Talk:Pontiac V8 engine

Fillet of Laurentian?

The article says the 421s had "a rolled fillet crankshaft". Huh? I presume it meant "billet". Can somebody clarify? Trekphiler 21:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it not a typo. The fillet is the area at the extreme ends of the rod journals, kind of a sunken in area before the smooth machined part reaches the unfinished part of the crank between the rod jouurnals. A rolled-fillet is stronger than a standard one.--King V 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---A filleted crankshaft journal is like a bowling alley lane with a gutter on each side. The crankshaft fillet is also appropriately called a gutter. A cast crankshaft may have the edges of the mains and/or rod journals work hardened by heavy duty rollers hydraulically clamped to the crankshaft as the crankshaft is rotated.

Is the 389 a big or small block???? Neither. It is a short block.

NO it isn't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y. ---Speaking as an ASE certified Master Mechanic, and an ASE certified Master Machinist with 39 years experience, I can assure you that a short block is ANY engine without a cylinder head. No head or heads makes any engine shorter. Therein, a shortblock or short block. -DMS

The article is off on the 301 as well the 1979 pontiac grand am also came with a 301 with a hearst 4 speed shifter in some editions. Also the 1977 trans am 6.6 had a rating of the best trans am ever produced with over 400 hp.

The 1977 trans am produced only 180 hp. The best trans am was the 1973 super duty 455 7.2. Pontiac shirked some government regulations and possibly some GM ones as well to produce the best and fastest trans am. Next would be the 1974 version by which time the "long arm" so to speak caught up to the Pontiac division and made them detune the motor to meet pollution specs.

Hot Rod article

Someone posted a old article from Hot Rod magazine from March 1968 about the Pontiac OHC V8 http://www.wallaceracing.com/ohc-v8-cover.html maybe it could be use as a reference --sd-100 February 10 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 14:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is the 151in³ Iron Duke/Tech4 a derivative of the Pontiac V-8?

It was widely said at the time that the 151in³ Iron Duke pushrod 4-cylinder used in a variety of smaller GM cars of the '70s and '80s (most notably the Chevy Citation and other front-drive X-bodies and the S-series pickups, as well as a somewhat-uncommon base engine on the cheaper front-drive A-bodies such as the Chevy Celebrity) was "half of a Pontiac 301". Is the Iron Duke/Tech4 engine a variant or descendant of the 195in³ Pontiac 4-cylinder mentioned in this Wikipedia article? If not, what's the relationship between the Iron Duke and the Pontiac V-8? Even if the answer is "none", this tale was common enough in the day (both heard in bull sessions and written in car magazines) that mentioning the association would be a worthwile inclusion in this article. Sorry - I'm not enough of a Poncho guru to be useful in this. Darwinianphysicist (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None, no relation to the Pontiac V8 at all. The 151ci Iron Duke came to light around 76-77 in the Pontiac Astra, Chevy Monza, Vegas, Buick Skyhawk to replace the oil burning 140ci. It is a variant of the old Chevy Nova 153ci from 62-67. Chevy bellhousing bolt pattern, look at the head, timing cover and water pump mount (thermostat outlet on FWD's). Looks like a Chevy straight 6 missing 2 cylinders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.18.47 (talk) 03:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pontiac 455

The math might not work for the bore and stroke cited for the 455. Bore of 4.1875 and stroke of 4 7/32 gives a CID of 464.8, not 455, using 8*Pi*R-Squared*height. Checking the math for the 389 and 400, they calculate correctly using the formula I cited.174.97.138.249 (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relocated "Experimental V8s" OR content

Placed here:

==Experimental V8s==

===427 Hemi SOHC===
Without documentation on Mopar's involvement with the Hemi I find the claim to be witout substance. Mickey Thompson had already developed Hemi heads for a Pontiac engine, and Pontiac had very capable engineering staff.

This was a project started by Pontiac with the end goal of building a Pontiac 427 Hemi. Pontiac asked Mopar (Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouth) for help in designing it and making it work. Surprisingly, Mopar actually agreed and sent over several of the engineers that designed both the 392 and 426 Hemi. The goal of making a Pontiac Hemi succeeded but was never produced.

Features:

Thin Wall, Cast Aluminum Block
4.342 in (110.3 mm) Bore x 3.75 in (95 mm) stroke (3 in (76 mm) Mains)
Forged Steel 6.625 in (168.3 mm) rods (Ram Air V style)
12:1 compression
Mechanical Port Fuel Injection
Large Valve Heads: 2.4 in (61 mm) Intake Valve, 2.00 in (51 mm) Exhaust Valve
Small Valve High RPM 2.19 in (56 mm) Intake Valve, 2.00 in (51 mm) Exhaust Valve
Splayed Main Caps, head bolts tie into main caps. Head bolts do not pull on the cylinder wall causing distortion.
Cam Drive: Fiberglass Belt
Max RPM (High RPM Engine): >8000 rpm
Engine Weight: Estimated 550 lb (249 kg) complete
Dimensions: Width: 32 in (810 mm), Length: 32 in (810 mm), Height: 24.6 in (620 mm)
Power: estimated 640 hp (480 kW) @ 7500 rpm

===421 2 Valve SOHC===

===3 Valve SOHC===

===389 4 Valve DOHC===
Originally made in 1966 for the Pontiac GTO.^{[citation needed]}

Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's improve this article!

There is a big warning box at the top of this article that dates from 2010. If we take the criticisms seriously and work diligently to address them we can remove the warning box, and have a much better article.

It is weak that there is still (in Mar. of 2020) really only one legitimate citation for this long article, which tends to support the criticism made by whoever wrote up the box that it's based on original research. Let's fix this! ZeroXero (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Famed 1963 326

Is there any verifiable source stating that the 1963 326 actually has a bore of 3.78in, and not 3.72in ?

It is indeed written as-is in the 1963 brochure, but it could very well be a typo ; and the story of it being intentionally mislabeled seems weird (as a quick computation using the available bores and strokes for 1963 yields 336cu in) and that could all be a post-hoc explanation rather than a fact. Clarrieu (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]