Taken from the "Engine" section of the message board, from the post, "POWERED BY A CHEVY, WRITTEN ON A FORD, DON'T YA JUST LOVE IT??".
It seems there has been quite a bit of SBC 350 favoritism around here lately, much talk of how mighty the SBC 350 is, and as someone who's walked around the block a few times, I know this to not be so, and I just couldn't remain silent anymore. I'm sick and tired of people steamrolling over the GM division which SHOULD be taking all the praise, and hailing the "great" SBC 350. Everyone knows there a dime-a-dozen, and by George I just had to say something.
From user, 'bullheimier",...
<as far as dependability goes, i DONT hear of <peoples sbc's blowing up due to all <this "stress" you're talkin smack about. ever <hear of Darwin? survival of the fittest?. also, <a sbc is small. equals "fits anywhere" and what is your hang up on being stock? if you want stock, why dont you match up ANYTHING BY ANYBODY against an LS-1 or LS-6 in the new Z-28's and T/As. Yes, i know caddys are bad *** . my mom has had a 70 since '72 with a 472 that i threw accel wires etc on back in the 80's when i gave it it's first tune up. its fun to stomp on the gas and hear the one back tire squeel. now lets look in the summit catolog. sbc performer: $109; caddy: $250!, Cam kit sbc:$116; caddy: call for price. Heads? dont ask. as for tech. advice. look at the posts re:chevy engines and how fast someone gets an <answer. then look at a post re: caddy or old hemi <or BOP and look at the 0's after a day or two. as <far as i'm concerned sbc are the best engine out <there. but they are not perfect (almost, but not <quite). they have one GLARING design flaw that <everybody knows about and we would ALL like to <kick the designers *** up thru his elbows for: <putting the g.d. distributor in the back of the <engine!! as for you starting your own fan club <you can go to <a href="http://www.442.com," target="_blank">www.442.com,</a> <http://www.442.com,> <and you scream about my cookie cutter sbc <(exactly as you descibed it in my photo album-<hahaha)all you want. i also own a pontiac and <know how fast the 389-400's and 455's can go, <which is why i ask HK why in the hell put a caddy <in a T/A when a 455 will drop right in. your <point @ the monied using a sbc is well taken <however, as they are NOT the least bit different <and if i was building a truly special rod i <would <definitely not use a sbc unless it was the <aforementioned LS-1/6. if for nothing else than <the fact that their are so many "snobs" if you <will, that would turn up their nose at my motor <no matter how fast it was. btw. my high school <buds crane fireball cammed 396 '66 chevelle got <smoked the worst, not by any 440 chargers we <raced (and beat) but by a little dodge dart with <a 273!!! sbc's are easy to work on, VIRTUALLY <INDESTRUCTIBLE(nuts to you!) cheap, and easy to <FIX, and their parts interchangability gives <unsurpassed potential of different combinations <for whatever vehicle you want to build. they are <virtually idiot proof, which i can attest to <cause i built mine. hell my neighbors even ran <like a raped ape when he put 307 rings in his 327!
<sorry. i did not mean to write a book. i just <love chevies! also, dont even TRY to compare gas <milage of a caddy-whompus to a mouse
and my reply...
(Just to be clear, I'm an Olds man :.)
So, okay bullheimer, and what do you expect me to say to that? You don't think I haven't been knee-high in bullshi* about how hot the only SB in the world, the SBC 350 is, and how Chevy motors are vastly superior to any and every other American built V8 motor for about the past 25-30 years of my life? Well guess what, I have!! The last thing I WANT to hear is more song and dance of how "Chevy parts are stronger", and other similar fairy tales.
So what if they are cheap (I'll cover this in a minute), easy to fix (for the dope who doesn't have the competance or motivation to learn how to unlock the awesome untapped power of the Olds) and "their parts interchangability gives unsurpassed potential of different combinations for whatever vehicle you want to build"; these may be good reasons to invest in Chevy power if you're an incompetent novice (one or the other, or both), but they CERTAINLY don't qualify to say that Chevy motors and Chevy parts are superior to others; I'm sorry friend, they just aren't. It's time to get over your Chevy fixation and learn to appreciate the TRUE GM automotive and performance innovator 30+ years ago which without, your precious, almighty SBC 350 wouldn't even exist; Oldsmobile. (As an engineer with more than 20 years experience, I think I just might know what I'm talking about.)
I'm not mad at you, and I'm not trying to beat you up. However, the two of us (and plenty other Chevyholics around here I'm sure) have got an almost completely different world perspective and historical time-line. I'm guessing you're mid-thirties. I'm 53. What I see around me
now in the performance engine world is very different than it was in 1963 through 1975. In some ways, it would appear a lot of what we really knew about Olds engines 30 years ago has been forgotten, and that's very sad.
Olds 442s, W30s, and W31s were class dominators 30 years ago. Don Mann in Kansas City was a good friend and a deadly competitor, in his several Olds A-bodies. He always used a 4-speed and could shift just about as fast as Ronnie Sox, of Sox & Martin fame. I first met Don in December 1968, when he bought the 4-speed, bellhousing, flywheel, and clutch plate and disc off of
my '64 442 Cutlass, which would later be born in the Spring of 1971 as Thunder Lizard. Don was the first to state that oil restrictors in an Olds
engine was complete bull, and it only addressed the symptom, not the cause of the problem. He won both local and national titles, taking the trophy
away from Chevys, Fords, and MOPARs. There were many others who could do the same thing, including Joe Mondello. Yeah, I don't agree with a lot of what Mondello says, but he did win sometimes. I can't remember the names of all
the other Olds racers, but they were there. But, to be really honest, we've got to go back even further into History.
Who had the lion's share of R&D labs for GM during WW2, to turn out improved weapons to win? It was Oldsmobile. Who lead GM engine R&D for all divisions, including Chevrolet, for more decades than I even know? It was Oldsmobile. What GM engine R&D lab developed the Chevy Z-11, the successor to the 409 and the forerunner of the 427? Oldsmobile. It's no wonder that when GM
corporate edict finally drew the line and stated *ALL* performance engines would henceforth be under only the Chevy emblem, is it no wonder the DRCE block came from the Oldsmobile R&D engine lab? We knew this fact 30 years ago. It was no secret.
I will assume you are aware that all the old time legends in NASCAR, such as Richard Petty and Junior Johnson and Smokey Yunick, honed their original racing skills making moonshine deliveries in tanker cars. Rent or buy the movie THUNDER ROAD with Robert Mitchum. There is a lot more truth than fiction in that movie. In 1959, Richard Petty won the Daytona 500 in a '59
Olds Super 88. He did the exact same thing in '60.
GM used all of the Oldsmobile R&D labs, not just the engine lab, to develop and pioneer almost every single innovation that GM marketed from the end of WW2 up to around 1975. The Arab oil threat enabled young up-and-coming GM executives in other divisions to flex their egos and divert the original GM business plan, because the stockholders were scared down to their toenails
of the Arabs. Things began to change.
I was in the speed shop, with our high performance engine machine shop, from 1969 to 1975. By 1972, Grumpy Jenkins had taught us most of his engine building secrets, and with his very open mind, how to apply those ideas to other engines, and where to modify as needed. Most people don't realize that William "Bill" "Grumpy" Jenkins also had considerable skill and experience
with MOPAR and Olds engines, in addition to his Chevys. Grumpy was a true Renaissance Man.
On another note, when I joined the Olds Mailing List about 18 months ago, I was shocked at what I
read some professionals telling some of the guys there to do with their engines. At some point, I couldn't keep my mouth shut anymore. It was like winning WW2, and then by the time Korea rolled around, we had forgotten how to fight and had to re-learn all the lessons all over again, the hard way. I saw the exact same thing had happened with how to build a hot Olds engine. The Olds engine was being treated like a Chevy. It isn't. The Olds engine has its own peculiar design parameters that must be addressed. Those parameters are much different than from a Chevy. By the late '60s, the handwriting was already
on the wall for Olds. The Chevy bow-tie would take the performance lead. That's why '68 and later 455 Olds engines got cast nodular iron cranks and the forged steel cranks only went into stationary industrial engines and marine engines. There were occasions where an Olds stationary industrial engine, out in the boondocks somewhere, suddenly turned up missing. The corporate owner couldn't ever figure out why. Quite a change from earlier 425s that all had forged steel cranks.
Any engine, no matter what it is, size for size, can be made to perform just
as well as any other engine of the same size. You can't argue with the Laws of Thermodynamics. However, it may take more money, a LOT more money,
particularly if no one has ever done the R&D. That's the Chevy advantage. Because of GM corporate promotion and exposure, everyone and their uncle has done Chevy R&D. There's more Chevy info and custom parts out there in the world than you can shake a stick at. High performance Chevy parts are now even being
made in China and imported here, into the United States for cryin' out loud! For Olds, we did
extensive R&D 30 years ago, but somebody threw most of it away. That somebody should be hanged. My access to that Olds R&D resides in my feeble
memory, inside Thunder Lizard, and in a few notes scattered here and there.
One quick note about the 'Crower' rods. Someone on the Olds List brought up the Oliver Chevy rods.
I had to show there was at least one old time, honorable, manufacturer who still made an indestructible Olds aftermarket part. Crower, and their steel billet Olds rods.
Also, Milodon and Offy still make a wide range of Olds extreme duty racing parts, just like they also do for Chevys. Crower, Milodon, and Offy don't discriminate. It's funny, Thunder uses a Crower cam, Milodon oil system parts, and an Offy intake. It looks like its appropriate.
You've also got to realize something about me. The absolutely worst thing anyone can ever say to me is that, "you can't do it, that's not possible, or you're not competent enough." Steve H., Chris W., Charley B., Paul T., Frank F., and Ian D. should know why, by now.
I like Olds. I grew up only with Olds cars in my family. It's just the way it is. I'll build Olds cars and engines, and they will work and work very
well. When I build something, I keep it...like Thunder Lizard. I bought her in November 1968, she first hit the bricks in the Spring of 1971, and she'll be my coffin. I'll also keep our 3 other '64-'65 Olds A-bodies. It's a long term commitment. Those 6 other characters above can understand what I mean by a long term commitment.
May the Olds legend live on,
~John~
It seems there has been quite a bit of SBC 350 favoritism around here lately, much talk of how mighty the SBC 350 is, and as someone who's walked around the block a few times, I know this to not be so, and I just couldn't remain silent anymore. I'm sick and tired of people steamrolling over the GM division which SHOULD be taking all the praise, and hailing the "great" SBC 350. Everyone knows there a dime-a-dozen, and by George I just had to say something.
From user, 'bullheimier",...
<as far as dependability goes, i DONT hear of <peoples sbc's blowing up due to all <this "stress" you're talkin smack about. ever <hear of Darwin? survival of the fittest?. also, <a sbc is small. equals "fits anywhere" and what is your hang up on being stock? if you want stock, why dont you match up ANYTHING BY ANYBODY against an LS-1 or LS-6 in the new Z-28's and T/As. Yes, i know caddys are bad *** . my mom has had a 70 since '72 with a 472 that i threw accel wires etc on back in the 80's when i gave it it's first tune up. its fun to stomp on the gas and hear the one back tire squeel. now lets look in the summit catolog. sbc performer: $109; caddy: $250!, Cam kit sbc:$116; caddy: call for price. Heads? dont ask. as for tech. advice. look at the posts re:chevy engines and how fast someone gets an <answer. then look at a post re: caddy or old hemi <or BOP and look at the 0's after a day or two. as <far as i'm concerned sbc are the best engine out <there. but they are not perfect (almost, but not <quite). they have one GLARING design flaw that <everybody knows about and we would ALL like to <kick the designers *** up thru his elbows for: <putting the g.d. distributor in the back of the <engine!! as for you starting your own fan club <you can go to <a href="http://www.442.com," target="_blank">www.442.com,</a> <http://www.442.com,> <and you scream about my cookie cutter sbc <(exactly as you descibed it in my photo album-<hahaha)all you want. i also own a pontiac and <know how fast the 389-400's and 455's can go, <which is why i ask HK why in the hell put a caddy <in a T/A when a 455 will drop right in. your <point @ the monied using a sbc is well taken <however, as they are NOT the least bit different <and if i was building a truly special rod i <would <definitely not use a sbc unless it was the <aforementioned LS-1/6. if for nothing else than <the fact that their are so many "snobs" if you <will, that would turn up their nose at my motor <no matter how fast it was. btw. my high school <buds crane fireball cammed 396 '66 chevelle got <smoked the worst, not by any 440 chargers we <raced (and beat) but by a little dodge dart with <a 273!!! sbc's are easy to work on, VIRTUALLY <INDESTRUCTIBLE(nuts to you!) cheap, and easy to <FIX, and their parts interchangability gives <unsurpassed potential of different combinations <for whatever vehicle you want to build. they are <virtually idiot proof, which i can attest to <cause i built mine. hell my neighbors even ran <like a raped ape when he put 307 rings in his 327!
<sorry. i did not mean to write a book. i just <love chevies! also, dont even TRY to compare gas <milage of a caddy-whompus to a mouse
and my reply...
(Just to be clear, I'm an Olds man :.)
So, okay bullheimer, and what do you expect me to say to that? You don't think I haven't been knee-high in bullshi* about how hot the only SB in the world, the SBC 350 is, and how Chevy motors are vastly superior to any and every other American built V8 motor for about the past 25-30 years of my life? Well guess what, I have!! The last thing I WANT to hear is more song and dance of how "Chevy parts are stronger", and other similar fairy tales.
So what if they are cheap (I'll cover this in a minute), easy to fix (for the dope who doesn't have the competance or motivation to learn how to unlock the awesome untapped power of the Olds) and "their parts interchangability gives unsurpassed potential of different combinations for whatever vehicle you want to build"; these may be good reasons to invest in Chevy power if you're an incompetent novice (one or the other, or both), but they CERTAINLY don't qualify to say that Chevy motors and Chevy parts are superior to others; I'm sorry friend, they just aren't. It's time to get over your Chevy fixation and learn to appreciate the TRUE GM automotive and performance innovator 30+ years ago which without, your precious, almighty SBC 350 wouldn't even exist; Oldsmobile. (As an engineer with more than 20 years experience, I think I just might know what I'm talking about.)
I'm not mad at you, and I'm not trying to beat you up. However, the two of us (and plenty other Chevyholics around here I'm sure) have got an almost completely different world perspective and historical time-line. I'm guessing you're mid-thirties. I'm 53. What I see around me
now in the performance engine world is very different than it was in 1963 through 1975. In some ways, it would appear a lot of what we really knew about Olds engines 30 years ago has been forgotten, and that's very sad.
Olds 442s, W30s, and W31s were class dominators 30 years ago. Don Mann in Kansas City was a good friend and a deadly competitor, in his several Olds A-bodies. He always used a 4-speed and could shift just about as fast as Ronnie Sox, of Sox & Martin fame. I first met Don in December 1968, when he bought the 4-speed, bellhousing, flywheel, and clutch plate and disc off of
my '64 442 Cutlass, which would later be born in the Spring of 1971 as Thunder Lizard. Don was the first to state that oil restrictors in an Olds
engine was complete bull, and it only addressed the symptom, not the cause of the problem. He won both local and national titles, taking the trophy
away from Chevys, Fords, and MOPARs. There were many others who could do the same thing, including Joe Mondello. Yeah, I don't agree with a lot of what Mondello says, but he did win sometimes. I can't remember the names of all
the other Olds racers, but they were there. But, to be really honest, we've got to go back even further into History.
Who had the lion's share of R&D labs for GM during WW2, to turn out improved weapons to win? It was Oldsmobile. Who lead GM engine R&D for all divisions, including Chevrolet, for more decades than I even know? It was Oldsmobile. What GM engine R&D lab developed the Chevy Z-11, the successor to the 409 and the forerunner of the 427? Oldsmobile. It's no wonder that when GM
corporate edict finally drew the line and stated *ALL* performance engines would henceforth be under only the Chevy emblem, is it no wonder the DRCE block came from the Oldsmobile R&D engine lab? We knew this fact 30 years ago. It was no secret.
I will assume you are aware that all the old time legends in NASCAR, such as Richard Petty and Junior Johnson and Smokey Yunick, honed their original racing skills making moonshine deliveries in tanker cars. Rent or buy the movie THUNDER ROAD with Robert Mitchum. There is a lot more truth than fiction in that movie. In 1959, Richard Petty won the Daytona 500 in a '59
Olds Super 88. He did the exact same thing in '60.
GM used all of the Oldsmobile R&D labs, not just the engine lab, to develop and pioneer almost every single innovation that GM marketed from the end of WW2 up to around 1975. The Arab oil threat enabled young up-and-coming GM executives in other divisions to flex their egos and divert the original GM business plan, because the stockholders were scared down to their toenails
of the Arabs. Things began to change.
I was in the speed shop, with our high performance engine machine shop, from 1969 to 1975. By 1972, Grumpy Jenkins had taught us most of his engine building secrets, and with his very open mind, how to apply those ideas to other engines, and where to modify as needed. Most people don't realize that William "Bill" "Grumpy" Jenkins also had considerable skill and experience
with MOPAR and Olds engines, in addition to his Chevys. Grumpy was a true Renaissance Man.
On another note, when I joined the Olds Mailing List about 18 months ago, I was shocked at what I
read some professionals telling some of the guys there to do with their engines. At some point, I couldn't keep my mouth shut anymore. It was like winning WW2, and then by the time Korea rolled around, we had forgotten how to fight and had to re-learn all the lessons all over again, the hard way. I saw the exact same thing had happened with how to build a hot Olds engine. The Olds engine was being treated like a Chevy. It isn't. The Olds engine has its own peculiar design parameters that must be addressed. Those parameters are much different than from a Chevy. By the late '60s, the handwriting was already
on the wall for Olds. The Chevy bow-tie would take the performance lead. That's why '68 and later 455 Olds engines got cast nodular iron cranks and the forged steel cranks only went into stationary industrial engines and marine engines. There were occasions where an Olds stationary industrial engine, out in the boondocks somewhere, suddenly turned up missing. The corporate owner couldn't ever figure out why. Quite a change from earlier 425s that all had forged steel cranks.
Any engine, no matter what it is, size for size, can be made to perform just
as well as any other engine of the same size. You can't argue with the Laws of Thermodynamics. However, it may take more money, a LOT more money,
particularly if no one has ever done the R&D. That's the Chevy advantage. Because of GM corporate promotion and exposure, everyone and their uncle has done Chevy R&D. There's more Chevy info and custom parts out there in the world than you can shake a stick at. High performance Chevy parts are now even being
made in China and imported here, into the United States for cryin' out loud! For Olds, we did
extensive R&D 30 years ago, but somebody threw most of it away. That somebody should be hanged. My access to that Olds R&D resides in my feeble
memory, inside Thunder Lizard, and in a few notes scattered here and there.
One quick note about the 'Crower' rods. Someone on the Olds List brought up the Oliver Chevy rods.
I had to show there was at least one old time, honorable, manufacturer who still made an indestructible Olds aftermarket part. Crower, and their steel billet Olds rods.
Also, Milodon and Offy still make a wide range of Olds extreme duty racing parts, just like they also do for Chevys. Crower, Milodon, and Offy don't discriminate. It's funny, Thunder uses a Crower cam, Milodon oil system parts, and an Offy intake. It looks like its appropriate.
You've also got to realize something about me. The absolutely worst thing anyone can ever say to me is that, "you can't do it, that's not possible, or you're not competent enough." Steve H., Chris W., Charley B., Paul T., Frank F., and Ian D. should know why, by now.
I like Olds. I grew up only with Olds cars in my family. It's just the way it is. I'll build Olds cars and engines, and they will work and work very
well. When I build something, I keep it...like Thunder Lizard. I bought her in November 1968, she first hit the bricks in the Spring of 1971, and she'll be my coffin. I'll also keep our 3 other '64-'65 Olds A-bodies. It's a long term commitment. Those 6 other characters above can understand what I mean by a long term commitment.
May the Olds legend live on,
~John~