Was this also known as the Sprint 6? A friend had one from a Firebird (1968?). He swapped out a different engine and transmission because it needed a full overhaul and parts were rare. Though he was smart enough to keep everything that originally came with it in case he later sold it to a collector who wanted to take it back to factory spec.
@@christopherconard2831Yes, the higher performance version with high compression and 4-bbl carb was the heart of the Sprint package, available on Pontiac intermediates and Firebird. They were also available in base form with low compression and single barrel carb, and then were not called Sprint.
Sprint option was the factory high compression (10.5:1) with 4bbl Quadrajet in either 230 cu (1966-67) or 250 cu. (1968-69). Made up 2-5-230 HP depending on displacement and transmission. The regular version was 9:1 compression with a 1 bbl making 175 HP. @@christopherconard2831
For as many "car guys" are out there, theres a lot of automotive history thats just completely overlooked and unknown. I remember being at a car show once, looking at a mid 60s Rambler Rebel and saying out loud to my group of friends "I wonder if thats a 327?". Some random guy walks up to me and says "327 is a chevy engine, and this is an amc". Later talked to the owner and it was in fact the original 327. People sometimes really just have no idea how much they dont know.
Right? I remember talking to someone about my 85 Trans Am. They asked what engine it has and I told them 5.0 He laughed at me like he really knew more than I did and said “nice try, 5.0 is a mustang engine”
I owned a 1979 Old Cutlass Salon with the 4.3 GM V8 diesel. I immediately added an aftermarket water separator. The 4.3 was gutless and despite being meticulously maintained, mine was worn out at 60K miles. It was replaced with a 5.7 "Mr Goodwrench" diesel V8 in 1984, partly under warranty by GM because I'd kept a full maintenance record on it. The newer 350 V8 diesel engines had solved many of the problems in the early engines. I put about 100K on that engine before selling the car to a friend. His wife drove it for several more years until it was totaled in a car accident. People forget what things were like in 1979. There were gasoline shortages because of the Iran hostage situation, but diesel fuel supplies were less affected and diesel was considerably cheaper than gasoline, and was often more readily available. The GM diesels, for all their faults, got significantly better fuel economy than comparable gas engines at the time. Bad publicity was widely (and with justification) blamed for the demise of the GM diesels, but the bigger thing was that the modernized 3800 GM V6 gasoline engine from the late 1980's and early 1990's until its production ended was getting as good or better fuel economy than the diesels did. As you have and others have noted, the GM 3800 V6 is likely one of the very best engines that GM ever made. I owned one in a Chevrolet Impala and it was a great engine--good power, reliable, long-lived, and could get 30+ mpg on the highway in a full-size car.
Very interesting hearing from someone who owned one of these . I have some sort of fascination with the olds diesel and specifically the 4.3 , being one year only . Appreciate the background you gave . There is probably only a handful of these left in existence and that’s probably being generous.
@@BogattheMoon 1987 Bonnevilles didn't have the "3800" yet (assuming yours had its original engine), they had the older Buick 3.8L V6, without balance shaft. The new version called "3800" with many improvements came to the Bonneville midway through 1988 model year.
IHC did the 4 Cylinder 152 from 1/2 of the 304 V* and the 196 I4 from the 392 V8 engines. I believe the 152 was also available with a Turbo Charger for a year or two in th e early 60s. I was an IHC Mechanic from 71-73 and worked on quite a few of these in the Scout 80 and Scout 800 series vehicles. Loved IHC and had two 75 Scout IIs, a 77 Scout II and a 79 Scout II. Wish I had my original 75 Scout II I bought in August 75.
Both the IH and the Pontiac slant 4 engines are claimed to be developed by Smokey Yunick, he was a IH dealership and raced Pontiac in NASCAR at the time. Pontiac was developing both 4&6 cylinder Sprint engines but ran into issues with the OHC belt drive, needed a small engine quick so Smokey cut the 389 like he did the 392 IH. Both engines utilized existing tooling and production lines for fast integration.
So if the drive for the fuel pump, oil pump, and distributor are located on the inside of other engines, but the OHV's is located on the outside, how are they dtiven??
4:25 That Buick V6 was as lumpy as Grandpa's oatmeal spilled on a thirty-year-old mattress. A friend had a '63 Buick Special wagon with the V6 and three-on-the-tree, and at idle as well as under load it felt like it had about half the plug wires missing. Another friend's mom and dad assembled a Kaiser Jeep from a kit and the engine was no smoother. A neighbor had a '76 LeSabre with one of the early revival 231 V6s and not only was it a rough-running turd, it was slower than a shopping cart. Couldn't call it sluggish because that would be unfair to slugs.
On the Buick V6, the opposing cylinder banks were always offset. The redesign you referred to, increased the offset by 3mm to eliminate the 1.5 mm bore offset created by the split in the crank in 1977.
....MAAAAN...those were SO BUTT UGLY ....OMG...it was just bad....terrible IRL.....the Cadillac version was hideous with the fake spare on the ass end!!!
Oldsmobile actually made 2 different 4.3 ltr V6 diesel engines. The LT6 for longitudinal install on rwd cars, and the LT7 a transverse mount for FWD cars. Side note, the LT6 Olds V6 diesel was the first regular production engine using a serpentine accessory drive belt. Ironically, Olds also has the distinction of the last V belt accessory drive system in the 1990 307.
We had a late 60s GMC dump truck we used on the farm when I was young ( in early 80s ) with a massive V6 engine ( 401 I think?) . It was a beast of a engine and never gave us any problems at all.
I'm proud of myself, I knew about 9 of these, all but the Cadillac V16's. But I gotta admit, Adam is the one who taught me about 4 or 5 of them to begin with...
The Olds Jetfire was introduced before the Corvair Spyder, but the Corvair mad it to the showrooms first. The Corvair approach was simplicity. Small carb, small turbo, a pressure retard instead of vacuum advance, low (8:1) compression, and premium fuel is how Chevy tried to control pinging. Olds went for good throttle response by using 10.25:1 compression, an insanely complicated 1bbl carb, along with the alcohol injection to reduce pinging and a wastegate to limit boost to about 5-6 psi. When you ran out of "Turbo Rocket Fluid", there was an extra throttle valve in the carb that would limit boost (and power and pinging). No electronics on either one. Buick was the first to use electronics (to control timing) in the 1978 Turbo Regal. The main issue with the Olds turbo was that nobody knew how to work on it!
In the 70's my father and I bought a 1962 VW Beetle with a 1960s Corvair Turbo engine. It had a 12v conversion but the VW 6v starter was used for starting. Once I got it all together....... it sounded nice!! And it had fiberglass fenders and trunk and hood covers. It was light and fast. Would stand up on the rear wheels for the first three gears and on the highway at throttle the front end got so light it was dangerous! Keeping the fuel topped up helped!! After some play and some scares we sold it at a slight profit! I can still hear it screaming as it passed our house!! Good times!!
In the early 70s GM was anxious for a better option than their inline 6 for smaller cars because of the fuel crisis. When they stuck a Jeep-sourced 225 V6 in a Nova as a trial it was clear it was a much better performer than the 250 in terms of power and evonomy. GM was extrememly motivated to buy the rights back to that engine. My ‘76 Skylark definitely has peculiar vibrations with the 231V6. It has a “chuggety-chug” nature to it. At idle in gear has jiggly vibrations, at road speed it makes for some peculiar harmonics resonating through the body of the car. One of these days I am going to upgrade to a newer V6.
One of the slowest cars I had the privilege to drive was a 1976 Buick LeSabre Custom coupe with the 231 V6. Imagine 105hp to move almost 4400 pounds of car! I had to floor the gas to get it to move from a stoplight. And " forget about it " when I turned the AC on! Or going up hills!
In the section about the Twin Six, you mentioned that the feature of having the spark plugs mounted inboard (on the inside of the cylinder banks) was never replicated again. Yes, and no. While GM may have never used this design again, Ford did use this plug placement on their Triton family of OHC V-8's and V-10's starting in the mid-90's. And I believe that placement of the plugs is still used on their 5.0 Coyote to this day. I owned a 2003 F150 with the 5.4 Triton for about 15 years. And I can tell you, having those spark plugs mounted on the intake-side of the heads, combined with the last two cylinders being positioned halfway under the cowl made changing those plugs a real job. Thankfully, the spark plugs only had to be changed once every 70k miles.
@JoshuaFare, I put over 200k on mine before I sold it. Outside of regular maintenance, and 2 sets of coil packs, I never had a problem out of it. Still ran like a top the day I sold the truck.
@KneagroughExterminator , I never claimed they were the same. Aside from the spark plug placement, they're two totally different engines. So, I don't understand what you're finding so funny, unless you're just laughing at yourself.
In 1964 the Buick V6 was not from the aluminum V8, in fact the V6 was a larger displacement of 225cu.in. It came by way of the Buick 300cu.in. V8 with 6 instead of 8 cylinders, and the two engines shared many part including pistons.
The GMC Twin Six short stroke discussion reminded me of a time, many years ago, when some automotive enthusiast publications listed, amongst the other engine specifications, piston speeds at some standard RPM.
Cylinder deactivation may be common now, but it is NOT perfected and it is NOT a good thing, regardless of brand. I have seen a few Honda J-series V6 engines with holes torched into pistons on the cylinders that deactivate because the injectors on those cylinders will fail in such a way they become flame throwers. I have seen funky cylinder wear on cylinders that are deactivated, GM has their lifter issues with their system or they did at least. And I do not see cylinder deactivation EVER being a good idea. No matter how good modern metallurgy is, you CAN NOT beat the laws of physics. If a cylinder is shut down, even if they do something to "keep them warm" these systems will still cause issues that are NOT acceptable. My roommate bought a 2016 Camaro V6 and thankfully he bought a manual which does not have that deactivation garbage on it. I will say, the one thing that MIGHT help some of the modern vehicles with cylinder deactivation systems would be the same thing that all modern cars need by default: Oil changes, and WELL before the often recommended 10,000 miles. And folks, ignore the vehicle manufacturer and oil companies, your oil CAN NOT go 10,000 miles between oil changes. And even if it could, that is under perfect driving conditions....which literally no one drives under. 5,000 miles, or if you are forced to wait, NO MORE than 7,000 miles and even then, don't do that very often either. And if you want proof that oil changes more often does help massively, look to Audi/VW. VW was doing 10,000 mile oil changes when I worked at a dealership and Audi was doing their oil changes every 7,000 miles. Both using the same engines, guess which ones had FAR less issues? The engines in the Audi vehicles were less leak prone and failure prone than the same engines in the VWs. CHANGE YOUR OIL, CHANGE IT OFTEN! My roommates' other car is a 2011 Chevy Cruze they bought brand new, it has had oil changed every 5,000 or so miles, the car has 110,000 miles on it as I type this and is on its original turbo. The 1.4 turbo engine people seem to hate so much, it is only garbage because people listen to their dealership tell them "Oh yeah, oil change every 10,000 miles" and the turbo ends up failing around 50,000 miles from the garbage that builds up in the engine as the oil turns sludgy before an oil change.
From what I understand from Corvair history, the Jetfire was announced about a month before the Turbo Monza, but the Corvair turbo was actually available for sale prior to the Jetfire's appearance.
My co-worker back in ‘79 bought an Olds diesel to use for hunting trips. He added TWO water separators, aux 26gal fuel tank and air shocks. He could make it from SoCal to SoDak
I have been a subscriber since before you even had one thousand subscribers. You have quickly grown into one of the premier automotive channels that I watch. Thank you for all your research and efforts. The quality of your videos are top notch.
In the 2000s, UK Top Gear Really Did an OBITUARY Item on the (Land) Rover / Buick V8, to_Honour it for the LAUNDRY List of Versions and Makes & Models that it Powered, WELL into the 2000s !!
Thank you, Adam! Great video as usual. I would like to point out that the Oldsmobile 5.7 liter Diesel did get a water/fuel separator from the factory in 1985 (the last year of the production of the engine). Had a water/fuel separator been a part of the program when the engine was launched in 1978, the history of the Olds 5.7 Diesel would have been a little better.
International Scout also had half a V8 engine, one problem was the large gap between large pistons, it would throw the starter out of gear, then bounce back from the next compression. Ted from down under.
305 V6 in a 1963 GMC single cab truck. I got 16mpg, used a dwell meter to tune the distributor. It started every time. No A/C, power steering, brakes or anything else. Best truck I had. The only reason i sold it was because I didn't put a flatbed on it. I was young and didnt know. This was in 2008. I miss that truck everyday.
Is that 3800 based on the 231 V6 of the 1980s. That car you are showing with the "trophy 4" has AC? Does it have enough power to run AC? I heard J Leno talk about that turbo that had to have fluid in it to work. Maybe you can do a video on it sometime?
I remember Mickey Thompson worked with Pontiac on that 4 cylinder in early 60's. He also set some speed records with that 4. I also had a 79 Cutlass with 260 gas V8, great car. 2nd Olds I ever owned, 1st was 66 Toronado. 60's & 70's were great, I owned about 15 cars through that period.
Adam, I'm surprised you didn't include Pontiac's OHC 6 that came out for the 1966 MY Tempest & Lemans models. My 1966 Tempest Custom 2-dr HT w/4-speed was awesome. However, the hot Texas summers led me to trade it in on a new 1968 Lemans 2-dr HT, automatic with A/C. Sadly, that Aegean Blue six-banger couldn't get out if its own way. Seems as if everyone seems to forget about John Z. Delorean's lovely OHC 6.
Thank you Adam. This was an interesting list. It was good to hear about the engines and to see the 3800 mentioned as it was spawned from another engine.The things they tried to do in the name of fuel efficiency. You have to give GM credit for trying and some of the efforts. Just think if they had got the 350 Oldsmobile diesels right where would be now.
I knew about the 326, 336 Tempest. I knew about the 2 different 336s in GMC trucks. I never made the connection since it had been a few years in between being used, as far as I knew. And as to why the first year in the Tempest was that 336, makes sense now. Thanks for sharing your knowledge again Adam 👍 (I did not know about that more OBTUSE😂 V16 Caddy. Used that word in grade school more than now, but I'm usually afraid to use it as an adult, I think Andy Dufresne got a month in the hole for using the word obtuse)
My neighbor owns a Cadillac V16. It sits right next to his Duesenberg and his two Stoddard-Daytons. ...which are parked next to his "spin and win" Lola-chassis Indy car and his Diablo VT. It's nuts, you gotta see it.
Great information Adam. I really appreciate how you organize your information and keep things concise. So you can see the relationship the engines have from one to the next.
Thank you for this video, Adam. I am a dyed-in-the-wool gearhead and a numberphile also. You nailed the engine specifications for EVERY engine you cited. I have now subscribed and am a fan. Precision and understated professionalism, you epitomize these attributes.
Someone has probably mentioned this one by now, but just in case not, I'll throw in the 1962-70 Chevrolet 153 "Super-Thrift" 4-cylinder. This tough little motor lived on until the 90s down in South America. An enlarged 181 c.i.d. version was produced for years as an industrial/marine engine.
@@JeffK. The Iron Duke is a different engine than the Chevy four banger. The Duke was a Pontiac engine, developed in the late 70s, and shared parts with the Pontiac 301 V8 . The Chevy “Super-Thrift” mill was developed in the early 60s in conjunction with and shared parts with the “Turbo-Thrift” straight six.
And, respectfully, the turbocharged Corvair you mentioned from 1962 wasn't the Monza, but the Monza Spyder. The Monza in all Corvair passenger cars was a trim level above base, but if turbocharged, it was named "Spyder", but only for 1962--1964. In 1965, turbocharged Corvairs, in the new design, were called "Corsa", and that version ended in 1966, I believe, ending the span of turbocharged Corvairs.
@BogattheMoon 1966. I'm almost positive. The car itself was gone by 1969, or that was the last year of production, and between 1966 and 1969, it was gradually de-emphasized by Chevrolet, and nothing of note happened with the car. It was destroyed by the Ford Mustang, and, in fact, by 1966 the decision has been made to end production. The sales of the Mustang decided it. It could have been a marvelous car in American automotive history had it continued in production, and been refined over time. I owned two Corvairs, an early model and a '66.
@@bretfisher7286 50k plus Turbos produced over it's run. No denying it was the first successful mass produced turbocharged car in the world regardless of naysayers.
Howdy and great vid. I was on the bench in '81 and called the V8-6-4 a 3-5-7 because it shook so hard in six cylinder mode. If I recall due to tightening standards of the time the 250 aluminum engine was not ready for '81 so gm went to Bosch and came up with cylinder deactivation to meet requirements. I still have the diagnostic card for that engine, You could use the a/c control head to manually operate cylinder deactivation.On a r/t with the foreman I selected 4 cylinder mode up a hill.lol. it would not pull!
I heard that GM stopped making the 215 V8 because they had numerous difficulties casting the aluminum. They sold the tooling to Rover because of it. Some people but the 1975 or 1976 oddfire HEI distributor to upgrade older engines. I don't like 90 degree V6 engines. To me it's like building something flawed from the beginning and covering it up. I see a balance shaft is a parasite that exists for no other reason than a dumb design. The Toroflow is strange to me because it is a V engine with intake and exhaust on the same side. Plenty of inlines, including inline diesels were built that way. VW and Nissan built several cars that way. It is easier to build an inline 2V engine with the exhaust and intake on the same side. You mentioned that it made room for the injection pump. In other diesels, it may have freed up space to locate one or more of the following 1. Injectors 2. Glow plugs. 3. Prechambers. The VW Rabbit diesel and Datsun Maxima diesel borrowed a lot of parts from related gasoline engines. However, they did it successfully.
Maybe you don’t count it because is too new, but the 2019 and 2020 Cadillac CT6-V had a two year only 4.2 liter twin turbo V-8 putting out 550 horsepower. It was a hand built and signed beauty. There was also a 500 horsepower version available in the non-V CT6. I had a 2019 CT6-V that I purchased in August of 2020 at a steep discount new from my local Cadillac dealer. It was a great car but was never really successful as a performance car like the CTS-V. I kept it about a year.
I"ve always though of the 215 BOP aluminum V8 as way more cool than weird. Love the various permutations it became; I believe Sir Jack Brabham's third world title came with a Repco V8 that had some ancestry in the BOP aluminum V8, through Holden I believe?
@@BogattheMoon Just did a bit of confirmation research myself: MotorSport magazine, May 1999 article by Alan Henry called "The House that Jack Built". Excerpt: Jack and Ron Tauranac pulled a master stroke. Reasoning that the rival teams of Cooper-Maserati and Ferrari V12s, not to mention the horrendous BRM H16, would be either too heavy or too unreliable, they decided instead to go for a lightweight production based engine for the new Brabham BT19. This was the Australian Repco V8 based round the General Motors Oldsmobile F85 cylinder block. This engine had been abandoned by GM after initially being developed as part of a linerless aluminium engine programme for a projected 3.5-litre Buick “compact.” Not quite at a stroke, Repco transformed this from a commercial disaster to a motor racing dream. The Repco V8 was light, serviceable and sufficiently powerful to get the job done. It might have only had a claimed 315bhp at a leisurely 7250rpm, but that was enough to see off the vastly overrated and ultimately disappointing Ferrari 312s which were hotly tipped as pre-season favourites. Brabham won four races that year to clinch the world championship,
My first car was ‘77 Skylark with the 231cu in odd fire V6; it had terrible reliability, V8 like fuel consumption, and 4 cylinder power, specially with all of the emissions. Not to mention the TH200 transmission’s poor quality Sold it after a short while, bought a very well used AMC Jeep with the 258cu in L6 and a 3sp standard transmission; that vehicle ran flawlessly for at least another 100k miles, withstanding some serious abuse, until it just rotted away.
Another very interesting and informative video Adam. Wondering if you have any plans to feature the SOHC 6 that was available in mid-size Pontiacs? In its day, it was a pretty exotic motor - especially from a domestic manufacturer.
I’d throw in the original ZL1 (which I believe was basically an L88 with an aluminum block), the LQ1, possibly the C4 LT5 (seems to be relatively unknown outside of Vette enthusiasts), the 4.2 Blackwing, the “Shortstar” V6, and the LC3 (Northstar SC).
I once worked with a guy that claimed to know everything about that generation of LT engines, he swore the LT5 didn't exist. We worked at a GM dealer. I went to the parts catalog and showed him 😂 I'm no vette enthusiast, I just like weird stuff, you're right, it's pretty well unknown outside a small chunk of folks.
Also worked with a guy that had a shortstar. Had some power but nobody wanted to touch it 😂 We had ONE just one, customer with an LC3 XLR-V. But I want to say the STS-V Was powered by the same, wasn't it? (Edit: I worked at a Cadillac store for a while, I should have added that originally)
I looked it up to verify, so in total we had only 2 customers with LC3's that I'm aware of. A TON of the rest of the variants. The STS-V seemed like a heck of a fun ride
@@goosenotmaverick1156 LC3 is a cool, and pretty under appreciated (and unknown) engine. I had an 06 STS-V for a few years. What a great car. Nobody knew what the hell it was and generally didn’t know it existed. Almost everyone assumed it was an LS. I had a guy one time in passing sarcastically say “nice V”. Must have thought I slapped V badges on some random Caddy sedan. Later on had a CTS-V coupe, and though faster, just didn’t thrill me as much or feel as special. I’d say the only weird omissions on the STS-V were the lack of Magride and lack of cooled seats. It was especially weird given that both were available on the regular STS (I also had an 05 STS V8 with Magride). I’d like to get an XLR-V eventually. They’re easily my favorite GM car from the 2000-2010 era.
A video comparing the superior efficiency of oil bath air cleaners versus disposable paper filtration would interest a bunch of viewers I’m sure. Superior filtration provided side load g forces don’t come into play
Just about every old "moonshine" car that I've seen in person, read about or watched videos about were Ford products with the legendary flathead V8. The reason is simple, people that made and ran shine back in the day were mostly struggling poor farmers trying to supplement their income. The Ford flatly was the cheapest powerful engine available to them plus these cars were everywhere and blended in perfectly (unless they were getting it done on the run!) The flathead was so revered by them that more than one mobster-gangster-shine runner etc sent personal letters to Henry Ford thanking him for producing such an inexpensive, easily repaired & powerful engine. This Buick turbo engine would have been ignored by them.
@@rogergoodman8665 the one that stands out is Clyde's (Bonnie and Clyde) letter to Henry praising the flathead V-8. Still displayed to this day at the FoMoCo museum.
Great video! The Cadillac 8-6-4 never worked from the dealer. We used to disable the computer so it was full V8 all the time and they ran fine after the modification. It was an early attempt at Chevys AFM in newer Trucks that also have issues. There is a delete for that too. Lifter failure is common. A 5.3 with AFM delete will run 2 to 300,000 mi with no issues running a good synthetic oil.
Those early Buick V-6s had a rope timing cover seal. Stuff it in there and cut it off, smash it down till the balancer will go on. Oil it up good first.Oh boy, those were the days.
The only ones I didn't know about were the ToroFlow Diesel's from GMC. I know those V6 blocks were plenty stout as gas engines, so I imagine not much strengthening was needed in that area. Great video Adam.
My mother had a 76 Sunbird with the odd fire 231. With the 5 speed manual (that shifted well) and 2.76 axle, it wasn't terribly fast, but felt adequate to a 16 year old. At highway speed it was quite nice riding and quiet. The handling was pretty good as well. It got about 30mpg on the highway and not a lot less in town. The 305 probably would been more fun.
Sixteen pistons to break eighty four rings to stick, fuel having to split that many paths. Two of everything to adjust making everything twice as hard. Twice the valves and pushrods to bend, drop, fail to seal...You get it!
With that 702ci Twin Six, you said that you'd never seen another engine where the spark plugs are on the inside of the V. There actually is one other one from back then that I know of that had that same setup - the Ford 427 SOHC also had the spark plugs on the intake manifold side of the heads. It actually is a good idea, I don't know why it wasn't done more commonly, both for reliability reasons and for ease of maintenance. Changing spark plugs on the exhaust side of the engine can be awful on some engines, especially where the exhaust manifolds go over the plugs, or on transverse mounted engines. Easy access from the top would have been a huge benefit.
I heard of all of those, a couple of them right here on this channel. When Chrysler bought Fargo (trucks) in 1928 - is that the first badge engineering when they just put the name on Dodges?
The trophy 4 idea was also used for the international 4 cylinder. Was basically a v8 with a cylinder head and pistons of 1 bank, and a weird intake. Ford also used a similar approach to make a 4 cylinder engine compressor 😊😊
4:25 Buick odd fire a pile of vibrating, head gasket blowing, junk. Especially when coupled to the undersized, yes undersized, TH200. Compare the inital and long term experience of a 76 Skylark with this powertrain to it’s corporate sister, the ‘76 Nova with I6 and TH350. The Chevy was smooth and super reliable. The Buick was headed to the wrecking yard in 5 years. Same car, different powertrain.
Butless Cutlas,,,lol-- I worked at a small junk yard in my late teens and I used an early 60's 1ton GMC wrecker that was powered by a V^. And at another salvage yard I ran across an early 1960's Buick I think it was, that had a tiny turbo V8 that caught my attention.
Those GMC engines are soooo cool. Someday I wish you could interview one of the GM engineers/execs from back in the day so we could get a concrete answer about why it almost seemed like GM refused to add the water separator fuel filter to those diesel engines.
I'm surprised you rarely talk about the Buick Nailheads and full size Buicks from this period. They are also quite unique in design and my favorite engines too! I hope you make more videos about these Buicks and their transmissions! From the Dynaflow to the Flightpitch and also the early 400 transmissions that had the switch pitch feature sand why it did (after 1964) and why they stopped to offer it!
@@RareClassicCars I know, I also have a '67 Riviera like yours. Buick apparently wanted the Nailheads to idle better with the variable pitch feature. Other divisions got it too in the early 400 transmissions but it was a feature introduced by Buick on the 1955 Dynaflow.
The 702 cubic inch GMC V12 does not share intake manifolds with the 351 GMC V6. I discovered this by putting 351 magnum heads on one of my V 12s. And the intake manifold's showed that the V12 has a different offset from the V6. Because the V12 has shared Crank shaft journals and the V6 has offset Crank shaft journals.
Interesting presentation! Having spent 30 years in the parts business, I was aware of all of the info apart from the fact that the Toroflo diesel was developed from the GMC V6 👍
Amazing Stuff, Adam...Seems to me that GM were experimenting with their engines, in striving for improvement. Some innovative, some failures, but to be expected, eh Adam🤔👍
The "Turbo Rocket Fluid" was a mixture of water, methanol and a rust inhibitor. It was injected directly into the intake to help prevent misfire as the boost was quite high in these engines. Water/methanol injection is sometimes also found in older diesel truck engines to help cool the air charge. I heard that there were a good number of problems with the V6 Toro-Flo but not nearly as much with the V8. They actually put the V8 in a few 'Fishbowl' buses.
Had 2 Jeep Commandos with Dautless V6 by Kaiser. Good pep and mpg @ 20. Rough runner and vapor lock issues when hot. Turbo 400 and manual had similar mpg. 6:15
The Ford "modular" 4.6 or 5.4 (V8) / 6.8 (V10) OHC/DOHC engine family replacing the 302/351 Windsor starting around 1990 had, at least in some versions (like the 4.6 in my 1996 Thunderbird), the spark plugs similarly located like the #2 GMC V-engines.
My brother got a ticket in my mom's 1980 Delta 88 with the 350 diesel and the judge dismissed it because he did not believe the car was capable of going 90 MPH.
I had a 62 Tempest LeMans 4 cylinder for a number of years. It was strong and reliable for me, with the high compression package and a 4 barrel carb, it was just finicky to needing the timing adjusted once a year, and that’s it. No vibration issues and great torque.
Авто/Мото
Honorable mention and one I expected to see , Pontiac’s 230/250 Overhead cam straight 6 used from 66-69 .
Was this also known as the Sprint 6? A friend had one from a Firebird (1968?). He swapped out a different engine and transmission because it needed a full overhaul and parts were rare.
Though he was smart enough to keep everything that originally came with it in case he later sold it to a collector who wanted to take it back to factory spec.
@@christopherconard2831Yes, the higher performance version with high compression and 4-bbl carb was the heart of the Sprint package, available on Pontiac intermediates and Firebird. They were also available in base form with low compression and single barrel carb, and then were not called Sprint.
Sprint option was the factory high compression (10.5:1) with 4bbl Quadrajet in either 230 cu (1966-67) or 250 cu. (1968-69). Made up 2-5-230 HP depending on displacement and transmission. The regular version was 9:1 compression with a 1 bbl making 175 HP. @@christopherconard2831
I was hoping to see that as well. I recently saw a beautiful '67 Firebird with the OHV 6, three on the tree for sale. Gorgeous automobile.
W/its initial 207hp rating, growing to 215 by the end.
For as many "car guys" are out there, theres a lot of automotive history thats just completely overlooked and unknown. I remember being at a car show once, looking at a mid 60s Rambler Rebel and saying out loud to my group of friends "I wonder if thats a 327?". Some random guy walks up to me and says "327 is a chevy engine, and this is an amc". Later talked to the owner and it was in fact the original 327. People sometimes really just have no idea how much they dont know.
The AMC 327 was out before the Chevy 327 by a few years.
The typical car guy is usually an idiot
Right? I remember talking to someone about my 85 Trans Am. They asked what engine it has and I told them 5.0 He laughed at me like he really knew more than I did and said “nice try, 5.0 is a mustang engine”
I remember the Rambler 327 from back then. I only ever saw one of them though.
Studebaker had a 289 like Ford. Buick had a 340 like Mopar as well.
I owned a 1979 Old Cutlass Salon with the 4.3 GM V8 diesel. I immediately added an aftermarket water separator. The 4.3 was gutless and despite being meticulously maintained, mine was worn out at 60K miles. It was replaced with a 5.7 "Mr Goodwrench" diesel V8 in 1984, partly under warranty by GM because I'd kept a full maintenance record on it. The newer 350 V8 diesel engines had solved many of the problems in the early engines. I put about 100K on that engine before selling the car to a friend. His wife drove it for several more years until it was totaled in a car accident. People forget what things were like in 1979. There were gasoline shortages because of the Iran hostage situation, but diesel fuel supplies were less affected and diesel was considerably cheaper than gasoline, and was often more readily available. The GM diesels, for all their faults, got significantly better fuel economy than comparable gas engines at the time. Bad publicity was widely (and with justification) blamed for the demise of the GM diesels, but the bigger thing was that the modernized 3800 GM V6 gasoline engine from the late 1980's and early 1990's until its production ended was getting as good or better fuel economy than the diesels did. As you have and others have noted, the GM 3800 V6 is likely one of the very best engines that GM ever made. I owned one in a Chevrolet Impala and it was a great engine--good power, reliable, long-lived, and could get 30+ mpg on the highway in a full-size car.
Very interesting hearing from someone who owned one of these . I have some sort of fascination with the olds diesel and specifically the 4.3 , being one year only . Appreciate the background you gave .
There is probably only a handful of these left in existence and that’s probably being generous.
Absolutely agree on the 3800. Had a '87 Pontiac Bonneville SE with the 3800. 260K and going strong when we gifted it to someone.
@@BogattheMoon 1987 Bonnevilles didn't have the "3800" yet (assuming yours had its original engine), they had the older Buick 3.8L V6, without balance shaft. The new version called "3800" with many improvements came to the Bonneville midway through 1988 model year.
@@TonyM132 Yeah, my bad. It was an '88, I was off one year lol.
if the 3800 is the only best engine from GM then thats sad... Because the 3800 is outperformed ten fold by Honda's JSeries V6 and Nissans VQs...
You have to talk about all the CORVAIR engines. They are the most unique!
Unique how? Like a junk 6 cylinder version of a VW engine.
A Spyder drove up beside her and took Ms Muffet's breath away
ruclips.net/video/C1lHoNG2SHg/видео.htmlsi=HdzE90Wg_bBYs54N
IHC did the 4 Cylinder 152 from 1/2 of the 304 V* and the 196 I4 from the 392 V8 engines. I believe the 152 was also available with a Turbo Charger for a year or two in th e early 60s. I was an IHC Mechanic from 71-73 and worked on quite a few of these in the Scout 80 and Scout 800 series vehicles. Loved IHC and had two 75 Scout IIs, a 77 Scout II and a 79 Scout II. Wish I had my original 75 Scout II I bought in August 75.
Wow, I forgot about the IH turbo 4 cyls! Never saw one, but I read about it in the car magazines.
Forgot about that one! Now that's one that flew under the radar!
Both the IH and the Pontiac slant 4 engines are claimed to be developed by Smokey Yunick, he was a IH dealership and raced Pontiac in NASCAR at the time.
Pontiac was developing both 4&6 cylinder Sprint engines but ran into issues with the OHC belt drive, needed a small engine quick so Smokey cut the 389 like he did the 392 IH.
Both engines utilized existing tooling and production lines for fast integration.
So if the drive for the fuel pump, oil pump, and distributor are located on the inside of other engines, but the OHV's is located on the outside, how are they dtiven??
@@BogattheMoon The cam and distrubutor are driven as in the V-8s. The crankcase is shaped to keep those items in their normal location.
4:25 That Buick V6 was as lumpy as Grandpa's oatmeal spilled on a thirty-year-old mattress.
A friend had a '63 Buick Special wagon with the V6 and three-on-the-tree, and at idle as well as under load it felt like it had about half the plug wires missing. Another friend's mom and dad assembled a Kaiser Jeep from a kit and the engine was no smoother. A neighbor had a '76 LeSabre with one of the early revival 231 V6s and not only was it a rough-running turd, it was slower than a shopping cart. Couldn't call it sluggish because that would be unfair to slugs.
RIGHT! What the hell was Buick doing putting that turd in a 5,000lbs full-size car?!?!
Lol, they were grasping at straws trying to make the fleet average of 26 mph across the board.
On the Buick V6, the opposing cylinder banks were always offset. The redesign you referred to, increased the offset by 3mm to eliminate the 1.5 mm bore offset created by the split in the crank in 1977.
Buttless Cutlass had me laughing!
Same here.
Buttless gutless Cutlass 😂
Should have just called it a Cutass
"Sir, do you want a Cutlass with its rear or without its rear?"😂
....MAAAAN...those were SO BUTT UGLY ....OMG...it was just bad....terrible IRL.....the Cadillac version was hideous with the fake spare on the ass end!!!
Oldsmobile actually made 2 different 4.3 ltr V6 diesel engines. The LT6 for longitudinal install on rwd cars, and the LT7 a transverse mount for FWD cars. Side note, the LT6 Olds V6 diesel was the first regular production engine using a serpentine accessory drive belt. Ironically, Olds also has the distinction of the last V belt accessory drive system in the 1990 307.
The longitude LT6 4.3 liter V6 Diesel had iron heads while the transverse LT7 had aluminum heads.
That V-5 Diesel was a wild one but didn't make production.
We had a late 60s GMC dump truck we used on the farm when I was young ( in early 80s ) with a massive V6 engine ( 401 I think?) . It was a beast of a engine and never gave us any problems at all.
I'm proud of myself, I knew about 9 of these, all but the Cadillac V16's. But I gotta admit, Adam is the one who taught me about 4 or 5 of them to begin with...
The Olds Jetfire was introduced before the Corvair Spyder, but the Corvair mad it to the showrooms first. The Corvair approach was simplicity. Small carb, small turbo, a pressure retard instead of vacuum advance, low (8:1) compression, and premium fuel is how Chevy tried to control pinging. Olds went for good throttle response by using 10.25:1 compression, an insanely complicated 1bbl carb, along with the alcohol injection to reduce pinging and a wastegate to limit boost to about 5-6 psi. When you ran out of "Turbo Rocket Fluid", there was an extra throttle valve in the carb that would limit boost (and power and pinging). No electronics on either one. Buick was the first to use electronics (to control timing) in the 1978 Turbo Regal. The main issue with the Olds turbo was that nobody knew how to work on it!
The Chevy 200, 229, and 262/4.3 V6 might be an interesting subject for a future video.
Those should have been included since they are virtually extinct now.
Nah
In the 70's my father and I bought a 1962 VW Beetle with a 1960s Corvair Turbo engine. It had a 12v conversion but the VW 6v starter was used for starting. Once I got it all together....... it sounded nice!! And it had fiberglass fenders and trunk and hood covers. It was light and fast. Would stand up on the rear wheels for the first three gears and on the highway at throttle the front end got so light it was dangerous! Keeping the fuel topped up helped!! After some play and some scares we sold it at a slight profit! I can still hear it screaming as it passed our house!! Good times!!
Bet she claimed a lot of victims when the light turned green lol
In the early 70s GM was anxious for a better option than their inline 6 for smaller cars because of the fuel crisis. When they stuck a Jeep-sourced 225 V6 in a Nova as a trial it was clear it was a much better performer than the 250 in terms of power and evonomy. GM was extrememly motivated to buy the rights back to that engine.
My ‘76 Skylark definitely has peculiar vibrations with the 231V6. It has a “chuggety-chug” nature to it. At idle in gear has jiggly vibrations, at road speed it makes for some peculiar harmonics resonating through the body of the car. One of these days I am going to upgrade to a newer V6.
One of the slowest cars I had the privilege to drive was a 1976 Buick LeSabre Custom coupe with the 231 V6. Imagine 105hp to move almost 4400 pounds of car! I had to floor the gas to get it to move from a stoplight. And " forget about it " when I turned the AC on! Or going up hills!
There were a lot of strange GMC engines that were not shared with sister Chevrolet Truck Division. Thanks for this video!
503 cubic inch inline 6
In the section about the Twin Six, you mentioned that the feature of having the spark plugs mounted inboard (on the inside of the cylinder banks) was never replicated again. Yes, and no. While GM may have never used this design again, Ford did use this plug placement on their Triton family of OHC V-8's and V-10's starting in the mid-90's. And I believe that placement of the plugs is still used on their 5.0 Coyote to this day. I owned a 2003 F150 with the 5.4 Triton for about 15 years. And I can tell you, having those spark plugs mounted on the intake-side of the heads, combined with the last two cylinders being positioned halfway under the cowl made changing those plugs a real job. Thankfully, the spark plugs only had to be changed once every 70k miles.
Not the same at all. Not even close. 😂😂😂😂
Yeah but the ford engines are junk
@JoshuaFare, I put over 200k on mine before I sold it. Outside of regular maintenance, and 2 sets of coil packs, I never had a problem out of it. Still ran like a top the day I sold the truck.
@KneagroughExterminator , I never claimed they were the same. Aside from the spark plug placement, they're two totally different engines. So, I don't understand what you're finding so funny, unless you're just laughing at yourself.
In 1964 the Buick V6 was not from the aluminum V8, in fact the V6 was a larger displacement of 225cu.in. It came by way of the Buick 300cu.in. V8 with 6 instead of 8 cylinders, and the two engines shared many part including pistons.
The early ones were 198 CI and in 1964, the 300 still had aluminum heads and intakes.
Also Rover never got the aluminum V8 right. While the British were used to doing engine rebuilds at 100k miles, Americans were not...
I recently rebuilt a 65 Buick 300. The pistons and rings are the same as the 231 V6 as are the timing chain cover and water pump.
The GMC Twin Six short stroke discussion reminded me of a time, many years ago, when some automotive enthusiast publications listed, amongst the other engine specifications, piston speeds at some standard RPM.
Car Life
Cylinder deactivation may be common now, but it is NOT perfected and it is NOT a good thing, regardless of brand. I have seen a few Honda J-series V6 engines with holes torched into pistons on the cylinders that deactivate because the injectors on those cylinders will fail in such a way they become flame throwers. I have seen funky cylinder wear on cylinders that are deactivated, GM has their lifter issues with their system or they did at least. And I do not see cylinder deactivation EVER being a good idea. No matter how good modern metallurgy is, you CAN NOT beat the laws of physics. If a cylinder is shut down, even if they do something to "keep them warm" these systems will still cause issues that are NOT acceptable. My roommate bought a 2016 Camaro V6 and thankfully he bought a manual which does not have that deactivation garbage on it. I will say, the one thing that MIGHT help some of the modern vehicles with cylinder deactivation systems would be the same thing that all modern cars need by default: Oil changes, and WELL before the often recommended 10,000 miles. And folks, ignore the vehicle manufacturer and oil companies, your oil CAN NOT go 10,000 miles between oil changes. And even if it could, that is under perfect driving conditions....which literally no one drives under. 5,000 miles, or if you are forced to wait, NO MORE than 7,000 miles and even then, don't do that very often either. And if you want proof that oil changes more often does help massively, look to Audi/VW. VW was doing 10,000 mile oil changes when I worked at a dealership and Audi was doing their oil changes every 7,000 miles. Both using the same engines, guess which ones had FAR less issues? The engines in the Audi vehicles were less leak prone and failure prone than the same engines in the VWs. CHANGE YOUR OIL, CHANGE IT OFTEN! My roommates' other car is a 2011 Chevy Cruze they bought brand new, it has had oil changed every 5,000 or so miles, the car has 110,000 miles on it as I type this and is on its original turbo. The 1.4 turbo engine people seem to hate so much, it is only garbage because people listen to their dealership tell them "Oh yeah, oil change every 10,000 miles" and the turbo ends up failing around 50,000 miles from the garbage that builds up in the engine as the oil turns sludgy before an oil change.
Luckily my 2011 Ford F150 with a 5.0L Coyote V8 in it doesn't suffer from any of these issues.
You're putting out some great content. And a lot of it. Im loving it. Thanks for the knowledge.
From what I understand from Corvair history, the Jetfire was announced about a month before the Turbo Monza, but the Corvair turbo was actually available for sale prior to the Jetfire's appearance.
My co-worker back in ‘79 bought an Olds diesel to use for hunting trips. He added TWO water separators, aux 26gal fuel tank and air shocks. He could make it from SoCal to SoDak
I have been a subscriber since before you even had one thousand subscribers. You have quickly grown into one of the premier automotive channels that I watch. Thank you for all your research and efforts. The quality of your videos are top notch.
Looking at that last ToroFlow diesel makes me want to tinker with one.
Ford 4.6 and 5.4 have the spark plugs on the intake side. One problem with the GMC V6s was if you flooded them and had a bad spark plug wire.
Not the same. Not even close. 😂😂😂😂
This was a very interesting video Adam. Thank you for putting it together.
Most Americans would be amazed what the brits did with that v8
Another derivative of the Buick V8 was the 4.5L version, which made it into the Leyland P76
In the 2000s, UK Top Gear Really Did an OBITUARY Item on the (Land) Rover / Buick V8, to_Honour it for the LAUNDRY List of Versions and Makes & Models that it Powered, WELL into the 2000s !!
They ruined it 😂
Made it leak more?
@@samleen thanks for proving my point ! 😆
The Trophy is basically a slant four!
I would like to hear that V16 run 😊
OHV or flathead?
Thank you, Adam! Great video as usual. I would like to point out that the Oldsmobile 5.7 liter Diesel did get a water/fuel separator from the factory in 1985 (the last year of the production of the engine). Had a water/fuel separator been a part of the program when the engine was launched in 1978, the history of the Olds 5.7 Diesel would have been a little better.
International Scout also had half a V8 engine, one problem was the large gap between large pistons, it would throw the starter out of gear, then bounce back from the next compression. Ted from down under.
My cousin installed a 260 V8 Diesel in the Olds full sizer. It barely moved up hill.
I had a 2000 Dakota with a 4.7 ohc v8, which also had the spark plugs on the intake side.
305 V6 in a 1963 GMC single cab truck. I got 16mpg, used a dwell meter to tune the distributor. It started every time. No A/C, power steering, brakes or anything else. Best truck I had. The only reason i sold it was because I didn't put a flatbed on it. I was young and didnt know. This was in 2008. I miss that truck everyday.
Is that 3800 based on the 231 V6 of the 1980s. That car you are showing with the "trophy 4" has AC? Does it have enough power to run AC? I heard J Leno talk about that turbo that had to have fluid in it to work. Maybe you can do a video on it sometime?
yes
I imagine the Blacking V8 that was in the Cadillac CT6 for 2019-2020 will be quite rare.
It's a Corvette engine
Look it up, it has nothing in common with the LT engines.@jamesengland7461
@@jamesengland7461no it’s not it was a clean sheet Cadillac exclusive design….
@@AndrewSchmier-dr5fyI stand corrected. 4.2 liter twin turbo.
I just read the Wikipedia about it. What a crazy idea! Very high tech, built in very low numbers.
I remember Mickey Thompson worked with Pontiac on that 4 cylinder in early 60's. He also set some speed records with that 4. I also had a 79 Cutlass with 260 gas V8, great car. 2nd Olds I ever owned, 1st was 66 Toronado. 60's & 70's were great, I owned about 15 cars through that period.
Adam,
I'm surprised you didn't include Pontiac's OHC 6 that came out for the 1966 MY Tempest & Lemans models. My 1966 Tempest Custom 2-dr HT w/4-speed was awesome. However, the hot Texas summers led me to trade it in on a new 1968 Lemans 2-dr HT, automatic with A/C. Sadly, that Aegean Blue six-banger couldn't get out if its own way.
Seems as if everyone seems to forget about John Z. Delorean's lovely OHC 6.
Yeah. That one is a cool engine.
I didn't My Auntie had one in her 1966 Pontiac Lemans.@@RareClassicCars
I would have included that, several of these engines could have been covered under the 215 V8 discussion.
Thank you Adam. This was an interesting list. It was good to hear about the engines and to see the 3800 mentioned as it was spawned from another engine.The things they tried to do in the name of fuel efficiency. You have to give GM credit for trying and some of the efforts. Just think if they had got the 350 Oldsmobile diesels right where would be now.
Interesting…the 1970 440 magnum upswept exhaust manifold looks surprisingly similar to the toro flow exhaust manifold
I knew about the 326, 336 Tempest. I knew about the 2 different 336s in GMC trucks. I never made the connection since it had been a few years in between being used, as far as I knew. And as to why the first year in the Tempest was that 336, makes sense now. Thanks for sharing your knowledge again Adam 👍 (I did not know about that more OBTUSE😂 V16 Caddy. Used that word in grade school more than now, but I'm usually afraid to use it as an adult, I think Andy Dufresne got a month in the hole for using the word obtuse)
My neighbor owns a Cadillac V16. It sits right next to his Duesenberg and his two Stoddard-Daytons. ...which are parked next to his "spin and win" Lola-chassis Indy car and his Diablo VT. It's nuts, you gotta see it.
Great information Adam. I really appreciate how you organize your information and keep things concise. So you can see the relationship the engines have from one to the next.
Thank you for this video, Adam. I am a dyed-in-the-wool gearhead and a numberphile also. You nailed the engine specifications for EVERY engine you cited. I have now subscribed and am a fan. Precision and understated professionalism, you epitomize these attributes.
Someone has probably mentioned this one by now, but just in case not, I'll throw in the 1962-70 Chevrolet 153 "Super-Thrift" 4-cylinder. This tough little motor lived on until the 90s down in South America. An enlarged 181 c.i.d. version was produced for years as an industrial/marine engine.
Yup, I believe you're referring to the "Iron Duke". Great little engine, and rarely seen in the States. I had seen a couple in Novas.
@@JeffK. The Iron Duke is a different engine than the Chevy four banger. The Duke was a Pontiac engine, developed in the late 70s, and shared parts with the Pontiac 301 V8 . The Chevy “Super-Thrift” mill was developed in the early 60s in conjunction with and shared parts with the “Turbo-Thrift” straight six.
Great video, Adam! I'll look forward to any similar ones in the future for Ford, Mopar, foreign or other domestic manufacturers.
And, respectfully, the turbocharged Corvair you mentioned from 1962 wasn't the Monza, but the Monza Spyder. The Monza in all Corvair passenger cars was a trim level above base, but if turbocharged, it was named "Spyder", but only for 1962--1964. In 1965, turbocharged Corvairs, in the new design, were called "Corsa", and that version ended in 1966, I believe, ending the span of turbocharged Corvairs.
Yes. '66 or '67 was the last year, 180hp.
@BogattheMoon 1966. I'm almost positive.
The car itself was gone by 1969, or that was the last year of production, and between 1966 and 1969, it was gradually de-emphasized by Chevrolet, and nothing of note happened with the car.
It was destroyed by the Ford Mustang, and, in fact, by 1966 the decision has been made to end production. The sales of the Mustang decided it.
It could have been a marvelous car in American automotive history had it continued in production, and been refined over time.
I owned two Corvairs, an early model and a '66.
@@bretfisher7286 50k plus Turbos produced over it's run. No denying it was the first successful mass produced turbocharged car in the world regardless of naysayers.
@@BogattheMoon Right.
Howdy and great vid. I was on the bench in '81 and called the V8-6-4 a 3-5-7 because it shook so hard in six cylinder mode. If I recall due to tightening standards of the time the 250 aluminum engine was not ready for '81 so gm went to Bosch and came up with cylinder deactivation to meet requirements. I still have the diagnostic card for that engine, You could use the a/c control head to manually operate cylinder deactivation.On a r/t with the foreman I selected 4 cylinder mode up a hill.lol. it would not pull!
I heard that GM stopped making the 215 V8 because they had numerous difficulties casting the aluminum. They sold the tooling to Rover because of it.
Some people but the 1975 or 1976 oddfire HEI distributor to upgrade older engines. I don't like 90 degree V6 engines. To me it's like building something flawed from the beginning and covering it up. I see a balance shaft is a parasite that exists for no other reason than a dumb design.
The Toroflow is strange to me because it is a V engine with intake and exhaust on the same side. Plenty of inlines, including inline diesels were built that way. VW and Nissan built several cars that way. It is easier to build an inline 2V engine with the exhaust and intake on the same side. You mentioned that it made room for the injection pump. In other diesels, it may have freed up space to locate one or more of the following 1. Injectors 2. Glow plugs. 3. Prechambers.
The VW Rabbit diesel and Datsun Maxima diesel borrowed a lot of parts from related gasoline engines. However, they did it successfully.
very informative , thank you for sharing the intel you've acquired
LoL the V8-6-4. Derek on vicegrip did a revival on one. It was an entertaining episode.
Meh
Maybe you don’t count it because is too new, but the 2019 and 2020 Cadillac CT6-V had a two year only 4.2 liter twin turbo V-8 putting out 550 horsepower. It was a hand built and signed beauty. There was also a 500 horsepower version available in the non-V CT6. I had a 2019 CT6-V that I purchased in August of 2020 at a steep discount new from my local Cadillac dealer. It was a great car but was never really successful as a performance car like the CTS-V. I kept it about a year.
I"ve always though of the 215 BOP aluminum V8 as way more cool than weird. Love the various permutations it became; I believe Sir Jack Brabham's third world title came with a Repco V8 that had some ancestry in the BOP aluminum V8, through Holden I believe?
Interesting. I'm going to research that.
@@BogattheMoon Just did a bit of confirmation research myself: MotorSport magazine, May 1999 article by Alan Henry called "The House that Jack Built". Excerpt:
Jack and Ron Tauranac pulled a master stroke. Reasoning that the rival teams of Cooper-Maserati and Ferrari V12s, not to mention the horrendous BRM H16, would be either too heavy or too unreliable, they decided instead to go for a lightweight production based engine for the new Brabham BT19.
This was the Australian Repco V8 based round the General Motors Oldsmobile F85 cylinder block. This engine had been abandoned by GM after initially being developed as part of a linerless aluminium engine programme for a projected 3.5-litre Buick “compact.” Not quite at a stroke, Repco transformed this from a commercial disaster to a motor racing dream.
The Repco V8 was light, serviceable and sufficiently powerful to get the job done. It might have only had a claimed 315bhp at a leisurely 7250rpm, but that was enough to see off the vastly overrated and ultimately disappointing Ferrari 312s which were hotly tipped as pre-season favourites. Brabham won four races that year to clinch the world championship,
I Thought I was a Gm engine until I watched This!!! I Feel Humbled!
Thank You for Taking Your time to Share this information!
My first car was ‘77 Skylark with the 231cu in odd fire V6; it had terrible reliability, V8 like fuel consumption, and 4 cylinder power, specially with all of the emissions. Not to mention the TH200 transmission’s poor quality
Sold it after a short while, bought a very well used AMC Jeep with the 258cu in L6 and a 3sp standard transmission; that vehicle ran flawlessly for at least another 100k miles, withstanding some serious abuse, until it just rotted away.
Another very interesting and informative video Adam. Wondering if you have any plans to feature the SOHC 6 that was available in mid-size Pontiacs? In its day, it was a pretty exotic motor - especially from a domestic manufacturer.
I’d throw in the original ZL1 (which I believe was basically an L88 with an aluminum block), the LQ1, possibly the C4 LT5 (seems to be relatively unknown outside of Vette enthusiasts), the 4.2 Blackwing, the “Shortstar” V6, and the LC3 (Northstar SC).
I once worked with a guy that claimed to know everything about that generation of LT engines, he swore the LT5 didn't exist.
We worked at a GM dealer. I went to the parts catalog and showed him 😂
I'm no vette enthusiast, I just like weird stuff, you're right, it's pretty well unknown outside a small chunk of folks.
Also worked with a guy that had a shortstar. Had some power but nobody wanted to touch it 😂
We had ONE just one, customer with an LC3 XLR-V. But I want to say the STS-V Was powered by the same, wasn't it? (Edit: I worked at a Cadillac store for a while, I should have added that originally)
I looked it up to verify, so in total we had only 2 customers with LC3's that I'm aware of. A TON of the rest of the variants.
The STS-V seemed like a heck of a fun ride
@@goosenotmaverick1156 LC3 is a cool, and pretty under appreciated (and unknown) engine.
I had an 06 STS-V for a few years. What a great car. Nobody knew what the hell it was and generally didn’t know it existed. Almost everyone assumed it was an LS. I had a guy one time in passing sarcastically say “nice V”. Must have thought I slapped V badges on some random Caddy sedan.
Later on had a CTS-V coupe, and though faster, just didn’t thrill me as much or feel as special.
I’d say the only weird omissions on the STS-V were the lack of Magride and lack of cooled seats. It was especially weird given that both were available on the regular STS (I also had an 05 STS V8 with Magride).
I’d like to get an XLR-V eventually. They’re easily my favorite GM car from the 2000-2010 era.
Since the Corvair air cooled flat six was not included here, that means it's not weird!😎
630 lb feet of torque at 1,500 rpm ... WOW. Imagine that pulling your Electra 225 😮
A video comparing the superior efficiency of oil bath air cleaners versus disposable paper filtration would interest a bunch of viewers I’m sure. Superior filtration provided side load g forces don’t come into play
These video’s are great, so many things that are not common knowledge
I’ll bet that Jetfire was popular among shine runners lol
Just about every old "moonshine" car that I've seen in person, read about or watched videos about were Ford products with the legendary flathead V8. The reason is simple, people that made and ran shine back in the day were mostly struggling poor farmers trying to supplement their income. The Ford flatly was the cheapest powerful engine available to them plus these cars were everywhere and blended in perfectly (unless they were getting it done on the run!) The flathead was so revered by them that more than one mobster-gangster-shine runner etc sent personal letters to Henry Ford thanking him for producing such an inexpensive, easily repaired & powerful engine. This Buick turbo engine would have been ignored by them.
@@rogergoodman8665 the one that stands out is Clyde's (Bonnie and Clyde) letter to Henry praising the flathead V-8. Still displayed to this day at the FoMoCo museum.
I would have put the infamous copper cooled Chevy V8 from 1923 at the top of my list. Great video.
Great video! The Cadillac 8-6-4 never worked from the dealer. We used to disable the computer so it was full V8 all the time and they ran fine after the modification. It was an early attempt at Chevys AFM in newer Trucks that also have issues. There is a delete for that too. Lifter failure is common. A 5.3 with AFM delete will run 2 to 300,000 mi with no issues running a good synthetic oil.
Those early Buick V-6s had a rope timing cover seal. Stuff it in there and cut it off, smash it down till the balancer will go on. Oil it up good first.Oh boy, those were the days.
Did rope seals leak more or less than polymer rubber seals and gaskets?
The only ones I didn't know about were the ToroFlow Diesel's from GMC. I know those V6 blocks were plenty stout as gas engines, so I imagine not much strengthening was needed in that area. Great video Adam.
My mother had a 76 Sunbird with the odd fire 231. With the 5 speed manual (that shifted well) and 2.76 axle, it wasn't terribly fast, but felt adequate to a 16 year old. At highway speed it was quite nice riding and quiet. The handling was pretty good as well. It got about 30mpg on the highway and not a lot less in town. The 305 probably would been more fun.
Sixteen pistons to break eighty four rings to stick, fuel having to split that many paths. Two of everything to adjust making everything twice as hard. Twice the valves and pushrods to bend, drop, fail to seal...You get it!
Love the energy 👌🏾
Love the humor 👌🏾
Love the info 👌🏾
☆☆☆☆☆
With that 702ci Twin Six, you said that you'd never seen another engine where the spark plugs are on the inside of the V. There actually is one other one from back then that I know of that had that same setup - the Ford 427 SOHC also had the spark plugs on the intake manifold side of the heads. It actually is a good idea, I don't know why it wasn't done more commonly, both for reliability reasons and for ease of maintenance. Changing spark plugs on the exhaust side of the engine can be awful on some engines, especially where the exhaust manifolds go over the plugs, or on transverse mounted engines. Easy access from the top would have been a huge benefit.
I heard of all of those, a couple of them right here on this channel.
When Chrysler bought Fargo (trucks) in 1928 - is that the first badge engineering when they just put the name on Dodges?
The trophy 4 idea was also used for the international 4 cylinder.
Was basically a v8 with a cylinder head and pistons of 1 bank, and a weird intake.
Ford also used a similar approach to make a 4 cylinder engine compressor 😊😊
I saw a portable compressor made for jackhammers etc, Ford small block V8 with one head just an air compressor, ran off 4cyl other bank
Thanks, great video
4:25 Buick odd fire a pile of vibrating, head gasket blowing, junk. Especially when coupled to the undersized, yes undersized, TH200. Compare the inital and long term experience of a 76 Skylark with this powertrain to it’s corporate sister, the ‘76 Nova with I6 and TH350. The Chevy was smooth and super reliable. The Buick was headed to the wrecking yard in 5 years. Same car, different powertrain.
100% TRUTH
Butless Cutlas,,,lol-- I worked at a small junk yard in my late teens and I used an early 60's 1ton GMC wrecker that was powered by a V^. And at another salvage yard I ran across an early 1960's Buick I think it was, that had a tiny turbo V8 that caught my attention.
Those GMC engines are soooo cool. Someday I wish you could interview one of the GM engineers/execs from back in the day so we could get a concrete answer about why it almost seemed like GM refused to add the water separator fuel filter to those diesel engines.
They’re all dead 😂😂😂
@@HunterB738 Guess I understand why... Can't imagine being the head of the team that came up with that diesel!
@@fleetwin1GM is always trying to save money, and water in the diesel is a customer problem (gm doesn't care).
I'm surprised you rarely talk about the Buick Nailheads and full size Buicks from this period. They are also quite unique in design and my favorite engines too! I hope you make more videos about these Buicks and their transmissions! From the Dynaflow to the Flightpitch and also the early 400 transmissions that had the switch pitch feature sand why it did (after 1964) and why they stopped to offer it!
One reason…cost. Switch pitch lasted until 67
@@RareClassicCars I know, I also have a '67 Riviera like yours. Buick apparently wanted the Nailheads to idle better with the variable pitch feature. Other divisions got it too in the early 400 transmissions but it was a feature introduced by Buick on the 1955 Dynaflow.
Your videos are awesome and I can't believe the quantity you're able to generate!
The 702 cubic inch GMC V12 does not share intake manifolds with the 351 GMC V6. I discovered this by putting 351 magnum heads on one of my V 12s. And the intake manifold's showed that the V12 has a different offset from the V6. Because the V12 has shared Crank shaft journals and the V6 has offset Crank shaft journals.
Interesting presentation! Having spent 30 years in the parts business, I was aware of all of the info apart from the fact that the Toroflo diesel was developed from the GMC V6 👍
I'm a GM fan and I love to hear about those engine's that not many people even know about. Thanks for a nother great video keep em coming
Amazing Stuff, Adam...Seems to me that GM were experimenting with their engines, in striving for improvement. Some innovative, some failures, but to be expected, eh Adam🤔👍
my guy youre doing a video every day, sometimes multiple!
Adam-The depth of your arcane knowledge base continues to amaze. Thanks!
The Buick 215 and the Oldsmobile 215 were slightly different. Anyone know what the differences were?
heads, pistons, valvetrain. quite a bit
UTG had a Buick Guy on his video and he explained it, and had a decent example of each...
Pontiac version was better with more head bolts
@@dionrau5580 Five vs four head bolts - I think with Olds having more bolts for the turbocharger.
@@DanEBoyd that sounds about right 👍
Adam, your uniqueness in topics is freaking fascinating!!!!! You are such a great talent/channel and I personally tell anybody who will listen!!
I read or herd that they were also called Turo-flow and Tru-Torq, I believe Steve Magante did one on his channel.
Great content as per usual…G from Oshawa
2:50 2:50 2:50 Had the 215 in the Rover SD1 was a blast , all i had to do was service it 👍
The "Turbo Rocket Fluid" was a mixture of water, methanol and a rust inhibitor. It was injected directly into the intake to help prevent misfire as the boost was quite high in these engines. Water/methanol injection is sometimes also found in older diesel truck engines to help cool the air charge.
I heard that there were a good number of problems with the V6 Toro-Flo but not nearly as much with the V8. They actually put the V8 in a few 'Fishbowl' buses.
Had 2 Jeep Commandos with Dautless V6 by Kaiser. Good pep and mpg @ 20. Rough runner and vapor lock issues when hot. Turbo 400 and manual had similar mpg. 6:15
I have a Pontiac 347 in my 1955 GMC truck 8:24
My cousi Vinny.(Tempest)
Another great video!
The Ford "modular" 4.6 or 5.4 (V8) / 6.8 (V10) OHC/DOHC engine family replacing the 302/351 Windsor starting around 1990 had, at least in some versions (like the 4.6 in my 1996 Thunderbird), the spark plugs similarly located like the #2 GMC V-engines.
Why does the air cleaner housing drop all the way down to the intake manifold, @2:02?
My brother got a ticket in my mom's 1980 Delta 88 with the 350 diesel and the judge dismissed it because he did not believe the car was capable of going 90 MPH.
I had a 62 Tempest LeMans 4 cylinder for a number of years. It was strong and reliable for me, with the high compression package and a 4 barrel carb, it was just finicky to needing the timing adjusted once a year, and that’s it. No vibration issues and great torque.
We had a 1968 Jeep Cammando with the 231 Buick V6, used it for a snow removal vehicle for our private road that we lived on.