I would vote for the 472 for power, longevity and even gas mileage 19 mpg on my 1968 coupe deville. followed by the Chrysler 413-426-440 wedge engine. on the 500 the main difference was a longer stroke. down side less gas mileage then the 472 and maybe trying to keep it running cooler with the extra 28 cubic inches.
Of course I'm biased but the motor in this Skylark came out of a 90K 70 Riv in 1988. While it was in Riv I changed cam to SP2, put Performer intake on, new timing chain. Raced it in Riv for a while (14.30s no headers). Then I removed it and put in $700 SunCoupe with Poston headers. With stock 2.56 gears it went 13.30s. 3800 conv, 3.90 gears, ported small valve heads. Low 12s. Took pass seat and rear seat out, electric water pump, loop on PS. 11.80s. Best 11.66. Raced for 10 years, 1000+ passes. Drove to BG twice (13 hrs each way) In around 2000 I put 2.56 gears back in along with 2500 converter vs the 3800 so I could drive it more and drive it to tracks to race. 12.80s 2012 my son Matt started driving it to track racing it and ran quite a few events. Around 2015 put 3.90 gears back in (2500 converter still) so he could have more fun....he still drove it to track. 12.20s No idea but gotta be a couple thousand passes on it. Only failures have been broken rocker shaft twice. Both times driven about hundred yards with no oil pressure showing but maybe still got to most parts? Other failure was T350 trans twice until I put HD aluminum drum in. Did a compression test last fall due to a miss and 185-190 every hole and zero blowby. Turned out 30yr old plug wires needed replacing..... Motor was built by BUICK 54 years ago and has never been rebuilt.......not a bad run....
Agree 100% The low output engines will run for miles as they’re not really “working” The Olds 307 comes to mind, also the 301 Pontiac, both smooth runners, but total TURDS as far as power, the nod goes to the Olds 307 for low power durability. Cadillac V8’s while torque monsters, did not see the rpm and subsequent abuse other big blocks received, they were driven slow, gently and not often.
My Cousins had mopars, one with a SuperBird stock 440 4 bbl and the other a 70 Superbee 383. They were driven hard and many trips from NY to Boston with the not so bad 3.54 gears. No issues at all. Would you say that Caddy built the 472's with tight and proper specs? I'm also guessing they ran out of steam at around 4800 tops? Not much winding these motors i'm sure helped as they were Caddys..
Did you ever get into the short block other than the cam? Sounds like you got a good one built from a Tuesday to Thursday at the factory. Going from the story that you never buy a car built on a Monday or Friday
No....bearings/rings have never seen light of day since 1970. I did put a clean rear sump pan on and 5/8 pickup when I swapped since Riv had center sump. To add to the story, the day I put the cam in I was off work because I had a horrible cold. Slapped that cam in (original cam bearings of course which is how we did it back then) with my nose running and feeling like crap. Didn't want to waste opportunity to get some work done. Broke that cam in and climbed into bed. Figured I did crappy work but turned out ok.
drove it like a normal car never put a tach on it and let it shift by itself. i did put a dual exhaust on with stock mufflers it did have more power and might have helped the gas mileage. stock single exhaust with all them cubes hurts.
Not sure since speedo disconnected when I put 3.90 gears in from the 2.56. Before I disconnected it at 110mph it was pointing straight down or more. Ran it a few years like that then figured I'd give speedo and cable a break. But....well over 100K miles on motor......car showing 128K.
Bone stock with lots of miles it lasted about 10 passes. The reason for the later failures I understand was burnouts with 2.56 gears. I would go 1st to 2nd only. Coming out of burnout hard in 2nd a no-no with a T350 according to trans guy. When it grabs it tries to destroy roller clutch. He said go 1-2-3 or 1st gear only with those gears. That and the TCI HD aluminum drum seem to be working well last 5 years. Unless built with all the $$$ good stuff I wouldn't trust a T350 for more than 550 hp.....
I think the Buick/Rover/TVR 215 should win something for remaining in production through 2006, at least. So, a lot of super info, but you left out the best part? Which engines are you referring to?
Far as I know, the first production engine with one Moly-filled ring per piston (top ring) was the BBC, introduced mid-model-year 1965. I don't know of any engine with double Moly rings. Ready to learn something.
I was posting about a Pontiac motor. The only place the longevity is questionable is during the years when like a lot of other GM motors they came with the dreaded nylon covered cam gear. Shurkey here’s the double moly info from a parts book.
Interesting that all "RA" 400s came with forged pistons but cast rods. Only the SD and RA V came with forged rods as far as I know.
IHC built some really rugged v8s in the 60s. The horsepower wasn't much to brag about, but they were waaaayyyy overbuilt.
My sister had a Scout with 345....had 245K on it when other than motor took vehicle out. RUST She only put 100K of those miles on but her back thinks many more miles.
