I think the Diplomat was an M body, and it still used torsion bars. They were L shaped and the harmonic balancer was just a cvnthair away from touching.
Yes, I misspoke in the video. The F Body went to front mounted transverse T bars. What I was trying to convey was that they were no longer an issue under the car.
i had an '83 Cordoba for a bit. and it was a J platform with the horizontal torsion bars. I think all The F, M, J bodies had the same set-up. the Cordoba was a b-body with the longitudinal torsion bars until '79.
So true. I’m a Ford guy and you are so right. The other thing is Chevy kept the same bell housing patterns for every engine from 55 on regardless of 6, sb,bb and on. Ford and Mopar had different bell housings making it more different/ expensive to change to a later engine.
Now the ls it's like they set them selves up for selling gm performance parts by making all us gm guys lives so easy the bell housing differences are a huge reason I believe some beginning fomco or Mopar guys may have jumped ship
Tony, as a lifelong Chrysler big block lover this all makes so much sense. It used to frustrate the heck out of me to see how much cheaper it was for others to build a Chevy and have access to everything in the aftermarket goodies. I had two 440s that flat out kicked butt with just about anything on the street, but at a huge cost compared to my Chevy buddies. This explains why. At 74 years old you answered my lifelong question. Thanks for sharing you vast experience and making it interesting.
460 Fords were available in 1968 at the peak of the Motor Head discussions. I have a couple around that endured and they can run with points providing spark. The Lincolns were selling cheap as the gas price went up. I was pumping Gas in1969 so I am about your age. I still enjoyed the low end power of FE blocks that Kicked Ferrari assets in 1967.
Loved my 440 marine engines, way better torque and reliability than the cheapo GM-mercruisers. HOWEVER the split rear main seals always leaked, and that sucks on a boat where its just a nuisance in a car.
For 50 years and engine displacements from 265 to 400 cubic inches parts and accessories interchanged. It took a whole lot less parts in the aftermarket to build just about anything you wanted from a small block Chevy.
You are one of THE smartest thinking guys around. I'm 68 and have been around this game since I was old enough to ask my late Dad "why are you doing that to that thing Dad?" He too was a very smart fella. Thankyou for a top video, Tony.
As a Ford guy, I'm most jealous of Chevys Bellhousings and always figured that was one the biggest reasons they were so successful in the hotrod world.
Come on man you know 90% of all Fox body's have a GM engine in there😏. I'm just giving you a hard time man. We all like what we like. The first car I worked on as a child (around 8yrs old) was a Ford and the second was a 1962 Impala and after working on the Impala I knew what I liked. I can tell you I absolutely do not like to work on any Fords 1996 and newer but I have to as I turn wrenches for my day job. Just thought I'd share my story have a good night man.
@@eric63377 I always assumed those were actually Chevy guys who wanted something more lightweight than their GM offerings. I definitely have no love for modern Ford (excluding the Godzilla) modular engines. They definitely feel like an engine of more cons than pros.
I think it was mostly just sheer volume. There was just a helluva lot more Chevies around than Fords or Mopars. This is one of the reasons I like Mopar, it's something different from what most everyone else has. That said, I like the 55-57 Chevies, and the early Mustangs are pretty cool.
This is awesome. I was a skeptic as you got going but you really made some great points and I’m glad you acknowledged the 10 year head start GM had with the Tri-fives. I build mostly fords and Chevy’s and am always annoyed by how ford changed things on the engine to accommodate the engine bay. Chevy designed their engine bays to accommodate the engine. So you end up with 50 years of parts compatibility on the Chevy side and you have to be within a few years and exact models on the ford side of tracking down accessories. Great video!!
Meh, it wasn't really a 10 year head start with the cars, just Chevy's small block engine. Ford got with the program when they introduced thier 3 year line of 57-58-59 cars, as well as Chrysler's new Forward look cars in 57. Ford & Chrysler also beat Chevy with modern & reliable big blocks, both introduced in 58. Chevy's 348/409 were not known for long term reliability.
Chrysler engine flaw, UT says, "let's examine the steering and suspension!" You are like a doctoral student defending a dissertation. Your insights are powerful and come with much merit, plus, your knowledge is universal and can be applied to most things. As always, thank you for sharing with us!
I agree never a snore fest with Tony very precise imput. I've learned a lot from his channel on carbs and points distributors ima 22 year old mechanic trying to learn more about my passion of fire breathing muscle cars
Also you didn't need to change a K member in a Chevrolet to go from straight 6 to small block and even to big block back then. They all shared transmissions and most shared motor mounts and evan radiator hoses.
Exactly. I recently did a big block to small block swap on a 73 b-body and my choices were a different k-member or Schumacher for custom conversion engine mounts. I ended up making my own mounts but this is a perfect example of what the average guy would have been up against 50 years ago.
@@williamstamper442 Sure did, I built a hot small block that is way quicker and more fun to drive than the smogged 440 that was in it..150 lbs less weight on the front end too..and it happens to get 40% better mileage than the big block 13-14 vs. 9-10 so win win I guess.
@@ColdSmokes these days, a stroker 360 isn't as hard to do as the old days of seeking out an early 360 to bore it out to 340 pistons for 380 cid. you can do 400+cid and with aluminum heads the weight difference makes up for hp. plus better handling and stopping. and if you know how to work the OEM fuel injection found in junkyards....
The 440 magnum was very well designed for a street performance engine. All I ever did was put on a stock HEMI 6 quart oil pan with the stock 440 pickup--the 440 pickup was the same depth as the hemi pickup. And a stock volume pump with a black oil pressure spring. All a high volume oil pump did was use horsepower to turn it. When I put headers, a Torker, a Crower 280 degree cam and a Holley 750 double pumper on one of my 440s, it made more power but it moved the power band up slightly so the car was much less "driveable" with a 4 speed.
Lol that’s funny my dad has a gay sister and albeit in my teens I’d call her uncle Pam had the stature of an all American defensive end lol but she’s the best and love her
As a long time Mopar guy I had never considered this! A very well thought out point of view. Another point is Chevrolet anything is so very interchangeable, just easier to build a Chevy on a budget and that's how just about everyone starts out.
I was always wondering why the bowtie has always been the go-to engine for performance mods; what was SO different about the Fords & Chryslers that they weren't seeing the same popularity? This video has certainly shed some light on the answer to that question; it has also made me wonder about what has been learned by Ford & Chrysler since that time and those lessons have been applied. Good video.
Chevy showed us what they learned over the decades when they gave us the LS. Chrysler learned too... The magnum series V8's (the 1990's version of the Chrysler LA smallblock) had rear sump oiling systems like Chevy always had. They're damn good engines too.
Working on Mopars ever since the early 80's you always experienced a domino effect on changing anything. Even when going from swapping a 318 to 360 required too many changes all the way to replacing the torque converter to eliminate the excessive vibration above 30 mph. Even to this day PCM's are constantly changing requiring other components to make anything work.
You nailed it , long time ago hot rod guys found out it was easier to put a SBC in a ford than to put a later ford into a ford. all about the oil pan location. Another great episode
A lot of wisdom in this video, Tony... As a long-time Mopar fan and owner, I always hated having to work around the steering and tight K-members. However those front sumps were wonderful for road racing, where frequent hard braking in a Chevy would cause the same problem for them. The A-bodies like Valiants and Barracudas did well in SCCA events. And yes, the Ford engine compartments were a complete nightmare. I'm not sure what they were thinking back then...
I used a 8-10 quart oil pan for my small block 273 in a '65 Valiant back in the '70's. I believe it was made by Milodon and had the hole/tunnel for the steering link. Just need to add the extended oil pick-up and it was good to go.
At 16 I could not figure out why I spun bearings in my 67 Fairlane. It was a bored 390, cam, headers and good heads. Was a brand new bottom end with perfect clearances. Guess it accelerated fast enough to do the oil starvation thing.
Yup-rear sump let the SB Chevy replace all those flatheads. Then we stepped up to 55-57s. It became generational. Interchangeability was so convenient, easy. Let a lot of shade-tree boys look like mechanical geniuses. Great info on the rear steer. I love Chevys but have always had a ton of respect for Mopar engines. Well-done video.
Great video. Chevy also had unbelievable interchangeability of parts. You could swap the heads etc from any small block. Over the counter parts at the dealer. A big block fit nicely in a tri-5. Bell housing bolt patterns all matched. Chevy had it going on for the diy folks.
@@rustedratchetgarage6788 There was a fix I just don’t remember. Back in the day not everyone ran headers. Here east coast of Nc they rusted out too quick
I am a Chevy guy from August 1969 till today. My friends and I always thought of the Mopar guy's as different and all this time it was the oil pans, I'll be danged. Good video, thanks.
Hi Mike, My brother and I grew up as Mopar guys and his friends were all Chevy and Ford lads, and they both thought of as different, BUT we all loads of fun working on our wrecks. I moved on to SAABs now (talk about wrecks) but i still have a great love of those days, Mopars, Chevy & Fords all welcome.
Absolutely love videos like this that take you on an engineering journey and explain why things are how they are. And who else than Uncle Tony delivers? Thank you good sir for sharing your knowledge on everything Mopar (and car engineering in general)!
Good Show, Tony. I lost an excellent 340 partially due to the oil sump placement in 1973. I had an awesome Orange 340 Duster 4 speed that went like crazy. I made the mistake of letting a hobby mechanic freshen up the valves, although it burned no oil and the compression was 150 all across. He threw the valves in a pile and went to work. When I put the heads back on it sucked oil through the guides at the rate of one quart every 200 miles. I was Not happy. On holidays within a few days we went camping. My wife was driving up a steep hill to a campsite in Nevada and she said it seems like we're losing power. I quickly leaned over and saw the oil pressure gauge at zero, so we coasted back down the hill where I added 2 quarts. Thankfully the oil pressure came back but at a reduced level. We drove that tough little fighter all the way back to the Cold Lake, Alberta Air Force Base, 1400 miles away, where I was an aircraft tech. No bearings were turned but they were pretty well burned out. Cost me lots for a full rebuild but it went better than ever until some envious sob poured sand into the oil filler cap. That finished it for good, poor girl. I still admire that tough and feisty 340! It was a real marvel of Chrysler engineering. God Bless you and God Bless America. RS, Maj Ret, Alberta, Canada.
Yes, also, the small Chevy V-8 breathed well, ran well, and sounded really good when it was screaming. The sound it made was a major (overlooked) factor in its popularity.
Thanks for explaining this. I had a friend with a 66 Satellite with a 440 and a heavy foot and he kept spinning bearings. I also had a 383 that did the same thing.
Plus, as you mentioned before, in the junkyard, that the ford's also had the front suspension springs on top of the upper control arms, which limited the exhaust manifold clearances.
If I am correct, Ferd only had the springs on top of the upper control arm for a few years. (I own one and hate it) Used in many cars in the early/mid 60s and the all squeaked like crazy. Super hard to check your ball joints. Bad idea. I know from experience.
@@MaxNafeHorsemanship from about 62 to 73, i think. then Mustang II went with the new design used on street rods and the Fox went with MacPherson struts.
Interchangeability of parts across decades making parts easy to find everywhere and affordable to the regular guy on a budget . Aftermarket support helped tremendously. Same bellhousing pattern was retained the entire production run..carried over even to today. The real reason the LS is popular. You can bolt a TH350 transmission from 50 years ago on one if you want.
Nicely done! You presented a well thought out analysis. Being a MOPAR guy, myself, I was a minority in my home town when it came to hot cars; everyone had a 67-69 small block Camaro. I love MOPAR engineering, but you're right, the aftermarket support is a lot less than for the Chevy small block.
I remember as a kid ia asked an old timer about why all the old streetrods used chevy engines. It was exactly as you say, the rear sump oil pan. I work with friends for years on circle track cars and they were doe hard blue oval fans. All of the engines were converted to rear sump but were mounded further rearward than stock so steering clearance wasnt an issue.
Thanks for that, Uncle Tony. The only car I hot-rodded was my first car, a 1970 340 Dart Swinger. The headers were definitely a bear to put in. All I did to it was headers, Edelbrock LD-340 intake and a 750 cfm AFB. Had I put a hot cam, low rear gears, and slicks on it, I might have had problems with the front sump. But I still beat a lot of Camaros and Mustangs. I especially enjoyed your explanation of why the first Mopar funny cars had the front wheels extended so far forward. Genius! I have read stories about the early funny cars since the mid 70's. No one else ever explained it as a way to move the sump. They always said it was to extend the wheelbase so as to try to minimize the wheelies. You're always a treasure of information. Thanks!
Agreed. I remember as a kid when building model cars, I always wondered why the mopar kits always had the oil pan on backwards. Even then it didn't make sense to me. Once the concept you presented took place, it was all over. To this day, when you see an article or an ad about a great part you know you can get it for your Chevy. If they by some chance make it for a Mopar or Ford it is usually twice the price of the Chevy version. As a teenage hot rodder in the 80's, that was all it took to make me a Chevy guy. I still love those Mopars though!
I really like your analysis here. Good information I didn't know as a GM guy. I work on modern Mopars professionally but never worked on their old stuff
Chevy also had the advantage of compatibility. You could change out a 350, 327, 307, or 283 with little to no problem. With Fords I always ran into problems if it wasn’t an exact replacement. Never meddle with Mopar to much.
You are dreaming. Put an alternator on an engine with generator heads (they also need different valve covers) or switch from a long to short water pump and change all your pullies, then find the right starter and shim it up. Make sure you have the right flex plate. I once believed the chevy myth.
Im an AMC guy myself and other day I saw that one old commercial here in youtube from Chrysler and there was a comparison between Valiant And Rambler American, it was fun and all but what really got me giggles was that when it was time to compare the front suspensions "In out Valiant its got the torsion bars meanwhile American still got those old coil springs.." That line totally got me LOL
This is what I am talking about!! I could have some beers and talk to guys like uncle Tony all day! So much knowledge and experience in old time hot rodding. I love this stuff!
I can't tell you how many of those "K" frames I replaced after they were damaged in accidents. You just couldn't straighten them like a "normal" car frame at the time. They were too strong and had complex geometry, plus it took a real jolt to bend them. Insurance adjusters hated them because you couldn't fix them on the cheap but in 99% of the cases you had to replace the K frame with a new one. Got to the point I could single handedly change one in less than 5 hours as I recall. Brought the vehicle in first thing in the morning and by lunch it was being buttoned up. Still needed a front end alignment & minor torsion bar adjustment but easy peasy. The oil pan situation made it a terrible street rod setup but for frame repairs it was the cat's meow! My only complaint with them was rusty alignment cams and the ridiculous over/under (inner/outer) cam set up in the aprons. Ohhh ... dem was da days!!!
As a lifelong Chevy guy, this was a fascinating video. I have always cited other good things about Chevy's design but did not consider this one. Great Video!
When I was a younger man and started messing with cars in the 70's I went with Chevy and Pontiac because it just seemed simpler to work on, modify and make power, add to that the fact that it also cost less, seemed like an easy decision. Most of my friends who went with other brands told me while sneering that my prized engines were also in Motor Homes. To which I replied, "exactly." I don't think they meant it as a compliment. I have always admired all high performance cars, even new ones still. They all get the heart rate up in a good way.
I almost bought a new Ford truck but am so glad I didn't. The new GMC truck seems so difficult to work on but compared to the new Ford's... our shop mechanic did a new Chevy motor in 3 days but it took him 3 weeks doing a newer Ford 3/4 ton. We're a semi shop that also has to work on pilot trucks so no lift which makes working on the Fords a headache (or so they say).
I remember drag racing a hemi in the 80's and the old guy that helped me build the car was obsessed with the oil pan and engine compartment. He reconfigured the whole thing. He never said why but the car lasted pass after pass with no issues. I asked him one time shouldn't we spend more time on the rest of the engine and his response was that it was already built to do the job we just need to make sure it comes to work every day.
Absolutely brilliant, I never even considered those points. As an Aussie Ford man, we had completely different issues, no shitty Windsors over here until the super smog 5.0 in the 90’s; thankfully we cast our own Clevelands at the Geelong plant, the few Windsor short blocks we did have were fitted with Cleveland heads to make our fabulous BOSS series. But, the old saying of, if you want to rev it, you gotta Chev it! Held true because their go fast parts were so cheap, you could build a Chev for $1 a rev. BOSS Fords were around $1.50 per rev, and poor old Mopar was more than double that, if you could even find a builder that wanted to take it on given their proclivity to spit bearings at passers by.
Excellent Tony, and I totally agree. I was in Engineering School in the late 60's and owned a Fabrication/Collision/HotRod shop (small aircraft included) I raced highly modified MoPars with success but used Chevy for street fun. We need major surgery to get good headers on street MoPars. One of my professors called out the similarities of the big MoPar block with Ford and GM too.
Finally done a video for us Chevy guys, just kidding love your stuff man I really appreciate the time, effort and work y'all put into your content, you and Kathy are awesome people
This was very interesting! To me, it was just that Chevrolet was the best selling, most well known brand - so since so many people owned them, it translated over into racing as well. But, apparently there was more to it than just that.
You’re right. I’m a GM guy, cause a Camaro was my first car. I’ve built a couple of Ford engines, and thought that they could make a bunch of power. I did notice that the oiling system needed a bunch of improvements, but the basics of the block and heads, had a bunch of potential. I haven’t worked on any Chrysler engines, but I understand how potent they can be. Now that I’ve seen your video, I can clearly see the shortcomings of the engine to chassis design. I thought it was pretty interesting
Thanks Tony, for those of us who lived during those magical 60's and 70's. We kept our fingernails dirty, tried to keep up with the latest car magazines, and loved many a bench racing session in driveways and garages throughout the country. those memories will be with us forever. Keep doing what you do to get this younger generation on board. All three brands are fantastic!
Great video, lots of good infro, I agree, people in the late 60s were putting big blocks in tri- five cars with little or no trouble, I have a 454 in my 57 and love it thanks.
This reminds me of one weekend when I was in the Army in ‘71. Two guys swapped engines, a 427 or 454 from a long hood Nova for a 350 from a ‘68 Chevelle. Amazingly the Nova had way more room for the big block than the Chevelle. Take care and keep the interesting stuff flowing.
Ford Windsors also suffered from no good flowing heads until around 1990 (Probably for the same reasons Tony said for Chrysler) Today, there are options that make it great, but back in the day people had to make Clevors (Cleveland head on Windsor block) in order to get a reasonable head on it.
Just another maddening example of why Fords have never been the engines of choice. The 351W has massive crankshaft journals and pretty good main webbing, yet they put shit heads on them. They have nice long rods too. Meanwhile, while the Cleveland does have a pretty decent bottom end, I still prefer the Windsor (obviously a lot of Ford guys do too) so they put the REALLY good flowing Cleveland heads on what I think is the better bottom end. But that's not even the point here... Why couldn't Ford have just done that from the beginning? The DID do it with the Boss 302, so why design an entirely different engine when they could have just designed good heads for the good engine they already had? I'll never understand the Ford engineers from that era.
Thanks, Tony. I never knew how much suspension choices affected engine architecture limitations. I do recall as a young fella reading hot rod magazine, a die hard mopar guy showed off his dry-sump oiling system. I had to go look up what that was, but the guy never stated why he did that. It was presented as "that's what race cars use" but never why the stock system had an issue.
The shaft mounted rockers are definitely *not* a benefit in most applications. You had a video where you yourself describe the tuning issues you have with shaft mounted rockers. I believe it's called "The Engine Tuning Issue You Didn't Know You Had". So you get the higher RPM valve train capability but then it's killed by the issues you describe in that video with valvetrain geometry on decked heads/block. Chevy doesn't have that issue and they can spin plenty high.
@@MichiganRay Rocker arms, but yes I came here to say this. FE motors always had a problem with rocker shafts breaking off at the ends because they were unsupported from the factory, and high valve spring pressure would snap the shaft. Nowadays aftermarket rocker shaft assemblies have the end mount surrounding the shaft and it cures that problem.
AMC's had many of the same issues with oiling under acceleration forces. We would always run an extra quart of oil because there was plenty of room for it with the typical amc v8 pan and it helped keep the pick up covered. Many fords of the 60's were based on the falcon and just like the valiant they weren't ever really meant to have a v8. Always interesting thanks.
I've seen people convert the Mopar to front steer with a steering rack one of those tubular k members are probably nice as well. Might make a good case for softening the bypass spring in your oil pump. Instead of shimming them up. Those big high pressures oil pumps can drain the sump pretty fast.
Excellent video!.Love my BB 56 Chev. 2 dr. sedan. Soft spot for Mopar though, first car was a 69 FB Barracuda Formula S 340 4sp. Fellow Canadian, love your channel eh!!!!
Thanks for the education, had no idea about the oiling problem. I started driving in 1976, I thought the sound of the starter made them sound cheap. And they rusted so fast in the mid 70's. But GM did too.
I love this guy every time I see one of his videos I learn something new he breaks down technical things to basic common sense and I have been working on cars for almost 40 years there is always more to learn even with a 50 year old engine
Neat perspective, Tony. Never thought about this before, you are 100% right! I have an assortment of rides, including 2 Chryslers, a 1978 Minnie Winnie motorhome and a 79 Chrysler New Yorker Fifth Avenue. Yeah, the forgotten R-body. Love that car! I also have an assortment of Jeeps, AMC's, and Fords. I'm all over the place, LOL, but the Chevy's are definitely my favorites. How could they not be, since I have had my 67 Malibu Sport Coupe hot rod for like 35 years now, and who wouldn't love a 71 Cheyenne longed 2WD with the 350 and 4-speed granny box (SM465) with 88k original miles on the clock. Thanks, man, for bringing up another "unasked question" that addresses such a simple concept that makes so much sense that it's ridiculous in it's simplicity. Take care, bro, and stay safe!
What I love about the Small Block Chevy - Is that it was the perfect working man's engine, because it was designed in a no-frills application to go in everything from secretary cars to trucks and everything in between and there were thinking it would get them through the next 10 - 15 years to the next redesign and it's against ALL FRIGGIN ODDS that it's basically lasted until today!!
I replaced my small block that was in my Vette with the proper big block. I researched the small block I'd numbers and found out it was for a combine application. Imagine that.
@@dannelson2171 LOl, are you sure it wasnt a warranty replacement block by any chance? maybe they just used what they had sitting around at the factory at the time lol
AH-HA! I knew there was something about the rear sump on a Chevy engine but I couldn't put my finger on it. I understood engine compartment layout was easier with a rear sump, but I hadn't thought of oil pickup during acceleration. Thank you for helping to put the puzzle pieces together! Great video.
I grew up with a Chevy dad - actually, he liked Pontiac as well (yes, I know they're both GM but the power plants weren't necessarily the same lol) - it's obviously understandable that I would be a little partial to Chevy but I do recognize greatness when I see and/or experience it. I like many models across all of the brands but I must say as a career mechanic that my least favorite to work on are Ford! Granted, I am speaking on more modern Fords... Anyhow, I don't currently own any hot rods (can't afford it) but I do own a 2nd gen Ram 4x4 with the 5.2 Magnum and I love it, even though it averages about 9 mpg and the dash is more brittle than candy glass on a Hollywood set 🤣. Okay, I'm done rambling. Awesome presentation, sir.
When you started I could see that huge steering box in my mind before it was mentioned. Such a good presentation. When a man can discuss honestly the faults of his favorite brand you will get a lesson. Thank you!
Very interesting analogy of the evolution of the big 3 comparisons Unc.Although mopar starters always dominate!No shims needed.Great content UTG.Keep it flowing.
Excellent analysis, Tony. Always wondered why Chryslers weren't as popular on the street as other makes consider that had excellent handling suspensions and beefy bottom ends with long rods.
Thanks, Tony, for explaining one aspect of the cultures of the big three and how set each of them on a separate path. I never understood the huge allegiance folks had to whichever was their favorite; now I am starting to see. And you are right about Fords: Shock towers suck! Thankfully I like inline engines so I have some room to work.
Chrysler BB's needed a braided hose from the rear top oil galley down under the headers and into the side of the timing chain cover to assist with oil return. On the small blocks they usually ran a braided line criss cross under the intake manifold valley area. I have an article on it somewhere.
Great video and it better says what I told my Chevy friends. It's the header set up that makes these cars more difficult for the beginner, young hotrod crowd. But also, a lot of people had bad experiences with their cold starts. Almost all early 70's cars that I worked on for complaints about cold starts had some part of the choke system either disconnected or inoperable.
Few people ever knew how to make them work right. Even today on UA-cam I watch people struggle to start cars with no choke. They don't even know why it is there. I still have one and it works great.
Most 70's domestic auto choke settings were lean and quickly pulled open, primarily for emissions. The cars frequently stumbled or stalled when driven, until the engine fully warmed up. A layman really had to understand the increasing complexity of carb adjustment and sort out the spaghetti of vacuum lines and emission controls of the time.
@@1stamendmentsupporter I found the opposite. Faulty pull-offs, inoperative heating elements, blocked heat passages and improper settings. The mess of vacuum lines seldom had anything to do with the choke. Only the pull-off is vacuum operated. Disconnected, vacuum lines can deny warm air into the carb (that baffle that allows warm air to draw up from the exhaust manifold) in extreme cold. I also found most factory setting were wrong. Even on the 66 I am driving, I have it set MUCH leaner than it calls for.
The hot Chrysler big blocks that I was seeing back in the 60's (my time) were not reliable and as you pointed out, it was almost always a bottom end bearing. And you could take the water pump off a 65 Chevy dump truck at the salvage yard & put it on your 55 283 with minor heater hose routing.
My dad was a Ford man when I was a little boy in the 60 s. When he started building engines for the boys drag race and other races. Chevrolet is the way to go 40 years later he still holds to it
they were less made as he said, they were number three,3.,mopar used all the engineering they learned from making tank,airplane engines and all the other engineering they did for the war effort,chevrolet and ford never had the guts to engineer a hemi of any kind,until the boss 429 and it was a beautiful engine that wouldn't make any power,mopar was top of the heap,a lot of what he says is stuff he learned from rubbing shoulders with the hot shoe boys,DRAGGERS OF THE DAY,MOPAR IS KING OF THE HILL,CHECK THE ENGINE BAY OF ANY AA FUEL DRAGSTER,ITS SPORTING A HEMI---MOPAR---- CHALLENGERS AND CUDA'S ARE FETCHING MILLIONS PER CAR,NO ONE ELSE DOES THAT,ASK LENO
@@strattuner Spot on! And back in the muscle car era, the new stock Mopars cleaned house on just about everything else. Chevies had to be modified to beat a Mopar.
@@clembob8004 but, they did modify them and alot of hot shoe guys beat us,but never by much,that is what made racing fun,chasing each other with little tweaks here and there,from 1963 to 1973 more fun than anyone had a right to have,high test fuel right out of the ground most stations,hell i was there and its been memorable,at 18 had a 1965 formula S cuda with fenderwell headers casler slicks and street racing was fun,there weren't as many people as today,today its bumper to bumper,i even quit riding my new harley too many people,like my legs
@@clembob8004 Yes, that may be so but the chevies and all the other GM performance cars had an anchor to carry that Ford and Mopar didn't quite have. The GM top corporate management was definitely not performance car friendly. They were business men,not car guys. When GM pulled out of all racing in the early 60s, it was like ice water over the head. To say that the crevices had to be modified to compete only means that they were brought up to the specs that the Mopars and Fords came with from the factory. The will to win was needed at the top brass level and Ford and Mopar had that. Sadly, GM being a corporate behemoth, did not have that. Cheers 🍺
"axis of inclination"...i think thats the term for said steering topic. And thanks for having the SeaBee banner up in your shop Sir. I was a CM3 in the USNR, Atlantic Fleet, ive been having to refresh/ expand my skillsets & you are a great teacher Mr.Tony-
This is probably the best video that you have ever done! With all the info that you have just bestowed upon us, would it be better to take a Chevy and drop a 440 in it with a rear sump oil pan? And 727 torqueflite trans in it?
A buddy of mine has a lifted 66 El Camino sitting on a Dodge truck chassis with a 440 and a 727. It’s pretty cool but would be awful in terms of resale value. I never really care about the resale when I buy, mostly because I shouldn’t have to sell…
I've worked on many many many different manufacturers vehicles over the years... I've been hot rodding my whole life. GM's vehicles in my experience and opinion have always been much easier to work on and modify. Even now, I rebuilt the top end on my Dad's 2004 f150 and did a complete timing set on its 5.4L and it was a pain in the rear. I have completely built multiple 2003 - 2010 GM vehicles and they have all been relatively easy to work on and modify. Even the ends of the bolts on GM cars and trucks are rounded to make them easier to start. Not to mention the aftermarket and even factory parts availability.
I don't think anything uncle talks about relates to modern cars. The animals he plays with are worlds away from modern engines. If you go back to his era most of what you can say about the big 3s engines of today don't apply. For instance change a distributor on a 318 and you will wonder why everyone didn't use a similar setup. The timing gear stays in the block and you are either on or 180 out on the timing. You can swap a dizzy in like 3 minutes without even hitting tdc. That era had positives and negatives for every manufacturer but complex to work on didn't describe any of them.
As a young man, I witnessed two engine failures while street racing my superbee. One was a small block chevy and the other a trans am with unkown powerplant. Both exploded while racing the bee when approacing about 140 mph 😁. Unbeknownst to me, my hydraulic lifters were done as I wound up the Bee to 7000 rpm. The next day I bent some pushrods and a lifter popped out. I towed the car to the Ft. Hood auto craft shop and put new lifters in. Car was fine after. Tough beast!
Tony: as always, your insights into the whole Mopar story are very informative. Also, your commenters on this video had some very cool info to share: thanks, everybody! Here's what I personally believe is the primary factor in Chevy's dominance on the scene: they built so freaking many of them for such a long time! Even back in the day when GM had 4 or 5 different small blocks(chev/buick/olds...), the Chevys probably outsold all the others combined. And they were very good engines...an obvious choice for your hot rod, oddball engine swap, and up motoring Aunt Tillie's old Chevy II you inherited. It's an obvious choice for all those budding aftermarket parts manufacturers to jump off the flathead wagon a catch a newer, bigger, faster ride to $$$.
Or if you just owned a direct connection chassis manual like we all had. Mopar had all the engines manuals and even bracket racing parts lists to guarantee your car could run certain times in the quarter. They were right on the kitchen table usually. Direct connection WAS the best ever
Early Australian Holden straight 6 had oil pick up in centre of the sump, they were known to throw a leg out of bed, usually 4 or 5,maybe it might have similar problems, never thought about it before, thanks for the information, all the best to yous and your loved ones
I think the Diplomat was an M body, and it still used torsion bars. They were L shaped and the harmonic balancer was just a cvnthair away from touching.
Yes, I misspoke in the video. The F Body went to front mounted transverse T bars. What I was trying to convey was that they were no longer an issue under the car.
@@UncleTonysGarage i got what you meant. Just letting you know I'm paying attention, so watch your step next time mister.
@@UncleTonysGarage Love the way the F bodies handled. Pretty darn good for such an old technology
i had an '83 Cordoba for a bit. and it was a J platform with the horizontal torsion bars. I think all The F, M, J bodies had the same set-up. the Cordoba was a b-body with the longitudinal torsion bars until '79.
Opel also had a model called Diplomat with chevy 327 in it
So true. I’m a Ford guy and you are so right. The other thing is Chevy kept the same bell housing patterns for every engine from 55 on regardless of 6, sb,bb and on. Ford and Mopar had different bell housings making it more different/ expensive to change to a later engine.
And trust me we thank the Chevy engineers for that. It allowed me to install a 4l80e behind a 555 BBC in my 70 Nova😉
Now the ls it's like they set them selves up for selling gm performance parts by making all us gm guys lives so easy the bell housing differences are a huge reason I believe some beginning fomco or Mopar guys may have jumped ship
Chevy 6.2 / 6.5 diesels also have the same pattern.
As a GM guy I can confirm all you said.
Yeah, I’m a Ford guy too and I loved drag racing but with the same problems stated.
Tony, as a lifelong Chrysler big block lover this all makes so much sense. It used to frustrate the heck out of me to see how much cheaper it was for others to build a Chevy and have access to everything in the aftermarket goodies. I had two 440s that flat out kicked butt with just about anything on the street, but at a huge cost compared to my Chevy buddies. This explains why. At 74 years old you answered my lifelong question. Thanks for sharing you vast experience and making it interesting.
460 Fords were available in 1968 at the peak of the Motor Head discussions.
I have a couple around that endured and they can run with points providing spark.
The Lincolns were selling cheap as the gas price went up.
I was pumping Gas in1969 so I am about your age.
I still enjoyed the low end power of FE blocks that Kicked Ferrari assets in 1967.
Loved my 440 marine engines, way better torque and reliability than the cheapo GM-mercruisers. HOWEVER the split rear main seals always leaked, and that sucks on a boat where its just a nuisance in a car.
For 50 years and engine displacements from 265 to 400 cubic inches parts and accessories interchanged. It took a whole lot less parts in the aftermarket to build just about anything you wanted from a small block Chevy.
262-400 actually.
You are one of THE smartest thinking guys around. I'm 68 and have been around this game since I was old enough to ask my late Dad "why are you doing that to that thing Dad?" He too was a very smart fella. Thankyou for a top video, Tony.
As a Ford guy, I'm most jealous of Chevys Bellhousings and always figured that was one the biggest reasons they were so successful in the hotrod world.
Come on man you know 90% of all Fox body's have a GM engine in there😏. I'm just giving you a hard time man. We all like what we like. The first car I worked on as a child (around 8yrs old) was a Ford and the second was a 1962 Impala and after working on the Impala I knew what I liked. I can tell you I absolutely do not like to work on any Fords 1996 and newer but I have to as I turn wrenches for my day job. Just thought I'd share my story have a good night man.
@@eric63377 I always assumed those were actually Chevy guys who wanted something more lightweight than their GM offerings.
I definitely have no love for modern Ford (excluding the Godzilla) modular engines. They definitely feel like an engine of more cons than pros.
I think it was mostly just sheer volume. There was just a helluva lot more Chevies around than Fords or Mopars. This is one of the reasons I like Mopar, it's something different from what most everyone else has. That said, I like the 55-57 Chevies, and the early Mustangs are pretty cool.
@@clembob8004 Actually ford outsold chev in 1957...but your point is valid, damn chebbys everywhere! lol!
It is nice to be able to use a modern overdrive trans on an old big bock chevy.
This is awesome. I was a skeptic as you got going but you really made some great points and I’m glad you acknowledged the 10 year head start GM had with the Tri-fives. I build mostly fords and Chevy’s and am always annoyed by how ford changed things on the engine to accommodate the engine bay. Chevy designed their engine bays to accommodate the engine. So you end up with 50 years of parts compatibility on the Chevy side and you have to be within a few years and exact models on the ford side of tracking down accessories. Great video!!
Meh, it wasn't really a 10 year head start with the cars, just Chevy's small block engine. Ford got with the program when they introduced thier 3 year line of 57-58-59 cars, as well as Chrysler's new Forward look cars in 57. Ford & Chrysler also beat Chevy with modern & reliable big blocks, both introduced in 58. Chevy's 348/409 were not known for long term reliability.
Chrysler engine flaw, UT says, "let's examine the steering and suspension!" You are like a doctoral student defending a dissertation. Your insights are powerful and come with much merit, plus, your knowledge is universal and can be applied to most things. As always, thank you for sharing with us!
I agree never a snore fest with Tony very precise imput. I've learned a lot from his channel on carbs and points distributors ima 22 year old mechanic trying to learn more about my passion of fire breathing muscle cars
Very interesting how 1 or 2 relatively minor engineering decisions led to a massive loss of market share for Chrysler. Great presentation Tony!
i noticed this problematic thing years ago 2015
11 or 12... Ya missed a digit!
Also you didn't need to change a K member in a Chevrolet to go from straight 6 to small block and even to big block back then. They all shared transmissions and most shared motor mounts and evan radiator hoses.
Exactly.
I recently did a big block to small block swap on a 73 b-body and my choices were a different k-member or Schumacher for custom conversion engine mounts. I ended up making my own mounts but this is a perfect example of what the average guy would have been up against 50 years ago.
@@ColdSmokes you swapped a small block in place of a big block? Must have had to do with economics...?
@@williamstamper442
Sure did, I built a hot small block that is way quicker and more fun to drive than the smogged 440 that was in it..150 lbs less weight on the front end too..and it happens to get 40% better mileage than the big block 13-14 vs. 9-10 so win win I guess.
@@ColdSmokes these days, a stroker 360 isn't as hard to do as the old days of seeking out an early 360 to bore it out to 340 pistons for 380 cid. you can do 400+cid and with aluminum heads the weight difference makes up for hp. plus better handling and stopping. and if you know how to work the OEM fuel injection found in junkyards....
@@williamstamper442 🤪🤪 mod the 440
The 440 magnum was very well designed for a street performance engine. All I ever did was put on a stock HEMI 6 quart oil pan with the stock 440 pickup--the 440 pickup was the same depth as the hemi pickup. And a stock volume pump with a black oil pressure spring. All a high volume oil pump did was use horsepower to turn it. When I put headers, a Torker, a Crower 280 degree cam and a Holley 750 double pumper on one of my 440s, it made more power but it moved the power band up slightly so the car was much less "driveable" with a 4 speed.
This is the kinda content I love about this channel, I appreciate what yall do, Uncle Tony and Uncle Kathy.
Right? Great content.
Not many creators making content like this. Most of what we see is "look what I just bought and did with money."
Why can’t uncle Kathy be Auntie Kathy ?
@@stujones3566 I ❤️ my mustang 🐎
Fun to drive.
Lol that’s funny my dad has a gay sister and albeit in my teens I’d call her uncle Pam had the stature of an all American defensive end lol but she’s the best and love her
@@konaboss83 ole strong ass uncle pam lol
The Chrysler oiling problems make total sense to me now Tony, thanks
As a long time Mopar guy I had never considered this!
A very well thought out point of view.
Another point is Chevrolet anything is so very interchangeable, just easier to build a Chevy on a budget and that's how just about everyone starts out.
What is the winter Ford engine ?
I was always wondering why the bowtie has always been the go-to engine for performance mods; what was SO different about the Fords & Chryslers that they weren't seeing the same popularity? This video has certainly shed some light on the answer to that question; it has also made me wonder about what has been learned by Ford & Chrysler since that time and those lessons have been applied. Good video.
Chevy showed us what they learned over the decades when they gave us the LS. Chrysler learned too... The magnum series V8's (the 1990's version of the Chrysler LA smallblock) had rear sump oiling systems like Chevy always had. They're damn good engines too.
I used to run big block mopars on the streets and I lost a few of them to spun bearings. I had pan baffles in them too.
Working on Mopars ever since the early 80's you always experienced a domino effect on changing anything. Even when going from swapping a 318 to 360 required too many changes all the way to replacing the torque converter to eliminate the excessive vibration above 30 mph. Even to this day PCM's are constantly changing requiring other components to make anything work.
You nailed it , long time ago hot rod guys found out it was easier to put a SBC in a ford than to put a later ford into a ford. all about the oil pan location. Another great episode
A lot of wisdom in this video, Tony... As a long-time Mopar fan and owner, I always hated having to work around the steering and tight K-members. However those front sumps were wonderful for road racing, where frequent hard braking in a Chevy would cause the same problem for them. The A-bodies like Valiants and Barracudas did well in SCCA events. And yes, the Ford engine compartments were a complete nightmare. I'm not sure what they were thinking back then...
I used a 8-10 quart oil pan for my small block 273 in a '65 Valiant back in the '70's. I believe it was made by Milodon and had the hole/tunnel for the steering link. Just need to add the extended oil pick-up and it was good to go.
273 oil pump is already in the rear. You needed a shorter pickup tube, not longer.
Great explanation. As an old guy who grew up in the heyday of muscle cars (1960's) I never thought about the differences in the oil pans/pickups.
At 16 I could not figure out why I spun bearings in my 67 Fairlane. It was a bored 390, cam, headers and good heads. Was a brand new bottom end with perfect clearances. Guess it accelerated fast enough to do the oil starvation thing.
Did you have pan baffles
Yup-rear sump let the SB Chevy replace all those flatheads. Then we stepped up to 55-57s. It became generational. Interchangeability was so convenient, easy. Let a lot of shade-tree boys look like mechanical geniuses. Great info on the rear steer. I love Chevys but have always had a ton of respect for Mopar engines. Well-done video.
Great video. Chevy also had unbelievable interchangeability of parts. You could swap the heads etc from any small block. Over the counter parts at the dealer. A big block fit nicely in a tri-5. Bell housing bolt patterns all matched. Chevy had it going on for the diy folks.
Big block did not fit headers hit steering box
@@rustedratchetgarage6788 There was a fix I just don’t remember. Back in the day not everyone ran headers. Here east coast of Nc they rusted out too quick
All big block Mopar heads swap between the two deck heights. You need to have the right intake manifold.
And don't forget the SBC had the holes for motor mounts that they started with back in '55.
Chevy was cheap and made for those with no brains.
I am a Chevy guy from August 1969 till today. My friends and I always thought of the Mopar guy's as different and all this time it was the oil pans, I'll be danged. Good video, thanks.
Hi Mike, My brother and I grew up as Mopar guys and his friends were all Chevy and Ford lads, and they both thought of as different, BUT we all loads of fun working on our wrecks. I moved on to SAABs now (talk about wrecks) but i still have a great love of those days, Mopars, Chevy & Fords all welcome.
@@patrickmonaghan8555 yes WE did, the best part was $0.35 a gallon real high octane gas! In addition, maybe a little street racing, just maybe.
Absolutely love videos like this that take you on an engineering journey and explain why things are how they are. And who else than Uncle Tony delivers? Thank you good sir for sharing your knowledge on everything Mopar (and car engineering in general)!
Good Show, Tony. I lost an excellent 340 partially due to the oil sump placement in 1973. I had an awesome Orange 340 Duster 4 speed that went like crazy. I made the mistake of letting a hobby mechanic freshen up the valves, although it burned no oil and the compression was 150 all across. He threw the valves in a pile and went to work. When I put the heads back on it sucked oil through the guides at the rate of one quart every 200 miles. I was Not happy. On holidays within a few days we went camping. My wife was driving up a steep hill to a campsite in Nevada and she said it seems like we're losing power. I quickly leaned over and saw the oil pressure gauge at zero, so we coasted back down the hill where I added 2 quarts. Thankfully the oil pressure came back but at a reduced level. We drove that tough little fighter all the way back to the Cold Lake, Alberta Air Force Base, 1400 miles away, where I was an aircraft tech. No bearings were turned but they were pretty well burned out. Cost me lots for a full rebuild but it went better than ever until some envious sob poured sand into the oil filler cap. That finished it for good, poor girl. I still admire that tough and feisty 340! It was a real marvel of Chrysler engineering. God Bless you and God Bless America. RS, Maj Ret, Alberta, Canada.
Love the unblinkered and honest approach of this channel. I love mopars but they have their flaws, all cars do.
Yes, also, the small Chevy V-8 breathed well, ran well, and sounded really good when it was screaming. The sound it made was a major (overlooked) factor in its popularity.
Besides the starter, a Chrysler small block sounds exactly the same.
Fords sound different because of thier firing order.
@@johneckert1365 I had an Olds with the Rocket 350. Friend had a Nova with the Chevy 350. Olds ran the same firing order as a Ford.
@@Rocketsong I've always liked the small block (short-deck) Olds engines
Thanks for explaining this. I had a friend with a 66 Satellite with a 440 and a heavy foot and he kept spinning bearings. I also had a 383 that did the same thing.
UT the depth of your knowledge in these cars is nothing short of amazing. Thanks for letting it out of your head.
Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Build a few Mopars and you’ll get it.
Plus, as you mentioned before, in the junkyard, that the ford's also had the front suspension springs on top of the upper control arms, which limited the exhaust manifold clearances.
If I am correct, Ferd only had the springs on top of the upper control arm for a few years. (I own one and hate it) Used in many cars in the early/mid 60s and the all squeaked like crazy. Super hard to check your ball joints. Bad idea. I know from experience.
@@MaxNafeHorsemanship from about 62 to 73, i think. then Mustang II went with the new design used on street rods and the Fox went with MacPherson struts.
Interchangeability of parts across decades making parts easy to find everywhere and affordable to the regular guy on a budget . Aftermarket support helped tremendously. Same bellhousing pattern was retained the entire production run..carried over even to today. The real reason the LS is popular. You can bolt a TH350 transmission from 50 years ago on one if you want.
Nicely done! You presented a well thought out analysis. Being a MOPAR guy, myself, I was a minority in my home town when it came to hot cars; everyone had a 67-69 small block Camaro. I love MOPAR engineering, but you're right, the aftermarket support is a lot less than for the Chevy small block.
I remember as a kid ia asked an old timer about why all the old streetrods used chevy engines. It was exactly as you say, the rear sump oil pan. I work with friends for years on circle track cars and they were doe hard blue oval fans. All of the engines were converted to rear sump but were mounded further rearward than stock so steering clearance wasnt an issue.
Thanks for that, Uncle Tony. The only car I hot-rodded was my first car, a 1970 340 Dart Swinger. The headers were definitely a bear to put in. All I did to it was headers, Edelbrock LD-340 intake and a 750 cfm AFB. Had I put a hot cam, low rear gears, and slicks on it, I might have had problems with the front sump. But I still beat a lot of Camaros and Mustangs. I especially enjoyed your explanation of why the first Mopar funny cars had the front wheels extended so far forward. Genius! I have read stories about the early funny cars since the mid 70's. No one else ever explained it as a way to move the sump. They always said it was to extend the wheelbase so as to try to minimize the wheelies. You're always a treasure of information. Thanks!
Agreed. I remember as a kid when building model cars, I always wondered why the mopar kits always had the oil pan on backwards. Even then it didn't make sense to me.
Once the concept you presented took place, it was all over. To this day, when you see an article or an ad about a great part you know you can get it for your Chevy. If they by some chance make it for a Mopar or Ford it is usually twice the price of the Chevy version. As a teenage hot rodder in the 80's, that was all it took to make me a Chevy guy. I still love those Mopars though!
More mass production makes more cheap price
I really like your analysis here. Good information I didn't know as a GM guy. I work on modern Mopars professionally but never worked on their old stuff
Chevy also had the advantage of compatibility. You could change out a 350, 327, 307, or 283 with little to no problem.
With Fords I always ran into problems if it wasn’t an exact replacement. Never meddle with Mopar to much.
You are dreaming. Put an alternator on an engine with generator heads (they also need different valve covers) or switch from a long to short water pump and change all your pullies, then find the right starter and shim it up. Make sure you have the right flex plate. I once believed the chevy myth.
@@MaxNafeHorsemanship But somehow we always managed to figure it out pretty easily
@@joew8440 Any make is easy if it is what you know best.
@@MaxNafeHorsemanship nobody said that every single part was interchangeable. Always one person that has to crap on the parade
And being cheap.
Im an AMC guy myself and other day I saw that one old commercial here in youtube from Chrysler and there was a comparison between Valiant And Rambler American, it was fun and all but what really got me giggles was that when it was time to compare the front suspensions "In out Valiant its got the torsion bars meanwhile American still got those old coil springs.." That line totally got me LOL
Great video Tony couldn’t have said it better myself. Also, Chevys interchange ability for over 60 years is over the top.
This is what I am talking about!! I could have some beers and talk to guys like uncle Tony all day! So much knowledge and experience in old time hot rodding. I love this stuff!
I can't tell you how many of those "K" frames I replaced after they were damaged in accidents. You just couldn't straighten them like a "normal" car frame at the time. They were too strong and had complex geometry, plus it took a real jolt to bend them. Insurance adjusters hated them because you couldn't fix them on the cheap but in 99% of the cases you had to replace the K frame with a new one. Got to the point I could single handedly change one in less than 5 hours as I recall. Brought the vehicle in first thing in the morning and by lunch it was being buttoned up. Still needed a front end alignment & minor torsion bar adjustment but easy peasy. The oil pan situation made it a terrible street rod setup but for frame repairs it was the cat's meow! My only complaint with them was rusty alignment cams and the ridiculous over/under (inner/outer) cam set up in the aprons. Ohhh ... dem was da days!!!
As a lifelong Chevy guy, this was a fascinating video. I have always cited other good things about Chevy's design but did not consider this one. Great Video!
When I was a younger man and started messing with cars in the 70's I went with Chevy and Pontiac because it just seemed simpler to work on, modify and make power, add to that the fact that it also cost less, seemed like an easy decision. Most of my friends who went with other brands told me while sneering that my prized engines were also in Motor Homes. To which I replied, "exactly."
I don't think they meant it as a compliment.
I have always admired all high performance cars, even new ones still. They all get the heart rate up in a good way.
I almost bought a new Ford truck but am so glad I didn't. The new GMC truck seems so difficult to work on but compared to the new Ford's... our shop mechanic did a new Chevy motor in 3 days but it took him 3 weeks doing a newer Ford 3/4 ton. We're a semi shop that also has to work on pilot trucks so no lift which makes working on the Fords a headache (or so they say).
The Mopar 440 c.i. can also be found in motor homes/RV's.
@@nykrindfw1743& 460 fords too
I remember drag racing a hemi in the 80's and the old guy that helped me build the car was obsessed with the oil pan and engine compartment. He reconfigured the whole thing. He never said why but the car lasted pass after pass with no issues. I asked him one time shouldn't we spend more time on the rest of the engine and his response was that it was already built to do the job we just need to make sure it comes to work every day.
Absolutely brilliant, I never even considered those points.
As an Aussie Ford man, we had completely different issues, no shitty Windsors over here until the super smog 5.0 in the 90’s; thankfully we cast our own Clevelands at the Geelong plant, the few Windsor short blocks we did have were fitted with Cleveland heads to make our fabulous BOSS series.
But, the old saying of, if you want to rev it, you gotta Chev it! Held true because their go fast parts were so cheap, you could build a Chev for $1 a rev.
BOSS Fords were around $1.50 per rev, and poor old Mopar was more than double that, if you could even find a builder that wanted to take it on given their proclivity to spit bearings at passers by.
We definitely had Windsors '67 to '69, I liked them.
@@jayartz8562 they were Canadian motors, we never cast them here.
FASCINATING...I was riveted to the very end. Thanks 👍
Excellent Tony, and I totally agree. I was in Engineering School in the late 60's and owned a Fabrication/Collision/HotRod shop (small aircraft included) I raced highly modified MoPars with success but used Chevy for street fun. We need major surgery to get good headers on street MoPars. One of my professors called out the similarities of the big MoPar block with Ford and GM too.
Great stuff as always simple things we overlook you just turned on the lights why didn't I think about it that way 😀 Great stuff Tony GODSPEED
Someone who answers questions that nobody is asking.... that's a philosopher!! LOL. Great video and thank you for sharing. 👍
Sounds correct. Chevy had some of these issues on Trailblazer SS with AWD.
Fastest car I ever had was a Dodge Monaco Police (ex CA Highway Patrol)
Finally done a video for us Chevy guys, just kidding love your stuff man I really appreciate the time, effort and work y'all put into your content, you and Kathy are awesome people
This was very interesting! To me, it was just that Chevrolet was the best selling, most well known brand - so since so many people owned them, it translated over into racing as well. But, apparently there was more to it than just that.
And cheap.
Tony, I absolutely love these historical perspective videos. Keep it up.
Thanks. I am a Chevy guy and I really learned something. Keep up the good work.
You’re right. I’m a GM guy, cause a Camaro was my first car. I’ve built a couple of Ford engines, and thought that they could make a bunch of power. I did notice that the oiling system needed a bunch of improvements, but the basics of the block and heads, had a bunch of potential. I haven’t worked on any Chrysler engines, but I understand how potent they can be. Now that I’ve seen your video, I can clearly see the shortcomings of the engine to chassis design. I thought it was pretty interesting
Thanks Tony, for those of us who lived during those magical 60's and 70's. We kept our fingernails dirty, tried to keep up with the latest car magazines, and loved many a bench racing session in driveways and garages throughout the country. those memories will be with us forever. Keep doing what you do to get this younger generation on board. All three brands are fantastic!
Great video, lots of good infro, I agree, people in the late 60s were putting big blocks in tri- five cars with little or no trouble, I have a 454 in my 57 and love it thanks.
This reminds me of one weekend when I was in the Army in ‘71. Two guys swapped engines, a 427 or 454 from a long hood Nova for a 350 from a ‘68 Chevelle. Amazingly the Nova had way more room for the big block than the Chevelle. Take care and keep the interesting stuff flowing.
Ford Windsors also suffered from no good flowing heads until around 1990 (Probably for the same reasons Tony said for Chrysler)
Today, there are options that make it great, but back in the day people had to make Clevors (Cleveland head on Windsor block) in order to get a reasonable head on it.
Just another maddening example of why Fords have never been the engines of choice. The 351W has massive crankshaft journals and pretty good main webbing, yet they put shit heads on them. They have nice long rods too. Meanwhile, while the Cleveland does have a pretty decent bottom end, I still prefer the Windsor (obviously a lot of Ford guys do too) so they put the REALLY good flowing Cleveland heads on what I think is the better bottom end. But that's not even the point here... Why couldn't Ford have just done that from the beginning? The DID do it with the Boss 302, so why design an entirely different engine when they could have just designed good heads for the good engine they already had? I'll never understand the Ford engineers from that era.
Thanks, Tony. I never knew how much suspension choices affected engine architecture limitations. I do recall as a young fella reading hot rod magazine, a die hard mopar guy showed off his dry-sump oiling system. I had to go look up what that was, but the guy never stated why he did that. It was presented as "that's what race cars use" but never why the stock system had an issue.
The shaft mounted rockers are definitely *not* a benefit in most applications. You had a video where you yourself describe the tuning issues you have with shaft mounted rockers. I believe it's called "The Engine Tuning Issue You Didn't Know You Had". So you get the higher RPM valve train capability but then it's killed by the issues you describe in that video with valvetrain geometry on decked heads/block. Chevy doesn't have that issue and they can spin plenty high.
Pontiac heritage.
It baffles me how even given the opportunity (adjustable rockers), people still can't get their hydraulic lifters set up correctly.
Big lift and heavy springs are hard on any set up. That's why Chevrolet high end after market lifters are individually shaft mounted.
@@MichiganRay Rocker arms, but yes I came here to say this. FE motors always had a problem with rocker shafts breaking off at the ends because they were unsupported from the factory, and high valve spring pressure would snap the shaft. Nowadays aftermarket rocker shaft assemblies have the end mount surrounding the shaft and it cures that problem.
shaft rockers are the best what the hell you taking about
AMC's had many of the same issues with oiling under acceleration forces. We would always run an extra quart of oil because there was plenty of room for it with the typical amc v8 pan and it helped keep the pick up covered. Many fords of the 60's were based on the falcon and just like the valiant they weren't ever really meant to have a v8. Always interesting thanks.
Also, the AMC oil pan had the sump at the Back where it should be.
Fantastic historical segment Tone. That was very educational bro. Good stuff.
I've seen people convert the Mopar to front steer with a steering rack one of those tubular k members are probably nice as well. Might make a good case for softening the bypass spring in your oil pump. Instead of shimming them up. Those big high pressures oil pumps can drain the sump pretty fast.
you heard it here folks. 11:47 "the tri 5 chevy was the perfect car" and we all know UTG knows everything!
Dan..don't scrub Ur Ears on the door frame leaving the garage tonite. With that said, U do great work. Hope all is well with You and Yours. 🇨🇦
Excellent video!.Love my BB 56 Chev. 2 dr. sedan. Soft spot for Mopar though, first car was a 69 FB Barracuda Formula S 340 4sp. Fellow Canadian, love your channel eh!!!!
@@larrysandberg2786spoilt w a340 4spd off the bat
Thanks for the education, had no idea about the oiling problem. I started driving in 1976, I thought the sound of the starter made them sound cheap. And they rusted so fast in the mid 70's. But GM did too.
Near enough is good enough, wear the motto of the big 3 back in the day.
Dodge starters had internal reduction gear, ford & gm didn't for diff sound
I love this guy every time I see one of his videos I learn something new he breaks down technical things to basic common sense and I have been working on cars for almost 40 years there is always more to learn even with a 50 year old engine
That's really neat, not something I would have ever thought about but it makes complete sense. Thanks for sharing your wisdom.
Tony you're the best teacher. Now I better understand why my old friends & relatives use to give so much Grefe about my beloved Fords & Chryslers.
Neat perspective, Tony. Never thought about this before, you are 100% right! I have an assortment of rides, including 2 Chryslers, a 1978 Minnie Winnie motorhome and a 79 Chrysler New Yorker Fifth Avenue. Yeah, the forgotten R-body. Love that car! I also have an assortment of Jeeps, AMC's, and Fords. I'm all over the place, LOL, but the Chevy's are definitely my favorites. How could they not be, since I have had my 67 Malibu Sport Coupe hot rod for like 35 years now, and who wouldn't love a 71 Cheyenne longed 2WD with the 350 and 4-speed granny box (SM465) with 88k original miles on the clock. Thanks, man, for bringing up another "unasked question" that addresses such a simple concept that makes so much sense that it's ridiculous in it's simplicity. Take care, bro, and stay safe!
Very informative, easy to see with the engine on the stand, thank you very much Tony!
What I love about the Small Block Chevy - Is that it was the perfect working man's engine, because it was designed in a no-frills application to go in everything from secretary cars to trucks and everything in between and there were thinking it would get them through the next 10 - 15 years to the next redesign and it's against ALL FRIGGIN ODDS that it's basically lasted until today!!
its still going strong and i still dont care about doing an LS swap
NO FRILLS = K.I.S.S.
I replaced my small block that was in my Vette with the proper big block. I researched the small block I'd numbers and found out it was for a combine application. Imagine that.
@@dannelson2171 LOl, are you sure it wasnt a warranty replacement block by any chance? maybe they just used what they had sitting around at the factory at the time lol
AH-HA! I knew there was something about the rear sump on a Chevy engine but I couldn't put my finger on it. I understood engine compartment layout was easier with a rear sump, but I hadn't thought of oil pickup during acceleration. Thank you for helping to put the puzzle pieces together! Great video.
AMC used a rear sump too.
@@stanwatkins1877but the pump was way up front, more air sucking possibilities
I grew up with a Chevy dad - actually, he liked Pontiac as well (yes, I know they're both GM but the power plants weren't necessarily the same lol) - it's obviously understandable that I would be a little partial to Chevy but I do recognize greatness when I see and/or experience it. I like many models across all of the brands but I must say as a career mechanic that my least favorite to work on are Ford! Granted, I am speaking on more modern Fords... Anyhow, I don't currently own any hot rods (can't afford it) but I do own a 2nd gen Ram 4x4 with the 5.2 Magnum and I love it, even though it averages about 9 mpg and the dash is more brittle than candy glass on a Hollywood set 🤣. Okay, I'm done rambling. Awesome presentation, sir.
When you started I could see that huge steering box in my mind before it was mentioned. Such a good presentation. When a man can discuss honestly the faults of his favorite brand you will get a lesson. Thank you!
You should see the HUGE power steering boxes that came out in 1957!
Very interesting analogy of the evolution of the big 3 comparisons Unc.Although mopar starters always dominate!No shims needed.Great content UTG.Keep it flowing.
Hate to say it, being a Chevy guy myself, but I think Ford starters were far superior. That firewall solenoid was the best idea they ever had.
i have Never Shimmed a chevy starter ,out of hundreds not 1 shim ever
@@rctopfueler2841 Same for me but I have seen new starters come in a box with shims in them just in case.
Shim to 1/8 inch between bendix gear and flywheel
Excellent analysis, Tony. Always wondered why Chryslers weren't as popular on the street as other makes consider that had excellent handling suspensions and beefy bottom ends with long rods.
Thanks, Tony, for explaining one aspect of the cultures of the big three and how set each of them on a separate path. I never understood the huge allegiance folks had to whichever was their favorite; now I am starting to see. And you are right about Fords: Shock towers suck! Thankfully I like inline engines so I have some room to work.
Chrysler BB's needed a braided hose from the rear top oil galley down under the headers and into the side of the timing chain cover to assist with oil return.
On the small blocks they usually ran a braided line criss cross under the intake manifold valley area. I have an article on it somewhere.
Great video and it better says what I told my Chevy friends. It's the header set up that makes these cars more difficult for the beginner, young hotrod crowd. But also, a lot of people had bad experiences with their cold starts. Almost all early 70's cars that I worked on for complaints about cold starts had some part of the choke system either disconnected or inoperable.
Few people ever knew how to make them work right. Even today on UA-cam I watch people struggle to start cars with no choke. They don't even know why it is there. I still have one and it works great.
Most 70's domestic auto choke settings were lean and quickly pulled open, primarily for emissions. The cars frequently stumbled or stalled when driven, until the engine fully warmed up.
A layman really had to understand the increasing complexity of carb adjustment and sort out the spaghetti of vacuum lines and emission controls of the time.
@@1stamendmentsupporter I found the opposite. Faulty pull-offs, inoperative heating elements, blocked heat passages and improper settings. The mess of vacuum lines seldom had anything to do with the choke. Only the pull-off is vacuum operated. Disconnected, vacuum lines can deny warm air into the carb (that baffle that allows warm air to draw up from the exhaust manifold) in extreme cold. I also found most factory setting were wrong. Even on the 66 I am driving, I have it set MUCH leaner than it calls for.
@@MaxNafeHorsemanshipI recently found horse people to be weird and in need of adjustment too.
@@1stamendmentsupporter Fact. Most equestrians are nuts.
Great video! I definitely learned something, and you expanded my perspective on car design overall.
Dang, I never thought about this. My Dad always kept a Dodge in the garage for circle track and a Chevy for the straight line. I always wondered why.
The hot Chrysler big blocks that I was seeing back in the 60's (my time) were not reliable and as you pointed out, it was almost always a bottom end bearing. And you could take the water pump off a 65 Chevy dump truck at the salvage yard & put it on your 55 283 with minor heater hose routing.
Waterpumps interchange on all B-RB Chrysler's 58-78. Even in dump trucks.......
My dad was a Ford man when I was a little boy in the 60 s. When he started building engines for the boys drag race and other races. Chevrolet is the way to go 40 years later he still holds to it
This type of vid is why I love your channel Tony. Golden info
I had no idea, Uncle Tony! Always wondered about why such high-output Mopars weren't more common. Thanks for clearing that up!
they were less made as he said, they were number three,3.,mopar used all the engineering they learned from making tank,airplane engines and all the other engineering they did for the war effort,chevrolet and ford never had the guts to engineer a hemi of any kind,until the boss 429 and it was a beautiful engine that wouldn't make any power,mopar was top of the heap,a lot of what he says is stuff he learned from rubbing shoulders with the hot shoe boys,DRAGGERS OF THE DAY,MOPAR IS KING OF THE HILL,CHECK THE ENGINE BAY OF ANY AA FUEL DRAGSTER,ITS SPORTING A HEMI---MOPAR---- CHALLENGERS AND CUDA'S ARE FETCHING MILLIONS PER CAR,NO ONE ELSE DOES THAT,ASK LENO
@@strattuner Spot on! And back in the muscle car era, the new stock Mopars cleaned house on just about everything else. Chevies had to be modified to beat a Mopar.
@@clembob8004 but, they did modify them and alot of hot shoe guys beat us,but never by much,that is what made racing fun,chasing each other with little tweaks here and there,from 1963 to 1973 more fun than anyone had a right to have,high test fuel right out of the ground most stations,hell i was there and its been memorable,at 18 had a 1965 formula S cuda with fenderwell headers casler slicks and street racing was fun,there weren't as many people as today,today its bumper to bumper,i even quit riding my new harley too many people,like my legs
@@clembob8004 Yes, that may be so but the chevies and all the other GM performance cars had an anchor to carry that Ford and Mopar didn't quite have. The GM top corporate management was definitely not performance car friendly. They were business men,not car guys. When GM pulled out of all racing in the early 60s, it was like ice water over the head. To say that the crevices had to be modified to compete only means that they were brought up to the specs that the Mopars and Fords came with from the factory. The will to win was needed at the top brass level and Ford and Mopar had that. Sadly, GM being a corporate behemoth, did not have that. Cheers 🍺
@@blairleighton3343 GM sorely needed 50 John DeLoreans to tune up those stuffshirt execs.
"axis of inclination"...i think thats the term for said steering topic. And thanks for having the SeaBee banner up in your shop Sir. I was a CM3 in the USNR, Atlantic Fleet, ive been having to refresh/ expand my skillsets & you are a great teacher Mr.Tony-
This is probably the best video that you have ever done! With all the info that you have just bestowed upon us, would it be better to take a Chevy and drop a 440 in it with a rear sump oil pan? And 727 torqueflite trans in it?
A buddy of mine has a lifted 66 El Camino sitting on a Dodge truck chassis with a 440 and a 727. It’s pretty cool but would be awful in terms of resale value. I never really care about the resale when I buy, mostly because I shouldn’t have to sell…
I always used Chrysler big blocks in my GM demo derby cars. I just used truck rear sump pans and pickup tubes.
Yes I had a Chevy || with the front slump pan oil pressure gauge if you got on it too hard to lose some oil pressure even with the windage tray in it.
Yep
I've worked on many many many different manufacturers vehicles over the years... I've been hot rodding my whole life. GM's vehicles in my experience and opinion have always been much easier to work on and modify. Even now, I rebuilt the top end on my Dad's 2004 f150 and did a complete timing set on its 5.4L and it was a pain in the rear. I have completely built multiple 2003 - 2010 GM vehicles and they have all been relatively easy to work on and modify. Even the ends of the bolts on GM cars and trucks are rounded to make them easier to start. Not to mention the aftermarket and even factory parts availability.
I don't think anything uncle talks about relates to modern cars. The animals he plays with are worlds away from modern engines. If you go back to his era most of what you can say about the big 3s engines of today don't apply. For instance change a distributor on a 318 and you will wonder why everyone didn't use a similar setup. The timing gear stays in the block and you are either on or 180 out on the timing. You can swap a dizzy in like 3 minutes without even hitting tdc. That era had positives and negatives for every manufacturer but complex to work on didn't describe any of them.
As a young man, I witnessed two engine failures while street racing my superbee. One was a small block chevy and the other a trans am with unkown powerplant. Both exploded while racing the bee when approacing about 140 mph 😁. Unbeknownst to me, my hydraulic lifters were done as I wound up the Bee to 7000 rpm. The next day I bent some pushrods and a lifter popped out. I towed the car to the Ft. Hood auto craft shop and put new lifters in. Car was fine after. Tough beast!
Very informative video but I think Chevy's bell housing compatibility made a huge difference and should've been mentioned.
He did mention the Chevy bell housing.
Toni, this is why I love watching your stuff. Thanks for being a teacher.
Tony: as always, your insights into the whole Mopar story are very informative. Also, your commenters on this video had some very cool info to share: thanks, everybody!
Here's what I personally believe is the primary factor in Chevy's
dominance on the scene: they built so freaking many of them for such a long time! Even back in the day when GM had 4 or 5 different small blocks(chev/buick/olds...), the Chevys probably outsold all the others combined. And they were very good engines...an obvious choice for your hot rod, oddball engine swap, and up motoring Aunt Tillie's old Chevy II you inherited.
It's an obvious choice for all those budding aftermarket parts manufacturers to jump off the flathead wagon a catch a newer, bigger, faster ride to $$$.
This is one of the most interesting design commentary's I have ever heard. Well done Sir!!!
Only a bona fide drag racer would have known about the oil starvation issues. Great lesson Tony!
Or if you just owned a direct connection chassis manual like we all had. Mopar had all the engines manuals and even bracket racing parts lists to guarantee your car could run certain times in the quarter. They were right on the kitchen table usually. Direct connection WAS the best ever
Early Australian Holden straight 6 had oil pick up in centre of the sump, they were known to throw a leg out of bed, usually 4 or 5,maybe it might have similar problems, never thought about it before, thanks for the information, all the best to yous and your loved ones
Good explanation Tony. As usual. I like 351 Ford Windsors. Same thing.
Makes so much sense, it's crazy. Thanks for the lesson, Tony. Fantastic vid.