posted at the Cohort by LeSabretoothTiger
Our survey of 1957 sports cars and GT cars wouldn’t be complete without the Corvette, especially since that year was a big one for America’s plastic fantastic guided missile. The new larger 283 cubic inch V8 was the big news to start with, but then Chevy upped the ante by making it available with fuel injection. Rated at 283 hp at a very zippy 6,200 rpm, it instantly made the Corvette the fastest regular production car in the world, at least in a straight line. But there was a cheaper to fly in 1957 too, with the 270 hp dual quad (two four barrel carburetors) version.
SCI took both of them to task, wringing them out to find out just what this new-fangled fuel injection brought to the pavement, other than burnt rubber.
Given the modest production numbers, it would have been extremely unlikely to find two Corvettes that were similarly equipped except for the engines. The FI version had a couple of advantages, other than its induction system: it was lighter (at 2840 lbs) due to only having a hardtop, and it had a slightly steeper rear axle ratio of 3.70 whereas the carburated car had a soft top and a 3.55 axle ratio. And both had the standard close-ratio Saginaw three speed manual transmission, as the new Borg-Warner T-10 four speed did not arrive until later in the model year (April) (CC’s history on early Corvette transmissions here).
The base price of the Corvette was $3176 ($29k adjusted). The 270 hp dual quad option cost $182.95 ($1685 adjusted), and the 283 hp FI option cost $484 ($4456 adjusted), although apparently that price jumped quite a bit later in the year. The 13 extra horses for the FI were pricey ones, $23 each ($212 adjusted), so presumably it was more than just the additional power and bragging rights from the Fuel Injection emblems on all four sides of the car.
The article starts off with an interesting historical tidbit: That Chevrolet madly rushed the Rochester FI to market for the 1957 model year because it was naturally concerned about the collective impact of Plymouth and Ford’s all-new cars on its passenger car line sales. “The decision to bring out the fuel injection was made very, very late in 1956—virtually on the introduction deadline. At that time it was still what engineers call a ‘breadboard layout’—a combination of of units that work together but aren’t fully developed…”
That would also apply equally to the electronically-controlled Bendix “Electrojector” fuel injection system that was also touted by Chrysler and Rambler in 1957, and which quickly had to be withdrawn due to being seriously underdevelopment. GM obviously made the right choice by going with a fully mechanical system, as electronic components were not yet reliable under the hood in 1957.
The dual quad car started readily, although flooding could be an issue on a hot start. It idled low enough, but very lumpily, due to the competition cam. That would be the “Duntov cam”, named after the Corvette’s god father, although he didn’t actually design it, just prodded the engineers to do so.
But the downsides of the carbs soon became apparent: after a fast run, idle “was extremely bad, and after each stop in the braking test, the carbs would stall the engine dead”.
The FI car started instantly when cold. Idle was quite high, at 1200rpm even after warmup. But it was easy enough to adjust it, and SCI could get theirs to idle at the same 500 rpm as the carb car, although they decided to leave it at a higher 950 rpm, as these engines produce very little torque at low speeds due to the cam.
The throttle linkage on both cars came in for heavy criticism, which made the carb car particularly difficult to modulate, as throttle response was inconsistent and unpredictable. This is where the FI really shone: despite the limitations of the throttle linkage, throttle response was instantaneous. “It’s as though there’s a system of levers between the throttle pedal and your back. press the throttle a little bit, and your back is pressed, NOW, to the same extent. Slam the throttle down, and your back is slammed, NOW, to the same extent, even in high gear.”
Although the dual quad car’s performance was generally similar, the experience of the instantaneous response put the FI car in a different league. Zero flat spots. A take off in top gear resulted in a perfectly smooth run, and in a mere 13.8 seconds, as good or better than many sporty cars of the time. And none of the gasping for fuel in hard corners, a typically common problem with carbs and their fuel bowls.
Let’s get to the meat: their respective acceleration performance. I’ve cropped the key table here, for your faster viewing pleasure. The FI version has lead, in just about every metric except for the dash to 100, and speed through the 1/4 mile traps. It’s hard to say just why, given the intrinsic variables even between even two identical engines off the assembly line. The FI is very fast indeed, but the dual quad is right there too. Clearly the injected version went about its business in a more crisp and concise manner.
And also more efficient, at least in hard driving, yielding a whopping 12.0 mpg compared to 10.5. Given that the FI car had a lower rear axle, that is a meaningful difference. Average driving yielded a closer 13.6 to 13.8 mpg difference. Fuel efficient these cars were not, with their low axles gearing and no overdrive.
Here’s a snippet from GM’s Heritage Archive that shows both gross and net power ratings for all of the ’57 Corvette engines. Of course that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s all 100% accurate; for instance the 283 hp FI engine is widely considered to actually have made about 290 gross hp, which is what it was rated at for 1958-1961, without any apparent changes. And some claim that the 270 hp dual quad was sandbagged too. An interesting anomaly is that the dual quad engine’s peak net hp comes in at 6,000 rpm, the same as its gross, whereas the FI’s net is arrived at 5,600 rpm. I’m quite sure I’ve never seen an engine’s net rating be at the same rpm as the gross, since the gross rating was derived with open headers, among other things.
What this chart does point out is that the 250 hp FI 283 made more torque than the others, and at a more usable speed for typical driving. It would be the one to have gotten for a daily driver, except for bragging rights or competition, red light or track. I’ve seen some performance numbers attributed to the 250 hp version that were quite close to the 270/283 hp units.
Of course all that additional power did the Corvette’s simple Hotchkiss rear suspension no favors. Full power starts were were accompanied with axle bounce and shake: “It took a delicate balance between engine revs and deliberate clutch slippage to provide a smooth yet catapulting get-away. The rear end is also the main weak point in the Corvette’s handling…all that’s needed to bust that rear wheel loose is a little more roll, a little tighter corner, a bit more speed or a bumpy surface.”
The Corvette’s steering was not a strong suit either: “is just quick enough to get out of most troubles, but the strong caster action means you have to work to do it. This is responsiveness to muscle, not will.” And the close-to-the-chest steering wheel position made rapid steering corrections difficult. The seating position in the C1 was never ideal, one of the number of limitations of its less than stellar birth.
And unsurprisingly, the brakes weren’t any too hot either, except for when they got too hot and faded. “...brakes, which are an omnipresent menace in this otherwise capable road car”. It should be pointed out that in 1957, when Chevrolet got serious about the Corvette’s track chops, numerous HD components were options, including sintered metallic brake linings, which were a huge improvement, once they got up to operating temperature. One could even specify a race-ready (EN Code) version of the Corvette, with all the critical components and without a heater.
The article ends with wishful thinking that did not come to be: “We hope that some of the research going into the Sebring SSR project will be diverted into production channels…the chassis is just at the end of its string., while the engine and injection have a great future ahead of them. The 1957 Corvette may be the link between two eras”.
That was Zora Arkus Duntov’s great hope too, for a truly new Corvette with a world class chassis to live up to its world class drive train. And it was in the works in 1957 for 1960, the Corvette Q concept, with a super light space frame, rear transaxle and fully independent suspension. It would have been the most advanced and superlative sports car in the world, but the recession of 1958 but the kibbosh on that ambitious undertaking. Instead, the venerable C1 soldiered on through 1962, and the C2 that replaced was still not as advanced and light as what the Q would have been.
The ’57 fuel injected Corvette became collectible from day, thanks to its superior power, limited production (1,040 were built), and the significantly cleaner styling compared to the overwrought ’58, universally accepted as the least desirable of the C1s. It was a superlative drive train looking for a better chassis, but even with its limitations, it sent a strong signal to the sports car world that America was going to play too, and with gusto.
Related reading:
1957 Fuel Injected 283 V8: Ahead Of Its Time and the Competition
Vintage R&T Review: 1954 Corvette
From Powerglide to Four Speed – The History of Transmissions On Early Corvettes
Great essay! Thanks for the information.
I’m not much of a Corvette guy, but the ’57 is beautiful.
Anybody else take a new ’57 Vette for 29k? A guy can dream can’t he?
Fascinating period article and look back. Impossible for me to see one of these and not think, “GORGEOUS.”
“It took a delicate balance between engine revs and deliberate clutch slippage to provide a smooth yet catapulting get-away.”
Mission accomplished! The fuel injected car’s advantage at the strip was mostly in its 60-foot time. The driver did an excellent job of hooking up to take advantage of the injected car’s lower axle ratio. The dual-quad car exhibited every sign of making more power at the strip after it hooked up. Those acceleration numbers almost look like ones for cars where the one on the left is an AWD version of the one on the right. An AWD car hooks up so well that it jumps out to a lead that can’t be made up on the strip as the car with the slightly better power to weight ratio tries to real it in, resulting in a higher trap speed and longer ET for the 2wd car.
I noticed the quicker take off on the FI Corvette as well. Clearly, it had the much better launch, which gave it the advantage at the lower speeds of acceleration. Whether that is attributable to the better gear ratio or perhaps the Dual-Quad engine bogging, it’s hard to say. What is clear though, from this particular test, the Dual Quad car was probably making more power than the FI version, based on the acceleration times to higher speeds and the quarter trap speeds.
Of further note, although the Chevrolet documents list the gross numbers and “net” numbers, these numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. Of course production variations and engine tune played a big factor in actual horsepower. There was no SAE net standards at that time, so what Chevrolet did to attain that net rating is undetermined. Today’s SAE net ratings have very specific guidelines as two how engines are measured. In fact, when they were revamped again in 2005 to “certified power” it actually changed a significant number of engine horsepower ratings following the new guidelines. For instance, the Toyota 1MZ-FE fell from 210 hp to 190 hp under the new guidelines. Both were “net ratings” but there was a 20 hp difference between the two ratings.
It was interesting how there was no consistency to how gross horsepower ratings translated to net horsepower ratings when engines that didn’t change much from 1971 to 1972 lost rated horsepower in a most non-proportional manner.
The smallblock V8 and the Corvette did indeed create a sort of ever-accelerating automotive synergy, where each element kept pushing the other to greater heights.
It is indeed interesting that Chevrolet went with mechanical FI while Chrysler and AMC tried the flawed electronic Bendix system. It is also interesting that after Chevy proved its system to be so successful that nobody else followed it down that path. Of course, though, nobody besides Chevrolet invested any performance engineering into its existing small displacement V8 after 1957* – big cubic inches and multiple carbs were a lot cheaper (and more in demand with NASCAR).
Studebaker rates the asterisk, but only because it didn’t have any other engine to work with in trying to offer some performance.
Of course, though, nobody besides Chevrolet invested any performance engineering into its existing small displacement V8 after 1957
Except for Chrysler, which designed all-new Chevy-style heads for its A V8, turning it into the 273 LA V8, which included a quite lively 235 hp version in 1964 as well as a wicked 275 hp version in 1966. And that evolved into the legendary 340.
Ford’s Y-Block was doomed from day one, so they designed their lovely Chevy-inspired small V8, with its quite similar high-winding K-Code 271 hp 289 version in 1963. And that spawned a raft of hi-po Ford small blocks.
In both cases (as well as in Studebaker’s case), their small V8s all had heads that didn’t allow for comparable breathing and performance, so they invested in new heads or all-new small blocks.
It is also interesting that after Chevy proved its system to be so successful that nobody else followed it down that path.
It was successful in function, but it was expensive and sold in quite small quantities. So it was in essence a commercial failure, not a success. Obviously it didn’t really unleash any meaningful amount of more power than properly designed carbs (and there’s no reason to expect that), as this test makes quite apparent. Buyers weren’t willing to pay the high price for better throttle response and a bit better fuel economy.
Fuel injection really came into its own after emission controls made carburated cars increasingly difficult to perform properly. But prior to that, a good carb setup was highly effective, and gave away little or nothing to FI. That’s the gist of this comparison.
The Chrysler LA was certainly an evolution of the old A V8, but with the redesigned block (in addition to the heads) it was effectively a new design, even it it used a few of the old internal parts. And it did not come along until the 60s after Ford introduced the new Windsor family.
My point was only that performance development stopped after 1957 everywhere but at Chevy for small-displacement engines, not to be picked up again until years later when smaller performance cars started to become a thing. I don’t think the A block or Y blocks of Plymouth/Ford ever got so much as a 4 bbl carb after 1957 – there was just no business sense for it. But at Chevrolet the Corvette demanded a first-class small performance engine and Chevy’s engine engineers obliged. They had a hot new 327 for 1962, while Ford and Plymouth had nada.
The base engine in the 1958 Plymouth Fury was a 318 poly-A with dual quad carburetors and a 290 horsepower gross rating. I think the inconveniently fast Fury at Daytona Beach Speed Week in 1956 had a similar engine that pushed it to 143.596 mph and raised the ire of the Chrysler 300B team.
You are mostly right on the Plymouth – in checking it seems that they offered a 4 bbl 318 through 1962, but from 1959-on the 361 or 383 was the big dog as far as performance went. I know I am right on the Ford 292.
A dual-quad 318 was the standard Fury engine in 1958, but a dual quad B block 350 that was optional was the one that got the glory.
I thought I remembered that the 56 Fury used the Canadian 303 V8. Mopar’s 1950s V8 displacements require a wall-chart to keep straight.
You may well be right about the ’56 Fury. I couldn’t tell from reading my sources which engine it had in 1956, just that it had the 318 dual quad in 1957 and the start of 1958.
But at Chevrolet the Corvette demanded a first-class small performance engine and Chevy’s engine engineers obliged. They had a hot new 327 for 1962, while Ford and Plymouth had nada.
The misunderstandings about the SBC continue…
You think for a minute that Chevrolet created the 327 just because of the Corvette? Not. With the latest heads that were to come out in ’61, the 283 was rated at 315 hp. More than enough, especially since the 396/427 was already in the offing. For that matter, they could have dropped the 409 into the C2, as it was the same basic block as the 396/427. Or they could just have supercharged the 283, if they really needed more power.
The 327 was created because it was simply way to much of a huge opportunity to not create it. Keep in mind, the only significant thing different between the 283 and 327 is that the cores were managed a bit more accurately to allow a safe 4″ bore. Hot rodders had been boring 283s to 4″ to make a 301 for years, and most of the time it worked fine; sometimes not. And stroker kits for the 283 were also available.
The heads are essentially identical, depending on the state of tune. The 327 is just a bored and stroked 283, period, with a few minor changes to the block while they were at it.
Given the trend in passenger cars towards being heavier and more power accessories and the consumer demand for more powerful engines, the 327 played a critical role in Chevy’s passenger car line, especially with the Powerglide. Pymouth’s 318 was decidedly bigger and more powerful, and with the TF, a significantly better powertrain. Anyone who wanted a decent bit of adequate power in a Ford ordered the 352, like in Jason’s car, as the 292 was a bit of a dog.
The 327 was the critical answer to that. The 348 was unnecessarily heavy, and frankly, not really a brilliant engine, unlike the small block, as the Chevy engineers admitted themselves.
Chevrolet had a vast capacity to build small blocks, and enlarging it to 327 was a much cheaper and obvious solution to respond to Chrysler’s 318 and Ford’s 352.
The Corvette sold in minute quantities, undoubtedly made no meaningful profit, and was a halo car. Chevrolet kept its budget on a tight leash, as ZAD knew to his great frustration (drum brakes on the ’63). There’s is absolutely no way they were going to create some new engine for it.
Also, Chevrolet was absolutely going to need a performance engine for the upcoming Chevelle.
You’re putting the dog before the horse. And still don’t seem to “get” the SBC. You seem to think that the Corvette was the primary driver of the SBC’s performance. It’s the other way around: Chevy had hundreds of thousands of cars to sell, and naturally wanted the best performance possible. The SBC’s development from 1955 on was all just a bit of refinement: bigger valves and ports, but the same basic head otherwise. And more bore and stroke.
The comparison to Granatelli and the R3-4 is not a relevant one. That was a program to create essentially a racing engine that could be used on the street. It’s comparable to Ford’s Boss 302, or the Boss 429, with all-new heads that were custom made in very limited quantities to qualify for racing (TA, NASCAR). Or the 426 hemi, which did end up being built in somewhat greater quantities. The SBC never had a comparable program. It didn’t need it.
I am not saying for a moment that Chevy “created the 327 just because of the Corvette”. What I am saying is that the SBC was the one and only small displacement V8 in the industry that got a steady diet of engineering and improvement. Which led to a 327 version in 1962 which made a lot of happy owners of both Impalas and Corvettes. Why did it get this? A competitive small V8 certainly didn’t happen anywhere else until well into the early 60s.
Maybe that continued development would have happened without the Corvette. Maybe Chevy would have sold a bazillion hot 283s in Bel Airs and Impalas because they were better performers than the Ford and Plymouth competition. Maybe it was just that an enlarged SBC had more all-around potential than their mid-sized big block.
I just suggest that the alternative was possible too – that Chevrolet (without a Corvette) could have gotten by offering 283s in 1957 “normal” states of tune while they spent all of their development effort on the big blocks that Ford and Chrysler were pushing and that were the darlings of the NASCAR tracks (and that were profitable upsells) – because that’s certainly what the competition was doing until maybe 1964-65. The SBC would surely have been better than what the competition was offering in lopo small V8s even at that, and the hot rodders would have been fine because an SBC was easy to hop up.
You have sold me that the SBC was head and shoulders above what the competition was offering. But I merely suggest that among all of them, there was one single purveyor of small displacement V8s who put steady, sustained development effort into its engine. And one single such company with a product that called for a small, lightweight V8 in a high state of tune. You seem to suggest that it is total coincidence that both of those things happened within the same company. I am less convinced of that. I just suggest that that car and that engine had a synergy that made SBC development a paying proposition for both, and led to great results for all concerned.
(And you will note that I did not mention the “S” company or its engines even once. 🙂 )
I am not saying for a moment that Chevy “created the 327 just because of the Corvette”
But that’s essentially exactly what you said: But at Chevrolet the Corvette demanded a first-class small performance engine and Chevy’s engine engineers obliged. They had a hot new 327 for 1962,
Jim, you left out the key ingredient: The SBC was worth keeping and developing, because it was significantly superior to the competition. The Y block was dead meat the day the SBC arrived, and not just because of the heads. It was also very heavy. And the poly Plymouth A Series engine was also a dead end, because it too had heads that did not breathe nearly as well as the Chevy. Chrysler engineers admitted that it was a mistake, and they quickly went to Chevy-style heads for the 1958 B series.
There’s absolutely no doubt in my mind that if Ford and Chrysler had small black engines of similar caliber as the SBC, with lots of inherent potential in their heads, they too would have kept them and developed them further. It would have been a lot cheaper than the route they had no choice but in taking.
The overwhelming bulk of demand for engines in the larger cars were increasingly V8s in the 200-300hp range. if you could easily meet that by boring and stroking your existing small block, without any investment in new engine designs and production facilities, you’d have to be nuts not to.
Chevy saw that potential in the SBC, and took full advantage of it for financial reasons; it was a lot cheaper to build than a big block or new engine.
Look at all the different V8 families Ford and Chrysler built in the 1954-1970 time period. Ford had…seven! Plymouth/Dodge had at least five. Chevy had two and half, since the 396/427 was just an evolution of the 348/409.
Guess who was making more profit on their engine operations?
The SBC allowed Chevy to meet a huge range of needs and applications for many decades, and i the process made a lot of money for them.
And no, Chevy could not have gotten by with just the 283. Teamed with the PG, it was clearly falling behind the competition, as you know all too well. There was an essential need for an engine one step above it. The 348/409 big blocks were never planned to be built in huge quantities like the small block.
Just like eventually the 327 got to be too small, hence the 350. And then the 400. The need for ever bigger small blocks kept increasing, until the energy crisis.
on the big blocks that Ford and Chrysler were pushing and that were the darlings of the NASCAR tracks (and that were profitable upsells) – because that’s certainly what the competition was doing until maybe 1964-65.
How many 427s did Ford sell? How many 426s did Plymouth and Dodge sell? Peanuts. Anyway, Chevy had the 409 for their NASCAR?NHRA stormer, where it did quite well too. I don’t get your point here at all.
The real money was in the millions of 250-300 hp V8 upsells, not in a couple of hundred 427s and 426s. And that’s where Chevy got by with as small block, which was cheaper and the production facilities were already in place.
This is starting to get highly repetitive again…
They had a hot new 327 for 1962, while Ford and Plymouth had nada.
I think much of your misunderstanding of SBCs comes from assumptions that aren’t based on fact. The 327 wasn’t some “hot new” engine, it was almost the exact same thing as the 265 and 283, except for a larger bore and stroke, something hot rodders ah been doing since it came out. Smokey Yunick had a 356 inch bored and stroked 265 in 1955 already.
The 210/250/300 hp 327s are directly analogue to the 195/220/240 hp 283’s; same 1.72″ intake/ 1.5″ exhaust heads as the 265/283, except for differences in combustion chamber volume to change compression ratio as needed. Same cam in all of them. The only difference was that the 300hp 327 had a new intake manifold and a single bigger four barrel to replace the obsolete dual quads.
That’s it! For the overwhelming majority of 327s ever built. For that matter, the same basic 1.72/1.5 heads from the 265 were used in various small blocks right up to 1983, in the 350!
So please don’t think the 327 was some magical hot new engine. yes, the top output versions got heads with somewhat larger valves, but those had already been planned for the ’61 283, and they’re very similar otherwise in principle.
This is the magic of the SBC. You can turn a 283 into 327, or turn a 327 into a 301/302, or turn a 283 into a 307, or turn a 327 into a 350, or… It’s just a matter of different cranks, pistons, and your choice of heads. Plug and play.
There was essentially zero cost for Chevy to create the basic 327, just change the dimensions on the crank, the pistons, and…that’s it!!
I can see where JPC is coming from, in that the Corvette helped to ensure that the SBC had a steady development in the performance department. Really by 1960, the SBC as performance engine in the fullsize Chevy had been supplanted by the 348. The hi-po 283’s were gone from the fullsize line-up, with the most powerful version being a 283-4bbl making 230 hp. So had the Corvette not existed, perhaps there would have been a lull in the SBC development as a performance engine, while the W-engines were at the forefront. However, things would have picked up again with the Chevelle, Chevy II and Camaro which really were better suited with the small V8. And of course the larger fullsize cars needed bigger small block engines by the end of the decade to motivate them.
I agree of the 1950s engine designs, the SBC was the leader in design and it really did influence others to follow suit (perhaps the Pontiac V8 was also a close second). Ford guys love to say that the LS V8 is a copy of the Windsor V8, but the reality is the Windsor V8 was Ford’s version of the SBC. It had way more in common with the Chevrolet V8 than any other previous Ford design. The Chrysler LA series also introduced many of the SBC design traits. The Poly headed Chrysler engines had some performance potential, but it was also a more costly head design. The Ford 335 series engines had a similar combustion chamber design, and it could arguably produce more power per cubic inch than a SBC all else equal. FWIW, Chevrolet did experiment with a canted valve head too for the SBC, but it never saw production:
https://hotrodenginetech.com/1969-z28-canted-valve-302/
It’s also worth mentioning that the biggest reason the 327 was developed was to replace the 348. The 348 was a bit of a disappointment as a passenger car engine, and the large heavier Chevrolets needed something bigger than the 283 to motivate them. The 327 was the ideal solution and it turned out to be a better all-round and performance engine than the 348. One point to mention though, the 327 did not use the same block casting as the 283. Some 283 block castings could be bored to 4”, or .125” over, but not all. Most at the time recommended a 0.60” overbore as the safe max on a 283 block, unless you found a good core. Furthermore, the block needed modification for the longer stroke of the 327.
However, Paul’s point stands, the 327 was essentially just a bored and stroked 283. In fact the SBC was one of the few engines that saw no major engineering changes over its entire life span, just constant improvements. Sure there were variations in the blocks, the early 1955-57s blocks, the small bearing blocks, the larger bearing blocks, the 400 blocks, the roller cam/one piece rear main blocks. However, it was all the basic same design, and most major components will swap for all Gen I engines.
One extra point. While Paul is correct that most 327’s used the small 1.72″ intake valve heads, but the majority of the 350s used 1.94″ heads, even the lo-perfromance 350s from the 70’s. Also there were significant changes made in the heads from the early 265 castings. The 305 became the main stay SBC in the 1980’s and they did use the 1.72″ valve size again but some versions also used a 1.84″ valve, including the last 305s produced (1996-2002 Vortec).
Vince, I found a site with every SBC head casting, and that’s where I saw the one used on 350’s from 1980-1984 with 1.72 and 1.5″ valves:
http://minuit10.net/EngineCode/chevy/SBChevyCylinderHead.htm
I didn’t mean to imply that no 350s used the small 1.72 inch valves. There were 1.72 inch valves used on some 350s, more often than not in pickup and van applications. Those ones you listed are more than likely truck heads, as from 1980-84, other than the Corvette, Police Cars, and some 80-81 Camaros, trucks were the only 350 powered Chevrolets. But like I said, the majority of the 350s used 1.94″ valves. Of course there were also the 2.02″ valve versions too.
Just adding that the first Chevy with EFI (by Bendix) was the ’75 Cosworth Vega…
Very interesting article! As I had two C2s at the same time, one ’63 FI coupe (which I stil have) and one carb’d ’66 427/425 roadster (sold in 2018), I have been able to compare and contrast and can confirm most of what is said in this piece. The fuellie is very crisp and suffers no flatspots, whilst having astonishingly low fuel consumption. It’s also wickedly fast for a 327 with 3.70 rear end. The idle does have to be set high, or it will stall and hot starting on mine requires half throttle, whilst cold starting is instantaneous. In the mountains the fuellie remains consistent, whilst the altitude caused the carb’d car to get fluffy and run rich. It also didn’t particularly like hot starting.The biggest problem with the 4 barrel Holley was that, whist fine under acceleration or hard cornering, it hated heavy braking, just like the dual quads.
At least one did get the chance to do repeated heavy braking in the all ventillated disc ’66 though. The drums on the ’63 are actually not bad in everyday use, but don’t like repeated use over 100mph (these cars both saw a lot of Autobahnen and road rallies). Seating position and IRS mean that the rest of my experiences are vastly different to the C1, but for me the ’57’s clean lines make it the absolute pick of the early Corvettes. Those turquoise ones with white coves look fabulous….
Thanks for chiming in. Your experiences seem consistent with others I’ve read of too. The FI didn’t necessarily increase output in normal situations, but it did offer a variety of benefits.
Enjoy your split window!
I fell in love with the Corvette twice: the ’57s and the ’63 coupe.
Thanks Paul! The ’63 is in repose at the moment, but I’m looking forward to awakening it after a rejigging of living arrangements. C2s are much better to drive than most would have you believe – I’ll be adding discs to the front of mine to correct its largest weakness though. They go well, ride well, sounds great, are reliable and handle sweetly. And the looks grabbed me when I first saw one in a magazine whilst still a child in the UK.
I feel very lucky to have snagged these two Sting Rays cheaply many years ago and have thoroughly enjoyed them in situations from daily driver (including in Paris), to rallying and GeeTee-ing across Europe.
I drove a ’67 327/350 a couple of years ago at a CC Meet-up. It was a great experience, and fulfilled a long-held ambition:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classicdriving-impressions-1967-corvette-convertible-a-long-held-dream-fulfilled/
I wonder what you mean, Huey, by “astonishingly low fuel consumption” on that rather lovely car? In this SCI test, the difference is less than 20% (which is itself very considerable), but are you (perhaps) implying a lot more again in your experience?
I’m curious because I’ve always thought that when the emissions and economy stuff hit the industry so heavily in the ’70’s that GM (at least) actually had the tech in their backstory to deal with the problems far better than the rubbish they instead fitted to all those unfortunate post-72 models.
( I know mechanical FI doesn’t of itself give any emissions advantage, but it it surely gives a much better starting point to control the issues, and especially helpful if the economy is a good bit better).
Hi Justy,
I have an Autocar road test from 1964 which tests a ‘63 fuellie and remarks on its efficiency at being faster than a 300SL (at 5.4s to 60mph) and achieving 25mpg (UK, not USA gallons).
I didn’t believe it until I got mine, but it did seem to use around that figure. I can only compare it to the 427 I had (which was not as thirsty as you may think), not directly to a 4 bbl 327, which would be the correct comparison, but I think it’s a remarkably good system when set up correctly.
Absolutely agree with criticism of GM losing the plot in not developing this system further and stealing a march on the Germans with a great performing, low consumption and. environmentally friendly series of motors at the end of the ‘60s/early ‘70s.
Of course, in pure performance terms it was cheaper to go the Big Block route, especially as, in the case of the Corvette, it didn’t unbalance the car too much (51% front against 49% for the small block).
The irony is not lost on me that the fantastic BB I had in my ‘66 effectively killed the FI Small block I love so much in the ‘63….
That soft copper color is just stunning. Does anyone produce a car in this color today?
The ’56-’62 Corvettes are my favorite Corvettes.
About 9-10 years ago, I went to a park in Plymouth, MI, near where i worked at the time, and pulled up right next to a ’57 ‘Vette that was a twin of the aqua/white ones in this article. Made my day – especially when the owner left and i got to hear it run through the gears!
The Rochester FI worked so well because it was a good copy of aircraft fuel injection that was already a proven technology, and is still used on piston aircraft engines today. Bendix made excellent aircraft hardware. Why they went with unproven electronics on their automotive FI is a mystery to me.
Fascinating historical meander, this.
The suspicions expressed about the apparent underbonnet delicacy of the FI are quite understandable in the day, if mildly amusing now, even though some folk are equally suspicious of electric-powered jobs today.
When I read “125 mph”, I immediately thought “on little drum brakes”, and I was right (as I always insist to be about my least favourite bit of auto engineering and one that should never have lived a day past the invention of the disc): the brakes were indeed “an omnipresent menace in this other wise capable road car.” Hehe, “omnipresent menace” – now that’s writing!
Also can’t help but love the palpable disdain in that expression, “this otherwise capable road car”, as, surely, in a mag called Sports Car Illustrated and given the considerable handling deficiencies they have just described, it is really saying “it’s not a car for the track and, well, it’s entirely – er – capable on the road.” High praise it isn’t.
I wonder how the fuelie Corvette would have fared against a single 4-bbl 283. I’ve read that one of the chief reasons mechanical fuel injection wasn’t the greatest for street cars was because it wasn’t linear and operated more as an on/off switch. This would be okay for race engines which run at consistant high rpm but not so great on the street. It would also explain why Chrysler and Rambler tried early unsuccessful attempts at EFI systems.
So, I can see why mechanical FI would be better than a multiple carb set-up (which were notoriously difficult to keep in sync). But maybe not better than a single carburetor-equipped engine.
While I think that some racing injection systems with velocity stacks might be tuned for power within a narrow engine speed rating, mechanical fuel injection systems devised for road cars were pretty flexible in operation. A basic design principle of most of them is an injection pump running at half of engine speed, resulting in proper fuel delivery for the needs of the engine. The driver controls the throttle, and the fuel delivery system is tuned to keep up. The Rochester Ram Jet system was even a little more sophisticated in that it used vacuum to direct fuel delivery. The reason it didn’t stick around was expense, inability to hold a tune over time, and lack of expertise in the field. If your customers have expensive cars that need frequent attention and there are no competent technicians in the field, then it is much easier to bump displacement while using technologies everyone is familiar with.