top 20 V8 engines of all time…

Hot Rod Magazine’s April issue has a list rating the top 20 V8 engines of all time…

The parameters for judging are:

• Performance potential
• Historic Significance
• Looks cool
• Affordability to build today
• Easy to work on

Each engine was ranked on a scale of 1 to 5 ( 5 being the best and 1 being the worst).

Here’s what they say:


20. 1961-80 BOP GM V8 215, 300, 340, 350 ci.

19. 1968–84 Cadillac third gen. V8 - 368, 425, 472, & 500 ci.

18. 1949-64 Oldsmobile Rocket V8 – 303, 324, 371, & 394 ci

17. 1953-66 Buick Nailhead V8 – 264, 322, 364, 401, & 425 ci

16. 1965-90 2nd Gen.Olds V8 – 260, 307, 330, 350, 400, 403, 425, & 455 ci

15. 1964-2003 Chrysler LA Series V8 273, 318, 340, & 360.

14. 1967-76 Buick Big block V8 – 400, 430, & 455.

13. 1968-97 Ford 385 Series V8 -370, 429, & 460

12. 1997- Present Chevrolet LS Series V8 – 4.8L, 5.3L, 6.0L, 5.2L, & 7.0L

11. 1970-82 Ford 335 Series V8 – 302, 351, & 400 ci.

10. 1932-53 Ford Flathead V8 – 221, 239, 255 ci.

9. 1958-76 Ford FE V8 – 332, 352, 360, 361, 390, 406, 410, 427, 428 ci.

8. 1955-81 Pontiac V8 – 265, 287, 301, 303, 316, 326, 347, 350, 370, 389.400, 421, 428, & 455. ci.

7. 1951-58 Chrysler Early Hemi V8 – 331, 354, 382 ci.

6. 1958-65 Chevy “W” Series V8 -348, 409, 427 ci.

5. 1958-77 Chrysler B & RB V8 – 350, 361, 383, 400, 413, 426, 440 ci.

4. 1962-2001 Ford 90 Degree V8 – 221, 255, 260, 289, 302/5.0L, & 351/5.8L

3. 1964-71 Dodge/Plymouth Hemi V8 – 426 ci.

2. 1965-2009 Chevy Big Block V8 – 366, 396, 402, 427, 430, 454, 496, & 502 ci.

1. 1955-2003 Chevy Small Block V8 – 262, 265, 267, 283, 302, 305, 307, 327, 350, & 400 ci.



So, leaving brand loyalty out of it, what do you think?

Btw, it’s really a good article, lots of forgotten tidbits.

Enjoy,
Frankie

My opinion is a LA Chrysler engine is easier to work on than a small chevy.
1. You change the intake without removing the distributor.
2. The distributor is easier the replace. Its either dead on or 180 out.
3. Doing a head swap, No rocker adjustment needed its plug and play(unless its a 273 with adjustable rockers)

it was no surprise to see sbc & bbc as 1 & 2

To see the 426 hemi over the b & rb wedge was a surprise due to cost and availability of the 426

Really figured the LA small block would be a little higher

Who would think that the 500 cu in i my caddy would make the list, I just thought it was a boat anchor

Over all a good article

my picks based on experience with them (as limited as they be)

Chrysler: 318 poly and LA, 360
Ford: 302, 351 and 390
Chevy: 327, 350

it doesnt surprise me about chevy being #1 ... parts and price & availability and all...

typical hot rod

pick the small block chebby as no 1 obviously, then reverse engineer the perameters to fit the prechosen winner

bollocks!....nothing looks cooler than a 426! ,performance potential or definately historical signifigance ...come on!

I do agree with 4404spd but i would add as far as parts aftermarket support and you cant beat the small block chevy.But bang for the buck i still love the bb mopars.

4404spd said:

My opinion is a LA Chrysler engine is easier to work on than a small chevy.
1. You change the intake without removing the distributor.
2. The distributor is easier the replace. Its either dead on or 180 out.
3. Doing a head swap, No rocker adjustment needed its plug and play(unless its a 273 with adjustable rockers)

Click to expand...

All good points, and spot on, but that only covers one of the five parameters.
Do you have an opinion on the rest?

• Performance potential
• Historic Significance
• Looks cool
• Affordability to build today
• Easy to work on

I completely agree with Mopars being easier to work on than most other engines.
I think the Hemi engine have more performance potential, historic significance, and look cooler than just about anything else produced (the Ford Cammer and the Olds Hemi have good looks, too imo).


Regarding affordability today, i doubt any V8 can cost less than a Chevy small block. The are abundant, everybody and their brother makes parts for them, and most parts houses and even junk yards charge less for Chevy parts than any other brand's parts.



I give MoPar 4 out of 5.

Frankie said:

So, leaving brand loyalty out of it, what do you think?

Click to expand...

I think that the only time my #15 lost to a #1 was when the built-up #1 had a 150 shot of nitrous. And the owner was "on the button hard".

(ans still only beat me by about half a length lol)

One of the parameters is historical significance?

The 331 beat the other manufacturers' overhead valves V8's into production by 3-4 years, leaving the other manufacturers scrambling. The 1G Hemi (in mass production) was used in everything from industrial to heavy truck to marine to cars. Not to mention it's race history. Or the basic principals of it's military history.

The small block Chevy can only lead the list by the idea that had been in mass production since 1955 with just a few "upgrades," the parts are widely available and inexpensive, and the size of it allows it to fit just about anywhere.

But before that was the flathead Ford V8's were ubiquitous in the same usage. Speed parts were widely available, inexpensive, and the size allowed it to be used in just about anything.

The early Hemi shouldda been number one hands down, 100%.

Performance potential - NO other STOCK Chrysler crankshaft has the ability to withstand over 1,000 horse power. ALL the early Chrysler Hemis could.

Historic Significance- Really? Do I have to explain this one? Look at what Don Garlits did with STOCK hard parts with the 392. He didn't just set records, he CREATED them.

Looks cool - Again, nothun, but NUTHIN looks cooler than an early Chrysler Hemi. Not even 2nd gen motors.

Affordability to build today - Again, right in line with a Chrysler big block. I oughtta know, I am building one.

Easy to work on - If you can do an oil change, you can work on an early Chrysler Hemi.

IMO opinion it should have been more like:

1) Early Chrysler Hemi

2) LA Chrysler

3) B/RB Chrysler

4) 2nd Gen Hemi

And all the rest of the garbage from here on out. Really? Did they rank the BB chebbie above the B/RB Chrysler? Obviously, their opinions are biased and skewed. Just ask anyone whose had their bb chebbelle's clock CLEANED by a 383 4 speed Road Runner. And let's not even talk about a 440 Six Pack or Hemi car. There was NO comparison. Bunch of retards.

................I agree with Stroker........the 2nd hemi is still making history all these years later...........kim...........

What was so great about the Cadillac and oldsmobile engines number 18, 19. I hope it wasn,t in regards to there power .Neither one of them would haul the hat off your Grandmother, or your Dick out of a lard bucket!!!!!!

I like the way the forgot to mention that ALL top fuel cars and funny cars are Hemi powered. Also I think AMC's V8 should have made the top 20.

Bias and Skewed. Personal preference always over rides fact.:coffee2:

Thunder said:

Bias and Skewed. Personal preference always over rides fact.:coffee2:

Click to expand...

Good point, and applies to all. However, in defense of HRM, it has become much more "MoPar friendly" over the last few years, due to David Freiburger's (sp?) influences. He's a "Pro-MoPar" dude, and he's the Editor in Chief of Hot Rod.

Enough about that, the topic of the thread is the ratings of the top 20 V8's.
Disagreement is good, but try to do so on the 5 criteria, not just brand loyalty.

Thanks,
Frankie

Frankie said:

Hot Rod Magazine’s April issue has a list rating the top 20 V8 engines of all time…

The parameters for judging are:

• Performance potential
• Historic Significance
• Looks cool
• Affordability to build today
• Easy to work on

Each engine was ranked on a scale of 1 to 5 ( 5 being the best and 1 being the worst).

Here’s what they say:


20. 1961-80 BOP GM V8 215, 300, 340, 350 ci.

19. 1968–84 Cadillac third gen. V8 - 368, 425, 472, & 500 ci.

18. 1949-64 Oldsmobile Rocket V8 – 303, 324, 371, & 394 ci

17. 1953-66 Buick Nailhead V8 – 264, 322, 364, 401, & 425 ci

16. 1965-90 2nd Gen.Olds V8 – 260, 307, 330, 350, 400, 403, 425, & 455 ci

15. 1964-2003 Chrysler LA Series V8 273, 318, 340, & 360.

14. 1967-76 Buick Big block V8 – 400, 430, & 455.

13. 1968-97 Ford 385 Series V8 -370, 429, & 460

12. 1997- Present Chevrolet LS Series V8 – 4.8L, 5.3L, 6.0L, 5.2L, & 7.0L

11. 1970-82 Ford 335 Series V8 – 302, 351, & 400 ci.

10. 1932-53 Ford Flathead V8 – 221, 239, 255 ci.

9. 1958-76 Ford FE V8 – 332, 352, 360, 361, 390, 406, 410, 427, 428 ci.

8. 1955-81 Pontiac V8 – 265, 287, 301, 303, 316, 326, 347, 350, 370, 389.400, 421, 428, & 455. ci.

7. 1951-58 Chrysler Early Hemi V8 – 331, 354, 382 ci.

6. 1958-65 Chevy “W” Series V8 -348, 409, 427 ci.

5. 1958-77 Chrysler B & RB V8 – 350, 361, 383, 400, 413, 426, 440 ci.

4. 1962-2001 Ford 90 Degree V8 – 221, 255, 260, 289, 302/5.0L, & 351/5.8L

3. 1964-71 Dodge/Plymouth Hemi V8 – 426 ci.

2. 1965-2009 Chevy Big Block V8 – 366, 396, 402, 427, 430, 454, 496, & 502 ci.

1. 1955-2003 Chevy Small Block V8 – 262, 265, 267, 283, 302, 305, 307, 327, 350, & 400 ci.



So, leaving brand loyalty out of it, what do you think?

Btw, it’s really a good article, lots of forgotten tidbits.

Enjoy,
Frankie

Click to expand...

that list is dead- on...

Top 20 V8 engines, LOL

How many mass produce V8's were made ? Sounds like Hot Rod didn't want to leave anybody out.

Don't have the top 5 or top 10, have the top 20 so everybody is happy :wack:

And don't include any manufacturers that are no longer in business, like AMC, Studebaker

This is why I don't read any car magazines made after 1980

Chevy 09 rated higher than an early hemi??

Even within Chivvy, the LS was below the SB?

Too much beer and pot in THAT meeting.

i dont even want to get started on this. Historical Significance? really? seriously? stroker hit it on the head. chrysler MADE drag racing what it is today. the only way to stop chryslers complete domination in nascar was to ban the wing cars and the hemi. Hot Rod Mag has been and always will be and bunch of small block chivvy loving f*gs

Since Hot Rod left Studebacker this is what I dug up on Google, too much to copy all of, click the link to read it all--That Jack Vines guy is on Speedtalk and he owns-runs a engine shop and was around in the 1960's building engines, so he knows a few things...this is good stuff here

http://www.studebaker-info.org/text3/studenghist.txt




The first Studebaker prototype V8s were running in
Studebaker's dynamometer facility no later than early 1950. The first
engines had a 3 1/8-inch bore and a 3 1/4-inch stroke with a 199-ci
displacement. Displacement was increased when testing found torque and
horsepower fell below engineering goals. Thus, the decision to increase
bore by a quarter of an inch, resulting in the 232-ci displacement.

Leighzer

====================
The Studebaker v-8 was designed in the late 40's bu E.J. Hardig,
T.A. Scherger and S.W. Sparrow. Not by Ed Cole or any other G.M.
Engineers.
The reason for the small displacement for the Stude V-8 is that when
they were designed, very high octane gasoline was promised to be
readily available in time for the planned release date.

The engine was designed to be stout enough for 12-14:1 compression
ratios.

Even overhead cams and hemispherical combustion chambers were
considered.

When it was learned the refinerys would not come through to the
general public with the good stuff, as promised right after the war,
then it was too late to change the design.

When the engineers were testing rod configurations and piston pin
arrangements they ran the engine 100 hours @ 5000 rpm under full
load.

You should also remember that Studebaker was comcerned with economy
and fuel mileage long before it was fashonable to do so.
The original 232 had a 3 3/8 bore and a 3 1/4 in stroke which is a
bore stroke raito of slightly less than one.
In general, decreasing the bore/stroke ratio tends to increase the
legnth of an engine while decreasing its height, and, in the case of
a v-type engine its width.
Smaller bores tend to have less ring friction and the short stroke,
less piston travel, both things being good for longevity and economy.
Studebaker engines will last and handle a lot of punishment if
regularly maintained. I have owned at least four with over 350,000
miles and no major overhauls needed on any of them. I do not baby my
Studes. I like performance and I drive accordingly, lots of 5000+
rpm shifts and second gear rubber!!!! I tend to twist off axle
shafts and break transmissions but never blew up a Properly built
Studebaker v-8.
A good history of the development of the Studebaker v-8 was
reprinted from the Society of Automotive Engineers in the August
issue of Hot Rod in 1952 when the engine was only a year or so old.
Thanks for letting me vent but when people compare the Studebaker
289 v-8 to the Ford v-8 (developed many years later), I feel I have
to set the record straight.

Studebaker v-8
Forged high carbon steel crankshaft
(such a high quality of steel as to be able to be nitrided)

A chrankshaft of as high a quality steel for a Ford would be close
to TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS!

Studebaker v-8: Gear driven cam, no chain to wear out after 60,000
miles like the "competition".

Studebaker v-8: 18 head bolts (6 around each cylinder), competition
10. Which would you like to put a blower on?

bezhawk@yahoo.com Mar 2002

++++++++++

The Studebaker V8 design is very very close to the early Cadillac OHV
V8 of about 48 or 49. The Cad was also a low, squat block with a
gear driven cam off the crankshaft. The early Cad V8 was THE ROD
ENGINE when I was growing up (at least in Chicago) until the SBC came
along in 55. The Cad was also very heavy, like the Stude. I have
read that the Stude guys designed their V8 using the Cadillac as
their prototype.
ken matson Feb 02
------------------
The '49-59 Cadillac V8 is essentially the same size outside as the
Studebaker. Nither could be considered low or squat designs. They are both
old style, long-rod engines which are several inches wider and taller, as
well as heavier, than the 283" Chev and 289" Fords. The Cad began at 331"
and eventually grew to 429" The Studebaker had almost that much growth
potential, but Studebaker never bothered to change the block casting cores
to allow a larger bore. There is plenty of room for 4" and larger bores.

The early Cad intake manifolds, both stock and hot rod, will bolt directly
to the Studebaker with the slotting of a couple of bolt holes. The Cad
ports are larger, so the Stude needs a lot of grinding to make it really
work efficiently.
Jack Vines Feb 02
-------------------------

I once worked with a power plant design engineer whose first job out of
college was at Studebaker. I don't recall how the subject came up but,one
day at lunch he said that when he was at Studebaker they actually went to
another city (away from South Bend) and bought a Cadillac, pulled the engine
and took it to the Stude plant. They blue printed it and then reduced all
the dimensions by some percent and that became the Stude V8.
I don't believe this fellow had any association with the hobby or Stude, nor
did I at that time, and I believe he was sincere.
Jack Usher Feb 2002
----------------------------

I was fortunate enough to spend an afternoon with Ed Reynolds senior, yes Ed
Renoylds, Jr. of Studebaker International. Ed Renoylds was the Vice
President of Engineering. Ed told me that Studebaker was in the middle of R &
D of a new engine that would replace the Avanti engine line up. They would
be approximately 340 cubic inch thin wall cast engines. Ed told me that they
had cast 2 experimental blocks, one of the blocks had been machined and the
other was still unmachined when the South Bend plant shut down. Ed told me
that the 2,340 blocks were ordered destroyed, along with a number of other
prototype projects, Ed told me that the machined 340 block disappeared.

Since that time I have talked to a number of Studebaker Officanatos who claim
to have seen this block, the stories have varied from the block on display in
a private collection to a complete 340 engine. One thing I am fairly sure of
is that there were 2 blocks only because of all the similar stories and
credibility of the main source. I find it hard to believe though that someone
had the ability and resources to manufacture a crank & camshaft (let alone)
rods, pistons, pan, timing gear cover etc. possibly heads, etc.

I find it curious that Studebaker was R&D -ing a thin wall 340 cubic inch
engine and when Studebaker stopped automotive production leased their brand
new engine foundry to Chrysler who a few years later had a 340

Doug Crall (mar 02)

----------------------------
Very Very Interesting!! So was the Eng based on the
Stude block or was it entirely a new casting? If based
on the Stude block, was it just a larger bore or was
it stroked? Speaking of a stroker, has anyone
successfully done one?
Finished with the wifes Avanti Eng and rearing to go
on my GT
greg
---------------
I was told they just messed with the sand casting a bit, and lost about 8 out
10 blocks just trying to get a bigger bore. I think they intended to spend
the big bucks to do it right, but the end was near.

http://www.studebaker-info.org/text3/studenghist.txt

Maybe they did thier research at a swap meet.We all know thats 95% chevy.the LA has well enuff availible parts out there and simple to work on.The 340 was king to the average joe and as for looks REALLY what looks better than a 340 or 440 SIX PACK and the hemi 2 fours,others have done the 2 fours but the original 6 pack was and will always be an icon.i would rate the LA above the hemi only because of availibilty.I know they are all LA motors but the put the 273,318 and 360 in the same group as the 340 as stock HP goes proably hurt thier rank alittle.

I can accept this list if the LA was moved up ahead 2 positions and let the present 13 & 14 drop back one. Surprised to see the Phord SBs separated. Is the 90ᵒ V-8 better known as the "Windsor" head motor (#4), and the 335 series better known as the "Cleveland" head motor (#11)?

2 Darts said:

I can accept this list if the LA was moved up ahead 2 positions and let the present 13 & 14 drop back one. Surprised to see the Phord SBs separated. Is the 90ᵒ V-8 better known as the "Windsor" head motor (#4), and the 335 series better known as the "Cleveland" head motor (#11)?

Click to expand...

the 90 would be the windsor because they interchange withe the 302 but the 335 302 must be different.I never knew there was more than one 302.I believe the 351 cleveland is a big block and interchanges with the 400,I could wrong on that tho.Oh and where is the 351 M

Typical chevy loving hot rod magazine result's. This is why I don't buy hotrod magazine,thier focus seem's to be very narrow minded.