Talk:Chevrolet big-block engine

One would think they didn't produce engines in the 80s, all the date ranges and in the 70s and start in the 90s... is it a copy-paste or edit error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.27.177 (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Engine code references
I'm proposing that all engine code references in this article (and the Small Block article) have the hyphen removed. For example, "LS-5" would become "LS5".

My reasons are: (1) none of the books or articles I have read on Corvettes ever use the hyphen, and (2) Googlers don't either and this otherwise excellent article is therefore not found. Gtc131 03:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks better.... thanks! &mdash; Mrand  T-C 16:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... the LT-1 and the LT 1 are two very different engines ::: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.234.237.138 (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Undid of removal of section regarding Dick Slosar
Not like discussing the Ford 351 Cleveland and omitting reference to Bob Glidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.232.1 (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

No attempt needs to be made to list every emplyee; this man hand fabricated these extremely rare parts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toneron2 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't really clear. The problem is that one person doing some hand fabrication for one car is not really notable (see WP:NOTE) for an encyclopedia.  Nor does his employment record further the understanding of big-block engines.  For good or bad, this type of thing is something countless others have done on numerous other cars - it's something that is done all the time in a manufacturing environment.  However, if you can find a VALID source for this claim, then obviously it is notable and we can keep it.  Otherwise I'm afraid it needs to go.&mdash; Mrand  T-C 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toneron2 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction is embarrassingly POV

 * The L72 427 was available in the 1969 Camaro from the factory, and in fact are much more common than ZL1s. They were called COPO 9651

The Introduction is embarrassingly POV and provides an unnecessary commentary on how Chevrolet obtains the horsepower rating. --KJRehberg (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what the above quoted sentence has to do with the intro POV. While I agree it would be good if the POV of the intro was toned down (and sourced), I also think it is worth a mention that the horsepower numbers from that era were measured gross, and hence can't be directly compared to net. Definitely no need to use the word "salt." &mdash; Mrand  Talk • C 14:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting the full use of the "Mark" and "Gen" designations for Big-Block Chevrolet Engines
What happened to the "Rat" motor nickname? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.232.1 (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The article shows a difference for "W" series and "Mark IV" series BBC engines. The issue I have here is it doesn't paint the whole picture for BBC engines. The "W" series is actually known as the "Mark II" engine. From my knowledge the term "W" is a nickname. GM produced four "Mark" engines. The Mark I and III engines were never put into production, but do deserve reference in the article. The Gen V engines were produced for the 1991 through 1995 model years and Gen VI engines from 1996 on. If GM differentiates between these engines as such, shouldn't this article differentiate also? I have several references in book form which could help in this endeavor:



Does anyone have an objection to making these changes and additions? Paulster2 (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Paulster2, go for it! Referencing those sources in the article would be a great help.  Have fun,  &mdash; Mrand  Talk • C 16:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Correcting some errors above: Mark I = 348/409 Was only referred to as "Mark I" after "Mark II" was produced. Mark II = 1963 Daytona 500 "Mystery Engine" Typically 427, but other displacements were tried. Never released for production. Racing use only. Prototype of Mark IV. Mark III = Packard V-8 tooling and production rights were considered for purchase by Chevrolet. Project did not proceed. Mark IV = 366/396/427/454 etc, 1965--1990. Development of Mark II. Gen 5 = 454/502 1991--1995 Revision of Mark IV Gen 6 = 454/502 1996--2000  Revision and improvement of Gen 5 Gen 7 = 8.1L 2001--2009 (?) Revision of Gen 6 with substantial changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.89.85 (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

End of the big block
Here's info that should be added:
 * REPORT: Last GM big block engine rolls off the line

roguegeek (talk·cont) 22:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

502?
I've worked in the engine remanufacturing business for 30 years on marine, truck and auto apps. and can attest that the earliest 502 I've seen or heard of was a 1990 Gen 5 engine. I've never seen nor heard of a MK4 502 factory engine. If it isn't cited, shouldn't it be stricken?

Aluminum 510 cubic inch engine
In the late 1970s, Chevy had a performance parts catalogue. In it was listed an all-aluminum 510 cubic inch engine intended for race applications only. In 1980, I inquired at a dealership parts department as to the availability of the engine and was told that it had been discontinued roughly (at that time) six month ago. If memory serves me, the price (in 1980 dollars) for the block alone was $2,000. tganos@earthlink.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.34 (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Origin of the 402
The 402 came about when GM "recycled" a bunch of slightly defective 396 blocks by boring them out. When the recoverable 396 blocks were gone is when GM made the 402 a regular production engine. I suspect the original 396-but-really-402 engines were the bored out 396 rejects. Should be verifiable by casting numbers, if any of those "396" engines are still around. Bizzybody (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Staggered Valves
This might be a stupid question, but how many valves does the 396 V-8 have? I'm guessing a normal 16 valve total: eight intake, and eight exhaust. I saw a photo of the 396 with its staggered valve arrangement, and it didnt make sense to me, until I finally read somewhere about its so-called staggered valve arrangement. Althought its still not making sense. An overhead view, absent any specific knowledge, it would look to the novice like one side of the engine has three two-valve cylinders, and two one-valve cylinders. Which is ridiculous, but again, I had never heard of the so-called staggered valve arrangement. Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

missing information on the L88
This article compares several engines to the L88, but doesn't establish anything about the L88 beforehand (or at all, for that matter, except indirectly). Can an expert take a shot at putting together at least a paragraph, so the references to it aren't orphaned quite so badly? --Fru1tbat (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The L88 and the ZL1 seem to be the same engine, except the latter has an aluminum block, which makes it ~100 lbs. lighter. What further information would you like to see included? Dhtwiki (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure - the ZL1 page you cite says "Chevrolet Performance commemorates the ZL1 with the Anniversary Edition 427 — an aluminum-block crate engine that mimics the original in spirit, but with design upgrades...", and the L88 page says "Like the original, it features a forged steel crankshaft and high-flow, oval-port aluminum cylinder heads. We’ve upgraded ...". So neither appears to show the original specs.


 * Currently in this article, the first mention of the L88 is this: "The ZL1 had specifications nearly identical to the production L88 version of the 427, but featured an all-aluminum cylinder block in addition to aluminum cylinder heads, which dropped total engine weight into small-block Chevrolet territory (approx. 575 lb or 261 kg dressed)."


 * Maybe "nearly identical" should be "otherwise identical", if that's truly the case (I don't want to assume one way or the other). Actually, it would be clearer if it started off something like "The ZL1 and L88 versions of the 427 engine had nearly identical specifications ...", then went on to list both the similarities and differences explicitly. I can give it a shot, but if someone who's more familiar with the subject wants to, that might be better. It's unclear the way it is, though. --Fru1tbat (talk) 12:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The ZL1 was a COPO modification, if I recall correctly, so it likely couldn't have been much different, and the aluminum block may well have been all the difference. I didn't notice any other difference between any of the specs given on the web pages. It would probably help to track down some contemporary, or more analytical, articles for further explanation, rather than rely on the manufacturer's vague marketing gloss of the situation, or speculation. I've just checked my Chilton's book for Camaro, and that was of no help. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes to "454" section
Recent changes to the section on the 454 cubic inch engine seem knowledgeable but were unexplained and made without a source being provided. It's beyond my ability to tell how correct they are. Can anyone else do so? Otherwise I'll revert. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Very confusing paragraph
Here it is:

'''The Big-Block was expanded again, for 1970, to 454 cu in (7.4 L), with a bore x stroke of 4 1⁄4 in × 4 in (108.0 mm × 101.6 mm). The 1970 Chevrolet Corvette LS5 version of this engine was factory-rated at 390 bhp (395 PS; 291 kW) and 500 lb⋅ft (678 N⋅m), and the LS6 engine equipped with a single 4-barrel 800 cu ft/min (23 m3/min) Holley carburetor was upgraded to 450 bhp (456 PS; 336 kW) at 5600 rpm and 500 lb⋅ft (678 N⋅m) at 3600 rpm of torque.[21][22] It has been suggested that the LS6 was substantially underrated from the factory, which was somewhat common practice by the American car makers, and that the engine actually produced well over 500 hp (373 kW) as delivered from the factory. Indeed, the AHRA ASA (Showroom Stock Automatic) Class record-holding Chevelle LS-6 for the 1970 season posted a best of season trap speed of 106.76 mph (172 km/h),[23] which suggests something on the order of 350 "as installed" (SAE Net) HP for a 3,900 pounds (1,769 kg) car and driver combination. Indeed, Super Chevy Magazine conducted a chassis dyno test of a well-documented, well tuned, but production-line stock 1970 LS-6 Chevelle and recorded 283 peak HP at the wheels[17] - a figure that lines up quite well with the previously referenced 350 SAE Net HP figure.'''

So, we are told the LS6 was rated at 450 hp, but that it was under-rated and actually made well over 500 hp. The to bolster this statement evidence is given that it had 350 "as installed"(SAE Net).

I don't think most readers know the coversion factors from SAE Net and plain old "hp" which I guess is what we are supposed to know to understand how 350 > 450.

Maybe someone who is knowledgeable could clean this up so all the comparisions are using the same measure, making this article much more comprehensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero (talk • contribs) 18:42, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

What about the 8.0L? and 572?
GM even lists their part numbers: 19328586 and 19331585 respectively

https://www.gmpartsdirect.com/oem-parts/gm-chevrolet-performance-vortec-8-0l-19328586

https://www.chevrolet.com/performance-parts/crate-engines/big-block/zz-572-720-r — Preceding unsigned comment added by B4Ctom1 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)