(first posted 11/8/2016) Welcome to Part 4a of our continuing journey into exploring relatively small displacement engines found in both cars and trucks at various times in automotive history. This episode is admittedly taking a different twist.
This latest installment is credited to reader Scott, a wise gentleman from Maine. His comment from Part 4 is the impetus for thinking beyond the merely obvious, which has revealed a little honey hole of information.
In Part 4, we learned about the 153 cubic inch (2.5 liter) four-cylinder used in the Chevy II and Nova from 1962 to 1970. General Motors didn’t limit this engine to just their compact cars. It could also be found in a few vans and delivery vehicles for a very brief time.
The 153 started off modestly in 1963, with availability only in step vans. From information found at oldcarbrochures.com, the 153 was available in step vans in both the United States and Canada, no small feat given how GM of Canada frequently offered products that varied in some fashion from those found south of the border.
For 1964, the 153 could be obtained in a regular van. Ideal for urban delivery use, in this application the 153 had the same 90 horsepower output as found in the passenger car version.
It’s availability continued for 1965, but this engine was no longer to be found for 1966 as the 194 cubic inch straight-six was now the base engine in both regular and step vans.
Might there be any of these four-cylinder vans left? Perhaps, but by its skinnier production window, it’s going to be elusive.
Can’t imagine these early vans passing any frontal crash test like used nowadays.
I drove a 1963 Ford Econoline Camper a few times back then.
My maternal grandfather had a Chevy van like this for his trade as an electrician, but I was too young then to think to inquire about its engine. My grandmother had a ’57 sedan around that time.
They were fortunate enough to have income during the Depression; sometimes they’d offer odd jobs to folks looking for work.
I had no idea that the 4 was found in these. That engine was pretty sprightly when mated to a Powerglide in the teeny little Jeep Dispatcher. The one my friend had would go running away from an early Civic wagon with the HondaMatic. But then the Honda would catch it at the first curve. Ask me how I know.
But I cannot imagine that engine toting any kind of payload. The thing about vans (especially older ones) is that people fill them with stuff. It doesn’t matter what powers it or what kind of brakes it has, if you can fit more in the box you do it. That thing must have been horrible to drive with a full (over)load.
Just as with the DJ Jeeps, an argument could be made for small-displacement engines mated to ridiculously steep rear-axle ratios. I believe the 4-cylinder DJ Dispatchers had 4.56:1 axles.
Of course, the engine would be screaming at high speeds, but such vehicles were made for low-speed urban delivery use, top speeds 45mph.
Just because it was quicker than a Hondamatic doesn’t make it “sprightly”!
No worse than an Econoline with the 144 six. A bit worse, actually. yet they got the job done, in their own time. And still quite a bit faster than a VW bus/van of the times, with 40 hp.
It is almost funny how I keep forgetting that this Chevy four was bigger than the littlest Falcon six. I think I would pick the big four between the two as well.
IIRC the VW Typ II got the 1500 engine in 1964 (?) .
I had a 1964 Chevy ” 108 ” panel van with the 230 CID i6 engine and three on the tree .
It was bronze colored, ran well and pretty much every inch of it had dents , why my Boss sold it to me for $250 in 1976 : it was worthless .
He wasn’t a good driver at all =8-) .
I was able to trade it for a nice green 1964 Chevelle four door sedan that I stupidly fell asleep driving and wrecked, nearly dying in the process .
-Nate
Especially when it had the manual 4spd column shift transmission behind it.
I noticed that Chevy offered a 4 cylinder diesel engine for its vans. Call me naive, but I’ve never heard of a 4 cylinder gas engine in a GM car this far back, let alone a 4 cylinder diesel. It’s too bad people didn’t buy that many of them. Diesel may not be for everyone, particularly if you prefer 0-60 acceleration. But for those who appreciate a well-built engine, and better fuel economy would buy such an engine. I know I would’ve had I known it was available. Any more information would be appreciated if there is any.
I noticed the “High Torque Diesel” listed as well. I did a double take – say what now?
Although all those engines being listed as “High Torque” jogged my memory about the plow trucks that my college had, a mid 80s Chevy and a mid 1990s GMC, both 1 ton and both with the window stickers in the glove box. Both listed a High Torque version of a 350/5.7 ltr engine as what they had been optioned with.
My thinking exactly. I would think “High Torque” would’ve been an honour reserved for the larger V8 engines, not for smaller V6s and 4 cylinder engines.
The 4-53 Detroit Diesel was offered in trucks, above a certain size.
The ad with engines is for engines in the entire Chevrolet truck line. No diesel was ever offered with these – only the four and a six.
I would think they’d be available for the van or people carrier van. I can’t imagine the diesel engine being offered for larger trucks, unless the engine is between 4.0 litres or larger.
The 4-53 was pretty well-known for stationary industrial and marine use, but was it ever offered in pickups or other trucks? Maybe stepvans?
Yes, as the brochure clearly shows, it was offered in the medium range trucks and larger step vans. The 6-53 too.
Remember that both the 4 cyl. 4-53 and 6 cyl. 6V-53 were 2 stroke designs. The 4-53 was used in 60 series medium trucks, the 6V-53 in heavy duty 80 series trucks.
May I suggest the Austin Montego 1.3 for this series? It utilized the 1275 cc A-series engine most famous from the Mini. Yes, the 1950s A-series in a midsize 1980s sedan…
I still can’t connect “1.4 liter 4 cylinder” and “Chevy Malibu” in my head, even if it’s a turbo. But that may be a CC for the year 2025 …
The 1.4 is the Cruze engine and the 1.5 is for the Malibu and upcoming redesigned Equinox. The interesting thing is that tiny 1.5T puts out nearly the same power and torque that the 3100 V6 did during the 1993-1999 run 160/184 vs 160/185. For the Equinox the 1.5T is reported as making 170 HP and 201 torque which is surprising for such a small mill.
Innn the yeeeaar 2025
If cars are still alive
Then Curbside Classic they willll finddd….
Bravo !
“High Torque 153 Four” gets my vote for oxymoron of the year! 🙂
Everything’s relative. Undoubtedly it had a better torque curve than the 144 six in the Econoline or the 1200/1500cc engines in the VW buses that were both primary competition.
From what I can tell, they were fairly similar. The Chevy four was rated at 152 ft lbs @ 2400 rpm while the Ford 144 six was 138 ft lbs @ 2000 – so the Chevy put out a little more, but the Ford peaked a little lower and didn’t fall off quite as quickly post peak.
Horsepower was also similar, Chevy: 90 bhp @ 4000, Ford: 96 bhp @ 4200. I would imagine that the Ford six was a lot smoother.
These are 1963-64 figures from automobile-catalog.com
Splitting fine hairs, are we? 🙂
I think you misread the charts; the 144 was rated at 90 hp gross.
And although the torque curves are a bit different, the Chevy makes more torque from 1700 rpm up right through the end. And up to 1700 the difference is mighty small. So my point about the 153 having more torque still stands.
Given a similar displacement and state of tune, a four will typically make more torque than a six.
My real point is that it was a reasonable and logical choice to offer these smaller engines in these vans, as folks doing local delivery service were perfectly adequately served by them. And gas wasn’t quite as cheap in 1964 (inflation adjusted) as some folks tend to think it was.
The Step Van using the 4-153 was most likely a response to the Metro-Mite which came with the Scout’s 152 4cyl as the big engine and the 1500cc BMC B series if you wanted the most economy out of your step van.
Thanks for nominating this engine application, Scott! (And to Jason for the article.)
Props for thinking “inside the box.” 😉
You Bet! I think I did quick google search and found that nugget. It wasn’t in my extensive stash of useless knowledge.
A few years later a three cylinder diesel was available for the Step Van, 3-53N. By then, the smallest engine for the Chevy Van was the 230ci gasoline six.
I’m not surprised that in its response to the VW van, that Chevrolet offered an engine twice the size
the 65 brochure shot looks very modern to my eyes – for some reason
I like the fact that they show the net horsepower and torque along with the gross horsepower and torque.
Truck data plates often listed net hp as well. Grandpa’s 1953 Chevy had 85 net hp as I recall. Dad’s Dodge van had 177 with the same 318-LA 2bbl that was listed as 230 gross in car brochures.
Why weren’t car horsepower ratings in net ratings? Why did that not happen until 1972 or later?
Because it wasn’t mandated by federal law. After 1970 Federal laws, regulations and mandates increased at an exponential rate each year as compared to the approximately 175 years preceding 1970. Need to get rid of them all and start over on a need basis and not control basis.
“(not to be confused with the Iron Duke, a totally different power plant)”
Nope. The “Pontiac” Iron Duke 151/2.5L (along with the marine 3.0L) was a later development of the Chevy 153 four popper of the early ’60s using a different bore/stroke than the 153. It used the same bore/stroke as the “301” Pontiac V-8, which has led some folks to state that the Iron Duke was “half of a 301”, but that is incorrect.
The 153 Chevy four-popper was itself a development of the then-current 230 inline six cylinder, minus two cylinders and some other changes.
The early Iron Duke used a similar non-crossflow cylinder head to the Chevy, which was changed to a cross-flow style a few years into production. Eventually the Iron Duke got bell-housing bolt-pattern changes, deck-height changes, cylinder-bore-spacing changes, and of course intake manifold/carb/fuel injection updates that made it hard to recognize the Chevy early-’60s, six-popper-to-four-popper origins. The 3.0L marine version of the Iron Duke even used the Chevy bellhousing bolt pattern.
I’m sorry, but you’re wrong. They’re totally different engines. No parts interchangeability. Even Wikipedia is right about this one. 🙂
The Iron Duke had a totally different type of cylinder head and combustion chambers, with splayed valve, and offset valve stems. I’m attaching an image of the ID head below.
Here’s the ID head from the top. Totally different.
I have to amend my comment. The Iron Duke does have very real roots in the Chevy 153, inasmuch as they share the same bore centers and a 153 crankshaft will drop right into an ID.
It’s all-too obvious that Pontiac still had the tooling for their inline sixes (215, 230, 250 OHC), which was of course essentially the same as the Chevy version (not the OHC head, of course). So it made lots of sense to reuse that tooling for the Iron Duke, hence the number of key similarities in their block architecture. And of course the ID bore and stroke came directly from the Brazilian 151, a modified version of the 153.
Obviously the ID head is new, and many other elements are different too. But the ID has certain key shared DNA with the Chevy 153.
Now compare that to the GM 3.0 L head, which is almost identical to the original Chevy 153 head/combustion chambers. For that matter, it looks like all the Chevy V8 and six head/CC. Good luck mounting that on a Iron Duke block!
Here’s the 3.0/Chevy four cylinder head from the top.
Engine Rebuilder magazine is no more. I have no idea how to contact them for copyright permissions. I guess they will have to contact me–or us.
My thanks to the author, Doug Anderson. While short on actual history and the transition from Chevy 153 to Pontiac 151, this gives you an idea of how many changes GM made to the ‘Duke over the course of it’s production life. These pages will be deadly boring to most of you.
From Engine Rebuilder, November 1986:
Click on the links, then click to expand to gargantuan (readable) size.
http://www.hbassociates.us/Iron_Duke_86_001.jpg
http://www.hbassociates.us/Iron_Duke_86_002.jpg
http://www.hbassociates.us/Iron_Duke_86_003.jpg
http://www.hbassociates.us/Iron_Duke_86_004.jpg
http://www.hbassociates.us/Iron_Duke_86_005.jpg
http://www.hbassociates.us/Iron_Duke_86_006.jpg
The story continues with the September 1991 issue of Engine Rebuilder:
http://www.hbassociates.us/Iron_Duke_91_001.jpg
http://www.hbassociates.us/Iron_Duke_91_002.jpg
http://www.hbassociates.us/Iron_Duke_91_003.jpg
http://www.hbassociates.us/Iron_Duke_91_004.jpg
http://www.hbassociates.us/Iron_Duke_91_005.jpg
But the short story is that the Iron Duke came in 120+ versions, with over 200 engineering changes, which encompassed every sub-assembly in the engine. There’s no saying the Iron Duke had “this” cylinder head, or “that” crankshaft, or it has some relationship to the OHC six other than some key dimensions, because EVERYTHING CHANGED over time, and often more than once. The one thing that could be said is that not one of the 120+ versions of this engine as installed in new vehicles were worth a crap. Grossly under-powered, grossly under-engineered, the cheapest-, roughest-, least-sophisticated-possible solution to whatever application the ‘Duke was supposed to serve. Bad enough in ’62. Unforgivable in ’82, and it took until ’87 to get balance shafts in some (not all) versions. The ‘Duke was sadly produced for years thereafter.
Someone else posted an article–or a link to an article–on this site showing some changes Pontiac made to the Brazilian 151. That’s the sort of thing that my articles don’t encompass. It’s a wonderful read. I don’t have time right now to find it.
Found it. It’s in the https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/vintage-brochure/brochure-classic-1978-chevrolet-monza-s-coupe-the-best-vega-ever-and-some-other-rare-monzas/ article, posted by la673.
“Here’s an extensive article about the Iron Duke published by SAE which describes the evolution from Chevy II 153 to GM Brazil 151 to Pontiac Iron Duke. Although the lineage is clear, it seems few original 1962 Chevy parts, or even parts from the Brazilian engine, survived intact by the time it evolved into the Iron Duke. As noted, “the majority of the pieces [of the GM do Brazil 151 4] are not interchangeable with the new Pontiac L-4. For example, such basic parts as the intake manifold, the cylinder head, the exhaust manifold, the rocker cover, the oil pan, the connecting rod, and the piston cannot be mixed between the engines.” Bolt patterns are also different.
https://gafiero.akroncdnr.com/docs/IronDuke.pdf “
Thank you Schurkey ;
I was excoriated for saying this some time ago .
I had no idea it lasted this long but didn’t like it when new for the same reasons .
Maybe as a trash pump or Genset power source but even then it would be very light duty .
-Nate
The cylinder head on the early non-crossflow Iron Duke is very close to the Chevy 153. I believe they used the same valve cover and head gaskets. By 1979 the Iron Duke had indeed become almost a completely different engine from the 153. I seem to remember some of the Iron Dukes supplied to AMC/Jeep retained the Chevy bell housing bolt pattern rather than the GM FWD pattern that most 2.5L’s eventually had regardless of application.
Did any production vehicle look more comic book like than this Chevy van? Scooby Doo? Where are you?
Am certain we had a few of these vans with the 4 cylinder engines in Israel. It was more powerful than what was offered by the competition (Renault, Peugeot, Fiat, Bedford, Austin/BMC, VW, Ford (Transit) or Hanomag-Henschel) at the time although at a price. The six cylinder would have been a luxury (although they were also bought). It made perfect sense in any similar high tax, low power export market.