Boat Anchors Award

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: TFB1
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
305/5.0 Chevy small blocks


As bad as they were, I believe the 307 was even worse...Pontiac's 301 was an anchor too!


I owned two...thought they were great engines. Not terribly fast, but well built.

Agreed couldn't have been any better or worse than any other small block Chevy of the era, was nothing more than a 283 with a 327 crankshaft... Was never a 4bbl version so was not a performance engine... Chevy's 400 small block was ragged on for same reason, just a low RPM smogger, not built for performance... Then the hot rodders figured out with a good set of heads it was a holy terror in a Camero, Firebird, Nova etc...

The 305 Chevy was poor design, bore was so small a really good set of big valves would not clear the cylinder walls, plus the ones that could be used were hampered by shrouded valves...


A friend of mine had a Nova with a 307 in it... he said he couldn't get more than 11 MPG with it no matter how he drove, and it was so doggy it could barely get out of its own way...I would've gladly taken a 283 or 327 any day over this boat anchor...

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
As bad as they were, I believe the 307 was even worse...Pontiac's 301 was an anchor too!


I owned two...thought they were great engines. Not terribly fast, but well built. [/quote]

You're the only one....NOBODY I've ever talked to liked the 307...[/quote]

We're talking about the Olds 307, right? There's a huge Oldsmobile V-8 fan club community who restore those vehicles. The 307 was an emissions-era engine that didn't produce the horsepower than its predecessors did, but it was still a torquey engine that was favored by many over the Chevy 305. Even General Motors used the 307 instead of the 305 in some applications, like Buicks and Cadillacs.

How many did you own? [/quote]

0. I avoided them because of all the bad press. I did have an '84 Z-28 with the 305, which was also a POS...

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
How many did you own?


0


I'm sorry you missed out, then!

As noted, the General used them in many applications where they could have used the 305 instead. Bad press surrounded Oldsmobile's 350 cubic inch diesel (a gasoline conversion), and bad press surrounded Cadillac's 4-6-8 engine, but the Olds 307 has quite a good reputation.

It was supposed that the Oldsmobile engine's demise was its physical width -- the SBC was a more compact design that was probably favorable for tighter engine compartments. It was a little easier to work on than the Chevy (the distributor didn't pass through the intake manifold, for example, making intake manifold swaps easier), and didn't have the reputation for smoking after 100k miles that the SBCs did in the day.

One of my 307s was actually the last generation one, with roller lifters. It was a super smooth engine. Despite it being carbureted, even a cold start just required a quick bump of the key and it was lit. Really nice package.

But certainly not a powerhouse...at least not compared to today's engines of a similar size.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: TFB1
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
305/5.0 Chevy small blocks


As bad as they were, I believe the 307 was even worse...Pontiac's 301 was an anchor too!


I owned two...thought they were great engines. Not terribly fast, but well built.

Agreed couldn't have been any better or worse than any other small block Chevy of the era, was nothing more than a 283 with a 327 crankshaft... Was never a 4bbl version so was not a performance engine... Chevy's 400 small block was ragged on for same reason, just a low RPM smogger, not built for performance... Then the hot rodders figured out with a good set of heads it was a holy terror in a Camero, Firebird, Nova etc...

The 305 Chevy was poor design, bore was so small a really good set of big valves would not clear the cylinder walls, plus the ones that could be used were hampered by shrouded valves...


I've read the GM 307 wasn't much to write home about, comically being basically the opposite of the 302, which was the 283 crank in the 327 block, LOL!

But are we exclusively talking about the GM 307 or are we also talking about the Olds 307, which was a completely different engine? We had not-so-great luck with that engine in an '86 Olds wagon but apparently most people liked them

And they were used in a lot of non-Olds cars.

 

[TFB1]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
But are we exclusively talking about the GM 307 or are we also talking about the Olds 307, which was a completely different engine? We had not-so-great luck with that engine in an '86 Olds wagon but apparently most people liked them

And they were used in a lot of non-Olds cars.
I'm talking about the SBC that became the base V8 for Chevy in '68, repl'd the 283 that had been around for 11 model years... Was killed in '74-ish(?), replaced by longer stroke & smaller bore 305(had one in a '77 Monza)... AFAIK the Chev 307 was gone by the time GM started playing musical chairs with their engines... Chevy played the size game in the mid '70s, was also 262 & 267 V8 in the mid/late '70s.. Dunno about Olds 307, never owned one or a Pontiac 301...

 

[OVERKILL]

Thanks for the clarification

 

[fdcg27]

Boat anchor?
A W123 Turbodiesel five cylinder was a boat anchor and was unbelievably slow. The normally aspirated four and five cylinder diesels used in these cars were unbelievably slower.
Any Ford Vulcan V-6 is a boat anchor as is the Ford 300 CID inline six.
What the above gutless engines have in common, beyond lack of power, is that any of them would last for a very long time with no problems at all.

 

[Robenstein]

my 70 Nova came with a 307 Chevy. 190 HP at the crank....so it had about 120 at the rear wheel at best and had something like a 2.56 gear. Ran good on the highway due to the gearing, but I could could almost lose to a someone on foot stop light to stop light.

 

[Bladecutter]

Some of you have gotten close, but haven't hit on the real boat anchor of the Chevy family:

The 229 ci V-6.

I had one in an '82 Monte Carlo, and oh my god was that thing just a steaming pile of crud.
I bought that car because I loved my '81 Grand Prix with the 231 ci Buick engine, and figured that everyone loves Chevy engines, the 229 can't be that bad, and boy was I wrong.

I wish I could go back in time and tell myself to buy the other car that was on the lot:
A '79 Firebird with the 301. That would have at least passed Colorado emissions tests.

BC.

 

[eljefino]

Back around y2k my FIL appeared with a 1980 GMC 1/2 ton truck with an 8 foot bed and a wheezy 250 inline 6. This had the head and manifold in one piece, the headifold. My then-fiance borrowed the thing to move and overheated it at night due to blown radiator. Anyone familiar with the very cruddy instrument lighting of those trucks would excuse her. FIL replaced radiator and it ran again, though it ate oil for breakfast... relaxed rings? The driver had to keep one foot on the brake and the other on the gas at stop signs to keep it from stalling. The PCV grommet was so relaxed it would burp the valve and its rotten hose out in an oily mess, anyone who cared would stuff (drop) it back.

At about this time, BIL's 69 nova had a 307 with 2-speed powerglide. He liked it, claimed 19 MPG on 89 octane. Car was all bondo underneath so he scrapped it and kept the engine, they put it in the truck.

Truck had 3.50 gears for the wheezy six. With a turbo 350 and decent gearing the 307 could get into traffic. It ran smooth with refitted HEI, true dual exhaust and no smog stuff to speak of.

Would I want an Impala with that 307? Meh.

 

[Robenstein]

Some 80's GM products DO have atrocious instrument lighting. My 86 Monte SS is almost impossible to read at night. Does not help that the gauges are also junk. My voltmeter reads 2 volts lower than it is, temp gauge never worked, and the oil pressure gauge is twitchy. Most people who can afford the 800 bucks get a Dakota Digital cluster installed for them.

Then all you have to worry about is the atrocious headlights at night.

 

[TFB1]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Some of you have gotten close, but haven't hit on the real boat anchor of the Chevy family:

The 229 ci V-6.

I had one in an '82 Monte Carlo, and oh my god was that thing just a steaming pile of crud.
I bought that car because I loved my '81 Grand Prix with the 231 ci Buick engine, and figured that everyone loves Chevy engines, the 229 can't be that bad, and boy was I wrong.

I wish I could go back in time and tell myself to buy the other car that was on the lot:
A '79 Firebird with the 301. That would have at least passed Colorado emissions tests.

BC.

You aren't there yet, try the 200 V6 produced in '78 & '79, had one in a '78 Malibu... The '80 Monte Carlo with 229 seemd fast compared to that 200... The 200 had power similar to the 5.7 Diesel in my '81 Cutlass...

Just because they were a little slow I don't consider any engine a boat anchor, it's the POS that couldn't make 50K mi without major problems that are boat anchors...

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Some 80's GM products DO have atrocious instrument lighting. My 86 Monte SS is almost impossible to read at night. Does not help that the gauges are also junk. My voltmeter reads 2 volts lower than it is, temp gauge never worked, and the oil pressure gauge is twitchy. Most people who can afford the 800 bucks get a Dakota Digital cluster installed for them.

Then all you have to worry about is the atrocious headlights at night.


Sounds like a wiring issue, not enough voltage. Maybe a bad ground for the dash. Headlights, might just be undersized wiring.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Some 80's GM products DO have atrocious instrument lighting. My 86 Monte SS is almost impossible to read at night. Does not help that the gauges are also junk. My voltmeter reads 2 volts lower than it is, temp gauge never worked, and the oil pressure gauge is twitchy. Most people who can afford the 800 bucks get a Dakota Digital cluster installed for them.

Then all you have to worry about is the atrocious headlights at night.


Sounds like a wiring issue, not enough voltage. Maybe a bad ground for the dash. Headlights, might just be undersized wiring.


No they are just well known shortcomings in the design you see owners complain about on various forums. TONS of mods to help address the dash lights, but the gauges are just well known to be garbage. High beams are acceptable, but the lows just suck. Many people buy H4 conversions to make it better. The small sealed beams are god awful.

Lets face it, the 80's was not a golden era for American cars.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: supton
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Some 80's GM products DO have atrocious instrument lighting. My 86 Monte SS is almost impossible to read at night. Does not help that the gauges are also junk. My voltmeter reads 2 volts lower than it is, temp gauge never worked, and the oil pressure gauge is twitchy. Most people who can afford the 800 bucks get a Dakota Digital cluster installed for them.

Then all you have to worry about is the atrocious headlights at night.


Sounds like a wiring issue, not enough voltage. Maybe a bad ground for the dash. Headlights, might just be undersized wiring.


In the aforementioned C/K truck example there were about 4 small "tunnel" gauges sharing one bulb, and whatever tracing/ marking on the glass of the gauge didn't catch the light well, and wasn't contrasty when it did catch the light. You've got to really stare to pick up on water temp:

 

[SwampSurvivor]

My favorite slow 0-60 video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys6jVBWt3ms





Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: grampi

As bad as they were, I believe the 307 was even worse...Pontiac's 301 was an anchor too!


I owned two...thought they were great engines. Not terribly fast, but well built.


You're the only one....NOBODY I've ever talked to liked the 307...


We're talking about the Olds 307, right? There's a huge Oldsmobile V-8 fan club community who restore those vehicles. The 307 was an emissions-era engine that didn't produce the horsepower than its predecessors did, but it was still a torquey engine that was favored by many over the Chevy 305. Even General Motors used the 307 instead of the 305 in some applications, like Buicks and Cadillacs.

How many did you own?


I test drove a Brougham with a 307. Ultimately the electronics on a late 80s GM vehicle scared me out of it. It was fun to drive, in a cool way. Going 50 I punched it. Heard that 307 sucking in air ... but the car didn't really go any faster.

Nice car, though. Great ride. I could deal with the 307 I think for a cruising car.

Originally Posted By: thunderfog
1981 AMC Eagle 4.2L inline 6 put out a whopping 110hp. 0-60 in 13.9s.

VERY slow!


One of the guys in the Jeep club had an old CJ with the 258, 3 speed auto and 35'' tires on the stock gearing. He floored it for like 5 or 6 miles straight once and it didn't even make 60.

Originally Posted By: Klutch9
My vote is for any of the truck/van applications of the Ford modular 4.6L V8. Durable as any engine I've ever seen, but man are those things dogs!


Ford put the 4.2V6 into the E250 work vans for fleet specials ...

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Going 50 I punched it. Heard that 307 sucking in air ... but the car didn't really go any faster.


Flip the air cleaner lid and listen to the secondaries of that massive Rochester Quadrajet carburetor! Way over-sized for the engine (750 CFM), but the beauty was in the spread-bore design where the primary venturies were much smaller than the secondaries, giving it excellent low-speed manners like a 2-bbl carburetor while still offering the full flow potential of a 4-bbl once opened up.

I tried my hand at tuning mine with different secondary metering rods. Some certainly worked better than others...

 

[TFB1]

Originally Posted By: Miller88


Originally Posted By: Klutch9
My vote is for any of the truck/van applications of the Ford modular 4.6L V8. Durable as any engine I've ever seen, but man are those things dogs!


Ford put the 4.2V6 into the E250 work vans for fleet specials ...


And loaded to capacity they would be slow... Something about a weight vs HP equation??? LOL

I drove a from new '99 E250 with 4.2 for five years and then was issued a '04 E250 with 4.6(4.2 had been dropped), it would run away from the 4.2... I never carried any real weight in either(did home electronics repair), so was generally pleased with the 4.6 performance...

 

[Jarlaxle]

The company I worked for had a few 4.2 E250's...I think all were side-load wheelchair vans. I hated to drive them...undersprung, underdamped, too low (not quite 6' inside), and they were short-body, so they were really crowded. The E350's and Dodge 3500's were MUCH better. Definitely the wrong tool for the job.

They also had an E350 shuttle bus...with a 300ci six. (!)

 

[artificialist]

My dad had a 1987 Hyundai Excel with the 3-speed automatic. I thought Hyundai would never build a good car. Dad told me that when the Excel got an overdrive transmission and an EFI engine, they weren't nearly as bad of a car, although they still sucked.

I knew a guy with an early 80s VW Rabbit. He was worried that fuel prices would go out of control, and his Monte Carlo was a fuel hog.

I once had to repair a 1988 Toyota Tercel. No other car made me fear that I couldn't accelerate away from danger.