(first posted 1/3/2013) As part of my ever-diligent fact-checking, I wanted to confirm that the 1980 Pontiac Firebird really did come with the Buick V6 as the base engine. Quite true; but I assumed the next step up was the Pontiac 301 V8 (4.9L), which was hardly a fire-breathing monster in its time (135-140 hp), and would be the logical progression from the 110 hp V6. But what’s this? The 265 cubic inch Pontiac V8? Oh, right; this was 1980-1981, the golden era for GM’s undersized and underpowered V8s. An EPA special, one assumes, until one looks at the EPA numbers.
The only thing I could find was this from the 1981 brochure for the 116″ wheelbase Pontiacs (B-Body), that had EPA numbers for all three engines. The 3.8 V6 numbers (20/30).
The 4.3L Pontiac V8 checks in with city/hwy numbers of 18/27. And the 5.0L 4 barrel Olds 307 V8? 17/28. A virtual tie. I can’t find any direct comparisons between the Pontiac 265 and 301, but it’s hard to imagine there being any meaningful difference. (Please note: these are the old, un-adjusted EPA numbers, which were substantially higher than the adjusted ones used more recently).
the only picture of a confirmed 265 on the whole web (barnfinds.com)
Chevy (262, 267) and Olds also built small-bore V8s (260), and some of them stayed around a bit longer. But it soon became all-too obvious that anything less than 5 liters wasn’t worth the trouble. But the Pontiac was almost undoubtedly the least built (and remembered) of the bunch. So before it slips from the collective memory, let’s give it it’s (useless) fifteen minutes of fame. Anyone ever had one?
Like the Holden 253cube V8 small capacity using 6cylinder pistons, no real power unless ordered in a small car.
Sure sounded better than a 202 though!
Could it be that the smaller engine was cheaper? If I remember correctly, that’s why my Dad chose the 2-bbl. 260 in our ’79 Cutlass over the available 4-bbl. 305.
Cheaper to build? No; it was exactly like a 301 but with smaller bores. Of course Pontiac charged more for the 301, but that game went on for decades in Detroit. “We’ll charge you more for an engine with a bit less iron in the block”
I guess I was interpreting the “they” in the headline as consumers, not GM.
An alternate theory: A lot of these oddities in the marketplace can be explained by CAFE standards. If Wikipedia is to be believed, CAFE standards kicked in during the 1978 model year, set at 18 mpg and rising to 22 mpg by 1981. Every 17 mpg Olds 307 dug General Motors ever so slightly into a CAFE hole that first year, giving them an incentive not only to design & build the wheezing 2-bbl 265, but also to price to sell.
Today, CAFE standards give us cars that are geared too tall and that shift too much, trading driveability for an extra fraction of an mpg. In the late 70s/early 80s, we got shrunken V8s, gasping through small carbs and a rat’s nest of vacuum tubes for the same reason, I suspect.
“;…geared too tall and that shift too much…”
Unless you buy a manual in which case it’s turning 4000 RPM at 70 mph in sixth gear – why bother with six speeds if sixth is no taller than fifth used to be?
And then you wind up having to tell people that yes, manuals still get better gas mileage in the real world (especially if you live in the mountains) it’s just easier to gimmick an automatic into posting better numbers on the official test.
BTW Paul- S does not mean standard shift, it just means standard, there was no such thing as a manual B-body car from ANY division in 1981. The 3 on the tree was gone from cheap Chevrolets after 1973.
I remember when brochures had and those #@!%tO*** hyrogliphs regarding the engine options, with the dreaded “NOT AVAILABLE IN CALIFORNIA” warning, which as a kid made me think, in spite of what the Beach Boys sad, that Calfornia sucked.
“Not availble with or without air conditiong in California-with burgandy landau roof only-after 6/80-high altitude only-with performance axle ratio-your miliage may vary-see dealer for details”
I assume, that like every divsion, except for Buick, Pontiac wanted a baby V8, at least another one, I imagine that the lower litre/displacement number made buyers think they were getting the better fuel economy model, even though it might no be true. People were freaked about big motors during this time.
Perhaps there were production issues with sourcing the engine from Oldsmobile or Chevrolet?
I never owned a Pontiac with the 265 V8, but I did take one in on trade, it was a slightly shabby 1981 Pontiac Grand Prix Brougham(what else!) its still makes ok punch from the get go for an engine from that time, but of course no top end. It was reasonable enough to drive around in traffic. Remember, nothing was really a powerhouse from that era, compared to what? A wheexy 58hp Chevette, it was better, but compared to punchy new Phoenix with a 2.8 V6? It might have seemed slow then, most of the Buick Regals I have seen from this era are mostly the 110hp 3.8 V6.
Oops; I didn’t think so either; thought maybe it was an EPA ratings ploy that nobody ever bought. So if “S” stands for standard, why use “A” for optional? That’s what threw me.
A for available, because O was already being used for Oldsmobile*
*except in high altitudes, not availble with 8 track, requires velour interior option, available after 6/81 but not before 11/81-see your dealer for details.
Only for customers wearing polyester slacks at time of contract signing but not while test driving, delivery from dealer stock. 😛
In GM Speak “A” means “available.” Kind of like optional.
Just to let you know that the 4.3 ltr v-8 from 1981 still lives in my 1981 Pontiac Grand Prix Brougham. It has the top and pillow top crushed velour you were mentioning in your article. I drive it to car shows and around town local.
Hola al igual yo tengo un motor 265 4.3 litros sin modificar me gustaría mirar tu motor
Hi Paul, I worked at the plant that made the 265 & 301 along with the 2.5 4cyl. long and short block. Worked in quality control. At that time GM divisions were battling each other for the corporate engines business. Pontiac was trying to be the corporate engine builder with the 265 for Cadilac. I remember going to meetings about how we could build the 301 for less. The inferior 305 Chevy was almost $200.00 less to build. We were asked to lower our standard.. (We didn’t) and the rest is history. I hope this gives a little insight.
Yes, thank you. Interesting.
Will – Chevy work behind the 365 engine
why was the 305 inferior to a 301??
I have the same question. Why/how is the Chevy inferior to the Pontiac?
The Chevy small-block probably cost less to make, but that doesn’t automatically translate to “inferior”.
Would like to hear more on this topic. Which GM engines were the “best”?
How do we rank GM’s V8s? Maybe
1. Oldsmobile Rocket
2. Chevrolet small-block
3. Buick V8
4. Pontiac V8
Chevy’s 265 was used in the Monxa. Maybe the Pontiac version was intended for the Sunbird?
You may be thinking of the 262 cu.in. variant that was produced from 1975-7
262 was 1975 only. replaced by 305 in ’76.
The 262 was offered in Novas in 1975 only, but in Monzas in both 1975 and 1976. Monzas did not get the 305 until 1977 (except in California, where the 262 wouldn’t pass emissions).
It seems like there were a couple of distinct waves of these little V8s. Olds introduced the 260 in 1975, at the same time Chevy introduced the 262. But the 262 went away after ’76, leaving only Olds with an engine of this size for the next few years.
Then, in 1979-80, while Olds continued with the 260, Chevy re-entered the market with the 267, joined by the Pontiac 265 and Ford 255.
The 265 was dropped at the end of the ’81 model year because Pontiac stopped mnaking its own V8s at that point. The others all lasted through ’82.
I had a ’75 Monza 2+2 with that 262 V-8 and a 4-speed. Light enough that the car could scoot, but I think it had 2:53 gears so no burnouts.
Appx 20 MPG…but with the converter off…back when cats robbed power big-time and you could buy a “test pipe”, to determine if you needed a new cat…at a steady 55 it got an observed 30 MPG.
I heard the 267 SBC was a total turd.
This was 20 years ago, but I vaguely recall seeing one in an X body.
My father had a Malibu way back that had a 267, and you’re right. A total turd.
I beg to differ. I owned a ’79 Malibu with the 267 and an ’82 with the 229 V6. Worlds apart in acceleration off the line. Both ran out of breath higher up, but making a left turn wasn’t frightening in the 267 car.
*It’s also worth mention that the power of the 267 declined twice. It was 125 HP/170 tq in ’79, but had dropped to 115/160 by ’81. Yeah, only 10/10, but when that’s almost 10% of your power total, you feel it.
Mis-stated those torque #s. 215 for the ’79 267 and I think 200 for the ’81 version.
Not quite a total turd. My wife’s grandmother had one in a Malibu and it got 24 mpg, and lasted 200K miles with nary a problem. The only reason the car was scrapped is because that horrible little metric transmission exploded.
But it was glacier slow, that much is true. I borrowed it for a week and got outrun by Chevettes.
They weigh less than a straight 6 and idle smoother than a v6 but get the same fuel economy as a 6 cyl. Thats why.
Yuuup! (Jeez ive been watching that show too much..)
My second car in High School was a 1980 265-2bbl powered Grand Prix LJ (Two Tone Blue with the puffy half vinyl top and Blue “Loose Pillow” velour seats).
It was faster than my buddy’s J2000 wagon, it was smooth, quiet, and still way too much power for the Metric 200 trans.
This was a V8 for people that refused to buy V6 powered cars.
DING DING DING!!! We have a winner! There were people, a lot of them, who would ONLY buy a V8/auto/RWD/body-on-frame car, especially ones who had been burned on something else with their previous ride. My Aunt Sue wouldn’t touch anything but a Panther-platform Ford for decades after a 1980 Skylark.
Funny enough, 265 c.i. is the same displacement of GM’s first small-block in 1955.
They also had a 265, or 4.3L based on the larger LT1 350 that went into 94-96 Caprices. That was another head-scratcher.
Chevy’s brief 265 “Baby LT1” always intrigued me. Was its purpose to replace the 305 maybe? I think it would be a real neat engine to have in an old daily driver Nova or something adequate power, fuel injection & probably pretty economical (until the OptiSpark craps out).
I always wondered about that engine. I know the hp rating was roughly the same as the 4.3ltr V6 Vortec that was being put in trucks at the same time. I wonder what the hp and torque curves were on the 4.3V8 compared to the 4.3V6. The V8 sure had to be smoother.
I imagine the appeal of the 4.3V8 was that as a Chevy dealer you didn’t have to tell customers that the base engine in the Caprice was a V6. I think though at that point it would have been cheaper to go to one standard engine as Ford had in the Panthers many years previously. Then again I don’t know what GMs cafe situation was in those years.
Dan, the 4.3 Vortec V6 didn’t arrive until 1985. Before that, the 90 degree Chevy V6s were the rather feeble 229 (110 hp) and 200 inch units (95 hp). Things were changing pretty fast by around 1985 or so, and power levels were coming up fast. The first 1985 4.3 already was rated at either 130 hp (TBI) or 155 hp (4 barrel carb).
Paul, Yeah but the 4.3V8 in Caprices was in 94-96 as the base engine for anyone who didn’t want to pony up for the LT1. The only Caprices I’ve seen optioned that way were in state college fleets. I was wondering why that engine was brought into being AT ALL, to be used in ONE model for a very short amount of time. It was not offered in Roadmasters or in Fleetwoods. (or in trucks.)
I blew that totally; I didn’t look what you were replying to. You’re talking about the L99 (I believe) 4.3 V8. That engine had a solid 200hp rating (IIRC), and could take a Caprice 0-60 in some 9 seconds, and could get 20+ mpg. Some folks rave about that motor; quite a different ball game than the V6.
I’m guessing for the same reason: EPA numbers to help keep GM’s CAFE numbers in line.
The EPA numbers (modern-adjusted) are 16/24 for the 4.3 V8, and 15/23 for the 5.7. Every little bit probably helped, during that time when meeting the CAFE was a struggle. Still….
I think GM/Chevy had higher hopes for the L99. One of it’s features was a 3.0″ stroke. Same as the 67-69 Z/28. Now throw that in the LT1 with it’s 4″ bore with a set of custom pistons and you have a modern(for the time) 5 litre. With a set of cylinder heads you’d have one rev-crazy motor there. Some of that engineering spawned into the LS series of motors. Why did the Vette and F-Body get 5.7l and the truck only got 4.8l and 5.3l? Yes I know the truck also got the 6.0 too.
Do you know the quick way to ID a 94-96 Caprice L99 from the outside? The L-99 used a single exhaust pipe. The LT1 used duals. There are exceptions but I bet the majority of dealers took advantage of the N10 discount when they ponied up the money for the LT1. Lots of L99 B-Bodies out there.
It gets confusing… L99 V8, Vortec V6, Olds 260, the first Chevy smallblock, the 262 Monza V8, the even more forgotten diesel V6, the completely erased from history Olds 260 diesel, the Chevy 267, the Poncho 265 and a whole bunch of old straight six/eights dating to before WWII – all had a displacement of 4.3 litres.
I hate the “liter” designation. Screw globalization — cubic inches please.
+1. Coming from a chemist who worked in the metric system for years that may seem odd, but although liters are fine in the lab, cubic inches for the street, please.
The only straight six in GM’s stable at the time was the Chevy 250 six (by 1980 in trucks only) – a “modern” short stroke six introduced first in the ’62 Chevy II then for all Chevies (sans Corvette and Corvair) for ’63. No relation at all to the “Blue Flame Six” which was a pre-war design (1929) and a long stroker. The Blue Flame was gone after ’62.
Although I’d left California for awhile beginning in 1980, up until that part, it DID suck that the other 49 got the stick shifts and bigger engines. I too always thought the “small” Pontiac V-8 was the 301 (which California never saw). Good article. The “why bother?” only points towards one reason – CAFE.
BTW – I thought it was pretty lame that for 1980, the Corvette in California came only with a 4-bbl 305. I’ve seen the ’80 brochure and GM was too embarrased (perhaps) to publish a horsepower rating for it. Unfortunately, the typical 1980 ‘vette customer wasn’t worried about high performance as they were about looks.
The 267 was actually a 4.4, not a 4.3.
Never knew it was a Pontiac engine; course by then I was so disgusted with GM I did not care to know. Figured they in their cheapness would just slap the 267 Chev in and call it a 265. Whats a couple of cubic inches among friends?
(Shrugs.) Not surprising, and very emblematic of their business model. One would think that the long-term success of EMD would have pointed up the benefits of engine standardization, but, what do I now.
They did, but it took time. Remember each division had its own engine production facilities, with employees, contracts, unions, etc, it took several years to wind down Pontiac V8 production. Buick V8 production ended in 1980 with the last Buick 350, Pontiac in late 81-82, the 400 died first at the end of 1978, Oldsmobile pared down V8 production from the 260(gas & diesel), 350(gas & diesel) and 403 to just the 307 and diesel 350.
By 1985-1986 most engine usage was standardized in the newer cars, F-bodies were interchangable regardles of Camaro or Firebird the Buick 3.8 V6 becoming the defacto standard engine in all the H, C and E bodies(except Cadillac).
Ahem…3.0 standard in the FWD H bodies until 87-88 ish…I deserve a wack for correcting Carmine I know I know…
That far? I know it was the standard engine on the C-bodies in 1985, but I think that it wasn’t even available by 1987-1988, there was a 4.3 diesel too, but it was rare too, I know those were available, but by defacto I meant about 99% of them 3.8 litre V6’s.
I think you’re right that the 3.0l V6 was long gone by 1987. There was an MPFI version of the 3.0l later on in the N-Body cars but I’m fairly certain the 3.0l in the C/H cars was carb only and probably 1985 only.
I know 1985 was the last year for the 4.3l diesel. Seems like most of them went into A-bodies but I’ve seen them in G-Body Cutlass Supremes and they were available in everything from those to the downsized 1985 Cadillac Fleetwood.
Hmmmm, I’d have to check if the 3.0 in the C’s was FI or carb, it was the high spec engine on the 1985 N-cars(Sommerset Reeeegal!!!), I think the one in the N’s was injected.
The diesel 5.7L was no longer cataloged after January 1, 1985 as the Lansing engine plant by then was building only the 4.3L V6 version according to a Toledo Blade news article: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19841112&id=CFBPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=wQIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6898,6437595
~Ben
Probably the same reason Ford made a 255 V8 in 1980….Cafe.
In 1980, Ford came out with the 255V8, a small-bore 302. Wikipedia says it was indeed done to meet the new CAFE standards. Interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Windsor_engine
And how about Buick’s 196 (3.2L) V6 engine that existed in ’78 & ’79 only? It was a small bore 231.
Chevy had a 229 (3.8L) V6 too and like Buick, a smaller 200 (3.2L) version of it came out about the same time.
Discuss.
The 265 and all the other low-displacement GM motors all pale next the awfulness of a fullsize Ford with the 255, AOD and Variable Venturi carb.
Very good point…
Junqueboi – I think the smaller displacement V6’s were just some weird conspiracy to trick people into believing the new puny V8’s weren’t so lame. “Look, if you spend only $300 for the entry-level V8 you’ll get a 30HP upgrade over our base 90HP V6. It’s quite a value!”
Kidding, I know it was all CAFE. The Chevy 229 wasn’t a bad motor at all for that time, it’s baby brother 200 was a rare bird and I believe it was only available in base Malibu’s… don’t quote me on this but I think the original “Iraqi Taxis” may have used it. The 196 Buick I’ve only ever seen in a couple of Skyhawks and I think that may have been what it was limited to. I don’t think any other divisions used it (maybe it came in the Monza too?) and I can’t imagine what other cars Buick saw fit to install it in. Kind of a huge waste of effort if that’s the case. The H-Body Skyhawk never sold that well and it would’ve been only the middle-of-the-road engine option, probably not even ordered very often.
Nope, the Iraqi Taxis were all 229 V-6’s with even fire cranks with, get this, three on the floor. HD everything and a/c. Great cars, simple and tough. Chevrolet had the 229 motor well sorted out by this time.
Most lived extremely hard lives at bottom of the automotive food chain.
The 3 on the floor was standard on the period Malibus, but seldom seen. I have seen a base 1981 Malibu wagon here in Hawaii with dog dish wheel covers, vinyl seats and the 3 speed stick on the floor. Of course, being a Hawaii survivor from 30+ years ago, there were the drip rail bondo/fiberglass repairs; ditto on the lower door edges. “Haleiwa Orange” (rust).
My Grandmother had a ’76 Ford Granada 302 V-8 with three-on-the-floor. I drove that car extensively on my high school era Missouri visits. A real dog.
Hawaii? Grandparents with a Granada?
Are you the President?
Carmine, that’s a helluva thing to ask someone you only know online….;-)
Saddam’s Iraq seemed to make it a habit to order large fleets of taxis and sometimes cancel an order leaving the factory to sell massive numbers of oddly specced cars. Besides the Canadian Malibus there was a cancellation of Brazilian VW Passats which were four-doors with maroon interiors at a time when Brazilians overwhelmingly preferred two-door cars with grayscale guts.
And probably the ultimate was in the mid ’90s when they cancelled an order of heater-delete Volgas leaving GAZ to sell off unheated cars in northern Russia!
The Chevy 200 was built only in 1978 and 1979, and was only used in A-bodies. Everything that would fit a straight six kept the old inline 250 for the time being (Nova, Camaro, Impala/Caprice, trucks, vans), while all six-cylinder H-bodies across all divisions (including the Monza) used Buick V6s.
The 229 was not sold alongside the 200, but replaced it in 1980. It also replaced the 250 in the Camaro, Impala and Caprice. Full-size trucks and vans did not used the 229 but kept the 250 until the advent of the 262 V6 in 1985. IINM, neither the 200 nor the 229 would pass California emissions, so vehicles destined for the Golden State got Buick 231 V6s instead (which by then had pretty much become the corporate RWD V6 in everything but Chevys). I think the 231 may have also been available across the board in pre-1980 Monte Carlos because the 200 was felt to be too underpowered for the Monte’s price bracket.
As for the Buick 196, it was sold alongside the 231 in 1978-79. In addition to the H-bodies, it was available in Buick’s A-bodies, but I would guess that few were built that way. It was also offered in the Monza but that may have been its only application in any non-Buick.
The U.S.-market Pontiac Parisienne (1983-86), a Canadian import whose production was extended for our dealers after the cancellation of the B-body Bonneville/Catalina (for many years, the Parisienne was the Canadian market equivalent of the Bonneville, while the Laurentian complimented the Catalina), was basically a Chevrolet Caprice/Impala with Pontiac badging and grille work and, as a result, it cataloged the same engine choices as the Chevy models.
Thus, any V6 Parisienne bound for California would use the Buick 3.8L engine for the 1983-84 time frame (1985-86 V6 models used the Chevy 4.3L in all 50 states), while diesel Parisiennes (which use the LF9 Oldsmobile 5.7L diesel V8) were sold in the Golden State for 1983 only as California outlawed that engine for 1984.
1979 Monte Carlo brochure..the 200 was indeed available.
Here’s the quality control manual on Ebay for the 255. Wonder if it was ignored? I’ve always joked the only reason for the 255 was to use up all the 250 six pistons.
This had to be the lowest point for Detroit V8 small bore, small power output levels. In 81 I went to the local Ford dealer, in the quest to order a brand new Mustang Cobra 2.3 Turbo. Unfortunate timing, for Ford had cancelled the 2.3 Turbo and in it’s place was the new 255 CI 120 hp V8. I passed. Less power, less fuel economy, more weight and a higher insurance premium had me looking in the used car section.
Ford passed on the 255, too. For in 1982 came the Mustang GT with the high output 302, First year was with the 2 barrel carb, but it was the first shot across the bow in a new era of Detroit Ponycar performance that pretty much survives to this day.
The 255 Ford small block and this Pontiac 265 marks the low tide mark of V8 manufacturing, 1981 style.
In 81 I went to the local Ford dealer, in the quest to order a brand new Mustang Cobra 2.3 Turbo.
I dig your taste in cars!
Sean, thanks! I think…. 🙂 If you were around in those days, they were dark ones indeed if you aspired for a little Detroit performance. A fellow CG shipmate had bought a new 79 Cobra Turbo and I was impressed with the power that little engine cranked out and better yet, pretty good economy. These were the days when no one gave a second thought of turbocharged, carburated engines and fuel detonation. The later Ford EEC-IV engine controls on the 2.3 Turbo and SVO Turbo 4 bangers pretty much cured the ills of the earler Turbo.
As far as my quest….I purchased a used 2.3 Mustang during that Ford dealer visit and later, popped in a junkyard 2.3 Turbo. So I got my Turbo…….boy, did I ever get my Turbo :)!
The T 2.3 was really the perfect powerplant for the Fox Chassis. The Cologne V6 being a close 2nd. Nothing against the 5.0 aside from the weight and handling penalties.
My 88 Turbo Coupe was clicking off mid to high 13s at 22psi and very few supporting mods.
The first gen 2.3 turbo was a good idea, but left something to be desired in its primitive blow-through turbo system. The gen2 in ’83 was a big step forward, a truly modern motor, except for its NVH.
The carb-turbo arrangements from the late 70’s are a marvel of insanely complex plumbing. The typical Ford or Buick turbo from back then must have had something like 100 miles of vacuum hose stuffed under it’s hood. A blow-thru turbo is a complicated thing in and of itself – add Federal emissions standards that had just become insanely stringent (compared to what they were) into the mix and early hybrid computer feedback systems and you have the ultimate automotive Rube Goldberg Machine. It’s downright amazing that any of these are still on the road…
I’ll go one lower, the 1980-1981 Cadillac 368 V8, a destroked/underbored version of the 472/500/425 Cadillac V8 family, 140hp from 6.0 litres.
It still had pretty good twist though, but on a hp per litre basis for non-diesels, its pretty bad.
Carmine,
I believe this engine was considered for an option in the Cadillac Cadette 🙂 but the 70/30 front to rear weight ratio was even too much for the Cadette Powertrain Group!
They were going to mount it behind the rear seats, but Roger Smith nixed Cadillacs ambitious Rally Cadette Program.
I bought a silver ’80 Coupe DeVille from an Alabama scrapyard, put a used transmission in it & drove it daily for a few years. It had the 368 4-barrel engine & Turbo 400 transmission. It did not have a whole lot of power but it was silky smooth and dead reliable.
I unfortunately discovered it would do “well over 100mph” courtesy of a Birmingham City Police Officer who somehow knew what time and location I chose to test its top end. I wish I had kept that car.
Oh yeah, they are decent, its really more of the hp number to size of motor that makes it seem so bad, but there is good torque deep down and up until 1981 Cadillac still bolted to a “dont eff with it” honest to God Turbo 400 too, even the 4-6-8 1981 version is not bad if you lobotomize the computer.
Though I would sitll rather have the 425.
Curious as to how “well over a 100” you were able to get the deVille up to?
I’m guessing 101mph. I flew by him while he was entering the expressway & immediately knew I was toast so I had already begun making my way to the right & slowing down so he wouldn’t have to chase me down.
There was obviously no excuse to offer the policeman when he came to my window & asked the obvious, “you know why I pulled you over don’t you?”.
I said, “yessir….I picked a bad time to see how fast this car would go didn’t I?”
His response was, “I’ll say. You were doing well over 100mph when you passed me”. I should have asked him the exact number but didn’t want to push my luck….especially since he noted that my tag was three months expired to boot which I had completely overlooked.
The outcome was surprisingly better than it could have been as he wrote my speeding ticket as “excessive speed” or something like that. I can’t really remember because I got a lot of tickets back then.
I remember the ’82 Ford Mustang/Mercury Capri with the then “HO 302”. Ford borrowed a Holley based 2-bbl marine engine carb, fitted a larger diameter exhaust (dual cats but merged into a single muffler with dual outlets) and a “whopping” 150 net HP! I remember the car mags at the time getting 8 second 0-60s, which was a big deal in those primitive emission control engine-strangulation times.
I still love the Motorweek retro review of ’82 Mustang 302 vs. Camaro. They were declared to be “the real McCoys,” and had comical performance, but I guess that they were the first sign that we hadn’t reached the end of the world after all.
The 1982 Mustang’s new HO 302 was stick shift only. If you wanted automatic you were stuck with the powerhouse 111 HP 255. 1983 fixed that problem dropping the 255 and making the 302 with a 4BBl carb
I’m still flipping amazed how long it took fuel injection to become universal. Ford was out front with the 1985 lo-po 5.0 in the Panther but then the Variable Venturi carburetor was such pure crap that I guess that was incentive. GM and Chrysler took so long it seemed like eons by comparison. As long as the Olds 307 was built it would be nice if they had converted to fuel injection before the end of production. The standard 307 was so low powered I’ve actively wondered if a fuel injected 3800 (with computer, wiring, and trans) from the end of Camaro production in the 90s would be a direct bolt into the frame of a G-body Cutlass.
(And before anyone goes off on an engine swap rant, please remember I grew up on a steady monthly diet of Hot Rod magazine from the time I could read until I left for college. Growing up in a house where ONLY GM vehicles were permitted and all of them being deep in the hp/tq castration of the malaise I spent much time MM about engine swaps.)
Remember the V8 was dead, no more, they didn’t expect any of the V8 engines, except for maybe the Cadillac 4100(which was injected in 1982) and truck engines to survive, not in $4/gallon 1986 America.
GM injected the smaller motors firs, the J-cars were almost all fuel injected by the end of their first 1982 MY.
“I’m still flipping amazed how long it took fuel injection to become universal. Ford was out front with the 1985 lo-po 5.0 in the Panther but then the Variable Venturi carburetor was such pure crap that I guess that was incentive. GM and Chrysler took so long it seemed like eons by comparison”
You do know that GM was using port FI back in 1975?Think CosworthVega and Cadillac. And Buick beat Ford to the punch with its SFI Turbo V-6 in the 1984 Regal and Riviera! IMO everybody was on par as far as FI goes. Now watch and somebody will mention some import that had EFI before that.
Lt. I meant for bread and butter cars. The Caprice didn’t get fuel injection until 1989, the 307V8 was built until 1991 and never got fuel injection. The LA V8 by Chrylser never got fuel injection in cars and had to suffer the indignity of two barrel carb till the bitter end in the M-body cars.
Meanwhile Ford adopted fuel injection in the Grand Marquis, Crown Vic, and Town Car by 1985.
I’m not interested in trivia about sports or muscle cars, I’m talking about the cars that filled parking lots in the heartland during the 80s.
You do bring up an interesting point. If Cadillac could fuel inject the Olds 350 for the Seville, why couldn’t that system have been adopted across the board? I’ve never heard of it being paticularly troublesome.
I’ve heard quite the opposite…many, if not most remaining gen1 Sevilles, have been converted to carbs. http://www.cadillacforums.com/forums/cadillac-seville-cadillac-eldorado-forum/30281-1976-seville-fuel-injection-problem.html
I remember a car sized “pile” of take off fuel injection systems from Sevilles in the mid 80’s at a junkyard near Charlotte NC.
Dan..you have a good point. I personally think the electronic quadrajets that GM was using were every bit as good as the TBI units Ford used on the 4.9’s in the big cars (85-86 I think?). Ford really didn’t get much if any more power out of the non H.O. V8’s with FI than GM did with the carb, and by then the carb was at the top of its game vs FI still being somewhat of a dark art even then. Plus, GM’s bread and butter future (at least in their eyes)was probably seen as the FWD A, H and C bodies that were 99% fuel injected at that point.
Just my theory and I could be completely off base.
Perhaps not a bread and butter car, but IIRC, the Chrysler LA in the 1981-83 Imperials had FI. Of course, that system was so troublesome, that most ended up being retrofitted with carbs anyway.
At a guess, money. I recall the Seville’s Bosch efi system was both expensive to build and not entirely reliable.
Also, oddly, the Caprice had a TBI V6 available by, at the latest, 1986.
The Seville system was by Bendix, not Bosch, but that is the general consensus.
The 4.3 liter TBI V6 was made standard on all 49 state Monte Carlo’s, El’Camino’s and Caprice Classic/Impala models for 1985. It made 130 Hp initially but went up to 140 for 1986 and 145 for 1987 with the added roller lifters.
The 305 was offered with TBI injection starting in 1988 with the F-body cars and 1989 with the Caprice. The Monte stayed 4 BBL until the end of 1988. But lets keep in mind that in 1982 Chevy fuel injected both the 305 and 350 with the dual bore Cross fire injection system but it proved troublesome so the HO 305 or L69 was retrofitted with a 4BBL carb and performance cam starting in
1983 until the far better Tuned port injection system was offered starting in 1985 on the F-bodies and Corvette. It was mainly the 1970’s older designs that were behind the curve with there feedback carburetors. Even the X and A body cars used TBI for 1982 on the Tech IV and the J-bodies started using it for 1983.
Several imports did have EFI before that – but despite that fact, GM was still on the cutting edge of technology offering it back then. It didn’t work that well, but they still got in the game early on.
GM on the “cutting edge” of technology in those days? So, iron block, pushrod engines feeding power through a live axle is “cutting edge?”
Even their FWD offering were hardly ground breaking, the Europeans had been doing it for years.
The reason GM didn’t go to EFI is simple: costs. There was more in their bottom line using a carb than FI. The fact that the cars ran like crap didn’t matter at all to them. It was all about profits.
This was GM’s worst era, not that it is much better now. Offerings like the 265 were just a cheap cop out to really developing new powertrains to meet new challenges.
GM apologists can carp all they want, but that company is and has been for a very long time a spectacular dud. Example? Toyota stock today is at $96.84. a four year high. The dividend is $0.72 per share. GM is at $29.77 and hasn’t paid a dividend since it’s belly-up experience.
Really the best thing GM supporters can do to keep their brand alive is to buy the cars but more importantly, the stock.That way GM can use your money and pay you zipola for the honour of doing so.
And Fords stock is like $6? Whats your point, jeez your negative.
Sure, all of that stuff was rapidly becoming ancient technology… but selling products that present a puzzling dichotomy has long been a General Motors tradition. Even if they had still been using wooden wheels at the time, electronically controlled fuel-injection was indeed on the cutting edge when they started offering it in the early-mid 1970’s – regardless of whether it was attached to an all-iron pushrod V8 or a twin-cam four (which they also briefly had).
Dan, I’m totally with you on this. I think it’s crazy that GM had SFI V6’s back in 1984 and the fullsize “premium” cars were still rocking BS CCC Quadrajets into the next decade. This has gotta be one reason why people who had previously been in the market for those cars stopped taking General Motors seriously. The B-bodies may have been excellent cars even with the carb’ed 305 or 307 but they were a technological anachronism compared to offerings from overseas (and even Ford), and while the old school “core” GM buyers probably didn’t care, or even preferred the carb, this is something more uh, worldly, people had definitely gotten wise to back then and began turning their back on in droves.
The basic GM EFI system – their excellent in-house design, not the earlier Cadillac/Bendix one from the 70’s – was fully fleshed out in 1982 when it appeared on the J cars. Now, in the past plenty of people have rightfully criticized GM for treating their customers as beta testers but this is one instance where the technology made it’s rounds way too slow. By 1984 this system was already well proven and capable, carbs should have disappeared that year and never returned.
Oddly 1984 was the year that GM went to computers across the board to control their engines. That would have been a great opportunity to grab EFI by the short hairs and shock the market with a bold move.
Dan the real issue was costs and reliability. All the Detroit 3 had left the conversion to FI way too late. If they needed an EFI system, they would have had to licence it from Bosch, which really would not do especially at GM, where Not Invented Here (NIH) was still the rule of the roost. There was no way these old farts were gonna pay the company that lost WWII a red American cent for their stuff. “The Greatest Generation” was in charge at GM in 1980 and they were, ahem, rather set in their ways. After all, for GM, it was always, “If you build it, they will come.”
So they developed their own. Problem was that pesky EPA with its 130,000 km emission warranty. That meant that GM had to engineer a system that would last longer than their usual 60,001 km lifespan. Added to cost constraints, Detroit was at least a decade late for the party.
Coincidentally, GM was bleeding red ink like mad this whole time as buyers left their brands in droves. They went and bought imported cars with EFI, since they drove better and used less fuel.
Not totally Dan.
S-trucks went computerized 1985-86.
Full-size trucks, vans and Astros, 1986-87.
I owned several from that GM ’85-’87 era.
Actually the CCC computer emissions system was introduced in 1979 for certain California carbureted engines and by 1981 all had it save for diesels.
Again, as I said, there were little changes to the big cars since each year was supposed to be their last, and every next gen GM car was going to have FI from the the get go. Also as I said, all Cadillacs were FI from 82 forward, except for the Commercial Chassis which still used the carbd 368 through 1984 I believe.
So what was left, the B and C bodies, most were FWD and FI by 1985-1986, the E’s were FI by 1986, the G-body cars, replaced by the FI W-body in 1988, except for the Cutlass Classic hold out.
I dont recall when the Caprice finally got FI, 1989-90?
I think the last carbed domestic car was either the Grand Wagoneer or Jeep Wrangler in 1993, but I could be wrong.
According to Wikipedia:
–last passenger cars from an American manufacturer sold to the general public: 1990 GM products with 307 V8.
–last passenger cars from an American manufacturer: 1991 police package Crown Victoria with optional 351 V8.
–last vehicle from an American manufacturer: 1991 Jeep Grand Wagoneer with AMC 360 V8.
After that point, Mazda and Isuzu pickups still came with carbs until ’93 and ’94, respectively.
Carmine, I think the 4.3 V6 had FI as early as ’86 whether B or G body.
Also by ’87 I think all the SBCs were injected across the board.
I had an ’89 Caprice wagon with the 307 Olds which had the emissions Q-Jet. With 2.93 gears, you could get out and walk up hills faster than that car could go. Swapping in a 350 TPI fixed that problem!
One of these days I’ll have to see what pics I have of this car and submit a CC on it.
My recently-sold ’91 Caprice wagon ran a 305 which was a TBI.
You are very close: the SBC went to TBI in 1988.
In cars, perhaps…trucks switched for 1987.
The 1980-1984 Oldsmobile 307’s were decent performers for their time when compared to similar sized engines. If memory serves me correctly there were a few early 1980-1981 307s sold in Canada that didn’t have Computer Command Control, another one of the “modern technological marvels” of that era. Chryslers’ “lean Burn” in the 1970’s was even worse.
The 1985-1990 versions of the 307 got even slower if you can believe that. Oldsmobile replaced the cylinder heads on all the 307’s in 1985 (except for a few special edition H.O. Cutlasses and maybe a few Cadillacs or Canadian models).
The cylinder heads on 1985-1990 were stamped 7A, instead of 5A on the 1980-1984 models. What this did was add roller valve lifters, with not enough lift to them, and even smaller intake and exhaust ports. Making for an engine that was really smooth but simply can’t breath AT ALL at anything much higher than 3000 RPM.
It probably doesn’t sound like much on paper but driving a 1984 vs a 1985 model 307 was almost a night and day difference. They were both rated 140 HP, the newer motor actually had more torque at a lower RPM on paper. That power quickly disappeared once you got moving.
I have a 1985 Le Sabre with the 307. From a dead stop a 1986 Caprice with the 4.3 V6 was quicker than me, and virtually any Chevy 305 even with a 2-bbl will blow my doors off. If I would have known this about the 307, I would have never bought the car.
With as big as my Buick is, I can’t believe Cadillac had the nerve and gall to use this engine and the 4100 in the brougham for nearly a decade. Boat Anchors!
The 1985 switch to the swirl port heads and roller lifter drivetrain was aimed mainly at drive-ability and mileage which did improve compared to the 1980-84 307 engines. So did low end torque characteristics. But your right in that these roller “Y” engines ran out of steam at about 3500-4000 RPM’s and did not breathe very well. Still these will a satisfactory mill for the lighter G-body cars and were adequate for the B-body sedans. The wagons and Broughams were just too heavy.
I wanted to confirm that the 1980 Pontiac Firebird really did come with the Buick V6 as the base engine.
1981 is the really interesting year. Early on the Formula came standard with the 265. However, once the small V8 went out of production, the 231 became the Formula’s base engine.
They were mostly marking time to get the 2nd gen off the books and bring the 3rd gen in. The Pontiac V8’s were gone by 82 anyway.
Amazingly (or perhaps not for the times), there was no V8 option for the Grand Prix in 1982. The Buick 231 was standard and the 252 (4.1L) was optional.
And to add insult to injury, take a look at the available rear axle ratios. Imagine driving that 4.3l engine with a 2.41 rear end ratio – oh the humanity! But the 3.8l V6 with the 2.56 was probably even worse.
All of the automakers were in the same boat. I pulled the 3rd member out of a 9″ rear end in a 1979 T-Bird that had 2.49 gears in it (it was cheaper than installing an overdrive tranny, and I was already smoking tires with the 2.75 gearset behind the fuel-injected 429), and I seem to recall reading a Motor Trend article from 1984 on the Dodge Diplomat police car which had some insanely-tall rear end gears (to get to triple-digit speeds IIRC), something like 1.87, and a 0-60 time of almost 19 seconds. Even as a high school kid I could see how crazy that was. No wonder that the Mustang SSP became so instantly popular.
My ’77 Chevelle’s got a 2.56 rear axle, with the 145hp 305 and TH350. 0-60 takes about 11 seconds, and will 55 in 1st gear, 90 in 2nd, and I’ve no idea how fast it’ll go, but it will at least hit 100mph. It’s a slug off the line, but above 40, it’ll pick up.
0-40 takes longer than 40-60 does, but once that little engine gets in its powerband, it’s a decent mover. It’s quite happy cruising at 75-80 pretty effortlessly getting 20mpg.
When I get around to it, I’ve got a 700-R4 swap to do with it, but I have to regear the rear axle to not burn up the trans, and also make 4th gear useable.
0-60 in 11 seconds is great for a car that heavy with only 145HP. I’ve actually got a theory about this that goes against conventional wisdom, but hear me out on it…
The commonly accepted logic is that higher (numeric) gearing always equates to faster acceleration no matter what the application may be since it makes it easier for the engine/transmission to turn the wheels, with the only potential downside being related to poor fuel economy and a lower top speed. However in real life, my experience has been that on a lot of these lazy old late 70’s smallblocks the taller gears actually yield better performance. All of them run out of steam below 4k rpms but most automatics will hold onto a gear until around 4300-4500 (at least) if you keep your foot in it. It would seem to me that in these scenarios, lower gearing just means you’re spending more time way beyond your powerband. It’s the same thing as why a Honda S2000 needs to be geared quickly to stay near it’s redline except in reverse. Whatever benefits you’re gaining from making it easier to turn the mass of the driveshaft/axles/tires would seem to be completely negated by the engine spending too much time above it’s horsepower peak.
And I actually think this goes beyond an automatic transmission simply not shifting at ideal times as well. I’ve driven some cars with the unique arrangement of having a low power peak, very quick gears and manual transmission, and even short-shifting the crap out of them I felt like there was a lot of power being wasted there. Think of how a CVT works when it’s delivering peak power – it’s continually changing the effective final drive ratio stay at one constant RPM. With a big, lumbering V8 that makes all of it’s power from right off idle up to about 3400rpm wouldn’t it only make sense that you would want the engine to move through the rev range slower while the throttle remains fully open to put the maximum amount of power to the wheels?
For all I know, this actually is the way it works and I’m just making myself look stupid rehashing common sense – but every single person I’ve ever tried to explain this to (and it’s been quite a few) looked at me like I had three heads.
Interesting theory, sort of like wondering what those old V8s would be like with a CVT attached to them.
I’m lucky. My 74 Impala Sport Coupe has 3.08 ratio. 350/2 bbl. 4Bbl 350 was not available on 49 state impala’s in 74. Only in California. Explains why every Impala I see in Texas is 2bbl, at least if the owner has not changed it. Or it’s a 400 or 454.
My parents bought a 1981 Cutlass Cruiser wagon with the 260 V8 in 1983, and that was the first car I drove with any regularity. This was to be my mom’s ride, as the ’73 Torino was on its last legs by then. She test-drove a V6 Malibu wagon and complained that it didn’t have enough pickup (she had somewhat of a lead foot), so we went to another dealer and tried the Cutlass (same body of course) with the 260, and this was much more satisfactory. It was an attractive car, but quality control was nowhere to be found! Nevertheless, my dad kept it for years after my mom passed away and after I went off to college, as a utility/third car, up into the mid-’90s. The 260 was adequate for the Cutlass, but I wouldn’t have wanted to try to drive a B-body with that small an engine, at least in that era. (My own ’87 B-wagon had a 305, which was barely enough.)
I don’t think you could get any of these weiner V-8s in a B-Body. The smallest of the bunch that you could was the Olds 307,Poncho301 and 305SBC. If you wanted a small motor than you had to check off the V-6 except for the 77-79 Chevrolet which still used the 250 straight six, and even than I don’t think the V-6 was available in all of the B-Body models.
I had a 77 LeSabre with the 301. Hey it wasn’t a hot rod so I didn’t drive it that way and it did pull down the high teens for MPG.
Did anybody know that you could get the Olds 260 or Buick V-6 with a T-50 5 speed manual transmission in the 76-77 A-Body? I’ve seen a few in the boneyards. All of them were no A/C cars.
Than we also have the 2.5 in a 82-83 F-Body conspiracy. Aint CAFE fun?
I did know that about the 5-speed in the Colonnade Cutlass and I think it’s pretty awesome. I’ve seen a couple of them online, only a handful were made. That same option was available on the X-Body cars too, but I’ve never seen one of those… and speaking of the Iron Duke, that was also available in the Nova/Phoenix when it debuted but I seriously question whether or not any were even built.
The small displacement V8’s were definitely available in at least some of the B-Bodies. From looking up the EPA figures before I know that in 1980 the 265 could be ordered in the Catalina/Bonneville and Delta 88, I’m sure there are others.
I know of at least one 2.5 litre RWD Phoenix, I never saw it, but I heard of it. I think that a/c was not available with that combo too.
The “weiner V8” was available in at least one B-body. The 267 was an option for the full size Chevys in 81 and 82 and I’ve seen at least one of them for sale on ebay.
Seek and ye shall find…here’s a ’76 Olds Omega with a 260 and a 5-speed, though I think the seller is a tad optimistic about the asking price:
http://philadelphia.craigslist.org/cto/3487718828.html
Wow nicely done… I’ve been keeping my eye open for them for years and this is the first I’ve ever seen.
$12k is ludicrous for that car even if the “less than 10k miles” is legit, but I do think it’s really cool. I know the 260 is a total dog but if I had this I’d actually keep it. As wimpy as it is the T50 is barely capable of staying in one piece behind it, and the 5-speed is by far the coolest thing about the car… couldn’t ruin that.
It also has to be one of the most unlikely applications of the “Brougham” moniker of all time. I knew that there was an Omega Salon for a couple of years as well as an SX option package and I assumed that the 5-speed was only available on those models. Never realized you could get it on the Brougham too.
By 1975 or so “Brougham” had already become a huge gimmick. Oooh a vinyl roof! To match the cheapo vinyl seats and vinyl door panels! How classy, LOL… you could probably count the number of mid-late 70’s American cars that didn’t have a completely meaningless “Brougham” option on one hand. Regardless, you are right. It would only make too much sense that the 5-speed manual be available on the basic or sporty models, not the ones that claimed to be little mini pimpmobiles.
Did you know there was also an Omega F-85 for a year or two? That’s another one I’ve never seen…
They did cheapen the meaning of Brougham, but you’d think that they could’ve at least made the shift boot the same color as the rest of the interior if they were gonna call it that.
I actually hadn’t realized there was an F-85 Omega until I read about it in the Standard Catalog of Olds. I’ve never seen one either.
Don’t forget the LTD Landau. I had a 2dr 78. Loved the Dove Grey color.
I can’t really believe there is still a 267 in the wild. They were awful engines: they had fibre timing gears that stripped at 150,000 km. They also had the cast camshaft that failed about the same time. The motor was designed to last just that long.
The 2 bbl 305’s had the same issue btw but not universal. Some of the engines still had good gears and cams. It was a crapshoot which one you got. The 350’s were reliable but used 25% more fuel in the real world. We just started buying Oldsmobiles with 307’s in them. No engine problems then!
The 267 was available in full-size Chevys from 1980 to 1982. It actually debuted in the A-bodies in 1979 but was not expanded to other models until ’80.
As for the 2.5/151 “Iron Duke” in RWD X-bodies, I believe that was offered only by Pontiac in the Phoenix, not by any other GM division. I have no idea how many were built.
And in F-bodies, the 2.5 was listed as available in base models all the way from 1982 to 1986, though I’ve seen claims that absolutely none left the factory that way during the 1986 model year.
CR tested a 82 camaro with “THE DUKE” and four speed. 2.3 Mustang was faster. Fastest was the 2.2 Charger. So at least one f-body has the 2.5.
Carmine – a RWD Phoenix; would that have been 1977? I remember looking at a ’77 Pontiac Astre for S & G’s in 1977 and it had the iron duke under the hood. I also remember on that same day checking out a ’77 Pontiac Phoenix coupe. White with RSW tires on the Pontiac Rallye II wheels. Matching white vinyl seats; red carpeting. That one had the Chevy 350. It was California, after all . . . .
Yeah, it was the 1975-1979 version, they said it was ungodly slow, I think Paul has a piece on here about driving a Phoenix taxi with the 2.5 4 banger.
The RWD X-cars could have almost anything under the hood, Buick 3.8’s, Olds 260’s, Chevrolet-almost anything,
You could get the 2bbl 3.8 V6 in several B-body cars in the late 70’s, not to mention the Olds 260 in Delta88’s
The 3.8 V6 was first offered in a full size car in 76 Buick LeSabres. 105hp! Sign me up!
A high school friend drove a RWD Phoenix that had been a fleet car with the Cincinnati Waterworks, with a 4 cylinder/auto in it…surely an Iron Duke…
I realize this is about 2 years late to the game, but what the heck, no harm in replying.
My brand new 81 Caprice had a 267 V8. I liked it much better than the standard V6 on the test drive, plus my friend who worked in the service dept of a big Chevy dealer back home warned me away from the V6 and tranny combo in the Caprice. I was very happy with it – in fact it’s one of my favorite cars I ever owned. The only problem I ever had with that car was the CCC light kept coming on. I ended up back at the dealer a few times for warranty work on that. Otherwise she was a smooth car with good performance, grading on a 1981 curve. I think a lot of the people who make derogatory comments about the small V8s may be basing their opinions on examples that were in various states of hoonage and had fallen to the bottom of the food chain (teenager duty) by the time they drove them rather than experiencing them early in their life.
Well said. My long time friend bought a nice clean lower 62K miles 1982 Caprice coupe with the 267 Chevy and THM 350 transmission during the 1990’s. He loved the car and even though it wasn’t blazing fast it was certainly adequate enough for him 90% of time and easily kept up with traffic. We did a complete tune up and rebuilt the carburetor on it when it reached 80k miles and it ran even smoother and stronger and would actually pull you in the seat a bit. The CCC equipped little V8’s liked to run a tad more base timing too than factory setting and sometimes we would drill out the jets a little for added gas mixture.
As I noted earlier, I have a Malibu with the 267 and always found it to be satisfactory (it hasn’t run since late 2000, but it still exists). And that was on a well-used example, it was probably quite a bit more spry when new.
And as a way-late reply to the comment above about the 267 being designed to “last just that long” and fail at 150,000 km–the 267 in my Malibu went 174,000 miles. That’s 280,000 km. So I think that “rule” is just a bit off.
I actually saw a Chevrolet B wagon in the wrecking yard with a 267 under the hood, at least according to the emissions label. This was when the coupes and sedans were available with the 229 V6, which was adequate in the A bodies but the same can’t be said for the B bodies. I can’t imagine a V6 powered B wagon, but apparently the 267 was available, if you really wanted it. Considering my ’80 Malibu wagon with the 267 didn’t get any better mileage than my ’79 Pontiac Phoenix with a built Chevy 350, I don’t know why anyone would!
The Olds 260 was available in the early ’80s Delta 88s. I think ’82 was the last year for it. My mom test drove a brand new ’82 Delta 88 with the 260 and I still remember that distinctive engine and transmission sound 43 years later. She ended up buying one with the 307.
The fueleconomy.gov site actually does have MPG ratings going back to 1978 (in the old style only, unfortunately) but it’s buried, very difficult to navigate and often times incomplete – as it is for the 1980 Pontiac Firebird. Here’s a link anyway…
What they do show is the following:
231 V6/auto: 20/27
231 V6/auto: 19/26 (CA Emissions)
301 V8/auto: 16/24
301 V8/auto: 14/20 (Turbo)
305 V8/auto: 14/19 (CA Emissions)
So they’re missing the 265 V8 and one version of the 301, not sure which – it came in 140hp and 155hp variants. They’re also missing the 231/3-speed manual combination that was standard on the lower trim levels. I was surprised to find that a manual transmission was only available with the V6 in 1980, and only the 3-speed. This was probably the only year a Firebird couldn’t be ordered with both a V8 and manual transmission.
1981 is more complete:
231 V6/auto: 20/29 (CA Emissions)
231 V6/3-speed: 19/29
231 V6/auto: 18/28
265 V8/auto: 18/27
301 V8/auto: 16/22
301 V8/auto: 16/21 (CA Emissions)
301 V8/auto: 15/21 (High Output)
305 V8/4-speed: 16/26
305 V8/4-speed: 15/24 (CA Emissions)
This year they’re only missing the 301 Turbo. I’m surprised that there’s a noticeable difference between the 265 and lo-po 301. I would guess it had to do with new feedback carbs being standard equipment on all engines. However, I think the 301 may have hung onto it’s older emissions control system. I’m not really that familiar with it, but I know 301’s utilized something kinda similar to Chrysler’s “Lean Burn” system which was around before CCC.
There really was no point to these engines, though. They made 120HP where the Buick V6 made 110… considering that the V8 was heavier the performance was probably identical between them, while the V6 was also cheaper and got better mileage. Like the other sean suggests, the only reason it existed was for old blowhards who thought that since it was a V8 it must be better/faster/cooler somehow.
And believe it or not, 120HP was actually a pretty high figure for GM’s small displacement Malaise era V8’s – some years the Olds 260 was rated as low as 105HP! There are flathead sixes that did better than that and probably didn’t run all that much dirtier… even plenty of four cylinders made more power when these were new.
Both me and my folks owned 231 equipped Cutlass Supremes in the 81/82 time era and I can say that the Pontiac 265 was a better engine in every possible way. I also owned a 81 Grand Prix coupe with the 4.3 265. Despite only having 10 more Hp on paper it was perhaps the 15 extra LBS Ft of torque that made the difference as it was much punchier feeling, smoother and quieter and go the exact same mileage as the Buick engine. From what I understand the Pontiac 265/301 were nearly as light as the 231 in these years.
All the small V-8s from all the manufacturers of this era were total dogs. I have only seen a couple of the Pontiac 265 and they are totally horrid. The 3.8 V-6 is just as fast as the 265 so there is no point in ordering a 265.
The Chevy 265 and Pontiac 265 were both so gutless and had such long gears you had to put it to the rug practically all the time to get anywhere. This does not for a long lasting car make. I always avoided these two motors when buying taxis.
The 301 wasn’t much better and the best of the lot was the 305 with 4BBL carb, they were actually reasonably peppy for the era.
We had a ’79 Cutlass with the 2-bbl. 260 V-8, and let’s just say that the engine lived down to its reputation. My grandfather had a ’78 LeMans, and I’m pretty sure it had the 4-bbl. Chevy 305. All I know was, despite their similarities, those cars were completely different behind the wheel. That Pontiac was a blast to drive. It also had a firmer ride and less Novocaine circulating through the power steering fluid compared to the Olds.
Maybe today it would seem less impressive, but I found the SBC to be reasonably peppy indeed.
The 305 made such good torque, something like 260 lb/ft at 2000, it made the car quite delightful to drive, especially with a THM350. Night and day difference from an emasculated V-8.
The LG4 305 usually made around 240ft-lbs. From 1981-1984 it was rated 150hp and 240 ft-lbs. The Olds 307 had more torque, but I agree with you that the 305 was much peppier. The 307’s I owned always felt dog slow compared to a 305 Chev. They seemed to have a more usuable powerband.
The 305 4BBL LG4 motor was by far the best in the G-body cars and for sure was the peppiest of the small V8 engines of the time. It was even lively in the larger B-body Caprices.
That is not true. My 1981 G-body Grand Prix with the 265 was quicker than my same year G-body Cutlass sedan. Both used the same 2.73 optional rear gears. Both were in perfect tune with re-built carburetors. The 231 just felt limper when you floored it and the 265 moved out a lot easier with only part throttle. It was a much more preferable mill for the measly 50.00 extra cost over the weaker 231.
Buick 231 made 110 HP and 190 torque
Pontiac 265 made 120 HP and 205 torque with a better power band.
I knew a couple of people who had Pontiacs with 265’s back in the day, and the only thing that can be said about them is that they made a quantity of power. I had a G-body Malibu for awhile, and grew weary of the nonexistent power that it’s 267 produced, so I pulled it in favor of a 305 from a Monte Carlo SS – there wasn’t any problem with performance after that. The Chevy 267 was a pig – I suppose that the Pontiac 265 wasn’t a whole lot better.
My BIL came from Long Island to live with us while he was going to school. He bought the Pontiac Nova clone with the 265. Must tell you that I was very unimpressed. My head hurts when I see all these figures but I remember a caprice of about the same age with the 4.3 chev v6. I was a lot more impressed with it. My 91 S10 has the 4.3 -6 and I am really impressed with it.
I know that other cars in the same era had the 3.8. I had also driven the buick nova clone with the 3.8 and it was a better car in every way that I know how to measure it. Cannot say about the 267 or the Olds equivalent but seems to me like GM just struck out here. I believe it would have profited their reputation better to go with something like the 4.3 that I have in the truck. I understand that the 267 is to the 2.8 as the 350 is to the 4.3. The 2.8 is another boat anchor in my opinion so guess they struck out a lot.
Depends on what the 2.8 was in, it was lively in a 2500lb FWD X-car.
you are so right! My parents bought an 80 Citation with the 2.8 and a manual. Very peppy car and the engine was about the only thing that did not give them trouble.
Carmine, You’ll never get people to stop crapping on the Chevy 60* V6. It doesn’t matter how many you find that made it to Volvo style mileage or how many 250-300 or more horsepower engines that have been built from the little 6. Some people will always think they’re all complete crap.
+1
I guess all the 250K Pontiac 6000s & fuel-injected S10s I’ve seen were flukes then. Evidently the early 2.8s had some bottom end issues but all of mine have treated me well.
I bought my ’83 S10 10-12 years ago with 189K on it — the 2.8 had been replaced at some point earlier. I’m over 300K now so at the very least this engine has seen close to 120K of severe duty — frequent redlines when the trans slips out of overdrive, etc. This is an early carbed 2.8 mind you —
I ran an abused 156K 2.8 Fiero wide open on the interstate for about a minute one time: — tach was well into the redline in the 6K without issue.
The 2.8 and 3.1 litre V-6 engines were excellent units: compact, more than adequate power (especially in the later ones) and able to survive poor maintenance. It was only later when GM started to cheap out on gaskets (or even not using them) on the 3.4 that the engine got its horrid reputation. GM did a lot of damage to itself by doing this.
I’m a certified GM Hater, but the 60 degree V6 is the epitome of “GM cars run bad longer than most car run at all.” There’s still a ton FWD A and W-bodies thumping along in my part of the country with that engine.
GM sucked at a lot of things, but OHV 6- and 8-cylinder engines weren’t one of them.
I think you can make anything go fast. I saw a number of the 2.8 used in service/delivery vehicles and they did not seem to last anything like the 4.3 or any of the v8s. Also those that rebuilt the 2.8 seemed to have trouble getting good results.
My experience is in service organizations and that is where I am coming from. If it gets good mileage (which it did), lasts (which I think it did not), and is easy to repair (I don’t think so) then I will like it. In buying my S10 I just made it a point to avoid the 2.8. Not hating on it, just comparing.
The Olds 260 was an option in the Pontiac Ventura at some point in the ’70s – not sure of all the years, or if it was available in the ’78-’79 Phoenix, but the 265 wasn’t around until 1980, when the X-bodies (Nova and clones) were FWD (and the Nova name was suspended and replaced with Citation). Yes, the 4.3 V6 is a V6 version of the 350 V8, but the V6 version of the 267 was the 200 ci (3.3L) V6. There was also a V6 version of the 305, the 229 ci (3.8L) V6, from 1980-84. These are all 90 degree V6s, as V8s are 90 degree engines. The 2.8L V6 is a 60 degree engine and was a new design for 1980.
After my comment about my ’81 TransAm in the Firebird/Cube story, I dug through old prints to find a shot I took of the Firebird’s window sticker. Only the overall (non-highway) rating is legible in large print (can’t say large font ’cause the window sticker was a daisy wheel or dot matrix printout using multiple characters to output large letters/numbers) and it’s 15 mpg. That’s for a California 5.0 (305 not 301) with 4 speed. If the highway rating was indeed 24 as shown in Sean Cornelis’ comment, that was only achievable coasting downhill in neutral. With the engine off.
LOL… well for one thing, like Paul mentioned in the original article, the old style EPA ratings were a hell of a lot more optimistic than what most people actually experience because they were done in testing under absolute optimal conditions. With the newer method they try to have it represent what you’re likely to see in real world driving scenarios.
I tried to post a link to the EPA stats going back to 1978 but it didn’t come out in my first post, lemme see if this works: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml
The ratings they list on there are only generalized, I believe that when you get the window sticker it’s specific to that exact car. Whether they actually test each possible combination or it’s just an estimate I’m not really sure. For instance, I’ve still got the window sticker from my ’87 Cutlass Supreme and it gives city/hwy estimates of 19/24… however according to the old-style EPA figures online it’s rated 21/31 with the V6/3-speed automatic combination. 19/24 is much more realistic, although I never even saw that. The 15/24 305/4-speed Cali rating was probably for a Firebird Formula with the bare minimum amount of options, the most conservative axle ratio available and driving on a absolutely flat road at sea level with a 20mph wind behind it!
Late to the discussion here, and I have only two thoughts to add (other than that I completely forgot that this engine ever existed). These baby V8s were evidence of GM’s dominance at the time. GM had the resources to to engineer and build a whole series of little V8s in an attempt to hit a precise little sweet spot in the market. Unfortunately, that sweet spot either disappeared or never existed in the first place.
The second is CAFE. Only GM really needed to finesse the CAFE numbers as much as they did. GM was a big-car company and earned much more of its livelihood by the big V8 rwd cars. Ford did a lot better in smaller cars, and even they went with a little V8. Could the Ford version have been a competitive reaction to what GM was doing? Chrysler, of course, did not have the resources to invest in a new V8 and never got stuck with one of these dogs.
No Chrysler had there own dogs at the time in the form of 85-90 HP 3.7 liter Slant sizes and 120 Hp 318 V8’s with the horrible 2 BBl Lean burn crap carbs. We had a full size R-body 1980 on our lots ( I think it was a Dodge version) with the 120 Hp 318 and not only was it a frequent staller but it also was a 15 second 0-60 car despite a full tuneup which was well behind what a 305 Caprice or 302 Panther at the same time era could do.
A great deal of that was due to the very-heavy R body platform, and the incredibly tall (2.26 was common) axle gears. Also, that was before the low-gear A999 transmission was used.
These baby V8’s were created in reaction to the 1973-74 Oil Crisis One. CAFE wasn’t enacted until 1975, but still, these were for old school customers who “had to have a V8”, and who learned to drive in the 1930’s. Any V8 was a ‘luxury’, and they didn’t care about 300 cubic inches +.
Buick was forward thinking with V6, but the V8 generation overlooked it.
BTW, my family had Olds 260, Chevy 200 V6, and Buick 231 V6 in G bodies. Guess which one did not need a rebuild at 70-80K miles? The 260! It was smooth as butter, had more torque than the 6’s, and didn’t hog gas like big block v8’s. Not meant to be a “muscle car motor” as some expect all 8’s to be. We had it until 1992, and sold to working class family.
Only had to have valves redone and new distributor in decade we had it.
The Olds 260 was a very strong engine but made very little HP. It did make up to 210 torque at a very low 1600 RPM’s like the other small V8’s of the time but HP was curtailed to a very poor 100 by 1981/82. Torque numbers also dropped but this engine along with most other Olds mills makes good low down torque but not much high end power on the smaller 260/307 motors.
During this era, CAFE was a factor but so was emissions. These small displacment engines all had one thing in common, small bores. A smaller bore helps to reduce the unburned hydrocarbons. Look at the Chevy 267, which had a tiny 3.5″ bore, and a 3.48″ stroke, vs the pre emission and much better performing 265 which was 3.75″ x 3.00″.
Further, as I believe others have mentioned, although these small V8’s put out about the same power as a V6, they were better in many other ways, The V6’s of this era were crude rough running, and not very durable. So, if one wanted the cheaper smaller engine, the small V8 was probably the better choice. Even though they lost the power of the old V8’s, at least they kept the smoothness. Typically, these engines still gave slightly better CAFE numbers. That said, in the real world, a 5.0L V8 probably had pretty much the same gas mileage, but many customers probably didn’t know that.
The 267 was basically a 350 block with a very, very small bore. The stroke was identical.
I had one in an ’81 model and it was lousy. It threw a rod shortly after I bought it from a high school classmate. I put a 301 V8 out of a large Buick at a local junkyard. It was definitely much better than the 265, but not by much. I have always wondered why that boat anchor was even an option. After replacing the 265 with the 301, the 200 metric tranny crapped the bed and I replaced it with a turbo 350. Not a bad ride after all of that.
The 4.3 liter 265 Pontiac V8 was offered for the same reason as Ford’s small bore 255, Chevy’s 267 and Old’s 260. Cafe and the second oil crisis of 1979/80. All of GM’s 49 state intermediate A-body cars lost the 4.9/5.0 engine sizes (unless you were from California) for 1981 and instead got these often labeled baby V8 engines which offered the same smoothness and quietness as there larger brothers but with near V6 fuel economy for those that would not have anything but a traditional V8. HP for 1980-81 for these baby V8’s. Ford got 120 HP in 80 and 115 in 81 along with Chevy on the 267. Pontiac got 120 Hp in both years but poor Olds could only manage 105 HO in 80 and 100 in 81! it was the torque that made these engines tolerable however. The Buick 231 was a boat anchor that didn’t make any power in these years so the small 8’s were all the customer got in the mid size cars. The full size line could be had with 301, 302, 305 and 307 engines but they too were available with the baby V8’s in these years. The reason the B-body above with the 307 and 265 got such close mileage was the transmission. The 265 came with the metric nightmare 3 speed and the Olds 307 came exclusively with the then new 200R-4 overdrive trans which inflated the highway figure by at least 3 MPG.
As far as the baby V8’s, I have owned and driven all of them. The 265 Poncho was in my mint 1981 low mileage Grand Prix LJ coupe and was a very pleasant engine to live with on a daily basis, especially compared to my former 1981 Cutlass 231 V6 sedan. I remember it being nearly dead silent at idle and low speed and very muted and quiet in full throttle. It also gave my 3300 LB GP pretty decent scoot when fully tuned up and it was very reliable, even with well over 150K miles. The Olds 260 was a dog in my 81 Cutlass coupe and could barely pass another car on the open road and the Poncho 4.3 felt like a Corvette in comparison. The 4.4 liter 267 was in my best friend’s Caprice coupe and was hardly the bad engine some make it out to be. It gave the coupe enough punch around town and got pretty decent mileage. But the 3600 LBS of B-body were hard pressed to move at 70 plus MPH speeds and this engine was pretty much tapped out at 4400 RPM’s making the 305 a much better highway companion.
Yeah, I liked my new 81 Caprice with the 267 back then. I much preferred it to the standard equipment V6 examples that I test drove. I never had any trouble with it other than the stupid CCC light that kept coming on with no other physical symptoms. I had to make a few warranty visits to the dealer for that issue, but that was it. Grading on a 1981 quality curve, that was outstanding.
I have a 1981 bonneville with 36k on it and a smog passing 265. I wish i could find a pontiac 400 block (if i know engine accessories like my air conditioner and cruise control would mount and work with a new 4bbl set up) and th400 to put in it it is so slow. But they say if its not broke dont fix it. Kind of a battle being a gearhead but its a cruiser.. runs good and smooth… was actually debating on putting a small thumpr camshaft from comp, purely for idle sound benefit only. But i dont want to change pushrods and valvesprings to compensate..
My first car was a 1981 Firebird Formula with the 4.3L V8. It was a dog, but I loved that car and I always wondered what happened to it.
I’ve got a 1980 Buick regal with the whopping 4.3L …. Putting it to the floor feels like I’m hauling a full trailer. You could never make a PontiAc 265 fast.. But you can make one sound big and beefy lol.
I had a 265 V8 in a 1980 buick regal it was a dam good running car
My wife’s best friend had a 1980 Firebird – same color as the Rockford Files car – with the 265 V-8. Her Dad special ordered it. It really had no options to speak of – no air, an AM radio, deluxe wheel covers – stripped to say the least. She said he didn’t want a 6-cylinder and the smallest V-8 available at the time was the 265 V-8 so he ordered it with one. I drove it a few times and all I can say was that it felt like a large 6-cylinder rather than an 8-cylinder. On a positive note, that car ran and ran for what seems like an eternity! I think it had well over 250k miles before it died, and that was because they let it sit and rot in their backyard with plans on restoring it someday which never happened. It ran when they parked it but never ran again after that and was eventually towed away to the scrap yard.
I have one right now. It’s a 1980 firebird 4.3L 256 V8, in all original besides the black paint. Original dolor was gold. Interior needs some work, but I’m abouth a month away from driving it daily. Its got zero rust all around, I’ve been thorough, but needs a new hood, you’ll see. Turns over no problem. Runs like a top, and has developed a bit of a throaty growl over the course of my having it that I rather enjoy. A lower exhaust note than most 265’s. The pics Im posting are all I have of it, and the dirtier the car looks, the least time Ive had it.
I’ve named it Guts. Enjoy.
We sold a line of remanufactured engines for a while at the wholesale auto parts place that I work for. Somebody once called in for a reman. 265 Pontiac. “Sure-no problem-let’s see what is available…” I look it up in the catalog: N/A (substitute Pontiac 301 instead).
Also-reading the threads above on the differential gearing of the era–the tall gears also were a (not) quick way for the manufacturers to pass the EPA’s pollutants-per-mile test (less rpms turned=less pollutants going out during the steady state test).
My uncle had a Bonneville b body with this engine. He hated it. It had no power and it downshifted all the time if there was a slight hill. It was horrible quality wise too. The maroon paint had faded and peeled in 2 years and the seat collapsed under him. He only weighted 110 pounds. It got poor gas mileage vs his old 350 77 Bonneville he had before. It was his last gm car.
These engines should never have been built. They made no power and sucked gas and wore out the weak transmissions they came with. The gear ratios sucked too. They made it even slower and forced you to drive with a heavy foot. Added to that horrible feed back carburators and you had a unreliable car. Really after 80 one was better off getting a 302 injected Ford in a Ltd or marques than a gm car.
Gm should have run 305 Chevy, 350 Chevy and 368-425 Cadillac engines in the a b c cars with injection, a strong 4 speed od trans and decent rear end ratios and used the Chevy 4.3 as base engine in the a and b cars.. they would have lasted longer, been way more reliable and performed well and in the real world would have saved gas.
You do realize that Ford too made a small low power V8 during the 1980-1982 model years with 111-120 HP right? And The Panthers didn’t get fuel injection until 1983 when they used there restrictive TBI system and the 302 only made 130 HP for that year. Also Ford’s then new 4 speed AOD transmisison was the subject of lawsuits due to a chronic stalling problem while driving which caused several bad accidents.
Most any Bonneville I ever saw was a quality piece for the most part if one avoided the light blue paint which peeled on all the manufacturers cars. Ford also used it’s POS variable venturi carburetor during these years so I would pick GM’s Dual-jet any day of the week as used on the 265-267 and Old 260 engines. As for poor gas mileage what got good fuel mileage during these years? Even the V6 engines were not that efficient in these larger cars. My 265 Grand Prix easily obtained 20-21 MPG overall combined and reached 25 on the highway going a steady 70 MPH whenever I checked it. My 231 V6 cars didn’t do any better. Neither did my 1979 Ford Fairmont which struggled to get 20 MPG even on the open road in a light 2700 LB car!
The good thing about these small inch V-8s was that they were able to run the accessory pumps and drives with less shuddering and shaking than their similarly cubed V-6 brethren. Plus a 350 crate motor was the same sized block (please correct me if I’m wrong), so there was light at the end of the tunnel when it came time for a rebuild.
It’d have been amazing to go from a 267 to a torque centric 383 while keeping the noise and appearance factory stock.
Unfortunately, the Pontiac 265/301 engines had a lower deck than the earlier Ponchos so swapping in a bigger Pontiac engine required swapping over everything that bolted onto the front of the engine as well, since there were some differences. Also the older engines were taller and much heavier, so hood clearance could be a problem, along with front end weight.
The 1980 Catalina and Bonneville’s offered the 4.3 L V8 for $180. The 301 was $295. For 1981 the difference seems to be that the 301 required the overdrive automatic for a significant increase in price.
The 4 speed overdrive was never offered on any Pontiac engine. Note that for 1981 the Bonneville was instead made with the Old 307 paired to the 4 speed transmission. The 265/301 was dropped after April 1981 and never saw an overdrive paired to it.
Two late observations:
First, it’s important to remember that CAFE requirements were increasing during this period: 19 mpg in 1979, 20 mpg in 1980, 22 mpg in 1981. GM had the new F-bodies, J-cars, and FWD A-bodies in the hopper, but they weren’t ready yet, so in the meantime, they had to squeeze more fuel economy out of what they had. An extra 1 mpg doesn’t sound like much, but CAFE is a weighted average based on production totals, so it counted in the aggregate. The 265 and 267 also provided a way to satisfy customers who were categorically resistant to sixes in big cars without risking completely torpedoing the fleet averages in the process.
Second, whenever you see some odd situation that doesn’t seem to make sense, there’s a pretty good chance the explanation is “production limitations.” Demand for the Buick V-6 at this point was huge, so if the other divisions could come up with some passably economical engine using their own existing tooling, it helped alleviate some of that pressure. I don’t know for sure if this was the rationale, but it seems likely.
Also, I believe the circled figures in the brochure excerpt are combined numbers, not city. EPA combined averages (which are what’s used for CAFE) are a 55/45 weighting of city and highway.
The EPA guide for 1980 Firebirds does not show the 4.3 L V8, but the V6 is 20 MPG while the 5 L is 16. The 81 guide shows 19 V6, 18 4.3 and 16 5 L. Half the production is the smaller engines if Wiki is right. The real point of the small V8 is that it is available at nominal cost on the base models.
Well, I think the key point is that a lot of buyers, given the choice, will take the cheapest V-8 — full-size Chevrolet buyers in the ’60s most often took the 283/195 — so making that a smaller engine provided a way to raise the fleet average (harmonic mean) by a half point or more. And that would have been especially important if Buick could only provide a finite number of V-6s.
The Trans Am accounts for about half of the total Firebirds, with the Formula adding to this. This means that the basic Firebird (including Esprit) are well under half the production. In the big picture of CAFE, the Firebird is not too significant, although GM needed to be concerned by every model’s contribution.
I distinctly remember the 1981 Pontiac brochures being the last to call the big Pontiacs the “Pontiac”, meaning not the division but rather a collective name for what had for the last two decades sometimes been thought of as the “real” Pontiac – the full size models. Quaint practice, like giving different names to each trim level (Catalina, Bonneville) which was also once commonplace for full-size cars and mid-size to a lesser extent and also about to end.
All I remember about the 265 was everyone saying you should avoid it. Also, I thought GM had ended any mention of which division made the engine by 1981. Certainly later in the ’80s they were all “GM engines” and your new Fleetwood Brougham could have a Chevy 305 or an Olds 307 depending on which day it was built. In the brochures it was just a generic 5.0 liter V8.
Both engines would have to under go certification to be interchangeable. I am quite doubtful that was done with the Brougham.
The Cadillac Brougham had the boat anchor Olds 7A 307 from 1986-1990. The 307 was replaced with the Chevrolet L03 TBI 305 for 1991 as the base engine (The Chevy L05 TBI 350 became an option in 1990).
I have a 1981 Consumer Guide auto test that has 3 cars with this mill along with a Cutlass with the 260, a Monte Carlo with the 267 and Fox body Ford with the 255.
The 3 265 V8 cars were a Firebird Formula coupe, a loaded Grand Prix Brougham and a Grand Lemans sedan. This engine was praised in all 3 tests and was the recommended all around choice for mileage, drive-ability and performance especially compared to the 231 V6. Note that the Firebird achieved 20 MPG combined and the Gp and Lemans got 21. A test of a 1981 Buick Century with the 231 V6 was not only several seconds slower to 60 but also only got 19.5 MPG combined in the same issue!
Looking at the Chevy’s the Malibu had the 229 V6 and the Monte Carlo used the 267. Surprise! The 267 got 18.5 combined MPG or about the same as the slower by 3 seconds to 60 229 V6.
Another surprise was that the Ford 255 V8 test car was the slowest of all the small V8 engines save the Cutlass 260 at 15.1 seconds 0-60. It was also middling in the MPG department.
The poor Olds was the slowest and most thirsty of the bunch which isn’t surprising considering it’s poor power to weight ratio. With but 100 HP to move 3500 LBS of car it needed a sluggish 16.5 seconds to reach 60 and was under 18 MPG in the tests. They compared the Grand Prix with the 265 and said it felt much livelier and got several better MPG too.
This is fully supported with a 1981 Grand Prix LJ I owned many moons ago with the 265. It was just as efficient as my 231 V6 Cutlass sedan but in everyday driving was far superior and noticeably quicker. It ran with an almost eery smoothness and quietness and was a sweet running long lasting mill for the time. I liked it better than the Ford 255 and Olds 260 because of this but rate it on par with the Chevy 267 which also was a far better day to day engine than the Chevy 229 V6.
The 231 V6 before fuel injection was not a great engine.
It wasn’t a great engine until Buick revised the lubrication system in the 1980s. Before that they were notorious for eating up rod bearings. FWD versions got a crankshaft driven oil pump starting in 1986, but RWD versions kept the camshaft-driven pump in the aluminum timing cover until the RWD G bodies went out of production. Even the turbo versions kept this awful oil pump!
As a small counterpoint, in 80 CR tested a Impala with the 229 V6. They said their V6 was only 1/2 second slower to 60 than the 79 305 Impala they had tested and it (the 80 model) got 3 more mpg’s. They contributed that to the 200 pound weight reduction and slightly better aerodynamic’s of the 80 sheet metal reshape.
I own a 1980 pontiac bonneville with a 265 2 barrel carb and it runs geart and i have all 1980 pontiac paper for all models
I had a 265 V8 in my 1980 Pontiac Bonneville four-door. The engine was so anemic! I remember having to just about floor it in order to get on the highway. I don’t know what Pontiac was thinking putting such a weak engine in a heavy, full-size car with a 3-speed automatic. Those were the years that GM didn’t care — they knew a lot of people would buy whatever they sold, no questions asked.
I own a 1980 Pontiac bonneville with a 265 only 38 k on it I think it runs great
Here are some more photos of a ” confirmed sighting ” of Pontiac’s apparent legendary V-8 !! It is in my 100% stock , original 1981 Firebird Formula , which could be yours for a small fee … okay , I can’t get them to download , on my website , autobrokercenter.com . ENJOY !!
This is my 265 4.3L V-8. Its a 1980 Pontiac Grand Prix. And yes, it still runs and yes its a turd. Its been sitting along time before and after it was my daily driver. I’m guessing that is part of the reason its a turd. I’m not sure of the trim package though.
I have an all original 1981 firebird with a 4.3 v8 and 90000 original miles still runs and drives great
Until today i never heard of the 265 pontiac v8. Doesnt matter thou the only real good pontiac heads made for the 400 were built in 69&70. Im excluding the SD 455. The 71&72 455HO heads were amazing as well with the round port exhaust. The heads im talking about are the ram air 3 heads. The ram air 4 heads are rare and expensive but you can find ram air 3 heads still and the Edelbrock aluminum head is a ram air 3 design. Heads with the # 12,13,48, and 62 which are 428HO heads off of the Grand Prix. Using these heads you turn any 400c.i. pontiac into a 475 horsepowered monster but you must use the 73&74 Super Duty connecting rods to keep it together. If you put these heads on a 455 add another 100hp+. Its to bad Delorean got demoted to Chevy when did because the ram air 5,6,and 7 engines were upwards of a 1000hp if they finished the design.
I actually had one ..black 81 firebird with the formula hood..265 4.3.. it was given to me in 1988 for my graduation..dad even had it repainted… very pretty car…
In reference to some discussion about rear end gears way above here, my first car was a 4 door 1982 regal with the 231 v6 and 2.14 gears. No, NOT 2.41’s, actual 2.14’s. I called the local dealership and gave them a code off the axle and they confirmed it. I put an edelbrock performer and holley 390 carb on it and eventually ran it at the local 1/8th mile track. It would run 12.0’s (remember, in the 1/8th, not the 1/4). I would leave it locked in first gear the whole way and at the end of the track it was turning 4500 rpm at 61 mph. Second gear would easily peg the 85 mph speedometer, and all I know about top speed is that it occurred at 3300 rpm in high gear. I got lucky and got a car with a turbo 350 instead of the metric abomination-no doubt, I would have killed a metric 200 trans. In 1992 I traded that car, still running but worn out, to a used car lot for a 1973 pontiac ventura in Orlando, FL. Looking back, I could have gotten almost any rearend out of a G body in a junkyard and greatly improved the performance of the car just by not having 2.14’s in it, but I guess that seemed like a formidable task to me at age 19 or so.
Had an 81 Bonneville Brougham with the 265. My wife’s grandfather bought it new. Seems like Pontiac was offering something like free air conditioning of the customer took the 265.
It was a great car. Highway mpg of 24-25. The only and final issue was the Chevette transmission. It failed and was rebuilt poorly. My wife and I couldn’t afford to have it fixed a second time so we sold the car as is to a friend. He installed a THM 350 and drove it a long time.
I had a new 81 grand prix and yes the 265.v8..2 bbl.engine in it…it was really weak motor..yeah it’s get 15 mpg..but power was weak..it ran better after the converter was cut..had to replace radiator. Kept getting hot with ac on..many motor issues..I like the gp.car..it drove well.good tires..and good ride..inside was nice..just a pontiac….should have got a 301 in it..I still liked the car a lot.jadestone color..was a pretty car. R
One of my old Motor Trends from the early 80’s said that Pontiac tried to sell its 4.3L V8 to Cadillac for 1982, but Cadillac rushed the HT4100 into production instead. The 4.3 probably would have been a much more reliable engine.
My first car was a 1981 Olds Cutlass Supreme with the 260 V-8. I bought it when it was 2 years old with 16,000 miles. It had some hail damage on the hood so it was a good deal and the condition otherwise was excellent. But…..
It was a total mistake buying that car. Complete dog. Zero passing ability. If you didn’t give it enough gas to downshift, it seemed like part-throttle applications made it go slower somehow. It was the absolutely wrong kind of car for an 18 yr old kid to buy. That was the last time I let my father talk me into buying a car. He had purchased several new Oldsmobiles around this time. I will say that his regular saleslady at Bill Lee Oldsmobile in Mt. Clemens, MI was quite attractive, maybe thats why Pops kept buying new cars from her….
I like that blurb about how the 265 will be available from start of production to approximately January 1, 1981. So this engine was in production for less than 1-1/2 years.
Whoa you could still get a 3 speed manual on a Firebird in 1981? Is that on the column or floor?
We have an original 81 Formula with a 265 in the garage. 80k miles. If you need more pictures, we can deliver!