Mopar V-8 Engine Families

"Chrysler had far more engine families than most people are aware of.
There is considerable confusion because some engines of different
families had the same or almost the same displacement, and recognizable
trade names (Hemi, in particular) have been applied to several distinct
engine families..."

eBay Guide: http://301url.com/MoparV8

 

Its not all that complicated, especially after the switch to a single
corporate line of engines with the introduction of the B/RB big blocks
in '59, and the standardization on the A-block 318 (and its derivative
LA block 273, 318, 340, and 360 as well as the 3.9v6) for the small
engines. Throw in the slant-6 and 2.2/2.5 4-bangers and you have covered
every Chrysler engine between 1959 and about 1988 when the 3.3 v6 was
introduced. Nowhere near as twisted as the mess over at GM with 3
unrelated 455s alone, not to mention a 454, 472, 500, and at least 3
unrelated 350s.

 

I count four; Chevy, Buick, Olds and Pontiac.

Guess which one was the cheapest to make (and therefore most compromised
in design) and guess which one GM standardized on when they went to a
"corporate" engine program. What they *should* have done was
standardized on the Olds 350 for the "small block" and the Caddy 429/472
for the "big block" corporate engines (in my fantasy world, that is...)

nate

 

I couldn't remember for sure if Pontiac had a 350, so I said "at least
3"

Oh, you're preachin' to the choir on that one. The small chevy was a
great engine up to about the 327, but when they had to shorten the rods
for the 350 (and especially the 400 which also required siamesing the
bores) and never gave it the same block alloy that the Olds, Buick,
Caddy, and Pontiacs got.... well, it was not so great. It survives on
sheer numbers, aftermarket parts availablity, and familiarity on the
part of engine builders and machinists. But a knowledgable person can
extract more performance/durability from almost any other v8 engine than
from a smallblock Chevy.

Admittedly the Gen-III GM smallblocks are outstanding engines... but
then not a part from them really interchanges with the small-block
Chevy, either. Apart from keeping the bore-center spacing, they're
pretty much a clean sheet of paper.

The 472 (or Olds 455 for that matter) would have been an outstanding
heavy-duty truck engine. FAR and away better than the Chevy 454.

As for a hi-performance GM engine, I might have to put myself in the
Buick camp, although Pontiac is close too. Being a Mopar guy, I like the
long rod length, big bore/short stroke architecture of the Buick. Its
the most "Mopar-like" of all the GM engines in those regards, although
the Olds is more like a big Mopar in block rigidity. The Buick's light
weight is nice too (a Buick 455 weighs about the same or less than a
Chevy 350.) But GM never fully addressed its problems- bad oiling system
and a tendency for too much block-flex partly BECAUSE its so light. But
the aftermarket did a good job with both, so it COULD have been done at
the factory.

 

yeah, I can't decide if I'm really a Studebaker or MoPar guy at heart.
The Stude has unbelievable block strength but the MoPars have more
revvability. I guess I'd really rather have everything - rigidity,
revs, and lots of sweet, sweet boost

I currently have a '55 Stude with an Avanti engine simply because Stude
prices haven't gone completely nuts like hi-po MoPar prices, although if
a nice A-body with a 340 and a stickshift came my way I wouldn't kick it
out of my driveway for leaking oil. I still haven't gotten any forced
induction yet, but all I'd need to do a quick upgrade would be the
blower, brackets, pulleys, and heads from an R-2 Avanti.

Studebaker engines are easy, there were only three basic designs from
the 30's on Commander (nee Rockne) six, the smaller Champion six
(flathead and OHV) and the OHV V-8.

nate

 

Was the Marshal/ R1 / R2 289 the same block as the Commander 224 and
232?
And what about the 283?

Was the 194 six the same as either the Lark/Hawk 170 inch six or the
245 inch Commander? I know the Lark engine was an OHV conversion of
the earlier flathead of the same displacement..

I thought the V8 before 1954 was a Stude design, and after 1955 or so
was a larger Packard developed engine. (not the 352 / 374)


I actually like the AMC V8, myself.

 

yes, with a redesign mid-'62 for a full flow oil filter. The 232 is a
little unique as it uses a different bore size than the 224/259/289 but
it is the same basic block. Heads and manifolds were redesigned with
the intro. of the 224 and 259 for the '55 model year and remained
similar to the end. The R1 (hi-po NA 289) and R2 (hi-po supercharged
289) engines were simply regular 289s with flattop pistons, a more
aggressive cam/springs, larger fuel pump, larger fuel lines with a
return, and more crankcase ventilation for high RPM operation. The 304
(R3/R4) engines had a larger bore yet, but I believe they were the same
casting, just hand selected and overbored. The R3 and R4 had a lot of
unique parts but were never sold in anything resembling decent volume
(double digits, likely.)

That's a McKinnon industrial engine (that is, small block Ch*vy) used
after the South Bend foundry closed down after the '64 model year. Not
made by Studebaker...

The 194 was also a McKinnon. The "Champion" six came in 170 or 185ci
displacements, and the 170 OHV engine was simply a conversion of the
earlier flathead.

The 245 (and earlier, smaller related engines) "Commander" sixes are a
whole different family, and actually the oldest design, dating back to
the early 30's Rockne. One of the longest-lived American engines, used
until 1960 in trucks. Nobody remembers it today It's actually not
bad; I worked on a '41 Commander once and remember when driving it that
it was very torquey and smooth but as you would expect had no top end
whatsoever. For some reason next to no speed parts were ever made for
this engine, save for the occasional aluminum head. You *can* get dual
carb intakes and split exhausts for the flathead Champions, which I
don't understand...

Nope, the 320/352/274 was the only Packard developed V-8, and the Stude
V-8s up to '64 were all evolutions of the '51 232. The '56 Golden Hawk
did use a single 4bbl version of the 352 which is about the only good
thing that came out of the Studebaker-Packard merger (unless you really
hate Packards and consider the death of the Packard nameplate a good
thing...) A decent engine design but it was *enormous* and heavy, and
also had oiling system problems that were never worked out.

One of the old-school Stude performance fanatic guys was partial to them
as well. He seemed to think they would hold up to massive boost almost
as well as a Stude but with larger displacement.

Another good engine along those lines is the Toyota straight six used in
the Supra and Cressida.

nate

 

When I worked on the farm in the sixties we had a '49 Stude pickup -
the little one - 1/4 ton - possibly half. It would haul 2 ton of feed
like a champ. Replaced it with a '61 Chevy 1/2 ton and it could not
get out of second gear with a ton on it.

Yes, the M series were a VERY strong engine - particularly the 5MGE
and the Turbo variant (5mgt?)

 

New link: http://snipr.com/MoparV8

 

The hot setup for years was to build a gas motor out of the Olds 350
diesel block. Good machine shops could even turn the piston tops down
and shorten the center-to-center distance on the rods enough to make a
livable CR with common heads.

It's easy to put a BOP or Cadillac engine in any GMC/Chev pickup.

That said-the Chevy when properly rebuilt was the best of the GM
engines because the "good guy" parts were easily available. Most
rodders never read the Chevy power manuals that TOLD you the hot setup
GM spent millions to find and instead bought a lot of aftermarket
dogshit.

The Chevy Power book said to groove the oil pump base plate just so,
reinforce this, deburr that, braze this other. Did people? Mostly no.

Notice the SB and BB Chev and Corvair can easily be set up reverse
rotation. Change cam and distributor gears.

 

Not even close

 

I for one wouldn't have picked an Olds 350 as my choice of GM 350
engines. I owned two of them, and would take a Chevy anytime.

BDK

 

Remember, his definition of a good engine had nothing to do with the
quality of the engine, just easy and cheap availability of hot-rod
parts.

 

I know.

I still think that even by that definition the Chevy v8 is not the
"best" GM engine. If you throw aftermarket support in the mix, I would
argue that Pontiac moves past Buick and Olds to the top and Chevy is
*still* second, at best, among the GM engines. It has the most
aftermarket support, but even with Pontiac's weaknesses compared to Olds
and Buick, the basic engine design is enough better than Chevy that it
still comes out ahead.


And we're really down to splitting hairs. Truth of it is, ALL of the big
3 and all of their divisions made very acceptable and long-lived v8
engines. Mopars were the best (of course...) but I wouldn't kick any of
the others out of the garage for a foreign 4-banger or six.