I must ask your forgiveness for my lack of creativity. This is a question that has been asked too much, and there is no right answer. It is a blatant plea for a discussion that could easily become uncivil faster than you can say “Hemi.” Last week, Motor Trend posted an article titled “The Motor Trend Engine Hall of Fame,” and while that’s a broad topic, I’ve distilled it down to one era because I have a cornucopia of those engines in my photo files. So what’s the best muscle engine of the 1960s and ’70s?
The lead-off Hemi is always a contender, but it pulls down a cool six miles per gallon or something like that, and by most accounts it doesn’t make a very tractable street engine. Maybe this Super Duty Pontiac 421 is a better choice. Unfortunately, it’s equally raucous, but nearly as fast. The Super Duty 455 from the 1970s can also make a heady claim by being fast, well-mannered, and the last of its kind.
Maybe the old fashioned Chevy 409 is worth a look. Technology had passed it by by 1965, but it has the look and the song to go with it.
In contrast to the Hemi, there’s the torquey and reliable 440 Chrysler. There’s a lot of potential here. Or how about the high-revving 340 as seen in Dusters, Darts, and Challengers?
The Chevy 396/427/454 seems like almost a shoe-in thanks to its use in everything from Chevelles to Chaparrals, but some may argue that the DZ 302, L79 327, or the LT-1 350 made for a better engine than the big block.
A bit of a dark horse in this crowd is the W-30 Oldsmobile 455, which was certainly competitive if not the vanguard of the class. The W-31 small-block 350 was higher revving and nearly as quick, which makes it an interesting choice.
Maybe you’ll get really crazy and decide on the Studebaker R3, which could certainly be tuned to a razor sharp standard, with a supercharger for the win.
What about a dual-quad Buick Nailhead? Or perhaps a Stage 1 455? Buick was an uncommon choice for a street sweeper, but the ones doing the job did it well.
If you’re a Ford fan, you have several choices: the august side-oiler 427, seen here in a GT40 Mark IV; the 428 Cobra Jet; the Boss 429; the 427 Cammer; the 351 Cleveland…
I don’t want to offend AMC fans, so I’ll include the 390 as used in the AMX, so vote to your heart’s content.
Don’t worry about offending me; I have no brand allegiance, nor any real muscle cars, and I own at least one car from all Big Three corporations. I’ll start us off by choosing two, a big-block and a small-block: the Chrysler 440 and the Chevy LT-1 from 1970. The 440 was easily upgraded with more and/or better carburetion, ran smoothly, and often outran Hemis. The LT1 was perhaps the pinnacle of the small-block Chevy design, arguably the most successful engine in American history, one whose infinite parts availability can improve upon an already good thing.
So, what’s the best all around muscle car engine?
No doubts for me: Ford BOSS 429?
Yep.
Nope!
Love how it looks, not what it does. 428CJ has all the street performance without the exotic components.
The Boss 429 was a typical Ford mismatch of components (no offense to Ford lovers…I like Fords too). Let’s take an engine that’s meant to run 7500 RPM and choke it down with a 735 Holley and a cam that looks more at home on Pop’s Galaxie. OK, so maybe that’s exaggerating, but a 289 Hi-Po had a wilder cam than the Boss Nine if you look at duration and overlap specs.
I guess Chrysler choked down the Hemi for street use, but to greater effect. Uncork the Boss Nine and it’s a whole other story. I guess it’s one of the great “what ifs” of the era.
The Boss 302 wasn’t much better – there we have a fully beefed up bottom end, heads with MASSIVE ports, high compression…. and they came with a 6250rpm rev limiter! ugh!
I have to agree with you on that. I get the impression that Ford was more interested in homologating the Boss engine for use against the Chrysler Hemi in NASCAR. And that meant putting Boss 429’s in production cars. Ford’s 427 SOHC was disqualified by the NASCAR officials since it wasn’t going to end up in production cars and I don’t think they wanted the same thing to happen with the Boss engine. Unfortunately it wasn’t equipped from the factory with the cam, carb, and intake it needed to make good use of those heads. Imagine if they put dual 4bbl carbs, hi-rise intake, and a proper cam in that thing. And tuned it to take advantage of those components. It would have been a beast. Put that between the fenders of a Torino and it would have ruled the roost! Of course it didn’t happen that way but it’s fun to imagine what could have been
The 351C used in the stillborn Falcon GTHO Phase 4 of which only four were made before the program was killed by the Australian government. Tested by Wheels magazine @14.2 for the quarter but with a top speed of 159 mph with the rev limiter removed. Impressive stats for the time
There was a police special GTHO that could top 165mph nobody could buy one but it was the ultimate GTHO, it had no rev limiter.
Interesting stuff if it’s true. Did Wheels actually publish those figures? Their supercar series in the 1980s confirmed there were no Phase 4s. Just a few “track packs” or something similar. 159 mph on a public road in the middle of the supercar scare! In an XA Falcon!
Three Phase 4 sedans and one hardtop. One of the sedans made for the track. This is IIRC from reading Street Machine in the 1990s. Richarbl will know for sure.
Never heard of Bryce’s police special. One of those probably sits just ahead of the Phase 4 and just behind Bill Bourke’s 428 in desirability (track provenanced XW/XY examples aside). XA for me though, what a shape.
The GTHO phase three was still the fastest four door sedan untill Vauxhall released their twin turbo Lotus Carlton Elite in 89, though neither of those a real muscle cars just fast tourers.
I don’t really know enough about performance to have a serious opinion, but when it comes to tune-ups and maintenance, I like the Chrysler big blocks with the distributor & oil filter right up front.
Best all around? In my mind it would have to be the small block Chevy.
My own particular favorite would be the 350 cid, 4 bolt main engine, but it came in all sorts of configurations from the mild 283, the wild 302, grandma’s 307 and several different tunes of the 327, some of them quite awesome.
It also didn’t weigh a as much as one of the big blocks and that meant it could be used in places where handling was important. Just an all around, great little engine.
I’d be partial to a Chrysler LA 340, but just to be contrary, my other favorite would be the 1967 Oldsmobile L66 Turnpike Cruiser. It isn’t the fastest by any stretch (although it’s respectably quick by most standards), but it is arguably the most sensible of the bunch. No revs, just a torque curve like a turbodiesel and gas mileage like a small block. Clearly a package designed by engineers, not product planners, which is half the charm. It’s perversely rational and such a completely unlikely engine for its time that it’s hard to resist.
I think if the Thermoquad would have come on the ’68 Cuda, when the 340 first came out, that would have been one of the quickest cars of the year. As it was, it was still very impressive. Good choice!
I love the styling of the second-generation Barracuda hardtop (not the fastback, which I can take or leave), so the prospect of that body plus ‘Cuda/Formula S suspension, plus 340, plus TorqueFlite, is appealing. I’m not a big fan of the old Chrysler power steering and the whole thing might rattle a bit, but you can’t have everything, I guess.
What a fascinating package the Olds L66 Turnpike Cruiser was, I Googled it to find out more. Found this article from the time
http://www.oldsmobility.com/old/carlife_apr67.htm
After reading that article, I am liking the turnpike cruiser. Decent acceleration 0-60 in 8 sec or so and decent cruising mpg 19.5. And it’s not a smaller car, more like an intermediate.
See what I mean? Not a stoplight drags kind of car, but for driving in the real world with less red mist in your eyes, it makes all kinds of sense. Plus, since it was a ’67, you could get it with front discs.
Hey, what about Mercedes? A “rat motor” M100 (6.3/6.9) in a big S class, or perhaps a high reving M116 (3.5) “small block” in a little107?
How about Buick or Holden for light weight thin wall iron V8s?
4 barrel 440. Tough; wide availability in several platforms starting in ’66; lots of power and gobs of torque; very streetable and reliable with good performance at low RPMs. The good torque of the engine allows for relatively high rear end ratios giving relatively decent mileage for the performance if you avoid opening the secondaries.
Just to be contrary, I’ll put in for the Pontiac OHC Sprint Six, Dodge /6 Hyper Pak, or perhaps the Cosworth Vega engine (as intended, not strangled as delivered).
There was a really nice COAL written the other day, Ed, that mentioned that very engine:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/cars-of-a-lifetime/coal-1967-tempest-ohc-6-nice-work-pontiac/
Until I ready that COAL, I never knew that Pontiac made a performance 6 back in the day.
Probably not best all around but the Pontiac 389 surely deserves a mention. After all, it was the engine that got the whole muscle car era going in the 1964 GTO. And, it was a really good engine with lots of potential for upgrades with hot cams, multiple carburetors, etc.
Yeah I put 400 but the Pontiac V8 in general is worthy of mention, and seemingly the underdog in the comments. It not only started the era, it bookended it, and in relatively decent tune for the late 70s (220hp in 78-79).
For me, a good muscle car engine must have be good on the street and the strip. My top picks by brand are as follows:
GM
Large Displacement: LS6 454 Chevrolet
Small Displacement: LT1 350 Chevrolet
Ford
Large Displacement: 429 SCJ
Small Displacement: BOSS 351
Mopar:
Large Displacement: RB 440
Small Displacement: LA 340
Overall Picks:
Large Displacement: LS6 454
Small Displacement: BOSS 351
Agree. but i will take the 440 as overall big block and the 350 LT-1 as the small block of choice.
I have to vote Studebaker! Rare and obscure, but in R2 and R3 form, it was a terror. It was also tractable on the street and durable as an anvil. Ted Harbit’s R2 63 Lark (the Stude Tomato) has schooled many a big name muscle car in the Pure Stock drags in recent years.
Among the more common choices, I would tend towards either the Mopar 440 or the Super Duty Pontiacs.
Even better than the Tomato is the Plain Brown Wrapper, which usually dips into the high 12s, low 13s (especially when Ted drives it) through straight pipes. It’s probably the loudest car at the strip on Pure Stock days. In fact, the engine in the picture is from the Plain Brown Wrapper.
I figured that had to be the car. R3s are so scarce that finding another one in a Bermuda Brown Stude would be quite improbable.
Small Block – Either Ford Boss 351 or Mopar 340.
Big Block – 429 SCJ (Shame that it was only made for a few years and immediately neutered).
Since you said “all around” I’m going to vote for the LA 340. It’s such a strong motor, and can achieve some decent mileage and daily driving tractability. Also I’m always struck with how well respected it is yet shares so much with the hated 318.
I’m not much for big block worship, the Hemi and other high strung motors were built for the specific task of winning NASCAR races, which was not “all around” use.
You asked for the “best all-around” engine, so my vote for an engine that could do the daily grind and then let it loose on the weekends and still keep it together would be the 440 Mopars with a 455 Olds a close second. Lots of low end torque for those big heavy cars with no magical mystical power adders like Hemi heads or multiple carburetors to mess with, and those engines could normally make it to 100K miles with a reasonable amount of abuse. For a small block, its a no-brainer; a 340 Mopar, preferably in an A-body with the Chevy 327 L79 a distant second.
All-around…
This Chevy fan has to vote for the MoPar 440 for the brute torque and ease of ownership…unless you got the 6-pack and had to tune those triple carbs.
I wanted to say “LT1″…but that was a solid-lifter engine, so again, maintenance. Then again I think we took better care of our rides 45 years ago, so adjusting solid lifters wasn’t such an unknown concept.
Also, props to the Chevy 454. Another torque monster.
My only muscle car experience was in 1970 with Chevy’s 396 and it wasn’t a happy one. After the main bearing spun the second time , all I heard from the shops was “oh yeah , they do that”. Haven’t bought another Chevy product since.
Yeah I think some are mixing up best all round with coolest, Hemi, boss 429, anything with more than 1 carb is pretty much out as far as I’m concerned, there’s a reason they were always rare and now fetch classic Ferrari like prices at auctions – they need classic Ferrari like pampering.
Here’s my big 3 list(AMC is too obvious)
GM
Chevrolet 350
Chevrolet 454
Pontiac 400
Ford
428 Cobra Jet
351 Cleveland 4bbl
Mopar
340 4bbl
440 4bbl
Given that my father lived and drove during that era I’d have to put in a vote for his favorite that he owned – he had a Chevelle SS 396.
Chevy 396 V8 – http://www.enginefacts.com/chevrolet396.php
It’s hard to pick just one!
If you’re going all around it has to be the Small Chevy.
In regular production from 1955 to 2003 in displacements from 262 through 400 cubic inches.
It was the jack of all trades from the pedestrian 307 in Grandma’s Malibu to the raucous DZ302 in the Z/28 and beyond it covered all the bases.
Being more of an overall enthusiast than a true wrench-wielding gearhead I’m probably under-qualified to even step up to the podium on this one, but…
Considering the total domination of the collector car world by the Small Block Chevy, it has to rank as the most enduring, widely respected and beloved, if not the Best Overall.
As a european, I must admit I struggle to keep track of all these cast iron, OHV V8s….
It’s kind of amazing that GM and all it’s divisions could afford to have all their uniqe yet relativley similar engine designs. It doesn’t make sense from a modern perspective, but it certainly gives the different brands some credibility far beyond badge engineering.
I don’t blame you; for years I ignorantly assumed all GM 350s were the same, for it seems so redundant, so un-American, to not standardize costly items like engines. I’ve learned over the years that corporate synergy is more illusion than reality. Example: Xerox PARC, despite their prodigal inventiveness, was only consulted rarely to improve the copier product line.
There’s a great YouTube video by a Southern gearhead (great drawl) explaining the external differences between GM small-blocks.
Is this the one? 🙂
BLARG,
This was not modern times. The GM “system” depended upon each division having an individual identity. It also meant healthy competition and innovation within the company. As far as economies of scale were concerned, unit volumes were so massive in the mid-20th century that it really didnt matter that much. Some commonality was enforced, Fisher body and Delco electrics, for example.
Having said that, I still cannot track keep all the different Ford Motor Company OHV V-8’s.
“Having said that, I still cannot track keep all the different Ford Motor Company OHV V-8’s”
Yep…four separate 4.00 x 3.50 inch V8s: Windsor, Cleveland, Modified, and the FE 352 (all the 351s were actually 352s at 351.86 cubic inches). A 427, 428, 429, and 430, with three totally different architectures among the four. Ford did things differently, didn’t they? 🙂
Ford 427 SOHC
Chrysler 426 Hemi
I was too young for driving during the muscle car era, and sadly, it was all malaise by the time I got my license in late 1976. BUT I recall many of these engines mentioned fondly from various personal experiences. Here are just a few:
Chevy 396: When I was 8 or 9, I got to tour Baltimore’s (now closed) Broening Highway Assembly Plant where they were building 1969 Chevelle SS 396’s that day. Watching those beauties roll of the end of the line (in a cloud of blue tire smoke as the lucky guy at the end of the line got to do) left a long time impression on this kid.
Pontiac 400: When I was like 12 or 13, a friend of the neighbor down the street was giving rides to us kids in his slightly enhanced 400 Pontiac Firebird. Now I LOVE the feeling of acceleration. This was a car that actually scared the b’jesus out of me!
Dodge 383: When I finally got my license at 16 my ride was a Malaise Era 1973 LTD Hardtop Coupe with a 351 Windsor. It barely got that 2+ ton boat out of its own way, but as I learned only few years before, cars used to have WAY more power. Enter a girlfriend whose Dad was a MAJOR Gearhead and Mopar fan. When he decided he was done with his 1969 Charger R/T he gave it to her to drive to school. She drove that thing like an old lady. Finally, one day, I talked her into letting me drive it when we were out running around with some other friends (also big car guys). The accelerator was very touchy. I asked her what it had under the hood. I got the typical “I don’t know, some sort of V8 – My dad used to race it.” I looked at the guys in the back seat in the rear view whilst going about 30 mph. They smiled. I punched it. The tires started to spin (from 30!), and then next thing we knew, we were doing triple digits! When we got back to my buddy house, we popped the hood to see a 383 under the hood with not 1, not 2, but 3 carburetors! To this day that was the fasted accelerating car I’ve ever driven.
Ford 400C: I mentioned my ’73 LTD Coupe with its 351 Windsor. What a difference two years made back then. A buddy in my school had a ’71 LTD Coupe with 400 Cleveland in it. His LTD was WAY faster than mine.
Ford 428 Cobra Jet: A friend and I were cruising around the Baltimore Beltway in either my new ’83 T-Bird or his ’74 Javelin (I forget that part now) when we spotted a 1968 Shelby Mustang 500KR roll up alongside us. They had the top down. The guy in the passenger seat put his hands up like kids do on a roller-coaster. The driver punched it (we’re going 60, mind you) and that car disappeared over the horizon (ok, the next hill ;o) like the Millennium Falcon going into hyperspace.
Chrysler’s 440: How many boats are powered by this thing? Sometimes ever two of them! Any engine THAT big running at red-line for hours at a time to power a large boat across the Chesapeake Bay without flying apart, deserves a place in the Hall of Fame.
Finally, Ford’s venerable 302 (aka 5.0) that evolved out of the 289:
I had an ’88 5.0 LX T-Bird that to this day, holds my personal longevity record at 236,000 miles (still running well when I traded in). This one deserves to be in that Motor Trend ‘Engine Hall of Fame’ that was mentioned by the author at the beginning of the article.
The Ford 400 was not a 400C, just 400. This engine was part of the 335 series family of engines, and was essentially a tall deck, large bearing 351C. It must be the most misnamed engine in history, called the 400M, 400C, 351M/400 (which is two engines, but for whatever reason so people think this is one name for one engine). In anycase, I do agree that the 400 was a great engine, and unfortunately Ford never built a Hi-po version. That said, engine builders today make some serious power with this engines, and it in fact one the Engine Masters challenge for a couple of years.
In my experience and conversation I have come to the conclusion that most of the small block V8s above are about as good as any of the others for all purpose use. The best tuned four barrels of their respective divisions generally offer the best blend of performance, handling, reliability and economy. Big blocks skew the front/rear weight ratio unfavorably reducing handling and braking performance. The power advantage of large engines is often significantly negated by the extra weight and can’t justify the extra fuel consumption off the track. Multiple carbs are too troublesome to get tuned and keep that way. Etc, etc.
Boss 429.
Street hemi with thinwall casting and aluminum heads.
For something lighter I’d vote Mopar 340.
While the 440-4v Mopar and Ford 351C-series engines are both outstanding examples of workaday musclecar engines that could be lived with, day-in and day-out, they’re hampered by the cars in which they were available. The 440 wasn’t too bad, but they were limited to higher end GTX, Charger, Coronet R/T, and E-body models (unless you felt like dealing with troublesome multiple carburetors in a Road Runner or Super Bee, or one that had been jammed into the engine bay of a 1969 compact A-body).
The 351C is even worse, as the best ones (Boss or Cobra Jet with 4-bolt main bearings) were primarily only available in the big, craptacular, third generation seventies’ Mustang. But a 1970 Mach 1 with a 2-bolt main 351C-4v would still be okay.
So, even though it’s common as dirt, I’d go with the SBC, with the first choice being the 327 L79 350hp version in the 1966 Nova, followed by the 350 LT1 as found in the Camaro. The SBC, unlike the other manufacturers products, was widely available in just about any Chevy in some guise, and often in a good-running, high-performance, reliable version.
But even more important than availability is the low price of maintenance. Any Chrysler and Ford performance engine, no matter how good, simply cost more to maintain due to their much lower production volume. SBC engine parts, OTOH, are dirt cheap in comparison.
My observation here would be which engine is still being produced and installed in cars all over the world?
The Chevrolet Small Block.
This engine is immortal. First produced in 1954, it’s still available as a GM crate engine or in boats. The 350 with four bolt forged crank is practically unkillable. I mean, you’d really have to try. I have personally seen them go a million kilometres.
Then there is the LS, which very cleverly will drop into the same place as a small block. There are more “Ford” hotrods powered by the LS than Ford engines. Why? Well, the LS is cheap. It makes tons of power off pushrods, meaning no expensive DOHC drive system. The bottom end is so strong it can handle like a zillion horsepower and since GM churns out bazillions of them, they are cheap and available.
It’s pretty hard to argue the inherent goodness of a design that is survived more than 60 years. None of the engines of this era have survived this long.
+1
There is no arguing the merits and impact of the SBC but it must be posited that much of it’s ubiquity can simply be credited to it’s… ubiquity. It came from the biggest automaker’s biggest division, served as the standard engine in decades of models that were essentially otherwise disposable(thus easy to find cheap doners for hot rodders), and for many many years it’s tried and true nature of no drastic running changes or redundancy allowed a massive aftermaket to support every aspect of it forever. That eroded quite heavily with the LT1 though, and the LS to follow is an entirely different design – albiet one with it’s own separate hard earned reputation – it has more characteristics shared with a Ford 351 Windsor than the SBC of yore, and about as much interchange.
The biggest credit the SBC deserves as far as design, particularly in muscle car apps, is it’s most popular displacements (350) were right in the sweet spot for V8s, whereas Ford’s Windsor engines, which were produced almost as long as the “traditional” SBC (62-01 vs 55-03), were primarily 302s , with the 351W contending with the final FEs and Cleveland/Modified engines from malaise era pickens. There’s always the bore/stroker potential but that’s an expense that one doesn’t have to face with a 350, and if you did you could build an even bigger more powerful base from the Chevy. That’s primarily the reason for it’s dominince, design vs design, similar displacements to equal things, Ford 302 > Chevrolet 305
I have heard this before, that the LS series engines shares more in common with the Windsor Fords than the SBC. I do agree though that beyond the bore spacing the LS doesn’t share much with a traditional SBC. I’d like to see valid argument to support that statement that the LS and Windsor are a similar design. The only reason I believe people say this is because the LS engines use a similar port layout to the Ford engine rather than the old SBC. Other than that, they don’t share much in common. And let be honest, the port layout on the original SBC was a compromised design that dates to 1955 so it only makes sense on a clean slate design to use a different port layout. Beyond that the LS engine uses a deep skirt block with a very strong bottom end, unlike a Windsors short skirt a relatively light bottom end. The LS uses a complete different combustion chamber and cylinder port design too (especially the early LS engines with the tall cathedral ports.
On your point of the SBC, part of the reason that they were so successful for performance was also part interchangeability. Unlike Ford, who had a 302 and a 351W where many parts would not interchange, a small block Chevy can swap most of its parts regardless of year and or displacement.
I mostly brought up the 351W comparo just to elaborate just how unrelated the LS is to the SBC, not to open the can of worms about it’s speculated design lineage(of which I too am skeptical of). The SBC doesn’t have the skirted block either…. The Ford FE did though! j/k
The interchange thing is definitely a factor, the 351 is the displacement equal to the 350, but there really weren’t any true dedicated performance variants for it after, the “muscle car” 351 was the Cleveland, the pedestrian workhorse was the Windsor, the only hot example after the 60s was the first generation Lightning and the very rare 1995 Mustang Cobra R, which essentially just used the cobra parts. In fact there were only one or two years where you could even find a block set up for roller lifters. The 302 had decades of interchange though, but as I said it’s at a displacement disadvantage
A Windsor can make serious horsepower but in my personal observation they are not as strong as the Small Block. My buddy did a 400 in his Lincoln MkV and while it pulled like crazy, it spun a bearing first and broke a piston second. A four bolt Chevy 350 could easily handle the 350 horsepower this thing makes, and do it reliably. For a Ford, if you want lots of power you need an FE which although a Great Lumpen Thing, was Strong Like Bull.
The LS is a whole nuther ball game. It is a very clever design, very simple yet enormously strong and there is enormous aftermarket support. They will fill exactly the same hole a Small Block did and benefit from 40 of development in between.
XR7Matt, no problem, I get your point and apologize if I misinterpreted your post. I agree there is not much related between the Gen 1 and GIII+ SBC. I have just heard several dyed in the wool Ford guys say that the LS engines are basically Windsor’s, which is just not true at all. In fact, if one looks at the Windsor V8 (original called the Fairlane V8 by Ford), it probably has more in common with a SBC than any Ford V8 previous to its design. When it comes down to it there is only so many variations of a pushrod V8 and I believe the LS engines combines the best of 60+ years of American pushrod V8 technology.
I think it’s because those same dyed in the wool Ford guys are looking to rationalize a potential LSx swap into their late model Mustang lol
Figured if I looked I would find someone who felt the same as I but expressed it better. Thanks Len.
AMEN !!!!!! SMALL BLOCK CHEVY V8 IS NUMBER 1
I’m very partial to the Boss 429 but I think the Buick 455 Stage 1 needs serious consideration. What a torque monster that engine is!
Chevy tree-fiddy, baby.
440 6-Pack built by Plymouth/Dodge
honorable mention
427/390bhp V8 built by Chevrolet
454/360bhp V8 built by Chevrolet
454/450bhp V8 built by Chevrolet
400/350bhp V8 built by Pontiac
429/370bhp V8 built by Ford
Small block Chevy.
Chrysler 440 big block.
I’m a Ford guy, but the SBC seems to be “beyond category” here–if only for the ubiquity factor.
******************************
Beyond that, there’s the promising Australian Ford “FEMI” that Paul examined on 1 April a year or two ago–but I guess that was never officially imported to the US .
****************************
In all seriousness, I’ve often wondered what Ford could have done with its small-block (255) Indy DOHC engine, if it worked out compromises of detuning a bit for streetability & expense and could enjoy the cost benefits of mass production. If 1960s Detroit and its performance customers hadn’t gone cubic-inch crazy (and if gas wasn’t so cheap), and there was a premium on revs and light weight and smaller displacement, I’d love to think of the sports sedan such an engine could have powered:
Poncho 400 Ram Air IV
No question that it is the Mopar 440-4V for the versatility and durability that it had during its time of production. It was used in Darts through the 1 ton trucks in various states of tune.The Hemi was the headline engine but was was too fragile.
I do like the 440-4v for its duty in the legendary 1969 CHP Polara. I never drove an A body with a heavy RB engine up front. It must have been a ponderous beast in the handling department.
As one who wasn’t old enough when these cars were new, but was when they hit the bottom of their price curves, I’m pretty familiar with most of their capabilities. And the answer will be determined largely by brand loyalty for most people. I was a Chevy guy back in my racing days but that was determined more by availability and affordability than any real advantage.
But best all around is not the same as hottest, so here’s my take on it. Solid lifters, multiple carbs and ultra high compression ratios all make for a finicky, high maintenance engine that’s tough to live with, so that rules out the Hemis, solid lifter rat motors, 302s, 427 Fords etc. I speak from experience here, with an L-78 and a ’69 Z-28 in my resume. The best street engines were ones that you could run with the pack on Saturday night and your girlfriend could drive to work on Monday morning. So that said, my picks are:
340 Mopar, ’71 in particular and not after that.
428CJ, and I found the Torino with an automatic tougher than a Mustang on the street.
440 Magnum. Or Super Commando if you must…
W-30 Olds, at least the 1970. The same year stage 1 Buick was just as good.
I’m glad I got know these cars before the collectors did. Wish I hadn’t tossed out all those (now valuable) factory exhaust manifolds, smog equipment and stock carbs though…..
That’s a good list and a great point about solid lifters being a pain. The determining factors then fall to budget, size, and year:
1967-68: 440 Mopar (GTX or Coronet R/T)
1969: 428CJ Ford (Cobra)
1970: W-30 Olds (442) or Buick Stage 1 (GS)
1971: 340 Mopar (Duster)
The most bang-for-the-buck car would easily be the Duster, followed by the Cobra, GTX/Coronet R/T, with the Olds and Buick being the most expensive.
If someone just ‘had’ to have a Chevy, I guess a 1970 hydraulic lifter 454 SS Chevelle would do. But I suspect that any of the above cars would beat it without too much trouble (and both cars had comparable transmissions and rear axle ratios).
If you guys are wondering about best “all around” I’m going to nominate the venerable Mopar slant 6.
Great mileage, great torque, compact, relatively light (compared to big block mills), can be tuned to produce 1+ bhp per cu in, and is nearly indestructible.
How is this not the best?
+1 (and I’m a Ford guy!)… Love that old Mopar engine. I learned to drive in a drivers ed car so equipped. Later, I got to drive around on Minnesota’s rural dirt roads abusing a rental that had one of those engines as a teenager. It never missed!
The Slant-Six is a muscle engine, too. A sprint isn’t the only kind of race; there are also distance/endurance races.
Small – block Chevy V-8. Wide variety of sizes and horsepower. ALL sorts of speed equipment. Easy to work on. And still used (albeit much modified) today!
Best all-round? Easy: the Chevy small block V8.
It absolutely dominated the muscle car era, if we define that as going back to the mid-fifties, when the horsepower wars began. A Powerpack V8 ’55 Chevy was the prototype of the whole muscle car era, inasmuch as that is defined as affordable fast cars. It pioneered the concept of a lightweight but powerful cheap V8 engine, and utterly dominated the hot rod, circle racing, and just about every other avenue of racing and performance where a production V8 was allowed.
The original Chrysler hemi was more powerful, but it was expensive and hard to come by. The second generation hemi was also very expensive, and had limitations on the street.
Let’s face it: every other mass-production V8 that came along after the sbc owes it some degree of influence, or more. The good-breathing wedge cylinder head design of the Chevy soon came to be the only game in town. Its stud rockers too.
But the sbc dominated because it was cheap, common, universally understood, and could perform almost any duty, from powering a dump truck to Can Am racing cars , and everything in between.
There is no other engine that was so widely used in so many roles, and in such quantities. As such, it clearly gets the honor of being the best all-round engine.
Our 2000 K2500 pickup has one of the last SB 350’s installed in a production vehicle. While it was branded “Vortec” it is different from the newer 4800/5300/6000cc Vortec engine family.
That 350 is so competent pulling around a loaded heavy truck in the mountains without any fuss. Nearing 160,000 miles on the original spark plugs and still idles at over 30psi hot oil pressure.
I don’t know about muscle car motors, per se – I never had one, but my hat would have to go to the ultimate – the Chevy 427. I’m talking about the late 1960s.
My personal favorite was the good ol’ 283 and all SBC’s since.
+1!
Put me in the Stude R3 camp in a ’63 GT Hawk please. After that any of the Big block Mopars with the beautiful cross ram intakes.
I’ll take none of the above, and give a Chrysler Australia/NZ Hemi 6 instead. It was the most unlikely engine to be stuffed in a muscle car (it was originally meant to be a truck engine when conceived in Highland Park), but was still able to best every V8 that came at it.
For small block I’d choose the Dodge/Plymouth 340.
For big block, gotta love how the Buick 455 Stage 1 gets the job done.
And not a single mention of the (rare) turbo charged BOP aluminum block 215?
I was tempted to bring up the Buick/Rover V-8 insofar as it’s a very popular British hot rod engine. The Jetfire version is interesting, no argument, but best is another question…
The title asked for best engine of that “era”. So I’ll be a literalist and suggest something that had global performance applications far beyond its original design intent, and suggest the Ford 105E. But of the American V8’s, I think it has to be a big block to qualify as a true muscle car, and that means 426 Hemi.
The best engine of the era? Probably the dodge/Plymouth 440 six-pack engine. Basically, a torque engine that could rev. What’s not to like, hydraulic lifters & progressive linkage with the outboard carbs. A close second would be the Chevrolet L-36 427 (1-4bbl. carb; 390 hp) or the L-68 (3-2bbl. carbs. 400 hp), both also had hydraulic lifters. Not so much the L-71 427 (3-2bbl. carbs 435 hp) which had solid lifters.
FWIW, in one of the first ’10 Best’ Car and Driver articles (maybe the first) in the early eighties asked this very question. If someone can find and post it, it actually mirrors most of the comments posted here, including listing the Street Hemi (426) not once, but twice (I think the earlier version had solid lifters). The 440-6v made the list, as well as the 428CJ. And, just like someone else said here, the 389/400 Pontiac got on simply because one of the contributing writers really liked Goats.
The biggest difference was the main criteria was how fast the engine/car was and how easy it was to actually buy one. Normal drivability didn’t seem to be an overriding concern to make it on the list.
for looks, da boss 429 in a mustang engine bay. for slaying that giant and many others, mo power 340.
The 340 was seriously underrated by the factory, really about 335hp not 275. 340 Six Pak closer to 360 so the 340 for small blocks and 440 4bbl for big blocks