I was checking out my old motor when i noticed that there was a ddc or something of that nature on the passenger side head. well, my father got his old chiltons book and he looked up the number, it said it was a 267ci. I didnt even know that they made a 267ci motor. The thing hauled butt pretty good though. I was keeping up with many 305 camaro's. Are these motors decent or should i just use it as a large paperweight?

 

I had an 81 berlinetta for an old beater when i was in high school, it had a 267ci v8 in it. As far as i know it was only made for about 3 years and 81 was one of those years. I think it was 80,81,and 82. I dont remember it being a really strong engine, but it had a 2 barrel carb. It was about as good as some of the 305 cars ive been in though. It was decent on gas and I ran it to over 200K miles before it died, and i wasnt really nice to it.
If you are looking for really good performance I would look elsewhere though. I kind of wish i had pulled that engine and kept it, just for the novlety of it.

 

That engine was used in some late 70-early 80's Malibu's, and El Camino's. As far as I know, the 267 is good for a boat anchor.

 

I think the 267 had a very small stroke, around 3.0 inches i think.....

 

there was a 265 or 262 v8 too. I'll check my book when I get back from school.

 

Don't hold me to this, but I do remember one of the car mags saying the smallest possible SBC that could be made with GM factory production blocks, and cranks was a 25? something, and the biggest was a 400 w/o an overbore.

 

the 265 was back in the '50's. 262 came out in MOnza's. I had a 267 in my 81 Lemans. Reliable motor, but that's about it. tiny valves, small bores and a puny 2 bbl. I think the factory horse rating was 125

 

The 267 had a 3.48" stroke, but only had a 3.5" bore.

It's a 'no HP' & 'no TQ' motor.

The 265 was a 3.75" bore with a 3.00" stroke

The 262 was a 3.67" bore with a 3.10" stroke

There was another 265 that was put in the 94 Caprice, and I think it had that same bore and stroke, but was of course a 1 pc. rear main seal. Not sure on the bore and stroke though.

AJ

 

Ya there was a VOrtec 265 used in trucks with a 3" stroke.

 

the 4.3L V8 L99 Caprice had a 3" stroke. You can use that crank to make a 302 in a 350 block. Chevy made some show cars with 302 LT4s using that crank, those L99 long rods, and LT4 pistons.

 

Tas, I just re-read that article again for like the 19th time. They put it in a Camaro and ended up around 450hp.

 

267s are cool .

I've got one in my '65 chevy beater truck.

http://communities.msn.com/clemsproj...oto&PhotoID=22

It has pulled way too much stuff over way to long a distance in it's short life in that truck. Before that, it was in a hobby-stock type dirt tracker.

this is by no means a powerhouse engine. I think it'll be a good spare to have on hand in case I need to throw an engine in something to keep it going though...

has the same stroke and rod length as a 305 or 350. Just a puny-*** bore at 3.5".

The one I've got has never had the heads off and an unknown number of miles. I've run it low on oil a couple of times on the highway lately. Don't know if it'll hold up much longer ...

later
Clem

btw, it seems that anybody I've heard of that had a 4 barrel on one of these engines hated it (said the engine sucked). Anybody with a 2 barrel seemed to take it at face value (reliablity, mileage) and respect the engine. I say, it's reliable, economic (arguably), and best of all it sounds like a small block chevy!

 

I had a 4 barrel on mine and i thought it ran pretty good. However, it was my first v8 and i have never even drove a car with a 350 before. Ive drove trucks with 350s but its just not the same. Im hoping that ill enjoy the difference between the 267 and my new 350.

sportsman 2 heads
edelbrock eps intake
xe262h-10 comp cam
edelbrock street/strip fuel pump
stock ignition <damn>
rochester carb <damn>
hedman headers and y pipe

what do you think?
Also, do you suppose that 4 barrel carb on that small motor (267)would cause it to run rich? The exhaust smelled horrible when that motor was stuffed in my engine bay.

thanks guys! btw, the 267 is up for grabs if someone needs it, all it needs is valve seals.

 

Is it possible that you have 267 heads on your 305?

When I pulled my 267 I thought it was a 305 too (this was not in a thirdgen...but in the aforementioned hobbystocker). What tipped me off what the clearly cast "267" on the block down by the pan rail on either side (I think it was both sides). It was cast upside down btw.

You might look into this possiblity, who knows (shrug).

Clem

 

NOT!!!

They never put a 265 V8 in a pickup. They used to put a 262 "Vortec" V6 in the S-10s and Blazers, but it wasn't called a Vortec in the fullsize trucks. Not before 1996 anyway. But even then, it was a V6.

I hope you can prove me wrong. That way I'll learn something. At least something else that GM did outside the USA.

AJ

 

I dont think I can because I was mistaken. That L99 was only used in the 9C1 and normal caprices I believe. Sorry bout that. They might have put one in the trucks back in the mid-late 50's though, I'm not sure.

 

I used to have a 267 in a Monte Carlo. While doing some research i found that the 305 and 267 heads are in fact the exact same castings, although sometimes with different valve sizing.
They were stamped with several #'s over the years, for the same castings.

Actually, my 267 ran pretty good after the rebuild... I had ordered a mild 305 sized cam from summit, that was lopey as heck in the 267. =)