Chrysler’s LA V8, which eventually spawned various displacements as well as V6 and V10 variants, had a long life and became a mainstay of the company after the big B blocks disappeared after 1978. Chrysler A “poly” 318 was simply too big and heavy to fit in the A-Body compacts, so Chrysler took some weight out of its block through thinner castings and crowned it with better-breathing modern wedge heads that were also lighter and more compact, resulting in the “LA” V8 (Light A). It made its first appearance in the Valiant and Dart in 1964, with 273 cubic inches and a somewhat modest 180 hp.
That was enough to transform the performance of the Valiant; it shaved a full seconds off its 0-60 time versus the 225 slant six. And since it weighed only 35 lbs more than the six and sat back further in the chassis, handling was not affected. The result was a much more dynamic Valiant, especially when teamed with the optional 4-speed manual. The only major negative were the brakes, which should have been upgraded along with the newfound horsepower.
Chrysler had an utterly bewildering array of different V8 engines in the 1950’s and early ’60s, in no less than 25 different displacements and four distinct families (full story here). The A Series V8 first appeared in 1956, and had “poly” (polyspheric) heads, and came in 277, 301, 303, 313, 318 and 326 cubic inch displacements; by far the most common one was the 318. The poly head design was not exactly inspired, and these engines did not breathe as well as the wedge heads popularized by GM. Chrysler soon switched to that superior design on its larger B/RB V8s that appeared in 1958, but the poly 318 lumbered along through 1966.
Apparently Chrysler took a long look at using the poly 318 in the compacts, but wisely decided in the end that it was not going to be a happy combination. So they took the A block and lightened it by using new thin-wall casting techniques and made a few other changes to it. But the big change were the all-new compact wedge heads that crowned it. These and the correspondingly more compact exhaust manifolds allowed the newly dubbed LA (Light A) V8 to fit very tidily in the Valiant and Dart’s engine compartment.
Displacement was reduced to 273 cubic inches, which combined with a mild camshaft and a two-barrel carburetor resulted in 180 (gross) hp. That was a bit less than the 195 hp both Chevy’s and Ford’s smallest V8s made, and that turned out to be a bit of a disadvantage when the 273 was adopted as the base V8 in the larger and heavier B-Bodies, but it certainly made the little Valiant a lot zippier.
The 1963½ Falcon was the first of the Big Three compacts to offer a V8, the 164 hp 260 CID version of the lightweight Windsor V8. In 1964, both Chrysler and Chevy followed suit, with the 180 hp LA in the Valiant and both the 195 and 220 hp versions of the venerable 283 V8 in the Chevy II, which of course had them both beat in terms of performance. And Chevy offered a factory-supplied kit to swap in the more potent 327 V8, all the way to 360 hp. Chrysler wasted little time in perking up the 273 with hotter cam, four barrel carb and a few other goodies for a 235 hp version for 1965. A vintage review of a ’65 Dart GT equipped with one and the Torqueflite managed a brisker 8.2 second time in the 0-60 compared to the 9.9 seconds of the tested 180 hp Valiant, with the four speed manual. But the TF in the same car would not have been any slower, given its reputation of being as fast as a 4-speed in almost every application (save some all-out SS drag racers who speed-shifted the manual).
Thanks to the 273 V8 weighing little more than the slant six and due to its shorter black, overall weight distribution was barely changed, thus preserving the pleasant handling of the Valiant.
The only downside was that the brakes were not upgraded, and as such were simply not up to the significantly higher performance of the V8 version. But otherwise, the V8 Valiant acquitted itself very well, with a feeling of quality to go along with its lively (if not exactly genuinely fast) performance.
The LA V8 was soon was expanded to 318 size (1966), 340 (1968) and 360, and there was the V10 Viper variant as well as the V6 derivatives. Starting in 1992, they were eventually replaced by the Magnum family, which were a direct development of the LA family, and lasted until 2003.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1963½ Ford Falcon Futura V8 – The Economy Compacts Enter The V8 Era
Vintage Car And Driver Review: 1965 Dodge Dart GT – A Counterpart To The Barracuda
Curbside Classic: 1955 Dodge Coronet – Your Choice of Hemi, Poly or Flat Head
I’m not a big V configuration fen but this looks and sounds like a worthwhile up date .
Wasn’t there an A Body wagon they could have used the larger brakes from ? .
-Nate
It’s not surprising they didn’t bother making it part of the V8 “package” but more so they didn’t sneak heavier-duty brakes into the press car, or openly tell M/T there would be a separate heavy-duty brake option offered to customers who order and those dealers looking to stock an upgrade with no immediate showroom/curb appeal.
I’m not sure when, but the V8 eventually got 10″ drums instead of the 9″ drums on the six-cylinder cars. My ’65 Dart wagon also has 9″ drum brakes, so the wagons used the same brakes as the standard sedans (and they’re not great), at least up through ’65.
Someone recently posted that the A-100 used 15″ wheels and 11″ drums. I wonder if anyone ever did an A-100 brake swap to an A-body (if they would even fit).
Daniel Stern has mentioned several times of upgrading the drums on A Bodies.
I recall production V8 cars (and I recall anything with HD suspension or towing package) usually got 10″ drums.
Those 225/6cycle engines were so good, I always wondered why dodge and Chrysler never got all they could have done to those engines. I had a 62 valiant that I loved back in the day that had good mileage and all the power with little adjustments to it. I still miss that car, my grandfather made me sale it.
Chrysler sold hop up stuff for the /6; it didn’t take off in the US. Ford, then Chevy, defined compact performance as a small V8. Also, Chrysler needed a modern small V8 to stay generally competitive in larger cars. Companies had been trying and failing to sell sixes against V8s as performance engines as long as there had been V8s. Chrysler didn’t bother with a doomed idea.
I had a ’64 and a ’66 signet hardtop, both with the 273. Being a Canadian mine both used the Dart body. I bought both as winter beaters, and both gave excellent service. Both were torqueflights. The ’64 was quite a bit livelier than the ’66 for whatever reason, but the ’66 was a very nice car with a white bucket seat interior and console.
When hard times hit our family in the early ’80s my Dad used it as a commuter car for awhile. He drove it for some time after he could have afforded to replace it with something newer he liked it so much.
The early 273s used solid lifters, and after a tune up and valve adjustment liked to rev, even with a tiny 2V carb. Driven reasonably they got pretty good mileage too. It was a much nicer combo than a 283 with the miserable Powerglide. I’m mostly a Chevy guy but I always liked the LA series Mopar engines!
In ’66 you could get front disc brakes, I had a buddy with a Signet so equipped. Much better brakes but caliper parts were hard to find and expensive when rebuild time came.
I still have the V-8 badge from the ’64 somewhere in all my junk!
The disc option appeared for 65. (Indeed: Rick Ehrenberg’s first new car was a 65 V-200 with disc brakes.) Calipers were nearly identical to 60s…Mustangs. Both used the same 4-piston Kelsey-Hayes design.
I had 64 valiant with 273 v8 my dad had 63 valiant with slant 6 the slant 6 out performed the v8 in handling and could run circles around the v8
I’m just a common man with some knowledge of the slant 6 and the 273 V8. The 273 V8 had more power and torque after 3500 RPM’s. The slant 6 had more torque at lower RPM’s because of the longer stroke of the crankshaft. The 273 would be my choice over the slant 6 because it would make make the Valiant faster from 0 to 60. I really liked a 1967 Barracuda with the 273 V8/4speed.
The 273 V8 had more power and torque after 3500 RPM’s. The slant 6 had more torque at lower RPM’s
Here’s the engine stats:
The 225 slant six made its peak torque (215 lb.ft.) at 2400 rpm
The 273 V8 made its peak torque (260 lb.ft) at 1600 rpm.
Years ago I had a boss who knew his LA engines. When a sluggish one came in he immediately pulled the distributor and recurved the advance. He said some distributors had been assembled with wrong springs which were too stiff to allow the mechanical advance to operate correctly. Made huge difference in performance and increased economy. This could have been an issue on yours, Steve.
Unless I am suffering a brain fog, I have somehow avoided ever having owned a LA V8-equipped Mopar (while owning two of the old A block 318s). But I have driven a few, and they generally felt quite sprightly, even later smogged versions in the 70s.
I think the V8 engines in smaller cars trend was one area where Chevrolet had a huge head start, due almost purely to the Corvette. Nobody but Chevrolet had a use for a small-displacement performance engine in the 1958-62 era, and they alone did not need to start from scratch (or nearly scratch, for Chrysler) to have a lightweight hi-po engine for a small car.
You are right about Chevy’s engines, I’ve often thought the LA Mopars took a few design cues from the small block. Unfortunately, Chevy hamstrung their excellent engines with the Powerglide, a miserable contraption that should have gone away by ’62 at the latest.
While I am a Chevy man when it comes to the performance stuff, I’ve never understood how they dominated the market for everyday drivers to the extent they did in the ’60s using that transmission. Ford and Chrysler both had much nicer drive train combos for the average workaday driver.
I think the V8 engines in smaller cars trend was one area where Chevrolet had a huge head start, due almost purely to the Corvette. Nobody but Chevrolet had a use for a small-displacement performance engine in the 1958-62 era,
But Chevrolet didn’t design the small block for the 1958-1962 era; they designed it for the 1955-1957 era. In fact, they had to design the brand new big block V8 348 precisely because the small block wasn’t big enough for how big and heavy full-szed Chevys got starting in 1958.
Starting in 1958, it was the big blocks (348 & 409) that carried the Chevrolet performance banner, on the street, drag strips and stock car tracks, and the hi-po small blocks were mostly deleted from the option lists. Of course anyone could take a plain small block and warm it up readily, but nobody was buying new hot small block ’58-62 Chevys to be competitive.
The small block was not designed for the Corvette, nor did the Corvette give it any kind of head start. There was serious doubt as to whether the Corvette would even survive, given its disastrous start. Only 700 ’55 Corvettes were built, and only 75 with a manual transmission. It just barely got a reprieve.
In any case, the small block was designed for the Chevrolet line; the Corvette was an afterthought. The only thing Zora Arkus Duntov did was to put a slightly hotter cam in it; otherwise the ’55 Corvette engine was identical to the one in the sedans. And that goes for the ’56 and ’57.
You give way too much credit to the Corvette. Ed Cole saw the benefits of giving a family car V8 some zip and flair, and designed the small block to breathe a bit better than average. He wanted the small block to replace the Ford flathead V8 as the performance engine of choice. That could only happen if it was sold in huge quantities in sedans. That was 100% of the reason it was so successful. The Corvette was merely the beneficiary, not the impetus or cause.
So why didn’t the ’55-’57 Thunderbird have the same remarkable influence on the Ford Y-block V8 that the Corvette supposedly had on the Chevy small block?
“So why didn’t the ’55-’57 Thunderbird have the same remarkable influence on the Ford Y-block V8 that the Corvette supposedly had on the Chevy small block?”
I don’t think you understand my point. Of course the small V8 was designed for the 1955-57 regular Chevrolet line. But had the Corvette withered and died after 1955, the Chevy 283 would have been as ignored as every other small displacement V8 in the industry, serving as a low horsepower “economy” V8.
After 1957 virtual all performance engineering in US industry was devoted to big engines. The cars were getting much bigger and NASCAR was the only real racing outlet. The Corvette was the only car in the US industry between 1958 and 1962 or so where a high performance version of a small displacement engine was needed. The Corvette was what kept development money going into the “old” smallblock, which kept the engine fresh and competitive when it was needed for compacts/intermediates/pony cars in the mid 60’s.
Would there have been a 327 cid version in 1962 without the Corvette? I’m not seeing it. The big Chevy didn’t need a new engine to have a 250 or 300 hp V8 under the hood – they already had that in the 348. But the Corvette was another story, because it needed more displacement. Out of several options, only one version of the 283 was good for over 300 bhp in the 60 Vette, while only one version of the 327 put out under 300 bhp in the 62 Vette. That the engine could effectively replace the 348 in the big Chevy made it a win-win, but it took the Vette to make it happen.
Ford and Mopar on the other hand, had zero use for an improved small displacement V8, which is why they both ignored that family of engines into the early 60s. Americans bought torque and cubic inches, and if you wanted more power you could pony up for a bigger engine. Why would Chevrolet have done any differently?
To answer your specific question, Ford put a lot of effort into the Y block until the small Thunderbird went away and the FE became available, both of which happened in 1958. Then the Y block remained only as a cheap base V8 engine (292 2 bbl) for grandpa’s Galaxie. But when the idea of a small car with a V8 became popular several years later, both Ford and Chrysler had to dump a bunch of time and money into that class of engine when there were smaller cars that needed them. Chevy had been spending time and money on its SBC all along, so had no need to catch up with anyone else. And the main reason for that was the Corvette.
The Corvette was the only car in the US industry between 1958 and 1962 or so where a high performance version of a small displacement engine was needed. The Corvette was what kept development money going into the “old” smallblock, which kept the engine fresh and competitive when it was needed for compacts/intermediates/pony cars in the mid 60’s.
Not surprisingly, I beg to differ. The only further development of the small block between ’57 and ’61 was the availability of the bigger valve heads on the ’61 FI engine, but that was simply because these heads were being developed for the ’62 327. They just put them on one year early on the ’61 FI 283, and it was an extremely small number of them. Otherwise, the 283 had no rear further development or changes between ’57 through ’61. Same engines, a very minor bump in hp for the FI version (283 to 290) which was undoubtedly for advertising purposes.
Would there have been a 327 cid version in 1962 without the Corvette? I’m not seeing it.
Absolutely! You’re missing the key ingredient here: Chevrolet had a massive investment in small block manufacturing facilities set up to churn them out by the millions. The large block couldn’t share any of those. So it was extremely important for cost and ROI purposes to keep the vast small block manufacturing facilities humming.
In 1962, the big block grew to 409 inches, and there was a huge gap between it and the 283, which was increasingly struggling with its PG in ever-heavier cars with ever more power options. While a 283 ’57 Chevy with PG was very lively, by 1961, it was a dog.
The 327 filled a huge need in the Chevy engine lineup, and allowed the small block manufacturing lines to keep running at full tilt boogie. The vast investment in small block manufacturing is precisely why Chevrolet kept increasing its displacement, because it was significantly cheaper to build than the big block. That’s why they created the 350, and eventually the 400, which directly replaced the big block 396/402 in large sedans and pickups. Lower costs trump all!
Again, the Corvette was the beneficiary of the 327, not the driver. The actual performance difference between the 1961 315 hp 283 and the 1962 360 hp 327 was quite small. The lower output versions (250/300 hp) 327s did make it even more effortlessly in normal driving with more low end torque, and the great majority of Corvettes were built with these mild engines that were primarily targeted to the Chevrolet sedans, wagons and also pickups.
Ford and Mopar on the other hand, had zero use for an improved small displacement V8, which is why they both ignored that family of engines into the early 60s. Americans bought torque and cubic inches, and if you wanted more power you could pony up for a bigger engine. Why would Chevrolet have done any differently?
I would argue that Ford and Mopar would have loved to have a smaller V8 with the Chevy’s better power and efficiency. The simple reality is that the Ford 292 was an utter stone, and comparison tests, like some we’ve posted here, showed it way behind the Chevy 283 in usable performance even with a 3-speed automatic compared to the Chevy’s PG.
While Mopar’s poly 318 did ok against the smaller 283, but when the 327 came out it was quicker and more efficient. There’s a very good reason both Mopar and Ford ditched their old small blocks, and it wasn’t just for the compacts. The old V8s were heavy and dogs in the large cars too.
To sum up, contrary to your repeated assertions, the Chevy small block arrived highly developed in 1955. Very little was changed from then all the way into the ’60s. The 265 and 283 had essentially the same heads for ages. There was no significant “development” during those years except for the short-lived FI version, which was never really worth the high price, as the carb version was just as powerful (if not more so).
The common 283s and 327s as installed in millions of Chevys had no direct benefit from the top-output versions as used in the Corvette. None. the 250/300 hp 327 was just a larger 265/283, with a few minor differences in the block to accommodate the larger bore and bigger bearings. You seem to have the false impression that the 327 was a detuned racing Corvette engine or such. Not. It was the other way around; they just stuck a hotter cam and bigger valves in it for those hot versions, which would have existed anyway even without the Corvette, as there was a huge market in selling those parts over the counter to millions of guys wanting to hop up their mild 283/327s.
You give vastly more credit to the Corvette than it deserves. The whole point of the Corvette was that it could use standard Chevy components, hence keeping its cost low. The overwhelming majority used the same basic engines as Chevy sedans and wagons.
Chevy developed the first hot 265/283 in 1955-1957 because they wanted to be competitive on the NASCAR tracks and on the drag strips as well as making the Corvette more competitive on the sports car tracks. The ’55-’57 Chevy was a terror on the shorter NASCAR tracks. And the popularity of the Chevy small block in drag racing and street cars was of course overwhelming.
If the Corvette had died in 1954, I do not see the outcome as having been different except that there would likely have been no FI version, which was always a very marginal player in actual numbers (it was banned from NASCAR, etc.). The SBC was extremely amenable to hopping up from day one, and if you look at 1955 Hot Rod magazines, it was instantly being hopped up and raced extremely succesfully. Keep in mind that the ’55 Corvette didn’t arrive until after January of 1955, by which time the reputation of the SBC was already solidly established. I have all of the 1955 Hot Rod magazines, and the amount of attention given to it before the ’55 Corvette ever appeared is vast. It was instantly proclaimed as by far the best engine in terms of its high performance potential due to its breathing, light weight and compact size.
The 700 Corvettes built in late 1955 had essentially zero impact on that. And within months of the SBC’s arrival in 1955 every major aftermarket manufacturer was starting to offer a vast array of induction systems, cams, exhausts and all sorts of high performance parts.
I think I need to reprint some of these articles from 1955 so that you have a better insight into what really happened that year, and subsequent ones.
I will do a post on the huge impact the SBC made on the go-fast crowd in 1955 that had zero influence or impact from the 700 ’55 Corvettes made late in the year. This Chevy ad in HR is a preview, but gives an indication of what was happening.
The ’56 Corvette sold a bit better, but still in very modest numbers (3,467), and its impact and influence was directed to the sports car crowd, not the typical street and strip oriented buyer, for whom the Corvette was also too expensive.
“While Mopar’s poly 318 did ok against the smaller 283, but when the 327 came out it was quicker and more efficient. There’s a very good reason both Mopar and Ford ditched their old small blocks, and it wasn’t just for the compacts. The old V8s were heavy and dogs in the large cars too.”
Notably, other than the short-lived (1957-8) 290hp “V-800,” Chrysler really had no performance versions of the early A engine; they concentrated on the Hemi and B motors. By the time the 327 showed up, the Poly engines were on their way out and the LA was in the pipeline.
I had a 65 Valiant with the V8. I bought it in 1985, had 76000 original miles. Was my everyday driver for 6 years. Loved that car. When I sold it it had 145000 miles. The only thing I ever did to it other than maintinance was replace the distributor. Very dependable.
Chrysler had a very good drive train, their 273’s, and 318’s in the early 60’s were bulletproof! They may not have had the horsepower Chevy had. But they were very dependable. Chevy’s first V8 (265) was a perfect mistake. I took a 1968 327 and had it bored, put a mild cam in it and put 1992 350 heads on it. Chevy stayed with that miracle small block for a long time. The Z28 302 was made up of a 327 block with a 283 crankshaft, with domed pistons and 202 heads. But the engine needed 3,500 RPM’s and up to start making real horsepower. It wasn’t an everyday engine. The 350’s stroke was just a 1/4 inch longer stroke than the 327. That 1/4 inch made a big difference in torque. I had a 1961 Chrysler New Yorker with a 413 Lion engine! Man did it go for a big car. I was just 19 years old (1972) and loved the big cars (Cadillacs, Buicks, and. Chrysler) and had a lot of fun racing a 1968 Plymouth RoadRunner with a 383 automatic with the Chrysler New Yorker from a stand still. I let the torque flight transmission shift itself. Good old Chrysler.
Chrysler sold hop up stuff for the /6; it didn’t take off in the US. Ford, then Chevy, defined compact performance as a small V8. Also, Chrysler needed a modern small V8 to stay generally competitive in larger cars. Companies had been trying and failing to sell sixes against V8s as performance engines as long as there had been V8s. Chrysler didn’t bother with a doomed idea.
The Chrysler Hyperpak for the slant six was not suitable for normal street driving. It was strictly designed for racing, with an extremely aggressive cam that destroyed the slant six’ torque curve in the lower rpm ranges where it counted in every day driving. That’s why it literally didn’t “take off”.
My ’66 A-100 van had the optional 273 and A727 Loadflite automatic. Data plate showed 140 net hp. Tight fit, but the V-8 was wedged in the “doghouse”. First gen Econoline never offered a V-8.
It had some kind of payload package that included 15 inch tires and rims, and 11 inch front brakes, so it could stop almost as w ell as it went. Paul, was your van a slant six, manual transmission?
Yes.
140 net hp sounds right.