[marcus18]

what kind of power did they put out?
I did some desktop dyno tests with the block and a 283 crank to make 230ci

it put out 294hp@6000rpm and 281tq between 4500 and 5000rpm

with 2.02 and 1.60 valves and 700cfm carb, smalle tube headers, ebrock performer cam, 8:5:1 compression ratio

any comments?

it's going into a exotic car replica so thats part of the reason for me wanting it to rev. also smaller means less gas right?


marcus

[dh79]

This I know: 1981 chev 267 with 2 barrel carb was rated at 120 HP and 210 ft/lbs torque.

The 267 only has a 3.5" bore. I don't think you'll be able to put 2.02 heads on it. The factory 267 heads are very small and are definately not suited for any performance application.

This engine was intended for smooth, reliable economy. If you want to make some horsepower, there are a lot of better small block chevy combinations. I've heard of people boring a 283 to somewhere around 301; apparently that makes a screamer. Either that or a good ol 327 or 350. The 350 is the easiest and cheapest way to make decent, reliable power.

Others can certainly tell you more about other sbc combos.
dh

[stepside454]

of all the sb Chevy V8s the 262 & the 267 are easily the worst choices for performance applications.

[peanut69]

you can put 305 heads on a 267 and make it run great,its not the worst engine chevy made i think thats the 4.3

[cobalt327]

Originally Posted by marcus18

what kind of power did they put out?
I did some desktop dyno tests with the block and a 283 crank to make 230ci

it put out 294hp@6000rpm and 281tq between 4500 and 5000rpm

with 2.02 and 1.60 valves and 700cfm carb, smalle tube headers, ebrock performer cam, 8:5:1 compression ratio

any comments?

it's going into a exotic car replica so thats part of the reason for me wanting it to rev. also smaller means less gas right?


marcus

My "comment" is, I would like to see the look on the face of whoever tries to lower a set of heads w/2.02" intakes onto a 267 SBC block!

Just build a 283 or a 327 if you want a smaller displacement "revver". The bore size of the pathetic 267 SBC relegates it to the bottom of the barrel AFA SBC's go.

And p69, about the "4.3"- what are you talking about, the 4.3L V6 or the 265cid V8 from '55-'56 (a f-ing ICON), or the "Baby LT1" L99 V8 engine? Just saying "4.3" don't mean s---.

[Hippie]

Originally Posted by cobalt327

My "comment" is, I would like to see the look on the face of whoever tries to lower a set of heads w/2.02" intakes onto a 267 SBC block!

Just build a 283 or a 327 if you want a smaller displacement "revver". The bore size of the pathetic 267 SBC relegates it to the bottom of the barrel AFA SBC's go.

And p69, about the "4.3"- what are you talking about, the 4.3L V6 or the 265cid V8 from '55-'56 (a f-ing ICON), or the "Baby LT1" L99 V8 engine? Just saying "4.3" don't mean s---.

Aside from the fact this thread has been Resting In Peace for 6 years I'll 2nd that. Plus the 4.3 V-6 is a great engine within it's intended applications and the 4.3 L99 V-8 gives us a 3.00" stroke crank for 1 Pc. rear main seal blocks.

I "built" a 302 SBC on DD2000 with an L99 crank and rods, a 4" bore 350 roller block and pistons, Vortec heads and the '395 Ramjet roller cam. It was 8.9 to 1 compression and showed 357 FWHP at 5500 with 370 FtLbs FWTQ at 4000 & 4500. It has the added advantage of almost 6" long rods. I think that would be a better option than ANYTHING based on the old 267.

[peanut69]

if u wanna see 2.02 heads on a 267 come too my house because i did it. and the 4.3 v6 sucked, a lot of people underestimate the 267 because of its small bore and small stroke but its a pretty good engine, now im not saying that its the best but if you give it a chance you will find that its great for its size and its got gobs of pulling power

[matt167]

not sure why you say the 4.3 sucked.. 4.3 is a great engine for what it is. good torque, good power, especially with later Vortec versions... skipping over that, you'v probably never worked on or driven a 2.8L S10, which was a POS

as for the 267's "small bore and small stroke".. you may note it's displacement ,measurement is 3.5" bore and 3.48" stroke, the 350 has a bore of 4.0" and a stroke of 3.48". so the stroke is not small... chevy also discontinued it because it was a faliure.. it was built as a smogger econo engine, and by 1981, Chevy had trouble getting it to pass smog. so it was discontinued in 1982..

even if you got 1 to run ok, it's still more money than it's worth. pretty sure you could de- stroke a 305 with a large journal 327 crank, and with the right pistions build a small cube screamer.. it would be 285 CID approx ( 3.735X 3.25 )

[DoubleVision]

You put 2.02 heads on a 267 then you must have used a cam that has round lobes. Without adding the distance between the 2 valves, by simply adding them together which comes out to: 2.02 + 1.60=3.63 which is already larger then the 3.500 bore size the 267 came with. Not only that, the large valve will kill the velocity the 267 counts on to give it throttle response and torque to give it what very little get up and go it had. The factory 2 barrel intake had very small runners designed for high velocity. It also used a Rochester Dualjet carb which was the primary half of the Quadrajet, it was used to to also increase velocity. A 2.02 intake valve on a 267 would also suffer from such excessive valve shrouding power would fall off instead of pick up.
305 heads on a 267 will make it run great? the 262, 267, and 305 at one point all used the same cylinder heads. They are all small bore engines with small valves to keep velocity high for low end torque. The 262 and 267 are both best used for boat anchors. 4.3`s sucked? You do realize a 4.3 is a 350 with 2 cylinders cut off? 4.3`s have a 4.000 inch bore and a 3.480 stroke, same as a 350 only with 2 less cylinders. Since you seem so high on 267`s and will go as far as to say 4.3`s suck, I`ll be more than happy to line up against your 267 in my 92 chevy pickup with a 4.3 TBI. It sure will suck when I blow your doors off.

[cobalt327]

Originally Posted by peanut69

if u wanna see 2.02 heads on a 267 come too my house because i did it.

Do the math, Einstein.

Even if you used a 2.02" intake and only a 1.5" exhaust- the combined width of the two valves- w/the margins touching- is 3.52". The bore of the 267 is 3.5".

a lot of people underestimate the 267 because of its small bore and small stroke

The stroke is the second longest of any Gen 1 SBC production engine, only surpassed by the 3.75" 400 crank. And, yes- I know about the 3.8" stroke crate 383 GM engine- it's not "production", as in "installed in a vehicle and sold by a dealer".

but its a pretty good engine

Wrong yet again. The 267 is unequivocally a piece of shìt. Period.

[matt167]

Originally Posted by DoubleVision

I`ll be more than happy to line up against your 267 in my 92 chevy pickup with a 4.3 TBI. It sure will suck when I blow your doors off.

a kid I knew, got a 267 free and put it in his early '90's S10 4.3 2wd. he was mad when it was slower than with the 4.3.. but the freebie engine was just used as somthing to put in there so he could get it all set up for a V8.. it did eventully get a 350

[cobalt327]

Originally Posted by DoubleVision

You put 2.02 heads on a 267 then you must have used a cam that has round lobes.

I was typing while you were posting- or I would have spared myself the 'pleasure' of calling this confused individual out.

But points well made.

EDIT- Did I forget to mention that I actually have owned not one, but TWO of these ungodly P'sOS? Both '79's. One in a Malibu the other in a M/C. Could not swap them the hell out fast enough. Saved the carbs and HEIs , period.

[matt167]

I bought 1 in a wrecked '81 Impala. thought it was a 350 ( bought it as 1 ).. got it running in the wreck, and it did run pretty good. but when I checked the block numbers and found a 267, I just junked the car.. would probably push somthing like a T bucket along just fine, but it's really not even worth the effort to pull 1 out of a junker