Small Block Musclecar?

[DanStokes]

Like the Rocket 88?

Dan

[Gateclyve Photographic]

Roger Huntington covered the Rocket 88 in his book American Supercar . . . .

[RockJustRock]

I think a Rocket 88 cornered a lot better than a big block Camaro, so no, not muscle car.

[Monster]

Like the Rocket 88?

Correct Dan .. not that I use this source as the definitive end-all of knowledge, but Wikipedia states the following;

Opinions on the origin of the muscle car vary, but the 1949 Oldsmobile Rocket 88, is often cited as the first muscle car. The Rocket 88 was the first time a powerful V8 engine was available in a smaller and lighter body style (in this case the 304 cu in engine from the larger Oldsmobile 98 with the body from the six-cylinder Oldsmobile 76). The Rocket 88 produced 135 hp at 3,600 rpm and 263 lb⋅ft at 1800 rpm and won eight out of ten races in the 1950 NASCAR season. The Rocket 88's Oldsmobile 303 V8 engine (along with the Cadillac 331 engine, also introduced in 1949) are stated to have "launched the modern era of the high-performance V-8."

Another predecessor to the muscle car was the Hudson Hornet, introduced in 1951. The 1954 Hornet with the "Twin-H-Power" option of dual carburettors producing 170 hp from its 308 cu in six-cylinder engine.

In 1955, the Chrysler C-300 was introduced, which produced 300 hp from its 331 cu in V8 engine, and was advertised as "America's Most Powerful Car". Capable of accelerating from 0 to 60 mph in 9.8 seconds and reaching 130 miles per hour, the 1955 Chrysler 300 is also recognized as one of the best-handling cars of its era.

The Rambler Rebel, introduced in 1958, is the first intermediate-sized car to be available with a big-block V8 engine. It is therefore considered by some to be the first muscle car. With a 327 cu in V8 engine producing 255 hp, its 0-60 mph acceleration of 7.5 seconds made it the fastest stock American sedan at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car

[Gateclyve Photographic]

For much of the '60s, Olds 4-4-2 cornered better than nearly every Detroiter short of a Shelby or a Corvette, as it was about the only high-performance sedan that came stock from the get-go with a rear stabilizer (sway) bar (until the late '60s, that is) Does that make it not "muscle?"

I don't think handling should be the decider if we're going down this narrow road . . . .

[RockJustRock]

Correct Dan .. not that I use this source as the definitive end-all of knowledge, but Wikipedia states the following;

Opinions on the origin of the muscle car vary, but the 1949 Oldsmobile Rocket 88, is often cited as the first muscle car. The Rocket 88 was the first time a powerful V8 engine was available in a smaller and lighter body style (in this case the 304 cu in engine from the larger Oldsmobile 98 with the body from the six-cylinder Oldsmobile 76). The Rocket 88 produced 135 hp at 3,600 rpm and 263 lb⋅ft at 1800 rpm and won eight out of ten races in the 1950 NASCAR season. The Rocket 88's Oldsmobile 303 V8 engine (along with the Cadillac 331 engine, also introduced in 1949) are stated to have "launched the modern era of the high-performance V-8."

Another predecessor to the muscle car was the Hudson Hornet, introduced in 1951. The 1954 Hornet with the "Twin-H-Power" option of dual carburettors producing 170 hp from its 308 cu in six-cylinder engine.

In 1955, the Chrysler C-300 was introduced, which produced 300 hp from its 331 cu in V8 engine, and was advertised as "America's Most Powerful Car". Capable of accelerating from 0 to 60 mph in 9.8 seconds and reaching 130 miles per hour, the 1955 Chrysler 300 is also recognized as one of the best-handling cars of its era.

The Rambler Rebel, introduced in 1958, is the first intermediate-sized car to be available with a big-block V8 engine. It is therefore considered by some to be the first muscle car. With a 327 cu in V8 engine producing 255 hp, its 0-60 mph acceleration of 7.5 seconds made it the fastest stock American sedan at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car

327 Rambler? Big block?

[Gateclyve Photographic]

The Rambler Rebel, introduced in 1958, is the first intermediate-sized car to be available with a big-block V8 engine. It is therefore considered by some to be the first muscle car. With a 327 cu in V8 engine producing 255 hp, its 0-60 mph acceleration of 7.5 seconds made it the fastest stock American sedan at the time.[/I]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_car

The Rebel was a MOREDOOR! That really torques off the purists.

And the AMC/Rambler folks would probably point out that the "big block" designation is a misnomer applied to both generations of the Rambler/AMC V8. Hot Rod Drag Week rules would put it in the "small block" class.

This is a muddle. More reason for rejecting rigid definitions and focusing on era-context objective performance. .

[Monster]

327 Rambler? Big block?

Yes, in mid-1950's terminology. The new AMC 250 cu in engine debuted in 1956 and at that time, it was the smallest American V8 in production, so when they released the 327, it was probably viewed as a big block (not the 1960's big block you are thinking of).

[JRoberts]

Somebody earlier on this thread mentioned the Studebaker 289. The "R" versions of this engine certainly should be considered. They are big in size and surprisingly quick. The '56 Studebaker Golden Hawk is often referred to (primarily I guess in Studebaker circles) as the first "muscle car.' It came from the factory with a 352 Packard V8. A friend of mine did a lot of street racing in one of these and put lots of traditional "muscle cars" behind. The "R" engines were versions of the Studebaker V8 that came in 1964. The R1 is a 289 with some performance improvements. This was the standard engine in the Avanti. The R2 engine was a super charged 289. The R3 was, I believe, 304 cu;in and also super charged. There was an R4 version which had two 4bbl carbs. This was very rare and actually did not perform as well as the R3 engine. Avanti's with these engine set a lot of records on the salt flats.

[Gateclyve Photographic]

Yes, in mid-1950's terminology. The new AMC 250 cu in engine debuted in 1956 and at that time, it was the smallest American V8 in production, so when they released the 327, it was probably viewed as a big block (not the 1960's big block you are thinking of).

There were tons of bigger mills in that era ... Lincoln/Ford Truck Y-Block (368 c.i. in Lincoln Mercury form), Chrysler Hemi, Cadillac (365 c.i. if memory serves), Oldsmobile (371 c.i.), Buick (364 c.i.), Pontiac (347 c.i.) . . . .

This "big block"/ "small block" thing is mostly a Chevy-based obsession that's not very applicable to much of anything before 1958 and even then only really to OEMs offering multiple engine families (Ford, Chrysler, Chevy, Buick, Olds).

[JamesMayberryIII]

I just wished that when the ls craze took off, Alum big blocks prices would've dropped. but no. still silly money for just the block. out of my price range, So moving the firewall back will have to do.

[Monster]

There were tons of bigger mills in that era ... Lincoln/Ford Truck Y-Block (368 c.i. in Lincoln Mercury form), Chrysler Hemi, Cadillac (365 c.i. if memory serves), Oldsmobile (371 c.i.), Buick (364 c.i.), Pontiac (347 c.i.) . . . .

"That era" ?
Please be more specific and indicate the year that the engines you referred to, were put into production.

[squirrel]

mid 50s, is what he quoted. I think later 50s, around 1957 or so, is when we saw these larger engines (350ish cubes).

[Gateclyve Photographic]

The CID numbers were from ~1957.

As for when the engines went into production . . . If memory serves:

Lincoln/Ford Truck Y-Block (not the same engine as the passenger car Ford Y-Block): 1952
Chrysler Hemi (a/k/a Firepower V8) : 1951
Cadillac V8: 1949
Oldsmobile V8 1949
Buick V8: 1953
Pontiac V8: 1955

These engines all had displacement increases by 1957 from their original sizes..

I purposefully excluded '58 engines because (a) the 327 Rebel was gone by then (Yeah, thanks for nothing, George . . . .) and (b) there were a significant number of big OHV V8 engines that debuted (e.g. Lincoln M-E-L, Chevrolet W, Ford FE. Chrysler B)

[Gateclyve Photographic]

One interesting side note (that IMHO illustrates how dumb and anti-racing AMC was back then) The Gen 1 Rambler V8, as well as the later Gen II (starting in '66) reportedly had a bore spacing of 4.75' and a deck height of nearly 10" By way of random comparison, Olds' Gen 2 Rocket (starting in '64) had a 4.625 bore spacing and deck heights of 9.33" and 10.625"

AMC could have fairly easily and relatively cheaply changed the internal cores and contracted out reciprocating parts to match the displacement of most of the ~ 7-liter "muscle" car engines but never did. The largest factory Gen II AMC at 401 cid wasn't the biggest displacement that could have theoretically been packed into a block of those fairly ample external dimensions. A missed opportunity . . . .

A 7-liter American (or more perhaps more historically proper . . . a Hornet) in the mid-60s might have made AMC more of player in the '60s supercar era.

(I waste a lot of time dreaming up high-performance cars I would have tried to build had I been an OEM exec back in the day . . . .)