Whatever it WAS, the engine itself was a Canadian Chevrolet, as all Studebakers built after the South Bend shutdown (Dec. 20, '63), were built in Hamilton, Ont., Canada with 283s sourced from GM's Canadian facilitys. While I appreciate the wanting to know what one has, at this point in time, the only real way to tell what the engine in any particular car really is, is to open it up and measure it. I know, from my time at new car dealerships, that cars get new engines all the time, even now. I saw a brand-new car, less than 50 miles on it, get a new engine because the OEM engine seized on its way to initial fuel fill. And anything bolted to the block can and is changed at any time, even under warrantee. Cosmo
Sorry to jump on an old thread but I'm pretty sure that '57 265 truck engines were grey. I have one in a panel with a hydra-matic
All 1955 V8 motors are CHEVY ORANGE with BLACK valve cover stencils. All 1956 V8 motors are CHEVY RED, with silver valve stencils. A few EARLY 1957 265 V8 engines (standard transmission ONLY) were painted chartreuse (lime green) by Chevrolet, and they had BLACK stencils on the valve covers. After about November 1956, all 265 engines were CHEVY ORANGE (as are the 283 motors), and the valve cover scripts were SILVER. If it was gray...it was a six or out of a military vehicle or a rebuild.
No offense intended but you guys got it *** backwards, they were all staggered until the early '60s. You can only get ball parked by the casting number on a '57 V-8 the 283 and the 265 used the same block. If it is stock and has the stock intake on it still all 265s were 2 bbl motors in '57 so if it is a 4bbl motor it is a 283. The problem is that not all 283s were 4 bbl motors so that may not fly. If you can decipher the serial number stamped on the engine it will tell you which engine it is and what it was bolted into. The other easy way is to measure bore. On an engine that old you should be pulling the heads at the very least before you run it. In '57 the 283 was an over bored 265 not a good engine in some ways as the '57 283 had thin cylinder walls, in '58 they got their own block. The 283 had a 3.875 bore and the 265 had a 3.75 bore. Anyway by looking at it you are not going to be able to tell unless you can decipher the serial number.
Another possible way of differentiating the engines is the block mounted starter holes. In 1957 Turboglide was introduced and it carried a block mounted starter. Since you could only get it with a 283, this might be a way of knowing what engine you have. The best way of knowing is measuring the bore, as was mentioned earlier.
I know thread is old but would like some help with this 265 pad number . I have not seen the motor but have a picture (s) of the pad ...did all 265's end with 2 letters? I saw below that the 265 may have been used in non chevorlet vehicles ...May he reason for no ending letteers ? Any help will be greatly appreciated. Sorry if upside-down ..I can flip on my phone ..but they seem to read 02864 37F551
That last character looks like an F to me, that brands the block as having been a ‘55-‘57 265. When you see the block if there is no oil filter pad it is a 162 horsepower 265 block, if it has the pad then it’s ‘56-‘57.
some ended with one letter, some with two. They started using two letters for all the codes around 1965. then 3 letters starting in 1970.
I’d like to resurrect this thread yet again. 0272797F57 on a 3720991 casting block. Doesn’t make sense to me. Help!
Gearheadbill, the "F" is for Flint engine plant. The "57" is for model year. There should be a letter or two after the 57. That letter or letters would be the code for the engine application. The fact that it is a 991 casting and a 57 date code says that the engine is a left-over '56 which was used early in the 1957 model year. It would definitely be a 265 since that block was never used for 283's.
looks pretty obvious to me that the pad has been ground down. The factory deck surface has broaching lines going front to back, not angled gouges like that. So....who knows.....
Just to get confirmation...991 blocks are ALWAYS 265 from the factory? Im going to pull a head and check the bore, see what's what inside. Thanks PS. The heads are 3725306 which I believe are 265 power pack castings.
0991 casting block is strictly 1956, 265, as are the 5306 heads. The heads are unique in that there is a "trough" for the flame to travel through the chambers from the spark plugs. These heads also have 55.6685 CC chambers; the smallest until the 601, 305 heads came out with 53 CC chambers, and the 416, 305 heads with 58 CC chambers. Where the info about "left over" 56, 265 blocks/engines being used in early 57's is just foolish. If anything, since the model year comes out BEFORE the year end, and them wanting to get that "new" 283 out there (a big selling feature), and the 57, 265, that shared the same casting number, any left over 56, 265 engines/blocks/whatever, would have gone into warehouses for warranty work. And there was a LOT of warranty work due to the flat top pistons without any valve reliefs; lots of over revved engines that had piston to valve contact. Plus the 57 265/283 blocks had full flow oiling, not pulse flow like the 55 and 56 265's had. And, 57 was the first year for a block mounted starter motor, although that was only used for the optional, new for 57, Turboglide transmission. All 57 V-8 blocks were machined the same way, except for the bore size (265 OR 283). ALL 57, 265's were 2 barrel engines. Any 57 V-8 with a 3 speed manual transmission came with a 265, unless the 283 was ordered, and those could have come with a 2 barrel, a 4 barrel, a dual quad setup, or the new for 57, fuel injection. NO 4 barrel, dual quad, FI, 265's in 57. And never a 265 in a 57 Vette. I have a 57, 265 block, a pair of 5306 reworked/larger valves/Z-28 spring kits/screw in studs (not shouldered studs). It will become my Pseudo-Junior Stocker, 265 engine, with a direct mounted/bolted aluminum Powerglide with an A-1 bell-housing that has side mounts, like the stock setups had. The staggered bolt pattern valve covers/heads: they were staggered until 1959 and 1/2; after that they had the straight across pattern. Those are all facts. I am Butch/56sedandelivery.
I think the paint is laying in the gouged low spots, it's pretty obvious to me. But I could be wrong. Still, that's not a normal number. Although the shape of the numbers does look correct. It's a good mystery.
The Jalopy Journal
