Big Block vs. Small Block Olds??
#2
Hope this helps,
- GoldOlds
#5
Yes, again due to the taller deck height. With the rotating assembly being like an inverted traingle, the one with the longer sides will have a longer top, hence the wider intake, by about two inches I think.
#6
Yup. These are NOT like Pontiacs. As others have pointed out, the most obvious difference is deck height. The taller deck was required to fit the longer stroke, but main and rod bearings were enlarged as well. Rods are longer. Heads have larger ports. Intake and exhaust manifolds are different. Obviously, pushrods are different. Yes, there's a lot of commonality, such as cams, timing sets, motor mount location, distributors, but they are two different motor families.
#7
Pontiac had two deck heights, too. The 301 and 267(?) had much lower decks than other Pontiac V-8's. Very little commonality of parts between these and the common Pontiac V-8's. In 1969/70, there was going to be a 366 Pontiac V-8 with Ram Air V heads. The block for these also was to be lower deck height. A few were built, but never saw installation on the assy. line. Many dealers, however, got complete 400 cu. in. Ram Air V engines on wood skids to sell to customers. I saw one at Wilde Pontiac in Waukesha, Wisconsin in 1970. It's the only factory Pontiac engine I ever saw with a Holley carb on it.
How about the 265 or 267 Olds engines from the early 80's? Were they the same dimensions as the 350 and 307?
How about the 265 or 267 Olds engines from the early 80's? Were they the same dimensions as the 350 and 307?
#8
- GoldOlds
#9
From post #1:
from post #7:
But, we are not here to discuss Pontiacs.
It was/is not unusual for any parts department to order a "crate" engine for a customer. It has been done by all new car dealers, for as long as there have been car dealers.
260, 307, 330, 350, and 403, all used the same 9.330" deck height.
Norm
from post #7:
But, we are not here to discuss Pontiacs.
260, 307, 330, 350, and 403, all used the same 9.330" deck height.
Norm
#10
88Coupe:
Postings show you do like to talk about Chevrolets. Please cut me a little slack on trying to understand Big Block vs. Small Block Oldsmobiles. I'm a Ponitac collector, and can better undersand to similarities to Oldsmobile V-8's. I would rather talk about Oldsmobiles than Chevrolets--wouldn't you prefer Pontiacs or even Buicks than Chevrolets for comparison??
Postings show you do like to talk about Chevrolets. Please cut me a little slack on trying to understand Big Block vs. Small Block Oldsmobiles. I'm a Ponitac collector, and can better undersand to similarities to Oldsmobile V-8's. I would rather talk about Oldsmobiles than Chevrolets--wouldn't you prefer Pontiacs or even Buicks than Chevrolets for comparison??
#11
You have me confused with someone else.
We could tell that from posts #1 and #7.
They are both OHV 90° V8 ottocycle engines. Other than that, there are no similarities.
In that case, I suggest you talk about Oldsmobiles, instead of Chevrolets.
On an Oldsmobile site? None of the above.
Comparison of the lack of similarities?
Norm
We could tell that from posts #1 and #7.
Comparison of the lack of similarities?
Norm
#12
I sure hope there is room for talk of Pontiacs on this site. I've been know to frequent the PerformanceYears Pontiac forum, since the rear in my 1965 Jetstar I is actually a Pontiac rear. Some of the window trim from my car (and also the 65-66 Starfires) was shared with the same year Grand Prixs...I ended up getting the trim pieces from someone over there in fact, and also got some useful info on the differential when I had probs with mine. I was up front when I visited there that I was an Olds owner, and they were very helpful. Least we can do is return the courtesy here, and by and far, I think that is what you will find.
#13
No one here, has said we should not.
What is your point?
Norm
#15
Obligatory FAQ link
There is a good (free) overview of Oldsmobile V-8 engines on the 442.com web site here: http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofeng.htm...964%20-%201990
#16
Get help, buddy.
Norm!
In one post you said to talk about Olds rather than Pontiacs...
in the next you say it's OK to talk about them...
huh?
One usually can't argue with your technical acumen, but your
bedside manner is something else.
bocoogto...interesting stuff about the Ponitac engines. Love hearing about
the days when each division had an identity AND separate performance
divisions.
Managing to get things done in the shadow of big brother(chevrolet)
must have lead to some interesting things getting out the back door.
#19
Which post? And what, exactly, did I say?
Which post? And what, exactly, did I say?
Not a problem. When/if I make a mistake, someone usually shows up to make the necessary correction(s). If it does not happen, any future visitors will be misinformed.
For those of you in Rio Linda, misinformation is a bad thing.
Common knowledge, both here and on several other sites. I take pride in the fact, that no one has ever accused me of being a Diplomat.
What is your point?
Norm
#20
Instead of making random accusations, follow the protocol that has been in place since before Algore invented the internet:
Which post? And what, exactly, did I say?
Which post? And what, exactly, did I say?
Originally Posted by 88 coupe
But, we are not here to discuss Pontiacs.
But, we are not here to discuss Pontiacs.
Originally Posted by aliensatemybuick
I sure hope there is room for talk of Pontiacs on this site ........
I sure hope there is room for talk of Pontiacs on this site ........
Originally Posted by 88 coupe
No one here, said there is not.
No one here, said there is not.
???
This will wind up in another argument over semantics...
ugh. Forget it...
#22
Interesting.
CAPs, bold, and multiple ???, at one time.
The "politically correct" version is, that the use of either CAPs or bold font can be perceived as “SHOUTING" and the use of multiple ??? are unnecessary.
In all three cases, I call it: Rude and immature.
As used, the word, itself could easily be taken as elitist, or insulting.
At this time, I choose to interpret these items, as a simple lack of communication.
Depending on the context, the word “argument”, can be defined as a positive discussion, as it is consistent with the goal of this site.
If everyone were to write exactly what they mean, and everyone read (in context) what is actually there, semantics could not possibly be an issue. Since misunderstandings can happen, they should be recognized as such and dealt with, in a calm/mature manner.
The word can also be applied to a childish pizzing contest.
Contrary to the popular misconception, my choice is always an adult discussion.
Norm
CAPs, bold, and multiple ???, at one time.
The "politically correct" version is, that the use of either CAPs or bold font can be perceived as “SHOUTING" and the use of multiple ??? are unnecessary.
In all three cases, I call it: Rude and immature.
As used, the word, itself could easily be taken as elitist, or insulting.
At this time, I choose to interpret these items, as a simple lack of communication.
Depending on the context, the word “argument”, can be defined as a positive discussion, as it is consistent with the goal of this site.
If everyone were to write exactly what they mean, and everyone read (in context) what is actually there, semantics could not possibly be an issue. Since misunderstandings can happen, they should be recognized as such and dealt with, in a calm/mature manner.
The word can also be applied to a childish pizzing contest.
Contrary to the popular misconception, my choice is always an adult discussion.
Norm
Last edited by 88 coupe; March 10th, 2008 at 10:57 AM.
#24
No. Simply attempting to make a point, in a mature manner.
It is a given, that not everyone will grasp the concept of accurate communication, and that most will not even make an attempt to do so.
It is also a given, that you, and they, are not the the only members/visitors who will read this thread.
Norm
It is a given, that not everyone will grasp the concept of accurate communication, and that most will not even make an attempt to do so.
It is also a given, that you, and they, are not the the only members/visitors who will read this thread.
Norm
#25
#29
#32
Impostor?
Jeremiah resurrected (pardon the term) a four year old thread to speak of Norm in the present tense.
I posted a link explaining that he had passed on in October (at least in part to forestall a discussion about his style amongst those who hadn't been aware of that).
The point is that responding to four-year-old threads as though you are responding to a post from four minutes ago can create confusion in the minds of other members.
- Eric
Jeremiah resurrected (pardon the term) a four year old thread to speak of Norm in the present tense.
I posted a link explaining that he had passed on in October (at least in part to forestall a discussion about his style amongst those who hadn't been aware of that).
The point is that responding to four-year-old threads as though you are responding to a post from four minutes ago can create confusion in the minds of other members.
- Eric
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post