Then and Now - Page 4 - PY Online Forums

carbking · #61 12-19-2004, 09:22 PM

Rabon - if you are going to use this line of evolution, then the LS1 must be derived from Cadillac which sold a 346 CID V-8 engine to the military in 1944....................FOR A TANK!

At least IT had a carburetor!

To take this further, Oakland had a V-8 346 CID in 1916; but they were not the first. I will leave the additional research on this family tree to whomever should be interested.

Oh, and the 347 was a Pontiac block, not a small block.

Jon.

rabon008 · #62 12-19-2004, 09:30 PM

We're talking about GM car engines and who put the first 5.7 litre in a car, Pontiac or Chevy. Try to keep up.

You made my point though. The LS1 is no more a Chevy engine than it is a Cadillac tank engine.

You will never get your beloved carb back on a production GTO so just give that up.

The Champ · #63 12-20-2004, 12:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by carbking:
Rabon - if you are going to use this line of evolution, then the LS1 must be derived from Cadillac which sold a 346 CID V-8 engine to the military in 1944....................FOR A TANK!

At least IT had a carburetor!

To take this further, Oakland had a V-8 346 CID in 1916; but they were not the first. I will leave the additional research on this family tree to whomever should be interested.

Oh, and the 347 was a Pontiac block, not a small block.

Jon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jon

That 346 CI Caddy motor had been in use since 1936...

And of course, it was a flathead V8.

The true predecessor of the LS1 is the 331 CI (5.4L) Kettering OHV V8 introduced by Cadillac in 1949.

And the factory color of the 331 is blue...

In 1914, Cadillac was secretly working on the first mass-produced V8 engine that for ever would revolutionize the American motor car scene. The first American V8 was a 314 CI (5.1 L) and was originally installed in 1915 Cadillacs.

So if your just talking V8's it's the Cadillac, or if you want to (more correctly) talk OHV V8's, the answer is still Cadillac.

And yes, they had carbs....

carbking · #64 12-20-2004, 06:31 AM

Champ - yes I was aware of the 346 Caddy being available in 1936 (it used a Stromberg EE-25 carburetor with an experimental electric choke), my database of USA produced models and vehicles is now more than 60,000 records. However, with all the "interesting dialogue" written on this forum, the reference to the tank (which is correct)

seemed appropriate.

If you are serious about the ancestor of the LS-1 being the Cadillac 331 rather than the bowtie, then I have much more respect for the LS-1, as the 331 Cadillac was a very respected engine. Sydney Allard used then (along with Lincoln) in his Allard sports racing cars. We have done many multiple carburetor set-ups for the old 331. The first available (to my knowledge) was a dual deuce manifold available from Detroit Engineering about 1949. It used two of the stock two-barrel Carter carburetors from 1949.

Again, if true, this would remove 1 of my major objections to the Holden SS. While I mildly disagree with some of the "ramblings" of dragncar, I quite agree with his comments about putting a bowtie engine in ANY vehicle called GTO. Chevrolet Division is probably responsible for killing the real Pontiac V-8 (if you can't beat the competition, eliminate it). Using a bowtie engine in a vehicle with the name of Pontiac's performance flagship (even if it isn't) smacks of heresy!

One thing I would be interested in learning, and some of the individuals on these forums have the information available: what impact has the Holden SS had on Pontiac's overall sales performance in 2004 vs other manufacturers? In other words, did Pontiac have an overall sales performance increase or decrease? is this increase or decrease similiar or dissimiliar to their 2003 performance? how does their increase or decrease percentage-wise compare to Chevrolet and Buick? I had guessed when the Holden SS came out that the heresy of the Holden SS would have ticked off enough loyal Pontiac buyers to have made a significant difference in other sales. Of course the demise of Oldsmobile will create sales for the other divisions, which is why I would like to see the percentages.

I do not know where to look for this information, but am very interested.

And for those of you who like the car, I have no negative comments about the Holden SS other than the name, which should NEVER have been allowed to happen.

Jon.

rabon008 · #65 12-20-2004, 06:46 AM

I am not in disagreement here about the Caddy engine, just wanted to point out that the 1957, 347 c.i.d. Pontiac engine was also fuel injected, giving it just a little more in common with the LS1. I know you guys like your carbs (and I do too) but we just aren't getting them back.

carbking · #66 12-20-2004, 08:49 AM

Rabon - just be glad the fuel injection system has been slightly improved from the 1957 unit. I knew a gentleman who bought one new in 1957, who then bought coaster diaphragms by the dozen; and kept at least 2 in the glove box so he could make it to the store and back without calling the tow truck.

The design was changed for the 1958 unit, making it somewhat more reliable, although still no guarantee you would make it home.

I have long contended that the cell phone was invented due to the reliability of electronic ignition and modern fuel injection; maybe the CB radio was invented due to the reliability of the early fuel injection systems!!!

And you are quite correct about carburetors. We proved conclusively doing the early 1980's that even feedback carburetors could not meter fuel AT LOW VELOCITY sufficiently well to meet emission standards, and no, we won't be going back. However, for the older vehicles, I MUCH prefer the characteristics of carburetion over fuel injection (cost, reliability, ease of installation, reliability, ease of modification, reliability, tuneability for the novice, reliability, ease of repair, reliability, etc.).

Jon.

RandyW · #67 12-20-2004, 03:43 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> However, for the older vehicles, I MUCH prefer the characteristics of carburetion over fuel injection (cost, reliability, ease of installation, reliability, ease of modification, reliability, tuneability for the novice, reliability, ease of repair, reliability, etc.).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm 52 years old, I've never owned a carb as reliable as my LT-1's fuel injection! I was a hard sell, absolute dyed in the wool carb guy. I've been converted in the last 15 years or so. The are more responsive than the best pro built carb, they get better mpg, they start every morning, even today at 5 degrees, on the first crank, without touching the pedal. Yes there are experts that with enough time and money, can make a carb run very well, but it will never have the power, driveability and economy at the same time as efi can.

rabon008 · #68 12-20-2004, 06:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by carbking:
Rabon - just be glad the fuel injection system has been slightly improved from the 1957 unit. I knew a gentleman who bought one new in 1957, who then bought coaster diaphragms by the dozen; and kept at least 2 in the glove box so he could make it to the store and back without calling the tow truck.

The design was changed for the 1958 unit, making it somewhat more reliable, although still no guarantee you would make it home.

And you are quite correct about carburetors. We proved conclusively doing the early 1980's that even feedback carburetors could not meter fuel AT LOW VELOCITY sufficiently well to meet emission standards, and no, we won't be going back. However, for the older vehicles, I MUCH prefer the characteristics of carburetion over fuel injection (cost, reliability, ease of installation, reliability, ease of modification, reliability, tuneability for the novice, reliability, ease of repair, reliability, etc.).

Jon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like the sound of carburetion (even though the new GTO captures the exhaust note of the older cars about as well as any e.f.i. ever has). Reliability wise though, modern e.f.i. systems are absolutely beyond all comparison with carbs.

The '57 Pontiac injection system was apparently somehow superior and gave a little more reliability than the '57 Vette system (although I believe both were Rochester). In any event, it wasn't as fast as the tri-power 347 in the 1/4 mile but it was faster off the line, pushing the 4200+ pound Bonny from 0 to 60 in about 8 seconds.

rabon008 · #69 12-20-2004, 06:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by carbking:

bowtie engine in a vehicle with the name of Pontiac's performance flagship (even if it isn't) smacks of heresy!

Jon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTW: The '04 GTO IS Pontiac's performance flagship and Holden has an SS, its called the Commodore SS and it has 4 doors. The '04 Pontiac GTO is a GTO and will be shown at every future Pontiac enthusiast show as a GTO, right along side the 64s, 68s and 70s. Go drive one and really feel the car, then listen to it. You might like it better than you think.

Dragncar · #70 12-20-2004, 06:17 PM

This is getting interesting,but time consuming.I have a lot of work to do since I plan on heading for the 10s this year.But I can chat with you guys a little before I head out in the garage.Nickv,you have got to do better than call names.And Mr-GTO you have not told me if you think the LS1 would be around if the sbc was never built.But I would like some information from ya if you can get it.On the LS1.What is the rod and main diameter.What is the rod length center to center.And what is the piston pin diameter.The Pontiac motor is out of production,but is it dead.Maybe you had better ask the boys at All Pontiac(IA 2 block)The Kauffmans(thier own aftermarket block and 2 types of heads)The Butlers(aluminum Pontiac block,RA4 heads)And DCI(the Tiger head,which might change everyting as far as big horsepower REAL Pontiacs goes).I have a LOT of respect for those people,almost heros as far as I am concerned.The 95 Impala was about the same size as the 68-72 GTOs,and given GMs lack of RWD cars it was about the best option as I see it.Pontiac could have gotten a hold of that car,put 2 doors on it and made it look like a GTO.I know it is a pipe dream,exactly.So do not build it at all.Now Rabon.Your logic is messed up,why are you talking litres.Who cares about litres.The 347 from the 50s was a Pontiac motor,and it does not mater how many liters it was or when Chevys 350 Came out.The 347 was a Pontiac motor with the big differances being a different main diamitter and where the starter bolted up.But it shared the same rods,head bolt pattern and pretty much everything else with later Pontiac motors.Anyway time to head out into the garage.

rabon008 · #71 12-20-2004, 06:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by dragncar:
Rabon.Your logic is messed up,why are you talking litres.Who cares about litres.The 347 from the 50s was a Pontiac motor,and it does not mater how many liters it was or when Chevys 350 Came out.The 347 was a Pontiac motor with the big differances being a different main diamitter and where the starter bolted up.But it shared the same rods,head bolt pattern and pretty much everything else with later Pontiac motors.Anyway time to head out into the garage. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um...was there ever a badge on the first GTOs that said anything about liters? I think there was....

Goathead · #72 12-20-2004, 07:42 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Um...was there ever a badge on the first GTOs that said anything about liters? I think there was.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a first, but I agree with Rabon....

rabon008 · #73 12-20-2004, 08:49 PM

Wow...we better stop arguing now...

Truth is, I agree with you on a lot of things, like your Firebird, for instance. Its a great car!

You'll just never make me dislike my '04 and I'll never make you like it. We probably agree on that too.

judge_jury_executioner_69 · #74 12-21-2004, 12:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by The Champ:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by carbking:
Rabon - if you are going to use this line of evolution, then the LS1 must be derived from Cadillac which sold a 346 CID V-8 engine to the military in 1944....................FOR A TANK!

At least IT had a carburetor!

To take this further, Oakland had a V-8 346 CID in 1916; but they were not the first. I will leave the additional research on this family tree to whomever should be interested.

Oh, and the 347 was a Pontiac block, not a small block.

Jon. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jon

That 346 CI Caddy motor had been in use since 1936...

http://www.roberts.ezpublishing.com/rarmory/M5fig5.jpg

And of course, it was a flathead V8.

The true predecessor of the LS1 is the 331 CI (5.4L) Kettering OHV V8 introduced by Cadillac in 1949.

And the factory color of the 331 is blue...

In 1914, Cadillac was secretly working on the first mass-produced V8 engine that for ever would revolutionize the American motor car scene. The first American V8 was a 314 CI (5.1 L) and was originally installed in 1915 Cadillacs.

So if your just talking V8's it's the Cadillac, or if you want to (more correctly) talk OHV V8's, the answer is still Cadillac.

And yes, they had carbs....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ive heared a lot of stories about how people used to take a ford flathead V8 back in the day and they used to be pretty quick. never did any research on it tho. what makes it a "flat head" and why were they so easy to make good power ?

The Champ · #75 12-21-2004, 05:41 AM

JJE

Go look at the picture of the 346 Caddy motor I posted above. That is a "flathead".

They were considered "fast" in their day because there wasn't anything else.

There is a reason that the OHV V8 took over the industry after it was introduced.

The Champ · #76 12-21-2004, 05:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by carbking:
If you are serious about the ancestor of the LS-1 being the Cadillac 331 rather than the bowtie, then I have much more respect for the LS-1, as the 331 Cadillac was a very respected engine. Sydney Allard used then (along with Lincoln) in his Allard sports racing cars. We have done many multiple carburetor set-ups for the old 331. The first available (to my knowledge) was a dual deuce manifold available from Detroit Engineering about 1949. It used two of the stock two-barrel Carter carburetors from 1949.

Again, if true, this would remove 1 of my major objections to the Holden SS. While I mildly disagree with some of the "ramblings" of dragncar, I quite agree with his comments about putting a bowtie engine in ANY vehicle called GTO. Chevrolet Division is probably responsible for killing the real Pontiac V-8 (if you can't beat the competition, eliminate it). Using a bowtie engine in a vehicle with the name of Pontiac's performance flagship (even if it isn't) smacks of heresy! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm very serious about the ancestory. The LS1 is a brand new engine design, but the key ingredient of the design is the OHV arrangement.

And the Kettering OHV 331 CI Caddy is the original.

And I'm proud to say I own one of the originals in my '49 Caddy Limo.

Now that I've eliminated your major objection to the new GTO, I expect you to go out and buy one right away...

carbking · #77 12-21-2004, 06:10 AM

"Flatheads" are just that - "flat heads". The valves are contained in the block, not the head. The head covers the cylinders and the valve portion of the block. "OHV" refers to overhead valves, or a valve-in-head design. Anytime one says "first" one is setting himself up to be proved wrong, so I won't say first; but Buick had and OHV engine shortly after Noah landed the Ark!

The flathead Ford engine (stock) was rated 85 HP (1930's and 1940's) and 100 HP (later). The 85 HP engines were 221 CID. This was later changed to 239 CID. So the 85 HP were making about 0.38 HP/CI (not overly efficient).

Now consider that the salvage yards were full of these engines, so they were the logical choice for beginning racers (the engines were cheap!). As the early racers started using these engines, aftermarket speed parts became available. Not too difficult to get more power from an engine producing 0.38 HP/CI if there are lots of bolt-on speed modifications.

As to the comments on fuel injection/electronic ignition vs carburetion/points and condenser: it is probably just me. The vehicle probably senses that I don't really like the stuff and acts accordingly!

However I have logged well over 1 million miles with vehicles that were carbureted and normal distributor. With these vehicles I walked one time (a fiber timing gear gave up). I have logged less that 100,000 miles in fuel injected engines with electronic ignition. This figure is growing as my current driver is newer (but you better believe I carry a cell phone whereever I go!!!). In less that 100,000 miles with the newer stuff, I have walked 6 times!!!

Winters don't seem to be as cold as they used to be here in Missouri, but the last time we saw 15 below, the only vehicle we had that WOULDN'T start was the newer one. All of the carbureted points and condenser vehicles fired right up. If fact the fuel injected vehicle had to be towed to the dealer. Story from the dealer - cold weather cracked a printed circuit board!

I know fuel injection and electronic ignition are here to stay (until they are replaced with some other "improvement"); but with the luck I have had with them, I will still carry a cell phone with me

except when I drive my older vehicles. What we really need are dual systems. Then maybe when the primary system failed, we could still get to the dealer before the secondary system failed.

Or, knowing my luck, they would fail simultaneously!

Jon.

The Champ · #78 12-21-2004, 06:50 AM

Jon

Was the Buick a V8? I don't believe it was.

But I should have clarified that I was referring to the OHV V8.

And managing WI operations for a cell phone company, I hope that you carry one at all times...

Goathead · #79 12-21-2004, 07:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> You'll just never make me dislike my '04 and I'll never make you like it. We probably agree on that too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn Rabon, that's twice in one week...

carbking · #80 12-21-2004, 09:28 AM

Champ - the Buick was not a V-8, I believe the first Buick V-8 was 1955.

As to the cell phone, I may be making a mistake here. After my triple bypass, I am supposed to walk regularly (which I do). Possibly the fuel injection system is really trying to care for me in forcing me to walk!

Jon.