I some times wonder if people on here can read? He asks "Most Powerful" so people comment on strength and low revving power (which isn't most powerful), "that is small" and FE and HEMI get drought up - neither are small He further quantifies it with "Pre 60's" and guys say Small block Ford (came out in 62) and Cobra (also started in 62), Buick 300 (came out in 64), falcon 144 (came out in 60, and I'm sure this one was tongue in cheek as they make No Power) Detroit Diesel 4-71? Really ????? Small? hardly, at 1776 pounds! not to mention 42" long and 41" tall and make a whopping 155 HP (granted they will make 400 ft lbs, but at that weight, SO WHAT?) I wonder about some of you guys
Small size, check. Big punch, check. Pre-'60s, check. I think I got this one. The Reaction Motors (RMI) 6000-C4, aka the XLR-11, aka 'Black Betsy' weighed just 210 pounds and produced 6000lbs of thrust, back in 1947. It sent Chuck Yeager through the sound barrier and into the history books. Somewhat similar concept but turned to automotive use, how about the products of Turbonique. They aren't "pre" '60s, but the drag axles produced approx. 1000 horsepower to the tires and weighed 130lbs for anyone insane enough to scare themselves with it.
So is this what the bat mobile had? ... Some interesting posts. Surprised no one has bashed me for saying motor instead of engine either... [/QUOTE]
My K&B Torpedo Green Head .35 (1954 vintage) damn near took a finger off Jim Monnastes firing it up after a C/Team Race pit stop... Clocked it at 116 MPH avg., 20% nitro...
Well excuuuuuuuuuse us!...lol. Ok, pre '60s. Supercharged or turbocharged 283 as opposed to the later SBC. I think my comment about rpms and torque vs horsepower was valid, especially if you consider application. It matters. You can't just say "most powerful" as you did, without making the distinction. I do see your point...some of the suggestions didn't fit the criteria. But your superior demeanor really is unnecessary. Your post is typical...squashing others in a transparent attempt to elevate yourself...in you own mind...lol. I notice you didn't offer an option. One thing I've learned. Even the wrong answers have value here, because they usually get corrected and/or debated, and then we learn why it might be the wrong answer. So "it's all good" as they say.
The Offy made a lot of power but on methanol. There were efforts to road race them on gas and they weren't that successful. In the nineties there were a few 255/270 Offy powered street rods, they wound up dropping the compression and milding the cam profile so much to make them pleasant driving in the show lot or around the neighborhood they were down to maybe 220-250 hp. They had to do odd things to get the head area to stay cool even at that, fitting restrictors and waterless coolant. Most of them ran two sidedraft 58 Webers if memory serves. I talked to the guy that wrote the Offy book out now that is pretty good. (It's $100 so should be.) He was building a 166 turbo Offy for some street project-on CNG. Said same thing, gasoline is not a fuel the offy is happy with. They also cost the price of two to three Cadillacs (the whole car, brand new). My dad was involved with a project that built a twin engine Indy car that used two Porsche 911 engines. Today the 911 Porsche is the most expensive engine to build for a road car there is outside maybe a Ferrari....but two of them brand new and their transaxles were cheaper by far than a USED Offy in '69. The car qualified but DNFed.
I didn't offer an opinion because it is a ridiculous thread, which is why I did a ridiculous post. There is no answer to the question "what is the most powerfull block that is also small?'" There are too many variables left out. Not to mention a "Block" doesn't make Any power. But I did find it funny hat people attempted to make an answer but not to the question asked concerning small, powerful and pre 60's ~ just a bunch of other nonsense. And That is why I posted what I did. So lighten up Francis.
AH!!! The HAMB. I wouldn't be what it is without this foolish nonsense. Once in awhile there is a thread that truely lives up to the mission statement but there are times I can read for days and not find one. Fortunately the entertainment factor is enough to carry the day. Frank
Not what i was trying to start, geez. I thought this was a valid question for a hotrod site. Thought it was fairly clear, but maybe not. Lets say you have a 3' x 2' x2' engine bay and was looking for pre60s power. Maybe you have a 2' x 1' x 3' engine bay(cubic space). Yes the question is open ended. Its just talking motors. Looks like the offy for piston driven engines are at the top of the list. The turbine is interesting and in the scope of motor driven.
Ignoring the 1 item of the criteria , and I'm more than reasonably certain this is going to ruffle a feather or two. But ford had a European v 4 in the early 60s. With the slightest bit of ingenuity this can look "ultra traditional" and more importantly vintage considering its 1/2 way there now. It's 185 HP V4 and that's Naturally aspirated. The stacks are cool but imagine an old Exotic super charger on there. http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/hrdp_1109_v4_motorcycle_engine/viewall.html All American made !!!!
I think V4s were made by both Brit and German Ford. The prototype Mustang concept car had one in the middle you will recall. Lido Iacocca gave it the ixnay on the grounds the car buffs liked it TOO much! They were used by Saab and in a lot of US ag and GSE apps over here via Ford Industrial. The Germans mostly had heavy for displacement engines that were not small but the Porsches were impressive. They had a DOHC air cooled boxer four putting out 200+ hp that fit in the space of a VW, and sixes, eights and twelves making specific power outputs impressive today even. Big money. Italians had very impressive power to weight and size out of small cubes too. Lancia had a V4 narrow angle engine, a little cubelike thing, and Ferrari and Maserati, although the V12s were narrow but long and had high downdraft carbs. The coolest thing to me (being in the diesel) business was the Spanish Pegaso diesel bus engine. All aluminum. A little bigger than a 392 hemi, but that was tiny for a diesel then. Someone mentioned turbines. The automotive turbines were pretty big and awkwardly shaped. And heavy and a fraction of the power of aircraft ones, but then they didn't burn 15 gallons an hour at idle either. One early Chrysler engine got 10 mpg at 60 mph but 6 at 30. It burned the same no matter the power setting pretty much.
The 289 Cobra was a MUCH better car than the 427 in reality and Shel's equipping a lot of "427" Cobras with boat anchor 428s saved the lives of a lot of rich preppies. One reason I never looked seriously at the Cobra kits was that they are all 427 style. 289 style with a modular or 5 liter would be better looking and drive better too. To drive a real full race 427 at anything like its full capacity would kill you for sure if you were not at least a national level road racer. Luckily most buyers kept their foot out of it if they did get one.
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/i3VVI6Auvys?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Look who's sayin' "lighten up"...lol. Now it's a "rediculous thread...blah blah blah." You backpedal pretty good Betty.
You know, your right! My bad. I've had '64 and '65 skylark also. Changed out the 64's engine for a 65 even. The 215 was the only all aluminum. Production problems made them give it up and sold the whole works to Land Rover who kept the engine for many many years and upgraded it along the way. I still think that aluminum 215 cleaned up would look cool in the front of a T.
Those Land Rover engines can be had cheap if you look. Early ones would take the same intakes and everything as the GM. Not sure about the later ones but Disco's are being s****ped at a good rate. Some have this engine, some have a BMW you don't want. None here have the diesel. It may or may not be that if it has the wide five bolt pattern it has the Rover engine: if it has pushrods it's the Buick derived one.
Not back pedaling at all, but I guess since you couldn't see the original point you won't get it now either, but thanks for playing. Bye
""In 1956 NSU visited Bonneville Salt flats, bringing the Baumm II, and now a supercharged 13,5 hp 2- stroke, powered driver H P Müller to 196 km/h"" 122 mph on a 3 cubic inch engine, that's bad*** source: http://www.elsberg-tuning.dk/recordbikes.html
The Markly Bros. open wheeled tank went 260 with a 260 inch Dodge. 290 with a 290 inch motor. About 50 years ago. I would say those little engines were making good power.
Most power from least weight, bulk, and cost, pre 1960, Chev 283 no question. It was the lightest V8 until the Buick aluminum 215 and Ford 260 came out (1961 - 62). When it debuted in 1955 it amazed everyone that such a small, cheaply made engine could make so much power, rev so high and last so long without blowing up. For some reason it also fits more different ch***is with less clearance issues than any similar engine, even ones that seem just as small. Next best would be a toss up. The Dodge and DeSoto "baby hemis" were not much bigger in size and weight, and of similar or slightly smaller displacement. Especially in racing tune they could make more HP per Cu In than the Chev and beat them. But suffered the disadvantage of slightly larger bulk and weight in relation to displacement. Or, the nailhead Buick V8 was only a little bigger and heavier than the Chev (less than 100 pounds) but larger displacement and more HP. Max Balchowski loved the Buick and used them in his Ol Yeller sports racers. Even though he was a fanatic on light weight construction.
Kind of odd ball, but Alfa Romeo (1.75-2.0L) DOHC motors are small, lightweight 4 clys. that look a lot like an Offy motor. They are well designed all aluminum castings w/ steel cylinder liners. With the right cams and high compression pistons, they can made to be a high revving screamer motor. The 2000L came into production late 60's (I think), but the block itself is identical to the early '60's version. They add ****a mechanical fuel injection in the late '60's-'77. I think they would make a really cool motor in a light modified or roadster project.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f56sjq-Em4 Want to hear what a good running 260 inch "Baby Hemi" sounds like at 343 MPH?
Honorable mention should go to Studebaker. Its V8 debuted in 1951 and was the first "small block V8" so to speak. It was very similar in design to the 49 Cadillac and Olds V8s but smaller. It was not used much in hot rods due to its small displacement but Dean Moon had one in a 34 Ford coupe. This was before the Chev came out.
Daimler hemi 1959 155 cubic inches Stock output. 142 bhp (106 kW; 144 PS) @ 5,800 rpm Torque output 210 N·m (150 lbf·ft) @ 3,600 rpm. Length 30 in (762.0 mm) Width 24 in (609.6 mm) Height 27 in (685.8 mm) Dry weight 419 lb (190 kg) exc. flywheel
Found a thread here on the Daimler sp250. Neat. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=151281
Small, light and horse power to cubic inch ratio...... Briggs and Stratton! Nah, I do like the Buick 215 though. Cool little engine that would look good in something open. Since weight was brought into the equation, I would say that the beloved nailhead that was mentioned at the start of this thread is out.
The Jalopy Journal
