[Tom Vaught]

Thanks Jon, first statement fits exactly.

Tom V.

[geeteeohguy]

I disagree with the '79 SBC. For the most part, they were all very reliable. The first year flathead V8 had some bugs that later flathead V8's did not have. That said, they had a habit of cracking the blocks and vapor locking as part of their design. Not a super robust engine, IMO. Great for what it was at its price point 90 years ago, though. I started working in the auto industry in 1979 and can verify 100% the other engines being listed as total junk. Cadillac were the worst of the worst....and GM liked to use the consumer as their test bed, rather than the lab and test track, like the imports.

[b-man]

Originally Posted by geeteeohguy

I disagree with the '79 SBC. For the most part, they were all very reliable. The first year flathead V8 had some bugs that later flathead V8's did not have. That said, they had a habit of cracking the blocks and vapor locking as part of their design. Not a super robust engine, IMO. Great for what it was at its price point 90 years ago, though. I started working in the auto industry in 1979 and can verify 100% the other engines being listed as total junk. Cadillac were the worst of the worst....and GM liked to use the consumer as their test bed, rather than the lab and test track, like the imports.

On the vapor lock issue, the flathead V8 fuel pump was mounted on the top of the intake manifold at the back, there really couldn’t have been a worse place to put it.

In 1932 they increased the number of louvers in the hood sides from 20 to 25 halfway through the year in an attempt to alleviate the overheating issue, little by little.

[mgarblik]

Originally Posted by geeteeohguy

I disagree with the '79 SBC. For the most part, they were all very reliable. The first year flathead V8 had some bugs that later flathead V8's did not have. That said, they had a habit of cracking the blocks and vapor locking as part of their design. Not a super robust engine, IMO. Great for what it was at its price point 90 years ago, though. I started working in the auto industry in 1979 and can verify 100% the other engines being listed as total junk. Cadillac were the worst of the worst....and GM liked to use the consumer as their test bed, rather than the lab and test track, like the imports.

I also worked at a GM dealer during that period as a line Tech. The Cadillac HT 4100 was a super weak piece of junk. I remember going to a class at the GM Training Center in Cincinnati when it first came out. They made a huge deal out of the engine block weighing 57 lbs. I still remember that number. That was supposed to be a selling point! Three months into production, we started getting them in with main bearing knocking noise and metal in the oil. Most of them had 4 or 5 V-type accessory belts. GM issued a service bulletin stating that the belts, MUST be tightened with a belt tension gauge, and they supplied a revised set of belts, a little wider with rounded shoulders so they could be run at a newer, lower belt tension. The reason? Tightening the belts in the conventional manner would ruin the line hone and pull the block out of shape wiping out the main bearings. Yea, the perfect engine for a typical Cadillac owner. Yikes.

[77 TRASHCAN]

The 6.2/6.5 GM diesel was supposedly based on the Pontiac V8?
If so, anyone got any specifics?

[Sirrotica]

Originally Posted by 77 TRASHCAN

The 6.2/6.5 GM diesel was supposedly based on the Pontiac V8?
If so, anyone got any specifics?

I can tell you for certain that's not true, I have 2, 6.5s and the architecture is completely different. Nothing would interchange between the 2 engines, and they don't look anything alike. Different rocker arm setups, timing covers are completely different, the valve order arrangement is different, nope after working on hundreds of Stratostreak V8s, they have nothing in common with the 2, 6.5s I currently own.

Pontiac long block:



6.5 long block:

[Half-Inch Stud]

Post #46; amazing.

[GT182]

The 301's 1st year was 77. I had one in my 79 Formula. A friend i worked with at Anchor said he'd walk all over the 301 with his 302 Ford T-bird. Both cars had 4barrel carbs. No idea what his rear ratio was, but mine was a 2:48 posi. He ate crow for a long time.