If Im not mistaken I beleive that motor has a 3.50 bore with 3.48 inch stroke,It would take some doing.I think it only has around 110 hp.just my opinion(wrenchturner)

 

A 267 is tiny it has a 305/350(3.48) stroke and pistons the size of thimbles, I think it would be a waste of time and money for this engine.If a small engine is what you want try the 283 or 265(1976/7)these are short stroke motors. 3.0 for 283 and 3.1 for 265, the 265 uses the same diameter pistons as the 305 while the 283 uses a slightly larger bore.283 was the best engine chevrolet ever created,most had forged cranks thick cylinder walls and decent compression , ask some old guys, they were bullet broof,all the perf chevy parts fit also

 

Amen for the 283,Had one could'nt kill it,major Rs 7000 shift point.(wrenchturner)PS I miss that motor

 

hey chevellelcamino got your mail no crates but used yeah they're still out there, I got one. check the boneyards that have older stuff the last 283 was 1967. some reman companies still offer them but never checked,the 307 chevy is a factory stroker useing a 327 crank and a 283 bore(the crank is large journal) I know where there are atleast 10 283s the guy wants 200 apiece

 

Look in the swap sheets I see 283s allot in the antique/muscle parts sections.Allmost grabbed one myself for $100 needed rings.

 

To me from what I read That 267 seems to be a great motor. I would kill for one. They were desighned with economy in mind. They have small bore and long stroke wich makes them a great canadate for economy. Most people dont know this but they came with some great heads. The heads are only 1.82 vavle's but they have a fast burn chamber and look almost like fuileis. They also have 58 cc' chambers. If i lived in texas I would trade a 350 for that kicker

 

Finally some one is interested in a 267. I have been teased by every car nut I know when I've mentioned building a mild performance 267. My 2dr malibu is a daily driver so at this point I can't afford to roll around with a 400hp 350. I just want to have an efficient throaty motor with good low end. I have often dreamed of putting a grand national turbo set up on it and put my inginuity to the test. Good luck with your project.

 

Holy crap dude,

Because of the extremely small bore of the engine in question, it would shrowd the valves of any type of reasonable size. I think that about 210 h.p. could be extracted from the vaunted little motor, I would use the stock heads and do a backyard porting job, and a 3-angle valve-job to bring the flow of the heads up to a reasonable level. I would talk to comp cams to find a reasonable grind that would give you good power and driveability. I probably wouldn't go bigger than a 500cfm carb, or even a Q-jet carb, because it only uses the equivilant air that you engine demands. headers are a must, 1.5" primaries, and a 2.5" collector and you should be good to go.

 

Ok! now we are talking, Here the most common hoon around the street engine is the 253 cu Holden V8, it's a classic engine, it's exactly the same as the 308 cu engine that's won thousand of races all over Australia and even whiped some bmw's in Europe except the 253 has a smaller bore. In the old days people here used to call them plastic motors because the waterpump and the inlet manifold were alloy, at the time Chevs and Fords still had iron parts, they even used to call this motor a boat anchor!. Anyway these days everyone has realised inch for inch it's just as good as a Small Block Chev. The point of the story is, we have and every kid that wanted a gurgly sounding V8 car has owned a 253 V8 in a Holden car. My brothers first car was a good example it was a Torana hatchback with a supra 5 speed, 3.36 L.S.D and a 253 with pocket ported heads, headers a mild cam a "rpm gap" in the stock dual plane manifold a dual exhaust and most importantly a Quadrajet. First time he ever drove that car he tried a Forumla one style spin turn and ripped the 4 link suspension arm off the diff and bent the wheel arch with the now flopping around wheel, it also used to grind the floor pan away at the rear universial joint under power. That car used to spin first gear, second gear and a little slight spin on the change into 3rd, it had a reverse style bonnet scoop and you could clearly see the top of the engine moving side to side under power and braking while you were driving. Best of all it sounded exactly like the Mustang in the movie bullet The whole car weighed 2650 pounds and didn't use much fuel. Well that's my memories of a little V8 and I think that's the kind of car chevellecamino wants

 

Those are some impressive numbers. 210hp from a 267 would be nice. I've been told it's a good motor for building low end. The torque numbers would be pretty good as well I would imagine.For a good cam I bought a 264/274 deg duration cam. It's good for low end. Valve float starts at 5000 rpm.

 

Ok for some more little engine insperation let's see what changes with engine size bore and stroke.

First lets use parts common to all engines and use desktop dyno to see what goes on.

The parts will be pocket ported heads, small tube headers and a Extreme energy 256h cam, Quadrajet and dual plane manifold, and pretty average sized valves of 1.84 inlet and 1.5 exhaust

Chev 262 324 hp@6000 rpm, 324 ft-lbs @4500 rpm
Chev 265 326 hp@6000 rpm, 327 ft-lbs @4500 rpm
Chev 267 320 hp@6000 rpm, 327 ft-lbs @4500 rpm
Chev 283 331 hp@5500 rpm, 343 ft-lbs @4500 rpm
Chev 302 336 hp@5500 rpm, 360 ft-lbs @4500 rpm
Chev 305 330 hp@5500 rpm, 362 ft-lbs @3500 rpm
Chev 307 333 hp@5500 rpm, 364 ft-lbs @3500 rpm
Chev 327 334 hp@5000 rpm, 384 ft-lbs @3500 rpm
Chev 335 330 hp@5000 rpm, 390 ft-lbs @3500 rpm
Chev 350 334 hp@5000 rpm, 406 ft-lbs @3000 rpm
Chev 383 331 hp@4500 rpm, 442 ft-lbs @2500 rpm
Chev 400 331 hp@4500 rpm, 463 ft-lbs @2500 rpm

Ok so you can see that you need heaps more timing on the camshaft to get a bigger engine get moving at anything more than higway revs and also that even with pocket ported heads the heads and valves are the limit not the size of the engine, after 5000 rpm the 302 (probably the best Chev small block) has got all the numbers over the 400 and at 6000 rpm a 302 is making 287 ft-lbs of torque and a 400 has long since spent all his grunt is only making 225 ft-lbs, 400 drivers watch the small engine at the finish line and watch him while your getting wheelspin off the start line too : )

 

throw it in the trash can,you can get a used 305 for a few hundred dollers put a performer rpm cam and intake a new timing chain,headers,600 cfm carb
and a performance oriented distributor and coil
and you should be sitting around 230 ish horse power and for a few extra bucks you would be suprised what a 2 inch carb spacer will do I have one on my truck and Im very happy with it
some of this stuff you can get on e-bay for next to nothing like the intake,coil,carb spacer,headers if you dont mind some rust,and the timing chain.

 

what is wrong with you people.. even if its a small displacement engine you can still tune it and 250 horsepower is not out reach by far. but the engine still displaces 4.3 litres, so if the engine is tuned to the same horsepower pre cubic inch as a 330 Hp 350, you will have the 252 horses you want,

true enough a small block 431 cubic inch donovan all aluminum engine with pro action cylinder heads and kinsler injection will be a more sexy engine and produce moer horsepower. BUT THAT WASNT THE QUESTION..

but i personally think that a goodwrench 350 longblock will be cheaper, it has the horses you want, its brand new, it comes with a 3 year warranty, and the complete engine is 1600 dollars, i severerely doubt that you can rebuild the 267 and tune it to 250 horses for the same amount of money. a 320 horsepower 350 is 2250 dollars and much more the engine to put in a chevelle if you ask me..

in my oppinion the 265 horsepower Goodwrench 350ci. longblock is youe best bet at a good engine in your 65 malibu, and if you want to spend that little extra go with the aluminum headed 320 hp version for the extra 400 bucks.

 

Im not a big fan of those aluminum heads the only advantage thay have is the wait,and in a malibu
your always going to have the wait problem.
iron heads will produce more horespower than aluminum heads, and if you overheat for what ever reason you dont have to worry about your heads worping.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I heard, daily-driver, and ecomony in there somewhere.
In the mid-sized Malibu, I think the 267 would be a great choice, considering that you already own it. With the right cam and carb, you should make plenty of power, and mileage that will flat out embarrass ANY 350. Just for giggles, find an EFI setup from a late model Caprice 4.3 V-8.
Anyone who tells you to sh1tcan any smallblock should be flogged.

 

267 in my 1981 Malibu, numbers matching to the cars VIN.
Timing chain, water pump, plugs, wires, cap, rotor, fuel pump & filter so far.
170,000 miles so far. And only smokes on start-up. 22mpg.
<<------------------<<<




My built 350 in the '79 Scottsdale never got over 12mpg,
I had a warmed over 305 that got 18mpg maximum,
BUT I never got THAT many miles out of ANY other engine I ever had.
And I have another 267 long block on a stand in the shop I traded a set of old wheels for.

 

iron heads will produce more horespower than aluminum heads, and if you overheat for what ever reason you dont have to worry about your heads worping.

What ????????


Please, Tell me Where you got This.....

 

4.3 is a v6 is that what you mean? 4.4 is a 267 v8. 4.3 stuff wont work unless jerry rig it! What were you smoking?

 

262 V8 is a 4.3 the 267 is a 4.4
Boy I got rassed for buildin a 305 LOL...
I personally wouldnt bother with a 267 a mild 305 will give good MPG & perf. my 86 EL Camino ran 13.70s with a mild 305 & 3.08 gear I only checked MPG with it once, had to spend a week not having fun sticking foot in it LOL. got almost 15 MPG

Sorry, Thats 18 mpg.....15 average if I was playin around some.
If you wanna rebuild it stock, well I geuss thats fine, dont bother trying to hot rod a 267. to be able to still get any MPG with it youll have to stay VERY conservative on the cam, timing, compression, carb etc. Not to mention stayin with hiway gear & stock ttype convertor. without killing what minimal torque it does have, you wouldnt be able to make much more than 150HP.
To get into the 200-250 HP range youll need RPMs, that means moving your powerband up, so now instead of its torque starting off idle, its now going to start around 1800-2000 RPMS. OOPS there goes your low end, now you need gearing....there goes the MPG.
a better combination would be a 4.3 V6 S10 if you want both some power & MPG.

 

Get a stock iron Q-jet manifold (probably for free if you look around a bit), a Q-jet, & dual exhaust system. Might try diddling with the advance curve, and maybe a mild cam & a good timing chain, & some new gaskets too, since it's already out. It should be noticeably faster than it was, get good mileage, & if the urge for more speed hits, the stuff will still fit a bigger SBC.

 

Jimful, well said.

 

Hotrod Malibu, Give me the rest of the specs on that cam if you would. It sounds like a decent little cam for a 350, & that operating range would be about right in a 350. But based on those advertised duration #s, thats a very agressive cam for a little motor like a 267.you wont make any low end torque with that cam Im bettin. John

 

Well at least it isnt a 267 Pontiac. Id look for at least a 305 and build that instead. The only way to get that 267 Chevy moving is to launch it off the Grand Canyon.

 

ive recently gotten a 1979 malibu classic......it has a 4.4 liter 267 ci or so the sticker said*shrugs* im still new to cars....whats the most that could be done with that engine? and are these things prone to their water pumps failing? im getting that impression:/

 

If you read this thread...youll get an idea of what can be done with a 267....not much, as far as the water pump...its no differant than any other SBC long pump