260 Ford?

Hey George
I don't know if 70 SS Acadian is correct, and without having any actual numbers to compare, I would enter my guess as the Studebaker Engine ie the 224, 259 or the 289.
By design , the distributor was at the rear of the block, they actually had an cast air gap Type intake manifold. I don't know for sure, just a guess.

Dale

Don't know about who copied the Chevy V8's but Toyota copied the 

early Chevy Stovebolt six.

From Wikipedia:

The Type A engine was Toyota's first production engine, being produced from 1935 through 1947.

This engine was a 3,389 cc (3.4 L; 206.8 cu in) pushrod, overhead valve, 6-cylinder, three bearing engine copied from the 192936 Chevrolet Gen-1 3 bearing Stovebolt L6 OHV engine. By virtue of a modified intake manifold it produced 62 PS (46 kW), while the Chevrolet engine produced 60 PS (44 kW). GM used a number of local Japanese suppliers for the smaller engine parts (e.g. carburettors). Toyota was able to use the same suppliers for its cars. The parts were identical enough that pistons, rods, valves, etc. could be used in both the Chevrolet and Toyota engines interchangeably. There are several recorded instances of parts intended for one being used to repair the other.^[1]

Toyota had initially considered copying the Ford flathead V8 because it was the most popular engine in Japan at the time. However, the machining of two separate banks of cylinders would add too much to the production cost, so the Chevrolet engine was copied instead.^[1]

Other references to the Chevy engine claim different power figures. Different manufactures used different measuring techniques (e.g. with or without the generator/alternator connected), engines differed from year to year and that some manufacturers simply lied. In this case, Toyota did back to back comparisons using the same techniques, so it is likely that the Toyota engine did in fact produce slightly more power than the Chevy engine on which it was based. Also, the Chevy engine was likely to be a year or two old, so the current Chevy engine may have produced even more power.

 

 

 

Just a real pet peeve of mine, motor and engine are two different things, You can find many definitions of the two but here's one that sums it up well, "an engine is a device that burns or otherwise consumes fuel, changing its chemical composition,and a motor is a device driven by electricity, air, or hydraulic pressure, which does not change the chemical composition of its energy source".Just saying, the Small Bock Chevrolet is an engine. 

73SC wrote:

---

 

Just a real pet peeve of mine, motor and engine are two different things, You can find many definitions of the two but here's one that sums it up well, "an engine is a device that burns or otherwise consumes fuel, changing its chemical composition,and a motor is a device driven by electricity, air, or hydraulic pressure, which does not change the chemical composition of its energy source".Just saying, the Small Bock Chevrolet is an engine. 

---

 That may well be right and it may bother you but I've never heard an outboard boat motor referred to as an engine or if you have an inboard out west here it is always referred to as a motor.  I do refer to my cars and trucks as having engines though.   Thing that always bugs me but I don't get bent out of shape over it is when people are talking about pouring cement or having a cement sidewalk or floor.   I like to remind them it will be fine as long as the wind doesn't blow as cement is just a powder.  A concrete truck brings you concrete and you pour concrete which has cement as one of its components.   How's that for a derail!

The 289 V-8 Ford small block, not the 260 V-8 Ford because the block was cast very narrow to fit in the Falcon. Ford looked at the Chevy small and said yes we can do something with this and they did. Do not let Fords distributor in the front fool you. They took much of the early Chevy small block to build their legendary 289. 

Any SBC design engines built in the McKinnon engine plant prior to 1969. As McKinnon Industries was not a Chevrolet engine plant, it was a subsidiary that built engines of Chevrolet (and other) designs. Same with the South African GM plant that built Chevrolet 6cyl design engines that went into both Holden and Chevrolet vehicles assembled in South Africa. There was a restructure in 1969 when the McKinnon facility became General Motors of Canada, St Catharine's and from then on they built Chevrolet engines, until of course when Chevrolet ceased building engines and other driveline and GM Powertrain produced all driveline for all GM divisions (late 80's from memory).

The Ford Cleveland engine is a copy of the Big Block Chevrolet engine too. Bunkie Knudsen took himself and some Engineers to Ford and they basically copied the BBC heads to build the Boss 302 and later the Cleveland.

65Camino wrote:

---

Curious why you say the 289 was but not the 260 ?

---

Me too.  I thought the 260 and 289 block were based on the same design (and thus had the same external dimensions) - so I don't understand the claim that it was made narrower to fit the Falcon or whatever.

While nobody will dispute the success of the Chevy smallblock design, I find that in the 'car world' there are all kinds of wild claims floating around by people who claim to be 'in the know' about what may have happened in the engineering labs of the big car companies, when in fact there would only be a few who would actually know the 'real' story.

So, with that said, can anybody provide some documentation that proves this claim?  Otherwise I'll just file it away as another tall tale.

From an engineering patent point of view, it only takes a minor change in anything being built to get a new patent of your own. Unless you are selling a product knockoff as an original, like a fake Rolex, hard to take someone to court. The Chinese knockoff does this. Then you have to go to China to sue, good luck with that.

Everyone uses new products of competition to improve on it with their own, look at what all these new jelly bean cars look like?