"472CID" (472CID)
02/06/2015 at 16:36 • Filed to: None
0
14|
"472CID" (472CID)
02/06/2015 at 16:36 • Filed to: None | 0
| 14 |
In most of the world a 3 liter engine is a relatively large powerhouse. In the USA in the 1960s that's about as small as they got. Have a look at the smallest engines available during that special time and place.
My beloved Corvair was probably the most 'worldly' of American cars of it's time. The air-cooled flat sixes displaced anywhere from 2.3-2.7 liters. The turbochaged Corsa models made 180hp, which was nearly equal to low end V8s with twice the displacement.
Entry level Chevy IIs had a 2.5 liter inline 4 that was basically a Chevy inline 6 missing 2 cylinders.
Ford's inline 6 came as small as 2.4 and 2.8 liters, and they found their way in to Falcons, Mustangs, Vans, Broncos, and Comets.
The very smallest of Mopar's iconic slant six was 2.8 liters, it found it's way into Darts, Valiants, and Barracudas.
Despite having the original small American car (the Rambler) AMC didn't have have any engines smaller than 3 liters in the 60s (none that I found anyway). Jeep however, did have the old Willy's Hurricane 2.2 liter 4 cylinder.
Last but not least the Studebaker Lark had a 2.8 liter inline six.
Well there you have it, there's little doubt that Americans love big engines. Did I miss anything? Only a few American cars in the 1960s came in under 3 liters, but almost as few European cars were over 3 liter in the 1960s, which would make an equally interesting list for another time.
RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
> 472CID
02/06/2015 at 16:44 |
|
This '63 looks like it's got the 260 V8 (4.2L). My '63 has the 144, though, which was also available in a low compression version (presumably for areas with unspeakably bad gas).
KnowsAboutCars
> 472CID
02/06/2015 at 16:47 |
|
Nash Metropolitans production ended in the 60's if that counts. It didn't have American engines though.
AMC/Renauledge
> 472CID
02/06/2015 at 16:48 |
|
AMC did make the 1.8L V4 engined Mighty Mite. But that might not count since they weren't exactly commercially available as I recall.
|
472CID
> RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
02/06/2015 at 16:49 |
|
Yeah the Chevy II, Falcon, and Dart pictured all probably have V8s, those were just the pictures that fit the best.
|
472CID
> KnowsAboutCars
02/06/2015 at 16:50 |
|
I suppose it barely squeaks in, but I'd personally never consider it a "60s" car.
|
472CID
> AMC/Renauledge
02/06/2015 at 16:53 |
|
Never heard of those, interesting little bugger.
|
KnowsAboutCars
> 472CID
02/06/2015 at 16:53 |
|
Neither do I really. All of them were assembled in England too so I guess it's barely even American car.
|
RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht
> 472CID
02/06/2015 at 16:56 |
|
It's funny because most Falcons out there had the six, so you landing one with a V8 made it... odd. The telltales here are the V8 badge (duh) and the five-lug wheels - the Futura stripe on the side is a strong indicator but not a thing of certainty, as not all Futuras are Sprints.
crowmolly
> 472CID
02/06/2015 at 17:20 |
|
RallyWrench
> 472CID
02/06/2015 at 17:33 |
|
The Henry J used a pretty small mill as I recall, 2-something liters.
|
472CID
> RallyWrench
02/06/2015 at 17:37 |
|
The Henry J stopped production in '54 not exactly a 1960s car.
|
RallyWrench
> 472CID
02/06/2015 at 17:37 |
|
Durr, my mistake.
Kroozah
> 472CID
02/12/2015 at 18:36 |
|
Well, didn't Studebaker end all production in 1960? That's only barely the '60s too.
Berang
> 472CID
05/28/2015 at 09:18 |
|
You did forget the King Midget III. Since they had several engine suppliers it’s hard to nail down specifics on engine specs, but I believe the smallest option was a 29 cubic inch single cylinder.