Boat Anchors Award

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: 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...


My 86 Monte SS had the computer controlled quadrajet. What a nightmare to keep the check engine light off on those. I eventually ripped it and the special HEI out and dropped an older quadrajet and standard HEI in it. Runs so much better now.

 

[andyd]

Originally Posted By: used_0il
Which engine, transmissions, etc. qualify for the 1st annual BOITOG Boat Anchor Award?

I'll date myself and start with the Dodge push-button automatic transmission and the AMC 304 V8.
Yah the AMC small blocks were gawd offal. I had 5 Grand Wagoneers over 25 yrs. The 360s were junk after 150 K miles. They were a design from the 50s when gas was 23 cents a gallon. Fill it with regular and check the oil and water please. The tool steel oil pump gears ate the aluminum pump that was part of the timing case cover and the volume increase lowered the oil pressure. The lowered psi, wasted the cam bearings, the main bearings especially. When the thrust bearing let go, the resulting increase in end play would hammer out the crank seals fore and aft. Cam bearings in a V8 is big job.

 

[Robenstein]

The Buick V8's also have the problem with the pump gears eating the aluminum pump covers. Luckily there are fixes for them

As for junk transmissions...The Ford Probe automatics. Such a bad design that any of those cars you see on the road still are almost always a manual.

 

[TFB1]

Originally Posted By: andyd
Originally Posted By: used_0il
Which engine, transmissions, etc. qualify for the 1st annual BOITOG Boat Anchor Award?

I'll date myself and start with the Dodge push-button automatic transmission and the AMC 304 V8.
Yah the AMC small blocks were gawd offal. I had 5 Grand Wagoneers over 25 yrs. The 360s were junk after 150 K miles. They were a design from the 50s when gas was 23 cents a gallon. Fill it with regular and check the oil and water please. The tool steel oil pump gears ate the aluminum pump that was part of the timing case cover and the volume increase lowered the oil pressure. The lowered psi, wasted the cam bearings, the main bearings especially. When the thrust bearing let go, the resulting increase in end play would hammer out the crank seals fore and aft. Cam bearings in a V8 is big job.


Just another example of poor power to weight ratio...

One of my neighbors had a '70 Javelin with 360 & four speed, was VERY spirited... The later AMC 304, 360, 390 & 401 engines were modified versions of the 290, 343, & 390 that were introduced in the mid '60s... These engines shared little if anything with the Nash engines of the 50s...

Bobby Allison won a few NASCAR races in the mid '70s with a 360 AMC Matador...

 

[userfriendly]

The reason I picked the AMC V8 is because of it's weight. Perfect for a boat anchor.
I don't know what the bare block weighs, but it's right up there with a 366 BBC.
Another heavy weight were the International V8s.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
My 86 Monte SS had the computer controlled quadrajet. What a nightmare to keep the check engine light off on those. I eventually ripped it and the special HEI out and dropped an older quadrajet and standard HEI in it. Runs so much better now.


My '84 Olds (307) had the electronic Q-jet, too. Honestly, I never had a lick of trouble out of that engine/carburetor. The most troublesome aspect was the EGR ports in the intake manifold would coke up and, once, I took the carburetor off to run a drill bit by hand down through those EGR tubes to clean them out. Pretty common on the Olds engines. The miles of vacuum line were sometimes difficult to deal with, but I honestly never had a problem out of that Q-jet.

It was just a really solid car. Many talk about the '80s being dark years for American cars, and I get that to some degree, but that Cutlass was a fine example of a classy automobile. Maroon interior, bright white exterior, T-tops, factory chrome wheels...it was pretty cool (awfully dependable). Its weak spot was the known-bad TH-200-C transmission. The only option my car didn't have was the TH-200-4R overdrive transmission. If it'd had that, it would have had a pretty flawless record.

 

[TFB1]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd


It was just a really solid car. Many talk about the '80s being dark years for American cars, and I get that to some degree, but that Cutlass was a fine example of a classy automobile.

Reason for that is because the lousy mid '70s models were already in the junk yard when they started driving...

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: 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.


I think there was a high output version of the Olds 307 that they put in the Hurst Olds' of ~1983. 180HP is what I remember, and that was pretty respectable for the day. This is when the hottest engine in the Camaro was the L69 305 that had 190 HP, and the Corvette had 205. When port fuel injection came out starting in '84-'85 was when the American auto industry started coming out of its dark age of performance.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: grampi

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...


My '72 GMC 1500 has a 307/4-speed manual, and it is dog slow. But I get 13 mpg with it. The engine doesn't have any noises, but it has driveability issues with the carb. But it's OK for pushing the truck around until I get motivated to put the monster V6 in it.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: 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...


I love the whine of a flipped lid! I wanted to flip the aircleaner lid but I'm thinking on a test drive that wasn't going to happen

I think that's why this was the "best chase"! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE2i08S3YeY

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
I think there was a high output version of the Olds 307 that they put in the Hurst Olds' of ~1983. 180HP is what I remember, and that was pretty respectable for the day. This is when the hottest engine in the Camaro was the L69 305 that had 190 HP, and the Corvette had 205. When port fuel injection came out starting in '84-'85 was when the American auto industry started coming out of its dark age of performance.


Yeah, Oldsmobile and Chevrolet both had a high output version of their 5.0 liter V-8. The 1983-1984 Hurst/Olds and 1985-1987 442 got the ~180 hp version of the 307. They also had the TH-200-4R overdrive transmission, corporate 8.5" rear end, and 3.73:1 gears. Performance was quite good for the day. The Hurst/Olds, of course, came with the novel Lightning Rod shifters. The 442 had a conventional T-handle PRNDL style shifter. The Oldsmobile 307 had a few refinements made to it in 1985 -- it received roller lifters and a matching roller camshaft, and smaller intake ports for greater charge velocity. The result was even more low-end torque, but at the expense of high-end power. I had one of these in an '87 Regal -- it was certainly a stump puller off the line, but it'd run out of breath by about 4,000 rpm.

Chevy obviously marketed the Monte Carlo SS. It had a ~180 hp version of the 305, TH-200-4R transmission, and 3.73:1 gears. Olds fans liked to point out that Chevy didn't put the 8.5" rear axle under any Monte Carlo -- the regular Monte had the standard 7.5" and the SS had a 7.625" axle.

Pontiac sold a limited edition 2+2 version of the Grand Prix, and it came standard with the 200-4R overdrive and 3.08:1 rear axle, but I think it used the ~150 hp version of the Chevy 305 (as opposed to the SS's ~180 hp version).

 

[dnastrau]

I know several of these have been mentioned here before, but here are the ones that come to mind for me in the "all the power of a smogger V6 with the economy of a V8" class:

Chevy 262 V8 ('75-'76)
Chevy 267 V8
Ford 255 V8
Olds 260 V8
Pontiac 265 V8 (smaller version of the 301)

Here are a bunch of other dogs (slow but not necessarily unreliable) that I had experiences driving or riding in extensively:

Chevy 200 and 229 V6.
Buick 196 and 231 V6 of the mid-to-late '70s (especially the odd fire version).
Ford 200 I6 (late '70s - early '80s version with 85 net HP; the 88 net HP 2300 I4 felt faster in some applications).
'82-'83 Ford F100 with the 3.8 carbureted V6.
Ford Ranger 2.0 carbureted 4 cylinder (debored 2.3).
Any Chevette with automatic.
Early '80s Toyota Tercel automatic.
'70s Toyota Corolla automatic.
K-car derivatives with the non-turbo 2.2 or 2.5 automatic.
Volvo 240 or 740 with the b230f non-turbo and automatic.
Early '70s full-size Chevies with the 250 I6 and Powerglide (the heavier '71 was worse than the '70. Both were pathetic).

These get my vote for sketchy driveability and/or durability:

Fords with the Variable Venturi carburetor.
Late '70s Chrysler products with the Lean Burn electronic spark control system (concept ahead of its time - systems did not age well at all).
Early applications of lockup torque converters in general (especially coupled with numerically low axles like 2.29 or 2.41).
Full size GM cars with the three speed Turbo Hydramatic 200 transmission.
Electronic feedback carburetors in general.
Early '80s GM Computer Command Control engine management systems.
Fords with the TFI module-style ignitions. (These used to fail at an alarming rate at the Ford dealership that I worked in back in '85-'91).
Engines from the 1960s-1980s with nylon-coated cam gear teeth (these killed a few V8s in my extended family years ago).

Andrew S.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: andyd
Originally Posted By: used_0il
Which engine, transmissions, etc. qualify for the 1st annual BOITOG Boat Anchor Award?

I'll date myself and start with the Dodge push-button automatic transmission and the AMC 304 V8.
Yah the AMC small blocks were gawd offal. I had 5 Grand Wagoneers over 25 yrs. The 360s were junk after 150 K miles. They were a design from the 50s when gas was 23 cents a gallon. Fill it with regular and check the oil and water please. The tool steel oil pump gears ate the aluminum pump that was part of the timing case cover and the volume increase lowered the oil pressure. The lowered psi, wasted the cam bearings, the main bearings especially. When the thrust bearing let go, the resulting increase in end play would hammer out the crank seals fore and aft. Cam bearings in a V8 is big job.


My J-20 was running perfectly with >150K. (And they were hard miles, on a 4.11-geared work truck.) My Gremlin had a 401 from a Matador...it had >125K when installed, I put another 40K on before rebuilding it for a blower. (I did replace the oil pump when it went in.)

 

[userfriendly]

The AMCs are tough and capable. The challenge came at an auction when I was lifting engine blocks onto a trolley.
One machine shop owner said "lets see you lift that one" and pointed to an AMC V8.
It didn't look that heavy, but.....wow, for a little un-skirted block, it sure would make a good boat anchor.

They said it couldn't be done, but I built a +.030 307 SBC flat top pistons, 208/214 @ 109, 1.6/1.5 rockers and 1.94/1.6 ported 305 heads that actually made decent power in a lifted 4X4 with 13.50X40 MTRs.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yeah...the AMC V8's are thick-wall engines.

Machinists hated them, because the high-nickel blocks just eat their tooling.

 

[asiancivicmaniac]

The VG used in Nissan vans and trucks. Underpowered for the weight it has to move.

It's a reliable engine though.

 

[clinebarger]

I have several TH200's behind customers 500 horse plus drag cars, When built right they are every bit as strong as a 200-4R.

The 200-4R is based on a TH200. The TV cable adjustment is critical on BOTH units.

 

[JetStar]

All this talk about low horsepower large displacement engines is making me re-live my youth. I remember hearing my Dad, uncles, and grandfather lament the choked engines of the time, referred to by autoblog as the "Malaise Era" early to mid 70's to the early 90's. Nearly everything was a boat anchor during those times, and they are an easy target. Nearly all of these heritage engines trace their design roots to the 50's, then saddled with the awful electro-vacuum-mechanical emission controls.


Wiki has this to say about Malaise;The term is also often used figuratively in other contexts; for example, "economic malaise" refers to an economy that is stagnant or in recession (compare depression). I think it fits well in the automotive context.

So lets think a little harder and identify the true standout boat anchors and stop taking the easy way out and reliving the malaise era. Everybody remembers how bad they were, after all most of these engine designs were decent prior to the advent of emission controls

 

[TFB1]

Originally Posted By: JetStar
All this talk about low horsepower large displacement engines is making me re-live my youth. I remember hearing my Dad, uncles, and grandfather lament the choked engines of the time, referred to by autoblog as the "Malaise Era" early to mid 70's to the early 90's. Nearly everything was a boat anchor during those times, and they are an easy target. Nearly all of these heritage engines trace their design roots to the 50's, then saddled with the awful electro-vacuum-mechanical emission controls.


Wiki has this to say about Malaise;The term is also often used figuratively in other contexts; for example, "economic malaise" refers to an economy that is stagnant or in recession (compare depression). I think it fits well in the automotive context.

So lets think a little harder and identify the true standout boat anchors and stop taking the easy way out and reliving the malaise era. Everybody remembers how bad they were, after all most of these engine designs were decent prior to the advent of emission controls

Agreed... I renominate Chevy's aluminum 4cyl Vega engine...

The first emission controls I know of were PCV valves and were were introduced in CA around '61(49 states in '63 & '64)... CA mandated earlier models be retrofitted back to around '55... Even though they are a effective emission device have virtually no down side even help prevent sludge build up...

For the most part no one was [censored] about power/drivibility in '60s to early '70s engines ran fine with reasonable performance(no fuel mileage wasn't great but very few even cared) ... Then the gas crisis, tighter emission controls and five MPH crash bumpers hit at approx same time('73), which killed performance due to lean carbs and retarded timing curves(made for some ugly styling as well)... Larger engines were dropped in search of economy...It took most of the '70s before the engineers started to get things figured out...

When Ford introduced the '83 models, the 5.0 Mustang had gained a Holley 4bbl carb(no computer) & and new areo styled Thunderbird Turbo Coupe had electronic port EFI(first use of the new EEC IV system)the automotive world was buzzing... Those controls were used through '94/'95 when Fed mandated the OBD-II and testing compatibility between mfgrs... As far as performance, the port injection beat the throttle body systems by a wide margin.. From that point Ford began to add EFI to almost models(5.0 truck 85.5) with Sequential fire SEFI introduced in '86... So I suppose the other mfgrs with their 'puter carbs are the origination of the poor '80s performance... Over in the Ford camps we were were havin' a great time...

 

[hardcore302]

115 hp jetta current model. Wow...