(first posted 6/7/2012) We tend to think of the legendary Chevy small-block engine as near-immortal, having been built for forty-eight years, from 1955 through 2003 (The LS is a clean-sheet new engine). But its big brother, the big-block Chevy V8, was built for fifty-one years, from 1958 through 2009. Yes, it got a new cylinder head with the Mark IV version in 1965, but the block was a redesign, and one can swap crankshafts (with some minor adjustments). There was a good reason for that new cylinder head; the “W” version’s was a bit of an oddball.
The Chevrolet 348 cubic inch V8 engine that arrived in 1958 was an anomaly. One would expect that a larger block version of the legendary small-block Chevy that had first appeared five years earlier would largely resemble that highly successful design, especially in its well-breathing cylinder heads. But no; the first big block Chevy arrived with a rather radically different design altogether: a 16° angle on the top of the cylinder block, and perfectly flat heads; a “combustion chamber in cylinder” design. That only lasted until 1965, but the big block went on to be built for just over fifty years.
The idea behind the novel head was to maximize brake mean effective pressure (BMEP) at relatively low engine speeds, resulting in a very fat torque curve. And it was essentially the same basic idea as used by Ford for the MEL engine, which also appeared in 1958. Both of these designs were indeed known more for their torque than their top end, although with the later hi-performance big-valve/port heads, the 409 acquitted itself on the drag strip and at NASCAR very well indeed. Unlike the MEL, the Chevy valves were staggered, which allowed much more favorable porting than the tortured MEL head. Maybe port was not a preferred drink in the Ford family.
Clearly, the “W” engine was designed for duty in Chevy’s bigger trucks as well as its rapidly-growing cars. The 327 inch version of the small-block was still several years away, so the 348 was the alternative to the high-winding hi-po versions of the 283.
If one was looking for serious scoot in 1958, the horsepower difference between the 290 hp 283 and 315 hp 348 wasn’t all that great. But obviously, their torque curves were. The 283 was happiest behind a four-speed stick, the 348 made the most of their usual role behind a Powerglide (or the ill-fated Turboglide). The not inconsiderable difference in their weight narrowed the gap even further. Which of course explains why the W engine grew to 409 inches in 1961, one year before the 327 small-block arrived. Trying to keep one step ahead of an ever-growing mouse.
image source: rick_oleson’s photostream
There was a very small run of some fifty 427 inch “W” engines, the super-stock Z-11, and intended for the drag strip. The bodies had aluminum parts, and there were dual Carter AFBs hiding under that cowl-induction intake. (Under) rated at a modest 430 hp, these ’63 Chevys could hit some 135 mph in the traps. The truck motor turns into a genuine hemi-challenger.
The Mark IV had totally new heads, although their “porcupine” staggered valves did owe much to the not-dissimilar arrangement on the “W” engine. The last production version, the Vortec 8100, was installed only in larger trucks, bringing the whole big-block family back to its origins. We rented a Class C motorhome in 2005 with a Vortec 8100, and its performance was impressive indeed. And the sound that came through the van-cab engine cover as it hammered up the mountains was suitable music to accompany the scenery. Never mind its thirst.
TORQUE RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I appreciate many engines in many forms but in stock form it is generally the General who nails the right sound for a V8.
Torque, you say? I’d go with a Cummins ISB for some serious torque. I don’t care for trucks that much but I’d like to own a Dodge Ram with an ISB, 4 wheel drive, and a manual transmission. Gun rack is a bonus.
I can attest to the torque, reliability, & simplicity of the BBC engine. I’ve owned a ’78 1/2 ton SIerra Classic for about fifteen years now & that engine has made my truck an absolute joy to drive. About seven years ago I overrevved it (about 5K RPM for 2-3 seconds is all it took) & floated a valve but it lasted five more years with an occasional tapping noise. My plan was to tear it down & restore it at 200K but it dropped that valve about 700 miles short of my goal when I went to crank it up one afternoon.
Had I not overrevved it that time it would still be running today…I towed many cars from AL to NC with it..running 70mph. It got around 12mpg loaded and around 14mpg empty. The exhaust note is awesome & the 4bbl carb at WOT is music to my ears.
I don’t know why…but BBC-equipped cars & light duty Chevy trucks have always seemed exotic to me… They are so much fun and original examples are incredibly hard to find. I’m not saying BBCs rule or anything as I prefer Big Block Oldsmobiles & the 472/500 Cadillac engines for their power & longevity.
As for diesels…the exhaust smells pretty good when it’s being burned in excavating equipment, otherwise I’m not really into it.
I was simply commenting on the fact that hp differences between the SBC and BBC were simply not that different but the fat torque made up for it. As has been said many times before; “Americans talk hp but drive torque.”
I’m with you Junqueboi, big block equipped anything seems exotic. Heck once you get over roughly 350 cubic inches my eyes start to glaze over and I start fantasizing about what the vehicle would be like to drive.
Geesh I sounded a little defensive on the gas vs. diesel thing, didn’t I? My apologies for that.
Big Block Chevies do sound nice . . . but I prefer the barratone rumble of an Oldsmobile V-8 myself . . .
In 1959, at HS in MD, I recall a black biscayne with a 348 4 spd that sounded like a machine shop on 4 wheels, what a thrilling sound. A girl in school had a ’58 fuely Pontiac which was unique but Biscayne was the real deal.
I always regarded the 348 as a truck engine and I recall the 409, while a screamer, threw rods fairly easily. The 283 was my all-around favorite V8 – still is. Lots of big things could be done in a small package.
Educator_Dan is right about the Chevy V8 sound – nothing like it.
When my 283 in my avatar was rebuilt, a 327/350 hp cam was added. To that, true dual exhausts. The sound? Man, I used to cruise around base at times, as the speed limit was only 25 mph, radio off, listening and enjoying the engine. Sweet, indeed!
Now I really want that car back, X-frame and all…
What a day of great memories!
I did my personal taxi with a 305, 4V, on LPG, with 11:1 pistons to take advantage of the 110 octane of LPG. With a mild cam, the car made 200 hp at the rear wheels at 3500 rpm, but the torque was 300 lb/ft at 2000, with 250 available at 1500. The thing ran our of breath at 4000 but I didn’t care. It was coupled to a THM350 with a higher stall converter and a shift kit. With 2.5″ duals, it sounded fantastic. This was the nicest V-8 I have ever driven.
The added bonus was it could do 15 L/ 100 km in taxi use, which is like 30% better than a 350 cop motor.
A friend told me about a mate of his who had a 454 built for LPG by one of the local drag racers, for a C30. The first drive they had it torching the duallies when they would prefer not to, so dialed back the LPG a bit and doubled the mileage while still having ample power. I forget exactly but it had huge tanks on it too, 600L from memory, for long range running & so they wouldn’t have to worry about LPG availability. My friend had a similar setup but small block, C20 and 300L from two tanks, I think he could drive 900-1000 miles without refuelling.
Yup, LPG is like that; you can simply dial in more fuel for more power since it carries its own oxygen, it is like free supercharging.
There are a few drag cars running lots of boost & LPG, quite a trick to supply enough of it.
The home delivery food purveyors Schwans have been running BBC with Propane since the 70s. CNG & LPG can work well for fleets where the equipment sees predictable mileage and returns to the same location every day.
LPG is predominantly a propane/ butane mix which are pure carbon-hydrogen moecules i.e. there is no oxygen in in the mix except for trace amounts. Without forced induction LPG fuelled engines are power limited by how much fuel/air mixture can be introduced as LPG is less energy dense than gasoline.
Nice photo, Zackman! The golden summertime hills of Fairfield/Suisun/Solano County call out (followed by a sneeze all the way to Rio Vista).
Nothing like the sound of a Chebbie? lolol…it is apparent you have never ran a Ford 427 Side Oiler, designed for NASCAR… but built up to 1200 hp in a 2200 pound 67 Mustang skin covered roller chassis in the Super Stock class on an oval 1/4 mile asphalt track on a Sat night. I have done that. Pole position every week, and ALL the other cars were Chebbies. Even Richard Pettie switched to Fords when that engine came out. NASCAR outlawed the Ford 427 SOHC (Single Over Head Cam) before it even hit the tracks.
Ran this 57 Tbird with a HiRise dual quad 427 side oiler.
1000 plus runs on my bracket car and never pulled a valve cover except at the end of the season to release the spring pressure. How many small blocks do you know that would last that long? 409 with small heads on a 2 barrel, 4.88 and a power glide in a 63 Chev. 12.70s all day long. Race the car and park it to watch the races until next round. NEXT!!
Chevy big blocks have never been part of my repertoir, so thanks for at least partially filling in a big knowledge gap. The big blocks never seemed to have the market penetration at Chevy as they did at Ford or Plymouth. I would imagine that this is partially because the Chevy smallblock was such a good performer, and partly because the big block was nowhere near as robust as the Ford FE or the Mopar RB (at least from what I have read).
I recall that you would see an occasional Chevy wagon with a 396, but Fords with 390 badges were everywhere.
I’d say just in sheer volume of engines sold, Chevrolet probably put just as many big blocks out the door, and probably more, than Ford or Chrysler in any given year.
I’d disagree that the “[Chevrolet] big block was nowhere near as robust as the Ford FE or the Mopar RB.” All three of these engines were put to use in every application you can think of, from passenger cars to medium duty trucks to fairly large boats. I wouldn’t say that any one of the three enjoys a reputation for robustness that’s any more prestigious than the other two.
As far as the 8100…I’ve driven a couple in 2500HD trucks. It feels kind of doggy off the line, but the torque makes it feel like a diesel without the $10k premium on entry price. It’ll pull what you need pulled. It’s pretty much a stroked 454. I don’t think it has much hop-up potential, though; Chevy had pretty much maxed out the big block for that last generation.
It would be interesting to have the stats to prove or disprove the theory about fewer Chevy big blocks. I agree with Jim, though, that during the period of the FE’s reign, they were much more common than big block Chevies. Which is largely understandable, as the 327 and 350 were more than a match for the 352 and 390. And then the 400 sbc quickly relegated the bbc to 454 size only.
In the mid-late sixties, 352 and 390s in full-sized Fords were almost ubiquitous, which cannot be said about the bbc. Part of that is because capacity for the Windsor V8 was constrained, all the production going to the Mustang, Falcon and Fairlane/Torino.
But I disagree with him about the bbc being intrinsically inferior. It was used extensively in medium and big trucks, and had a rep for being quite the tough brute. And I’ve never heard bad things about its use in cars either, but then it probably depends on what one is reading. Blue Oval News? 🙂
The power that the 8100 made in that RV was truly impressive; or I just wasn’t keeping up with the times. It flattened mountain passes; of course you could just see the fuel gauge dropping. Easy driving yielded 6 – 8 mpg.
My musings on durability are admittedly purely anecdotal. Over the years, I have heard old timers going on about how many multiples of 100K miles they put on this engine or that one and only changed oil filters. I exaggerate, but I just never heard anyone going on and on about how tough his old bbc was while I heard a lot of such talk about Ford FEs and Mopars. And with the smallblock being nearly a religion, I figured that there must be a reason it is so universally preferred, while many Moparheads can’t wait to deep six the great LA engine and replace it with a Hemi or a 440. So please take my thoughts here as the musings of the uninformed, and I stand ready to be schooled in the merits of the Chebby big block. 🙂
You’re too polite of a debater. This is the internet. Fords SUCK! Chevys RULE!
Oldsmobile trumps all of them. HA! (Now back to my vacation).
Excellent points re: the 352 & 390.
“Fords with 390 badges were everywhere.”
True but as I recall a 350 1st gen Camaro would beat a 390 Mustang. It would take a 428 to beat it. Not sure ’bout the bigger cars.
Of course the tables turned with the Fox body ‘Stangs…the 302s having their way with the Chevy 305. It took the 350 TPI to make it a fair fight.
I agree about 351 and 390 Mustangs (’69-’70). 351/390’s sound mean, but pretty much are Emily Post polite; all others go first.
Yep, it’s been written that 390 Fords were stones, and everyone knew it (well, except maybe for the Ford faithful who doggedly kept flogging them). They were easy meat for even bottom feeders like 389 GTOs. Small-block Ford Windsor V8s regularly got eaten by SBCs and Mopars, as well.
Of course, that all changed when Ford finally got serious and got their act together with the Cobra Jet and Cleveland-series engines.
What planet were you from ? 352 , 390, 406, Hi Po cars ran very strong in the hands of anyone who knew what they were doing.I was there and ran at the track or on the street. My 406 Galaxie demolished every Gto , 409 , 348 and 389/ 421 Poncho I ran against unless it was sponsored towed to the track etc. 390 Fords etc, were stones is about as general and dumb statement that I have ever heard.
390s were for station wagons, anyway. Certainly not for Mustangs.
I’d read that all three – Chevrolet, Ford and Mopar – big blocks were quite robust. In passenger cars, most people never got that chance to find out, as they usually traded in their cars long before they were really “worn out.” At any rate, the big enemy of 1960s cars was RUST, not drivetrain failure.
I have also read, however, that the Ford 429-460 engines of the late 1960s and 1970s were, in fact, more robust than their Chevrolet counterparts.
I’ve always thought the W head Chevy was a great looking engine. It’s so distinctive that you can’t mistake it for anything else. The big Chevy is remembered by most as the 454 but without the earlier 348/409 there would be no “Mark IV”.
As for best sounding V8 I don’t know if anything sounds better than a Ford Windsor with a 351W/HO firing order cam ;).
The Oldsmobile V8 is music to my ears. Such a unique sound…’speshully with a leaky exhaust.
Paul, the 262V6(4.3), 305, and 350’s are still being produced for industrial and marine use, just looked at a 2013 GM Powertrain catalog. As far as the 348, Smokey Yunick thought it was a horrible design, and REFUSED to do any development work on it, even though they begged him to.
Yes, and for crate engines too, in Mexico, I believe. I was referring to the years they were installed in vehicles.
Oh, I forgot. A boat is not a motor vehicle. Silly me. Toluca, Mexico, is where they are still being banged out by the rock wielding natives in their dirt floored plant…
Cars and trucks. My apologies for not being more explicit. My point was about the years that cars and trucks were built with them, which is our main focus here. In Canada, the Ford flathead V8 was built as an industrial motor for many years after it was no longer installed in cars. Same with the Chrysler flathead six.
Though they were dropped from production vehicles, they still do make the 8100 for industrial use no?
Last I heard the old small block was still in production on Mexico too, though that was a few years ago.
Can’t say I agree that the MkIV big block engine used a redisigned W block. Yes you can machine the older crank to come up with some interesting bore/stroke combinations but that’s more of a fluke than anything else.
The W-motor used a unique deck angle to make a combustion chamber in the block instead of the head, very different than the MKIV. The W was pretty much a dead end but it did the job until the MkIV came along.
The Mark IV block was hardly a “clean-sheet” design, although it certainly evolved some from the 409. But the starting point was the 409/W block. That’s what I was trying to say. From wiki:
Aside from the new cylinder head design and the reversion to a conventional 90 degree cylinder head deck angle, the Mark IV shared many dimensional and mechanical design similarities with the “W” engine. The cylinder block, although more substantial in all respects, used the same cylinder bore centers of 4.84″ with a larger 2.75″ main bearing dimension, increased from the 2.50″ of the older engine (in fact, the shorter stroke 348 and 409 crankshafts could be installed with the use of “spacer bearings” without modifying the crankshaft). Like its predecessor, the Mark IV used crowned pistons, which were castings for conventional models and impact extruded (forged), solid skirt types in high performance applications.
Also retained from the “W” design were the race-proven Moraine M400 aluminum bearings first used in the 409, as well as the highly efficient “side oiling” lubrication system, which assured maximum oil flow to the main and connecting rod bearings at all times. Later blocks intended for performance use had the main oil gallery moved up to the cam bearing bore area and provided “priority main” oiling, improving the oil system even further. These features, along with the robust crankcase design, sturdy forged steel crankshaft and massive four bolt main bearing caps used in the high performance versions, resulted in what many have considered to be the most rugged and reliable large displacement automotive V8 engine design of all time.
Many of the similarities were probably driven by the need to use existing production machinery.
Thanks for the article Paul, I didn’t know a lot about the BBC before. Another engine with the splayed valves is the 351C of course.
Sure. After only six years in production, Chevy obviously wasn’t going to start with a clean-sheet for the Mark IV. No need to either, as the W block was a good starting point.
OK, I hadn’t realized they were related. Way back when I did my my apprenticeship training the college had a couple of old 348 truck engines which were used as training aids. Students would take them apart, measure wear and clearances and so on, put them back together and get them running. At the time I was doing this at college I was also building a 396 at home and I remember being struck by the very different designs, but that was many years ago. At that time W motors were regarded as ancient history and worth almost nothing, particularly 348s. Different story today, guys who are into these things will pay big $$ for anything usable.
Anyway, interesting article on a somewhat obscure engine design.
Yes, the “W” engines are junk…ask Smokey…
Obviously, the 348 was designed for maximum torque at low rpm, but that doesn’t exactly make it “junk”. Unless you know something I don’t.
And when Chevy put some big valve and big port heads on the 409/427, it acquitted itself on the tracks (and street) quite well, don’t you think? Maybe they didn’t need Smokey.
I’m not much into Chevrolets but I sure love me some Nova 396.
Geezer type memories abound of high school in 1958 and the black impala with the 348. Hate to have been paying that kids tire bill. What kept the 348 from being popular a long time was the advent of the 409. If you swapped them, nobody knew. You can say what you will but there were a lot of big blocks out there. They just normally weren’t in family cars. They were towing boats and RV’s in station wagons , biig sedans, and trucks. Big torque available.
For the go fast crowd I don’t think the BB’s lost popularity. It’s just that the small blocks were affordable in so many ways. Compared to the stroke, the rod was pretty long and the engines lasted quite a while. The 265/283/327 series had the longest IIRC People lots smarter (Smokey for one) than I, say that reduces the side thrust and makes them last for a long time. They are also really amenable to hot rodding. Because the small blocks were so good there wasn’t much need to go bigger unless you were seriously into racing.
Speed costs $. How fast do you want to go.
@wstarving
You hit the nail on the head. It’s a “How much you got” situation.
The SBC killed the Radio Star.
The Cleveland is the only Ford mill that “rules”. 😀
The article erroneously reports that Ford copied the combustion chamber design and incorporated it in the Lincoln engine. The fact is that the Lincoln/Mercury used this design for several years prior to 1958. Not sure when the first year was, but at least 1955. The E475 (410 CID) engine used in the ’58 Edsel was a downsized version of the Lincoln 430 CID engine.
The truth is somewhere in between, or with neither of us. I was wrong in saying that this cylinder head “was essentially copied by Ford in the MEL engine”, since the MEL first came out in 1958, the same year as the 348 Chevy.
But I can not find an reference to Ford using this type of cylinder head prior to the 1958 MEL. If you can, please show me, and I’ll stand corrected (even further). The MEL replaced the Lincoln Y Block, and it had more conventional combustion chambers.
I miss-stated. The Lincoln OHV Y-block began production with the 1952 model year but I think you are correct that it was not of the CC configuration that we are discussing. The MEL began production in 1958, as did the 348, so called, “W” series engines. I don’t, however, recall of the 348 came out early in the 1958 model year or came a bit later in the model year. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
The question that I was trying to answer when I came accross your article is this; Did the 348 equipped 1958 Chevrolets have cross flag insignias on the hood and trunk along with the “V”? I seem to remember that the 283’s had the Chevy crest insignia while the 348 cars had the cross flags. I know the ’59 and later models had the cross flags when 348 or 409 equipped.
Yes, the 348 came out with the new ’58 Chevys, from the start of the model year. It appears that the cross-flag insignia over the V started in 1959 for 348 cars.
Building a street rod. Want to power it with the 1961 348 CID 350 H.P. Tri Power motor but would like to mate it to a 5-spd manual transmission. Manual transmission available in 1961 was only a 4-spd manual on the “Special Turbo SS Model”. Anybody got a suggestion to help a brother out?
Local history in my little burg in Minnesota was my cousin borrowed my dads 56 Studebaker president 289 four barrel duel exausts overdrive and made short work of local 58 348 chev
Had a 62 Impala SS 409-409hp (dual AFB’s) with a 4 speed. Fun and very fast for its day (mid 60s). Had lots of trouble with rocker arm studs though. Just pressed in would not stand the high spring pressure. Did not know how to fix it in those days so replaced it with a 350 horse 327 but it was no where as strong with the tall gears that were ok with the 409. I soon learned a lot of respect for the Mopar big blocks though, especially the 426 hemi’s. More than a match for nearly anything on the road.
Far as I can tell, Ford had two “Heron Head” V-8 that were released for the ’58 model year–the MEL as said in the article, and the Super Duty, a monster gasoline fueled medium- and heavy-duty truck engine.
my father had a friend who had a 348 in one of his 58 Impalas (he had 4) and it always seemed that that engine was problematic. What we learned years later was that the 348 in it’s original build was not that great a motor for a car as you said it was more truck oriented but what I found out was once they were rebuilt they were a much better motor. they ran much better.
I cannot understand how so many people can be so wrong. You should always compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges. Take it from someone old enough to have been there and done that. The number one reason Chevy designed the 348 the way they did was to adhere to the top brass rule that the new engine had to fit into anything the current 283 could fit into. Back in the day, 348’s were cheap and available and went right into a 55-57 chevy without having to take a sledge hammer to the firewall. As for weight, the 348/409 all iron weighed less than an all iron 396 and only about 35 lbs more than the 283. You can find more than 35 lbs weight difference between drivers. The engineers knew that with the combustion chamber in block design it would not be a high rpm horsepower machine like the 283. Those in the know picked out cams and stuff for 6,500 rpm or so. Also, when it was discovered that the notch in the block on the truck blocks (to help lower compression) actually unshrouded the exhaust valve for better air flow; Jahns pistons designed a piston called the “power slot” which aligned with the notch in the block and the intake valve and racers soon found out that was the way to go. After all, by 1962 if you wanted to win in A/Super Stock, you had to beat the 409 or have one. As for it being designed originally as a truck engine, that is also a lie. If the 348/409 was a truck engine – then so was the 283/327/350/427/454. They all came in trucks too.
I’m no expert Ruff, but I’m old enough to have been around when the 348 was old enough to be bought in relatively cheap used cars but the 409 was too new for the budget of a teenager like myself. I tried to buy a 348 car but the few that I saw were worn out. One was in a 59 convertible but it burned oil and had a hole in the floor. I did find a 58 with 3 deuces and 3 speed but the seller claimed that it couldn’t be started as someone left the ignition on. That and the fact that the car had no plates on it convinced me that the car was likely junk. I did find a 60 Chevy that was in good condition but it had the turboglide transmission that rode nicely but didn’t allow it to accelerate very quickly. I never found another one for sale. The claim that it was first a truck engine was a common belief then. It was designed to fit in a 58 Chevy. I don’t know that a 348/409 could fit into a 55-57 Chevy without doing a bit of reconstruction of the firewall. It was a bit too long for one. Also, the ones that I did see with a 409 in it were about dragging on the ground as the poor suspension wasn’t meant for the weight of it. As for it being only 35LBS heavier than the 283, you must mean it was 135LBS heavier. The 409 did do quite well at the drags in 1961 and 1962. However when Chrysler put the 413 max wedge engine in it’s Dodges & Plymouths in late 1962 it had a very powerful engine, especially since the most powerful ones had 13.5:1 compression ratio & the 409 only 11.0:1. Although Mopar rated it at 420 horsepower, it had between 450 & 500 horsepower. Yes the Z11 had the 13.5:1 ratio in early 1963 but it was not really a stock car as only the racers knew about it & I don’t know that one was ever driven on the street. However Mopar didn’t have a 4 speed transmission then and so most ran in automatic class. Pontiac had the Super Duty 421 by 1962 and it actually produced more horsepower than the 409 although Pontiac rated it as less to stay out of trouble with those who didn’t want to be accused of condoning racing. The one 409 I did see was in a 63. The owner had the heads off because he did what a number of people did to the W engine. He overreved it and caused valve damage. The engine was designed to operate at a lower rpm than the traditional wedge engine.
The 427 truck engine is significantly different from the car engine,
GM’s own SAE paper (1958) about the 348’s development helps cut through later speculation about their thinking: I’ll post opening pages here for the curious:
SAE page 2:
SAE page 3:
SAE page 4:
SAE page 5:
SAE page 6:
Thanks! Interesting reading. Is there a page 7?
SAE page 7:
Paul, I’m happy this was of interest–I find this industry stuff fascinating. Two more pages to go (the discussion after presentation).
SAE page 8:
I was confused by the discussion section until I realised this what we’re looking at is from SAE Transactions, not from just the paper itself. The Chrysler engine being discussed here is the subject of this paper, published at the same time as the Chev W-engine paper, and the 1 January 1959 date on that makes it clear this was for the 1959 SAE Congress.
Now, what V8 engine was it in that Chrysler paper? The polyspherical, I guess?
Based on timing, that’s the B/RB wedge,
Too many pronouns. lol
If I’m understanding it correctly…
I’d say that with JD Turlay’s reference to Chryler’s valley cover and sparkplug location he was commenting on the new B “Wedge” engine.
I’d say that publication 510196 of 1951 references Chrysler’s new “Hemi” engine.
Thanks, scampman. That was gonna be my second guess; I just never paid much attention to these bent-type engines.
Yes, the 361 Chrysler was presented at (apparently) the same session, and so discussion referenced both. Nice to know this got some readers!
SAE, last page:
The 427 truck engine is significantly different from the car engine,
Hey George, I’ve read both SAE papers on the Chevy and mopar big block design features. I really enjoyed the mopar paper as I have a 383 in my 68 sport fury. They really were a very well designed engine, very robust and powerful even in 2 barrel versions.
And the original splayed valve engines, Ma Mopar’s Polyhead and the A engines. the General and Phord were as always late to the party