs short snout 421s. Won't.

[MikeC5]

While it's true that Studebaker was in (I'm guessing) its most profitable era in its history right after WWII (GM wasn't hurting either), I still find it very hard to imaging that the engineering power-house that was GM of the early 50s would turn to Studebaker for a V-8 design.  If he doesn't buy that, I would say from pure GM-hubris point of view there is just no way.  It's one thing to emulate/steal ideas from other GM divisions but to buy the whole design from Studebaker or any other competitor?  Seems preposterous to me....

[capngrog]

What change to the Chevy small block V8 marks the end of Gen 1 in 1973 ?

 

I'm no expert, but I believe the Gen 1 Small Block Chevrolet V-8 was made through 1998.  The Gen 2 SBC, which came out in 1992, started with the Gen 2 LT-1 as opposed to the "real" LT-1 which was a Gen-1 originally available in 1970.  As I recall, the major change with the Gen 2 SBC "LT-1" was that the cooling system had been re-designed with the flow through the block reversed from that of the Gen-1.  Also, the distributor was located behind the water pump at the front of the block.  What were they thinking?!!  I never had a Gen-2 "LT-1", but a close friend had one in an Impala.  The engine and car were one of those fortunate combinations which worked very well.  My friend loved the LT-1 powered Impala, but hated the placement of the distributor behind the water pump.

 

My experience started with the 1955 265 C.I. SBC, and I'm now building up a 1989 Corvette L 98.   In 1970, I purchased a brand new LT-1 short block and built it up with the good heads (which I ported and polished myself), good intake, cam etc.  I had it in a 1964 Corvette coupe, and when I ran time trials with it, the local "hot shoes" accused me of running a big block ... until I popped the hood open.  It was fun.  I enjoy messin' with the SBC because they're easy to work on, parts are plentiful and inexpensive, and they make some good horsepower.  They're fun.

 

SBCs rule (in my opinion),

Grog

Edited January 24, 2016 by capngrog (see edit history)

[padgett]

Funny, big block guys said the same thing about my 63 Split Window - 68 327 block (4 bolt - rules said 327 but nothing about which), 2.02 heads P&P and indexed plugs, cam out of Vince Piggin's green sheet, hogged out 65 Rochester FI, Delcotronic ignition, headers and side pipes (with a small crossover).

 

Started out with 4.11s but went to 3.55s when SCCA started all rolling starts. 27x12.65 rears on 8x15 wheels (was crowding the rules a bit  there) & ZL1 flares ($80/set with GM part numbers on Gratiot).

 

For a while after every race I'd get protested, they'd set the FI aside (rules just said "or Rochester FI") and then find a lot of cam (OK) and everything else within specs but they gave up after a while.

 

Wouldn't want to try that with a Stude.

[Guest Bob Call]

I just looked at my post at #16 above and somehow the last sentences are gone.

 

It was, when the guys pushed the Stude into the shop to remove the front clip they started by pulling the engine. When it came out, low and behold it was a 331 Caddy and Hydramatic.

 

What nobody has said is, and I believe, Studebaker copied the basic design of the 49 Caddy OHV V8.

[Guest]

helfin, the reason some at GM didn't get along with Ed Cole is because he was a "no nonsense" type of guy. His motto was "don't tell me why it can't be done, tell me how you are going to get it done". Some of the "fat cats" at GM didn't like the fact that Cole was a "hands on" type of guy and just wanted him to sit behind a desk. He started his carrier in the General Motors Institute as a kid and was taken from the school to work in their design studio and worked his way up to GM President in the late 60s'.  He holds some two dozen patents. In 1943 he became Head of Design for the entire GM Tank and Combat vehicle division.  He is known as the driving force for the first air bag system and he is the inventor of the catalytic converter.

Well I can think of few things. Lets start with a few things that cost the corporation some money. Corvair, Turboglide, Vega. How about things that pissed the divisions off like the GM anti racing edict of 1963 which put an end to Pontiac's and Chevrolets racing efforts. Virtually closing down Pontiac's Super Duty project and gutting the soon to be production single and double overhead cam V-8's from advanced engineering. Gutting a brand image that Pontiac had cultivated into a performance division or as they said turning grandma's car into a hot rod or young mans car from 1957 to 1963, virtually the car to beat in NASCAR and a threat on the drag strip.

Now having been deprived of racing as a selling tool Pontiac had to look for a way to remain a performance car maker and that is how the Pontiac GTO was born. Cole's edict forced Pontiac to take it's performance off the track and put it on the street. Once found out Cole set a few things in motion against changing mid year changes to the GTO like cancelling Pontiac's deal with Michelin tire so that the GTO wouldn't have radial tires, Cancelling the deal with Kelsey-Hayes who at their own cost did the tooling so the GTO would have disc brakes. Any Tri-Power GTO 4speed tuned correctly was capable of 100MPH quarter mile in 13 seconds should have had those brakes and tires.

How about pulling Pontiac's show cars in 1964 and 1966 from display at the Waldorf Astoria just hours before unveiling them because Cole didn't want public pressure to have influence on two sports cars that would be competition for Cole's beloved Corvette. One of the cars the 1964 Banshee has a remarkable sister the C-3 Corvette-FOUR years later. The resemblance is uncanny and the Banshee was done in Pontiac styling studio's in complete secrecy. It was to be unveiled just like the GTO for public and dealer pressure to help convince the corporation. This was the only way to get things done.

There are other things that Cole had done, Pontiac's TRI-POWER had been a icon from 1957-1966, and in 1966 Cole issued a corporate ban on multi carbureted vehicles, Oldsmobile hadn't had J-2 since 1958 and the 1966 442 finally had a J-2, Anyroad the 3X2BBL option was gone for 1967 for Pontiac and Olds but not for Ed Coles beloved Corvette for 67 on the Big Block had as the top HP rating a 3X2BBL option, also Cole's beloved Corvair was allowed to keep milti. carburetion.

These are just a few of things that pissed people off. I'm quite sure if Fiero, and Solstice had been around when Cole was around they would have been cancelled.

[padgett]

Well partly. The GTO tripower had been strangled all along by those little AC air filters. Doesn't help to have a 435 cfm carb on each end if the air cleaner only flowed 200 (big cars had a single monster good for about 1000 cfm).

 

Corvair has a cult following. I used to autocross seriously a '65 Corsa 140 with trombones and a single Quadrajet, much better than the four little one barrels but they really did not get any development after Nader.

 

Only thing wrong with the Vega was the aluminum block with carbide inserts that came loose if it overheated. Without AC you got a tiny radiator and emission controls guaranteed overheating and the carbide came loose... I had several GT 4-speeds with AC and a similar Astre Wagon, all nice little cars. Key was to keep them cool.

 

Could mention the '84 Fiero oiling problems. Won't.

[Guest]

With reference to posts #14 and #15 in this thread regarding Pontiacs remember that the 'big' Pontiac engines - 421, 428 and 455 - had larger main bearings than the rest.

If you look at the Pontiac V-8 the bore spacing and the external dimension of the engine remains the same. The 1955 287 uses the same connecting rod ( same pin diameter, same rod length, same journal diameter ) as the 455.

The main bearing journals diameter differ, that is just different cap and a larger line bore, no bearing on the block design. It's not just the large versions ( 421, 428 & 455 ) that differ in main bearing diameter. Here is the mainjournal sizes through the years and sizes.

1955 287" bore 3.75" stroke 3.25" main bearing 2.50

1956 316.6" bore 3.9375" stroke 3.25" main bearing 2.50

1957 347" bore 3.9375" stroke 3.5625" main bearing 2.623

!958 370" bore 4.0625" stroke 3.5625" main bearing 2.623

1959-1966 389" bore 4.0625" stroke 3.75" main bearing 3.0"

1961-1966 421" bore 4.09375" stroke 4.0" main bearing 3.250"

1963 336"( called a 326) bore 3.78" stroke 3.75" main bearing 3.0"

1964-1967 326" bore 3.72" stroke 3.75" main bearing 3.0"

1967-1979 400" bore 4.12" stroke 3.75 main bearing 3.0"

1967-1969 428" ( really a 427 ) Bore 4.12" stroke 4.0' main bearing 3.250"

1968-197? 350" (really 354.74 or a 355") bore 3.88" stroke 3.75 main bearing 3.0"

1970-1976 455" ( really a 456) bore 4.150" stroke 4.210" main bearing 3.250

As you can see Pontiac in the beginning years alternated bore and stroke and added main bearing diameter when needed. Nothing unusual here. Some make the 3.250 engines out as big blocks, but this is not really true. The first 421 engines were machined 389 blocks bored to 4.09375"= a .060 overbore on a 389 and a 4.0" crank with main bearing area line bored to 3.250"

[Guest]

Well partly. The GTO tripower had been strangled all along by those little AC air filters. Doesn't help to have a 435 cfm carb on each end if the air cleaner only flowed 200 (big cars had a single monster good for about 1000 cfm).

 

Corvair has a cult following. I used to autocross seriously a '65 Corsa 140 with trombones and a single Quadrajet, much better than the four little one barrels but they really did not get any development after Nader.

 

Only thing wrong with the Vega was the aluminum block with carbide inserts that came loose if it overheated. Without AC you got a tiny radiator and emission controls guaranteed overheating and the carbide came loose... I had several GT 4-speeds with AC and a similar Astre Wagon, all nice little cars. Key was to keep them cool.

 

Could mention the '84 Fiero oiling problems. Won't.

Tri-Power was a Pontiac icon and selling point a immage, even though it was gone there were some test done by HPP and Pontiac enthusiast where the same car ran Q mile test. A 69 400" GTO whereby Tri -Power and the Q jet times were compared. Same car manifolds switched. The Tri-Power was faster= mph and quicker=time wise.

I think you forgot about the warranty rust issues on the Vega, but the engine is what did it in despite DeLorean's protest of letting it go to the public. I believe he likened the engine to a underpowered tractor engine. I think there is a DeLorean quote that the hood was off and a tractor engine fell out of the sky into the little car.

Those points aside, Vega was a nicely styled car in the Camaro theme with proper trim options and I know of two cars that have aluminum head SBC engine's in them and they drive great.

[Guest]

helfin, the reason some at GM didn't get along with Ed Cole is because he was a "no nonsense" type of guy. His motto was "don't tell me why it can't be done, tell me how you are going to get it done". Some of the "fat cats" at GM didn't like the fact that Cole was a "hands on" type of guy and just wanted him to sit behind a desk. He started his carrier in the General Motors Institute as a kid and was taken from the school to work in their design studio and worked his way up to GM President in the late 60s'.  He holds some two dozen patents. In 1943 he became Head of Design for the entire GM Tank and Combat vehicle division.  He is known as the driving force for the first air bag system and he is the inventor of the catalytic converter.

French chemical engineer Eugene Houdry (1892–1962) patented what seems to have been the very first catalytic converter in the United States, filing the invention on May 5, 1950 and receiving his patent ("US Patent 2,674,521: Catalytic converter for exhaust gases") four years later on April 6, 1954.

[Guest]

 I really think the thread heading should be  Studebaker vs. Cadillac. Then there are some GM guys that say Olds and Cadillac were born together with Boss Kettering in between the two giving help and advise. Advertisements for Oldsmobile reference the Olds to Boss Ket.

Fast forward to about 9min to see the cutaway and explanations or enjoy the whole thing.

Aliens Are Coming! Oldsmobile Rocket Engine Car Plant ...

[nzcarnerd]

If you look at the Pontiac V-8 the bore spacing and the external dimension of the engine remains the same. The 1955 287 uses the same connecting rod ( same pin diameter, same rod length, same journal diameter ) as the 455.

The main bearing journals diameter differ, that is just different cap and a larger line bore, no bearing on the block design. It's not just the large versions ( 421, 428 & 455 ) that differ in main bearing diameter. Here is the mainjournal sizes through the years and sizes.

1955 287" bore 3.75" stroke 3.25" main bearing 2.50

1956 316.6" bore 3.9375" stroke 3.25" main bearing 2.50

1957 347" bore 3.9375" stroke 3.5625" main bearing 2.623

!958 370" bore 4.0625" stroke 3.5625" main bearing 2.623

1959-1966 389" bore 4.0625" stroke 3.75" main bearing 3.0"

1961-1966 421" bore 4.09375" stroke 4.0" main bearing 3.250"

1963 336"( called a 326) bore 3.78" stroke 3.75" main bearing 3.0"

1964-1967 326" bore 3.72" stroke 3.75" main bearing 3.0"

1967-1979 400" bore 4.12" stroke 3.75 main bearing 3.0"

1967-1969 428" ( really a 427 ) Bore 4.12" stroke 4.0' main bearing 3.250"

1968-197? 350" (really 354.74 or a 355") bore 3.88" stroke 3.75 main bearing 3.0"

1970-1976 455" ( really a 456) bore 4.150" stroke 4.210" main bearing 3.250

As you can see Pontiac in the beginning years alternated bore and stroke and added main bearing diameter when needed. Nothing unusual here. Some make the 3.250 engines out as big blocks, but this is not really true. The first 421 engines were machined 389 blocks bored to 4.09375"= a .060 overbore on a 389 and a 4.0" crank with main bearing area line bored to 3.250"

This thread has certainly gone a long way away from the original question but my point, which I didn't make very well, was to reinforce that Pontiac only ever made one size of V8 lump, and made it last for 25 years whereas most other makers made two or more with some V8 lines only lasting a short period.

 

I know that here in NZ when a V8 Pontiac car comes up for sale it is usually touted as having a 'big block' but of course we all know that is c**p.

[padgett]

Agree, never was a "big" vs "small" block V8 from Pontiac but just like Positraction vs Safe-T-Track, Chevvy vernacular seems to dominate the world.

Relevant to the thread though the Small Block Chevrolet (SBC) was a combination of the best ideas from the engineering world at the time (though why the '55 did not have an oil filter is curious).

The fact remains that Pontiac in the late 60's did not choose to tool up a new block so was limited but the bore spacing of the block they had. It made a lot of power in 400 and 421/428 form with a 4" stroke but was never known for high revs (used to be able to tell which engine a Corvette had by the reline on the tach, Pontiac V8s were all redlined at 5200 (or less late ones had 4800 & have seen a note that some SD's had a 5700 redline but that I do not recall).

But the bottom line is that OHV engines were not new in 1948, David Buick patentned one in 1902, Arthur Chevrolet was granted Patent 1,744,526: Overhead Valve Engine, 21-Jan-1930.

The big difference in the Stude vs the SBC was in the valve adjustment and lifters. With a Stude you had to adjust statically with a feeler gauge. With a SBC at idle you just backed off the big nut until click and then one turn in (racers found that 1/4 turn lost a little mid-range but gained another 500 rpm before float (most, not all, SBCs used hydraulic lifers). Was messy and valve covers cut in half were a common accessory to catch the oil.

So the Stude was not only a long stroke engine while the Chev was short, the whole OHV design was different. No relation Atol.

[Guest]

This thread has certainly gone a long way away from the original question but my point, which I didn't make very well, was to reinforce that Pontiac only ever made one size of V8 lump, and made it last for 25 years whereas most other makers made two or more with some V8 lines only lasting a short period.

 

I know that here in NZ when a V8 Pontiac car comes up for sale it is usually touted as having a 'big block' but of course we all know that is c**p.

I was sure it wouldn't last too long. Whenever I get together with Studebaker friends and the topic get's round to engines it is always comparisons between the Cadillac V-8 and the Studebaker V-8. Same holds true with the Cadillac people. The other topic with Cadillac people especially around Olds people is the relationship or no relationship between Olds and Cadillac engines. I don't think I ever heard anyone (until this thread) compare a Chevrolet engine  to a Studebaker engine. I would think they would think it's not even in the same class to even discuss such a proposition. I wish there were some interest in the Buick Gen 1 V-8 . A observation I have is although collectors of higher end cars love the engines that come with them they as a whole really don't care or have interest what lies beneath the valve covers.    

[padgett]

and "the engine does not care whose name is on the valve covers".