Talk:Chevrolet small-block engine (first and second generation)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Gen II section moved to the SBC page[edit]

When it comes down to it the Gen II engines share nothing in common with the (LS based) Gen III-V engines. The SBC and the Gen II engines however have several key traits in common: Deck height, bore spacing, part interchangeability (namely rotating assembly), and basic block architecture (which is about as strong an argument as you can have). This commonality clearly demonstrates SBC's and Gen II's very close relationship and warrants the Gen II's inclusion on this page. When it comes down to it, the Gen II engines are nothing more than modified SBC engines. Now I know in the process of moving the Gen II section, I might have messed something up. I was forced to rename the LS based engines to something and all I could come up with was Gen III-V small-block (LS based GM small-block engines seems a better choice to me). There shouldn't be too much of an issue calling the Gen V engines LS based after all Deck height, bore spacing, part interchangeability (namely rotating assembly), and basic block architecture is shared with the Gen III and IV engines; the Gen V engine are not exactly clean slate designs. Gulielmi2002 (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


LOL, claiming the LT and the original SBC are the same engine will start barfights in some parts.

I was half-way through fixing some formatting issues with the 305 and 350 engine code lists before I realized there's a whole set of duplicates at the bottom of the page. Was wondering why all the LT links were funky.

In some ways, I do agree with you. The LS is a completely different beast, and the LT has more in common with the old 350. However, now it's all kind of a mess. I'm not sure where the LT stuff originally was, ideally the LT's should probably have their own page. But considering how they're basically a generational bridge, I think it'll work here. Not sure whether to make it work in a separate section or try to merge it under the the 305 and 350 stuff. Considering there's already a bunch of LT stuff in the 350 area, I'm thinking merge. Ugh, this is more work than I wanted to do today. Thoughts?

Cyfun (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zora Duntov[edit]

Zora Duntov's name should be highlighted - I think the engine was his brainchild; lightweight everything, especially the valvetrain. (I once read that Duntov believed taking weight out was putting power in.) Duntov's solid lifter camshaft in a 302 or 327 was the definitive, street racing engine in the day. 01:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please mind the swearing per WP:Cussing. This is wikipedia, not Thanks. Nickmullen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

265 V8 wasn't offered in Corvette in 1954


The power numbers listed under the 305 for 1976 to 1979, with the exception of the first entry, are absolutely outrageous. The 305 never produced that much power in those years. Also, what's the 332 supposed to be about? If there's no verification of the existing numbers, I'll eventually change the chart. --King V 15:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the changes. That table-box format isn't particularly well suited to the task, though, particularly if the @ xxx porn RPM values are added later.

this entire section is full of grammatical errors, lacks a single citation, and includes genre-specific non-traditional abbreviations such as "mod's" and what not. Not fit for wiki standards. I will correct some of the grammar, but i am not an expert in the engineering of this engine, nor able to verify or cite any of the sources for the facts this section claims. Skiendog (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


hi, i added the L69 HO to the 305s. just know numbers and years of the f-bodies, someone might fix that and get the numbers for monte, caminos, etc.. thanks Renizer 21:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the information about transmissions is not only wrong but also not relevant. the TH350 & 200R4 were maybe used in the monte, but never in the f-bodies. when the L69 emerged mid 83 there was a change from 200C to the 700Rape me 4 a long long time, and even then the L69 was only offered with the 700R4 in 1984 (3.42 gears). 83, 85 & 86 only was offered with the T-5 and 3.73 gears. Renizer (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the L69 section. (Brother Al, Aug 10, 2015) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brother Al 01 (talkcontribs) 19:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Someone needs to add info for the 307. DCEdwards1966 15:04, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Isn't that an Oldsmobile V8 engine --SFoskett 15:39, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
Not that I know of. It was used by Holden in 1968 for a year or so before they got their own 308 V8 in production. You could choose either a 307 or 327 small block. Heres some info I found The optional '5-litre' V8 was actually a 307 cubic inch (210bhp) Chevrolet ('small block') unit with a Rochester 2-Jet (two barrel) carby and was initially offered only with Powerglide automatic transmission. --Grover9 12:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we're talking about 2 different 307's here. Wiki article on Olds engines says it's from the 80's. I remember 307 badges on rear-drive Novas from the late 60's or very early 70's, and motorheads said it was an emissions-specific motor. --Pqdave 20:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I use a Chevy 307 every day (in my 1971 Chevelle) and was somewhat surprised to not find any reference to it in this article. --mpond 21:13, Jul 20, 2005

GM manufactured 2 307s - the Chevrolet motor (from 1968 - 1973, which was a 283 with a 327 crank), and the Oldsmobile powerplant manufactured between 1980 - 1990 (3.800" bore and the Olds 350's 3.53" stroke). Regarding the Olds 307 - it was used primarily in B-body station wagons until its demise in 1990 (along with Cadillac Broughams and 1983-87 Olds 442s/Hurst Olds). 08:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a 3.385" stroke. Also used in RWD G-body Oldsmobiles and Buicks--King V (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I added the LO3 305 TBI engine under the LG4. The LG4 was under the 350 heading, which is wrong because it is a 305, so I moved both under the 305 heading.


imho it's called L03 .. it appears to be a common mistype on the internet since most rpo indexes or lists are scanned on OCR and therefore didn't recognise the 0 clearly.. same goes for the L05 Renizer 20:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Under the table on the right - do we really need the Applications? There's so many for some variants (like the 350...even the chassis list alone, without getting into the individually branded versions, gets absurd: F-Body, Y-Body,whatsssss upppp!!! B-Body, and C/K/G-series trucks / SUVs / vans from 1969 onward to at least 2000. Ayocee 12:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It seems like it'd either always be lacking something, or otherwise just too messy, not to mention that it almost might be easier to say "everything" under some motors. I'd be in favor of its removal, if I were asked.--King V 18:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the applications should be removed (see above) and the bore and stroke of each type added to the table. Highflier 00:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)highflier[reply]

Poor choice of Hot Rod Magazine cover?[edit]

Well, I only noticed this because of an edit (which accidentally deleted a topic heading, and then was later reverted). But is what said true, that the picture is actually of a first-gen Oldsmobile V8? It seems like it, particularly judging from the angled, front-mounted oil-fill tube. Can anyone confirm? If so, does anyone have something more appropriate to put in place of that image? --King V 19:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrolet V6-90 (Vortec 4300[edit]

The article on small blocks should incorporate the small block's relative - the V6-90 (which is still in production as the Vortec 4300). Externally, the V6-90 is a 3/4 scale small block without the #3 and #6 cylinders. V6-90s used split-pin crankshafts (production motors) and the same 5.7" connecting rods with a larger journal of 2.25", along with a smaller oil filter mounting pad (the SBC uses the traditional large pad for years). 08:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it's more appropriate to put information about the 90-degree V6s based on the Chevrolet small block in their own article rather than making a lot of references in this one. Maybe a specific Chevrolet V6 page should be created, as the Vortec 4300 page only partially covers the information, and makes only passing reference to the 200 or 229 V6s--King V 02:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need a picture![edit]

Surely someone out there has a picture of a stock gen 1 small block that could be used at the head of the article. I have a few, but they are all painted non-stock colours or are just very unsightly. Does anyone have a picture of a clean, stock small block that could be posted? Craigblock 18:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have a disassembled and cleaned 307. I'll take a picture tomorrow, as it is late now. Also It is a high nickel and tin block so it'll be cool to show off. Jeremiahbell (talk) 06:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1976 Type LT Camaro[edit]

I believe that the first LT1 was used for longer than 1972, as I had a 1976 Type LT Camaro with an LT1 in it. It even said so inside the engine compartment. Also, I had heard that's what the LT in Type LT stood for.

Got any sources that indicate as such? Perhaps a build sheet? The Type LT had absolutely nothing to do with the engine options, as it was possible to order the LT trim with or without the RS and Z28 packages. Ayocee 20:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I was just barely a young adult (18), and got rid of the car when it became to expensive for me to fix. This was 16 years ago, so maybe time has fooled me, but I do remember conversations with friends who were into muscle cars, and the topic of my engine being an LT1 came up, and I remember opening the hood to see the plate with the engine type on it. What did the LT in Type LT stand for, by the way? [wrecked-sodapop] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generational confusion[edit]

This article is on the "Generation I" small-block Chevrolet designed GM engine, not successor "small block" GM V-8s built on different engine blocks. Please see the several efforts throughout the article to maintain this distinction and provide internal links to the appropriate pages for the GM "Generation II" LT and "Generation III" LS engines. Please add any photos and content pertaining to those latter engine families on their own pages, not this one dedicated to the engines based on the original 1955 block design. Wikiuser100 (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Organization into families[edit]

i reorganized the engines into families based on bore size of the proginator of that family. there is some common know which is the basis for this. basically all engines in each family can be proven that they have a relation to eachother by two ways: 1. the ability of one engine being overbored to the size of the larger member's bore (e.g. the 265 to the 283 and the 262 to the 305), and 2. the sharing of casting numbers between engines within their family (e.g. the 302, 327, and 350 share many casting numbers with eachother like 3970010 off the top of my head; the sharing of casting numbers between the 262 and the 305; and the sharing of casting numbers between the 283 and 307). engines that shared nothing with other blocks were placed into their own families like the 400 which the block itself is physically different from any other small block and the 267 which bore and year it appeared means that it couldn't be the proginator of any other engine and therefore unrelated to other engines. now to address the question "unrelated" the fact that all the engine that are Chevy small blocks can interchange parts (e.g. crankshaft, connecting rods, and heads and so) does mean that they do have a strong relation (externally they all look the same), but the family organization was put into place to show that many engine have an even closer relation to eachother besides part interchangability. the mortech web sit with the casting number data is block for me so i can input that but it can be varified if you have access to it. Gulielmi2002 (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the organization of engines by bore size, correction is needed in that the 283 and 307 cubic inch engines had a bore size of 3.875", not 3.750" as indicated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the 283 and the 307 have the same bore. (3.875/2)^2*PI*8*3.25=306.62 or 307; (3.875/2)^2*PI*8*3.00= 283.04 or 283. if you do the math with 3.750 as the bore: (3.750/2)^2*PI*8*3.25= 287.16 which shows your point to be true, but that is not the reason why I put them in the "3.750" engine family. these two engine originated from the 265 engine which had the 3.750 in bore. i named the engine families after the bore size of the progenitor engine of that family hense the 3.750 in the name. Gulielmi2002 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrolet produced their first V8 engine in 1917 (not 1955)[edit]

While production only lasted 2 years, Chevrolet actually produced their first V8 engine in 1917. A year before joining the General Motors group in 1918.

Source General Motors:

Video link of: Luke's 1918 Chevrolet V8 and the Great Race

Borderdrop (talk) 00:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The V8 in the Chevrolet 1918 Model D was actually acquired - being either a Mason or Scripps-Booth design. I had always thought that it was a Scripps-Booth design because they had a 2 wheeler with an OHV V8, but this article seems to say it was a Mason-designed engine.
Mason Motor Company, and Chevrolet Motor Car Company were interrelated ventures by William Durant. Within GM, Oakland & Oldsmobile also had a V8s around 1918.Toneron2 (talk) 20:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
one of the better pics on the net
Here is a pic of the Scripps-Booth V8 car - you can barely see the engine but it looks like the 1918 "Chevy" V8. Toneron2 (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

305 V 350[edit]

It seems to me the latest edit to this section was made by someone that seems to think a smaller bore motor can easily outperform a 350. Any hotrodder will prefer a 350 to a 305. I think the edits should be reverted. DennisM83 (talk) 23:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One HP per cuin[edit]

"By 1957 it had grown to 283 cu in (4.6 L). Fitted with the optional Rochester mechanical fuel injection, it became the first production engine ever to make one horsepower per cubic inch." May not be so as in 1956 Chrysler produced several engines with over one hp/cuin including the 355hp 354. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Sport engine should be added?[edit]

Should a small section be added about the special small block in the Grand Sports? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toneron2 (talkcontribs) 01:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete - does not cover non-performance SBC variants.[edit]

Specifically, where is the LT9 covered here? Just because performance is the main player in the collector car hobby doesn't exclude the smog-era SBC's from the reference books. Cudak888 (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3.671 Family Section[edit]

This entire section needs to be revised. The 262 was NOT called the 265. The 262 did not use the same engine block as a 305. The 305 used a larger 3.736" and should be in a section with that bore diameter. Further there is no mention of the L99 4.3L V8, which shared the same 3.736" bore as the 305. It was soild only from 1994-96 in Chevrolet Caprices. If no one fixes this, I will have to do the edits at a later time. Caprice 96 (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct for the most part. I would attribute some of these errors to people changing things accidentally by mistake, random vandellism, or when the GEN I and GEN II pages merged (i didn't merge them but i have always wondered why they were not on the same page). Now to the nitty gritty. I am the person who did the organization of this page, the gen II, and gen III/IV pages. I grouped the 305 with the 262 for a sounds reason. Look at the block casting number data for both engine blocks, you will notices that the early 305s had the same casting numbers as the 262 blocks. Second point too is the bore of the 305 is very close to 0.060" over the bore size of the 262 meaning that casting, boring out, and honing for this larger bore will not be an issue or require a redesign of the water jackets; so it is cheap for GM to do it. yes the cranks are different in the stroke but SBC cranks are interchangeble and using the 350's crank is cheaper again for the manufacturer because you only have to make one crank. saying this you can see how the 305 came about: you overbore it in casting and hone it to size, you add in the already existing 350's crank, and what you have left is a 305 and all this for cheap for the manufacturer to do. doing this was fairly common for GM. good examples would be the 396 and the 402 BBC engine or the 302/327/350 engine or the 265/283/307 engines. an other good example which you gave is the 4.3 L99 engine. dispite it being a Gen II engine, all GM did was take a 305 block modify the block for the gen II upgrades (in a nut shell) and add in the unique 4.3 L (3.00" stroke) crank. hope this fully explains the logic behind this grouping.Gulielmi2002 (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your argument to group them together. It's confusing to have the engines organized by bore size, then to have one family with two different bores. Further, the 262 was a relatively unimportant engine built in small numbers for a short period. Naming the family after it seems to be illogical when the 305 Chevrolet was built for much longer, is far more common and well known, and is far more important in the history of this engine. If you look up the casting numbers for these engines, it's true that one of the casting numbers for the 262 block matches one of the casting numbers for the 305. This number, 355909, was used as a casting number in 1975 (only) for the 262, and for one version of the 305 from 1976-1979 (there are other casting numbers for 305 over these years). There are many, many 305 casting numbers used through out it's life besides the aforementioned. The 262 also used another casting number, 360851 for 1975 and 1976. However, you can't just look at the casting number when identifying the block, but also the casting date and the suffix codes. If you compare all this numbers, they will not match between a 1975 262 and a 1976-79 305 engine. Caprice 96 (talk) 04:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

350 compared to LS3[edit]

The article claims "The engine's oversquare 4.00-inch bore and 3.48-inch stroke (102 mm by 88 mm) are nearly identical to the 436 hp (325 kW) LS3 engine of today" but in fact the LS3 is 103.25 x 92 mm, significantly larger (as the 6.2L displacement shows vs the 350's 5.7).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chevrolet small-block engine. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marine Application[edit]

It would be good to have a Marine Section to reflect the engine's use in marine applications. Brand new small block engines are readily available in short block, long block and completed engines. They are available in carbureted and fuel injected configurations, in standard and counter rotating versions and are used in original equipment by many boat manufacturers as well as replacement engines. The manufacturers specifically address applications of straight inboard, v drive inboards, inboard-outboards, jet drives and air boat installations. They are available from such OEM's such as Marine Power, Mercruiser and Volvo Penta just to name a few. Marine Power's advertising emphasizes the fact that these are original, new GM engines and urges the reader to not accept imitations. It would be good to focus on the similarities and differences of the engines in automotive and marine applications. Some of the differences would include counter rotating engines, high mounted starters, multi filter oil filters and cooling systems just to name several items. It is my understanding that Marine Power has acquired the rights to the Chris Craft engine line, which is regarded as one of the best gas marine engines produced. I am sure they could produce a brand new Chris Craft engine for a fair price. This discussion would hold for large block engines as well. --Captjayman (talk) 01:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should the LT5 even be in this article?[edit]

It isn't a small-block and shares no parts with the Gen I or II

The LT5 should be its own separate article, and should also be mentioned under the development section of the Northstar's article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:86:400:8FD0:98F6:E5F1:EEF6:C1D1 (talk) 03:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gen II picture is a 4-cam LT5[edit]

The picture of the "Generation II" is actually of the 32-valve LT5, which was completely unrelated.