.

Incorrect, the 2000s weren't truly the 2000s until the huge shift in 2006, with the 2010s replacing them in 2008. I'm surprised anybody even considers the 2000s a real decade in the first place.

Incorrect, the 2000s weren't truly the 2000s until the huge shift in 2006, with the 2010s replacing them in 2008. I'm surprised anybody even considers the 2000s a real decade in the first place.


This must be sarcasm. This HAS to be sarcasm.

https://media.tenor.co/images/292e63f50079536324bcc075688fe2af/tenor.gif

Can anybody please just stop making these kind of threads? These are honestly worse than Donnie Darko's threads before he closed his account. It's kinda sad that people keep repeating these kind of topics, even though it drives away members (including me). I honestly do not give a single sh*t about the 2000s dying in 2006-2009, since they weren't important towards any other person on Earth, especially me.

This must be sarcasm. This HAS to be sarcasm.

https://media.tenor.co/images/292e63f50079536324bcc075688fe2af/tenor.gif

Can anybody please just stop making these kind of threads? These are honestly worse than Donnie Darko's threads before he closed his account. It's kinda sad that people keep repeating these kind of topics, even though it drives away members (including me). I honestly do not give a single sh*t about the 2000s dying in 2006-2009, since they weren't important towards any other person on Earth, especially me.


Stop replying to these threads if you hate them

Stop replying to these threads if you hate them


I'm sorry but it's just that everybody wants me to keep posting in these kinds of threads (including #Infinity), even though I honestly hate it now. It's so pointless that I don't see why anybody would post in it. I didn't join this site just to ramble on crap about decades that nobody cares about. I joined because I wanted to be nostalgic for them, but it's just the opposite.

I'm sorry but it's just that everybody wants me to keep posting in these kinds of threads (including #Infinity), even though I honestly hate it now. It's so pointless that I don't see why anybody would post in it. I didn't join this site just to ramble on crap about decades that nobody cares about. I joined because I wanted to be nostalgic for them, but it's just the opposite.


if you hate it stop replying to this thread

I'm sorry but it's just that everybody wants me to keep posting in these kinds of threads (including #Infinity), even though I honestly hate it now. It's so pointless that I don't see why anybody would post in it. I didn't join this site just to ramble on crap about decades that nobody cares about. I joined because I wanted to be nostalgic for them, but it's just the opposite.


I never said I wanted you to post in needlessly decadeologic threads like this, I just thought you had welcome insights to topics that matter.

I never said I wanted you to post in needlessly decadeologic threads like this, I just thought you had welcome insights to topics that matter.


Oh. Well, I post on some threads that aren't related towards decadeology. But it's just that these kind of threads are everywhere, they just make me feel dissatisfied with this site now. 

I just find it annoying that the supposed "Late 2006" shift is mentioned in almost every new 2000's thread, whether it be sarcastically or in a genuine manner. NewYorkEagle has a point. Some of you may say that talking about the "Late 2006" shift still matters, but in all frankness, it doesn't. It's turned into a complete joke.

I just find it annoying that the supposed "Late 2006" shift is mentioned in almost every new 2000's thread, whether it be sarcastically or in a genuine manner. NewYorkEagle has a point. Some of you may say that talking about the "Late 2006" shift still matters, but in all frankness, it doesn't. It's turned into a complete joke.

I absolutely agree.

I just find it annoying that the supposed "Late 2006" shift is mentioned in almost every new 2000's thread, whether it be sarcastically or in a genuine manner. NewYorkEagle has a point. Some of you may say that talking about the "Late 2006" shift still matters, but in all frankness, it doesn't. It's turned into a complete joke.


What's most ridiculous is how long the thread specifically dedicated to the late 2006 shift has spanned, when really it should have probably ended after about 3 pages and in 2015, when it was originally started.

What's most ridiculous is how long the thread specifically dedicated to the late 2006 shift has spanned, when really it should have probably ended after about 3 pages and in 2015, when it was originally started.

I don't know why so many people hate the late 2000s (besides the Great Recession).

I don't know why so many people hate the late 2000s (besides the Great Recession).


it was not really a good time for america
post 2007

I don't know why so many people hate the late 2000s (besides the Great Recession).
I enjoyed the 2000s, I had a variety of jobs, made new friends, and started to travel more.

I just find it annoying that the supposed "Late 2006" shift is mentioned in almost every new 2000's thread, whether it be sarcastically or in a genuine manner. NewYorkEagle has a point. Some of you may say that talking about the "Late 2006" shift still matters, but in all frankness, it doesn't. It's turned into a complete joke.


I think it's not entirely his fault, but Zelek keeps mentioning the point that late 2006 and after sucked. Especially since it never got funny to start with. What does late 2006 have to do with the rest of the 2000s? Nobody honestly saw any differences between pre-2006 and post-2006 moments. It's like he just want to point out that everything around him actually matters, even though nobody really cares.

Zelek, if you're reading this, I'm not trying to hurt your feelings. But it's just that sometimes, you kinda tend to take pop culture a little bit too seriously when it comes to cartoons. Just sayin'.


I don't know why so many people hate the late 2000s (besides the Great Recession).


One word: Nostalgia

Considering people back in the late 2000s were obsessive over the 80s/early 90s, they just think their childhood was the best. Much like how I consider the 2000s to be the best, since that's where I spent my childhood on.

it was not really a good time for america
post 2007

"not really a good time" is an opinion.


I enjoyed the 2000s, I had a variety of jobs, made new friends, and started to travel more.

Awesome 8).


One word: Nostalgia

Considering people back in the late 2000s were obsessive over the 80s/early 90s, they just think their childhood was the best. Much like how I consider the 2000s to be the best, since that's where I spent my childhood on.

I guess.

Stop replying to these threads if you hate them


You're spamming the forum with this kind of crap. You started a "the core 00's were so short" thread, like, how long ago? Maybe a year? What's said was said. Do you really need to repeat yourself this much over and over? Knock it off.

"not really a good time" is an opinion.
Awesome 8).
I guess.


an opinion that alot of people agree with lol

The economy collapsed

You're spamming the forum with this kind of crap. You started a "the core 00's were so short" thread, like, how long ago? Maybe a year? What's said was said. Do you really need to repeat yourself this much over and over? Knock it off.

I think u are confusing me with another member on this fourm

I think u are confusing me with another member on this fourm


So you didn't start this thread? Right... ::)

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=53162.0


2004-2006  (early 2007 stretch)

Did not last long at all

So you didn't start this thread? Right... ::)

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=53162.0


Ok then have the mods merge the 2 threads, I can't remember every thread I make.
Like I said, if there is a thread you don't like, it is YOU are the one who is choosing
to enter inside it and type inside it.

Also lets not forget the thread where I pwned you where you pretended you had fashion knowledge
and kept beating around the bush. That was annoying.


Lets call a spade a spade.

an opinion that alot of people agree with lol

The economy collapsed

It's still an opinion. There are a bunch of opinions that lots of people agree on.....doesn't change the fact that it's an opinion.

Mods just lock this thread
some  people in here ruined it by complaining

Ok then have the mods merge the 2 threads, I can't remember every thread I make.
Like I said, if there is a thread you don't like, it is YOU are the one who is choosing
to enter inside it and type inside it.

Also lets not forget the thread where I pwned you where you pretended you had fashion knowledge
and kept beating around the bush. That was annoying.


Lets call a spade a spade.


You're the one know kept tracking my posts as if I sit in front of the computer the entire I'm online. Like, geez buddy, I can't go do my laundry? ::) You beat around the bush, too. Didn't answer my questions while I took yours head on. Now it's time for you to let it go and accept defeat.

You're the one know kept tracking my posts as if I sit in front of the computer the entire I'm online. Like, geez buddy, I can't go do my laundry? ::) You beat around the bush, too. Didn't answer my questions while I took yours head on. Now it's time for you to let it go and accept defeat.


You never took any of my questions lol

You never took any of my questions lol


I did. You ignored my posts and kept spamming your own questions. ::)

Ok then have the mods merge the 2 threads, I can't remember every thread I make.
Like I said, if there is a thread you don't like, it is YOU are the one who is choosing
to enter inside it and type inside it.

Also lets not forget the thread where I pwned you where you pretended you had fashion knowledge
and kept beating around the bush. That was annoying.


Lets call a spade a spade.


It should have not merged. In fact, we should not even have threads like these repeat itself. Sorry dude, but I don't think it's healthy making threads about how the cultural 2000s were short. Nobody ever in the pop cultural industry has ever cared so much about that. Even as somebody who takes the 2000s seriously, it's not like I completely spam the Internet with threads like "late 2006 ruined everything" or "the cultural 2000s were short and they need a makeover lulz".

We should have not merged. In fact, we should not even have threads like these repeat itself. Sorry dude, but I don't think it's healthy making threads about how the cultural 2000s were short. Nobody ever in the pop cultural industry has ever cared so much about that. Even as somebody who takes the 2000s seriously, it's not like I completely spam the Internet with threads like "late 2006 ruined everything" or "the cultural 2000s were short and they need a makeover lulz".


You're absolutely right, New York Eagle. How many times does one need to beat the dead horse?

We should have not merged. In fact, we should not even have threads like these repeat itself. Sorry dude, but I don't think it's healthy making threads about how the cultural 2000s were short. Nobody ever in the pop cultural industry has ever cared so much about that. Even as somebody who takes the 2000s seriously, it's not like I completely spam the Internet with threads like "late 2006 ruined everything" or "the cultural 2000s were short and they need a makeover lulz".


Who cares, if you keep posting in my threads its telling me YOU are the one who cares more. Stop posting if you don't care.
Saying I am not healthy are you on fudgeing drugs? Get out of my thread. I have never posted the 2000s need a makeover.
Stop trying to sham me from making a thread.

Let's revive the 00's, because they were so short, with a new MTV reality show! Decade Makeover! Now let's give those naughty aughties some pizzazz!

Who cares, if you keep posting in my threads its telling me YOU are the one who cares more. Stop posting if you don't care.
Saying I am not healthy are you on fudgeing drugs? Get out of my thread. I have never posted the 2000s need a makeover.
Stop trying to sham me from making a thread.


I'm just trying to give you some criticism. I mean, it's not like this entire forum resolves around what you think of the 2000s. I personally don't care about when the cultural era started or ended, since it's completely subjective. I don't even really care about how much the 2000s suck, since I already have people saying that throughout my whole adolescent life. It's not really going to make a difference on you making a thread about how the "cultural" 2000s ended. It's actually making it worse.

Shouldn't the "'00seyness of '00s years" thread be about how long the cultural 2000s lasted for? Why couldn't the discussion have just continued on in that thread, instead of creating an entirely new thread and talking about the nonsensical "Late 2006" shift, which supposedly changed the 2000s forever.  ::)

https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder653/250x250/56297653/michael-jackson-popcorn-eating-sorry-im-late-popcorn-line-was-really-long.jpg

You missed a good show.

Uh oh, things got tense, didn't they?  :P

https://media0.giphy.com/media/K9b2WiPZi0ZjO/giphy.gif

https://media0.giphy.com/media/K9b2WiPZi0ZjO/giphy.gif
Waiting for the next show?

Waiting for the next show?


I'm enjoying this one.  ;D

I'm enjoying this one.  ;D
You cannot leave your seat?

https://media0.giphy.com/media/K9b2WiPZi0ZjO/giphy.gif


Oh dear.

You cannot leave your seat?


Oh, I'm glued to it now.

Oh, I'm glued to it now.
Transfixed?

Transfixed?


Mesmerized.

Oh dear.


I see what you did there.

Except, it's a giraffe.

I see what you did there.

Except, it's a giraffe.


;D  ;D  ;D  ;D

You guys bullied poor the2001 for no reason. No wonder you're Hillary supporters.

You guys bullied poor the2001 for no reason. No wonder you're Hillary supporters.


I'm not. ;) But compared with Trump, I definitely am!

You guys bullied poor the2001 for no reason. No wonder you're Hillary supporters.


I'm probably one of the few Right leaning people on here (although more centrist than Right, or Left).  :D

And no, I didn't bully the2001, because I dislike online bullying. 

This must be sarcasm. This HAS to be sarcasm.

https://media.tenor.co/images/292e63f50079536324bcc075688fe2af/tenor.gif

Can anybody please just stop making these kind of threads? These are honestly worse than Donnie Darko's threads before he closed his account. It's kinda sad that people keep repeating these kind of topics, even though it drives away members (including me). I honestly do not give a single sh*t about the 2000s dying in 2006-2009, since they weren't important towards any other person on Earth, especially me.


I hope you don't leave. You're actually quite entertaining when you feel like it!  8)

You guys bullied poor the2001 for no reason. No wonder you're Hillary supporters.


It's not bullying to tell someone to stop spamming the thread with stupid posts about the same things over and over again. People are getting sick and tired of all these lame debates. Really, he made the same thread a year ago and tried to deny it! I don't understand this compulsive need to revisit the same debates over and over. Is it for some weird reassurance or whatever? It's so stupid and it's taking up the entire forum. And come on Zelek you know better; I am a Gary Johnson supporter. ::)

Oh dear.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/396/683/94d.png

It's not bullying to tell someone to stop spamming the thread with stupid posts about the same things over and over again. People are getting sick and tired of all these lame debates. And come on Zelek you know better; I am a Gary Johnson supporter. ::)





https://cdn.pastemagazine.com/www/system/images/photo_albums/gary-johnson-memes/large/1000473.png?1384968217

https://cdn.pastemagazine.com/www/system/images/photo_albums/gary-johnson-memes/large/1000473.png?1384968217


Damn right! ;D

You guys bullied poor the2001 for no reason. No wonder you're Hillary supporters.


You're all a bunch of amateurs.

THIS is how you bully decadeologists:

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE CHEVROLET SMALL-BLOCK V-8.

Chevrolet's small-block V8 is a famous automobile engine. Nicknamed "mouse motor" (opposed to the big block engine, nicknamed "rat") for its compact dimensions compared to other V8 engines of the time, production began in 1955 with the 265 engine. By 1957 it had grown to 283 cu in (4.6 L), and with the optional Rochester mechanical fuel injection, it became one of the first production engines ever to make one horsepower per cubic inch. This engine was used to power the Corvette, and the Bel Air at that time. It would later be extended to other vehicles as well, and replace the old style 265 V8s. The displacement changed over the years, eventually reaching 400 cu in (6.6 L), but none caught on like the 350 cu in (5.7 L) small-block. This engine is still in production today at General Motors Toluca, Mexico plant (primarily for the GM over-the-counter Goodwrench powerplants), but is no longer offered in current model year vehicles since the year 2004. Its production numbers were impressive, with more than 90,000,000 built. It has been produced in carbureted, mechanical fuel injection, and electronic fuel injection forms.

From 1955-74, the small-block engine was known as the "Turbo-Fire V8".

Although Buick, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac also designed V8 engines (see list of GM engines), it was Chevrolet's 350 cu in (5.7 L) small-block that became the GM corporate standard. Over the years, every American General Motors division except Saturn used the Chevrolet small-block, and its descendants (see GM LT engine and GM LS engine) continue as the company's mainstream V8 design today.

The small-block was on the Ward's 10 Best Engines of the 20th Century list.

Chevrolet tested the small-block twice with no water and no oil at wide-open throttle. The first time it lasted an hour and 15 minutes and the second time it lasted two hours.

Major Versions

Generation 1

The original design of the small block remained remarkably unchanged for its production run, which began in 1955 and ended, in passenger vehicles, in 2003. The engine is still being built today for many aftermarket applications, both to replace worn-out older engines and also by many builders as high-performance applications. There were, however many minor changes made to the engine over the years; these changes are listed below.

    * 1955 - The first year of introduction in 265 cu in (4.3 L) only. As was fairly common for the time, no provision for an oil filter was included in the engine design.
    * 1956 - Oil filtration was introduced, using a sock style filter in a canister.
    * 1957 - The engine came with only front mounts, the side mount bosses were present but not drilled and tapped leaving its retrofitting problematic.
    * 1962 - The block's cylinder wall casting was revised to allow four inch bores. Previously, only certain years of the 283 engine (1958-1962) could be bored safely to four inches.
    * 1968 - The main journal diameter was increased to 2.45 in from 2.30 in and the connecting rod journal diameter was increased to 2.10 in from 2.00 in. This allowed the use of cast iron crankshafts as the previous parts were made of forged steel. The rod bolts were changed from 11/32 in. diameter to 3/8 inch. Additionally, the canister/sock style oil filter was now converted to use spin on filters. The oil fill location was moved from a tube on the front of the intake manifold to a cap on either side valve cover.
    * 1987 - The valve cover surfaces were changed such that cylinder head mounting lip was raised and the bolt location was moved from 4 bolts on the perimeter, to 4 bolts down the centerline of the valve cover (this design debuted on the Corvette in 1985, and Chevrolet 4.3 L the year before). The rear main seal was changed from a 2-piece rubber design to a 1-piece rubber design that used a mounting appliance to hold it in place. This necessitated a change in the flywheel/flexplate bolt pattern as well. Also changed were the mounting angles of the center 2 bolts on each side of the intake manifold (from 90 degrees to 73 degrees) and the lifter bosses were increased in height to accept roller lifters. The alloy heads for use in the Corvette still retain the non-angled bolts (center 2 bolts attaching to the intake). Also all carburetors were done away with and replaced by TBI (throttle-body injection) fuel injection that acts some what like a carburetor.
    * 1996 - This was the last change for the Generation I engine, and continued through the end of the production run in 2003; all 1997-2003 Generation I engines were Vortec truck engines. The cylinder heads were redesigned using improved ports and combustion chambers similar to those in the Generation II LT1. This change resulted in significant power increases.

SB2 and SB2.2

(Small Block/second generation) This engine was produced from 1996 to the present for racing applications only. The cylinder heads were redesigned and the lifter bores were offset. The valve sequence for each head was changed from the traditional E-I-I-E-E-I-I-E to a new I-E-I-E-E-I-E-I and because of this the camshaft was redesigned.

Generation II
LT1 from a 1993 Chevrolet Camaro Z28

See the GM LT engine page for more information on the Generation II small-block V8s, which differ mainly in their reverse-flow cooling system.

Generation III / IV
LS1 from a 1998 Chevrolet Camaro Z28

See the GM LS engine page for more information on the current family of General Motors small-block V8s.

Early Small Blocks

The first small block Chevrolet V-8 was a 265 cu in (4.3 L) engine that was developed in 1955 for the Corvette. Displacement and power eventually reached 327 cu in (5.4 L) and 375 hp (280 kW) (in prototypes) before the Corvette switched to Chevrolet big-block power. Although less powerful than big blocks, small block engines have remained popular due to their lower cost (including the cost of performance add-ons) and solid performance and reliability.

265

The 265 cu in (4.3 L) V8 was the first Chevrolet small block. Designed by Ed Cole's group at Chevrolet, it filled the power gap in the 1955 Corvette lineup, producing an impressive 250 hp (186 kW). The little engine went from drawings to production in just 15 weeks. Besides its compact dimensions, the small-block was known for its novel green-sand foundry construction process.

Dimensions were oversquare - 3.75 in (95 mm) bore and 3 in (76 mm) stroke. The small-block's 4.4 in (111.8 mm) bore spacing would continue in use for decades. It was a pushrod cast-iron engine with hydraulic lifters and a 2-barrel or 4-barrel Rochester carburetor. The 1955 conventional passenger car version produced 162 hp (121 kW) with a 2-barrel carburetor, or could be upgraded at extra cost to a "Power Pack" version conservatively rated at 180 hp (134 kW) with a four-barrel Rochester and dual exhaust. The first production year of this engine had no provision for oil filtration built into the block; however, an add-on filter mounted on the thermostat housing was installed during production. Due to the lack of adequate oil filtration provisions, the '55 model year block is typically only desirable to period collectors.

The 1956 Corvette introduced three versions of this engine - 210 hp (157 kW), 225 hp (168 kW) with twin 4-barrel carbs, and 240 hp (179 kW) with a high-lift cam.

    * 1955, 1956 Chevrolet Corvette
    * 1955 Chevrolet, 165 hp (123 kW) (2-barrel) and 195 hp (145 kW) (4-barrel)

283

The 283 cu in (4.6 L) V8 was introduced in 1957. It was a version of the 265 cu in (4.3 L) with a larger bore at 3.87 in (98 mm). There were five different versions ranging from 185 hp (138 kW) to 283 hp (211 kW) depending on whether a single carb, twin carbs, or fuel injection was used. Power was up a bit each year for 1958, 1959, and 1960.

The 1957 engine featured Ramjet mechanical fuel injection, allowing the engine to produce 1 hp (1 kW) per cubic inch, an impressive feat at the time. For 1961, an amazing 315 hp (235 kW) was available from this unit.

    * 1957-1962 Chevrolet Corvette

302

Chevrolet produced a special 302 cu in (4.9 L) engine for Trans Am racing from 1967-1969. It was the product of placing the 3-inch stroke crankshaft from a 283 into a 4-inch bore 327 block. This engine was mostly used in the first-generation Camaro Z28. Just over 100 DZ block 302 engines were used in the, unique to South Africa, Chevrolet Firenza Can Am. Conservatively rated at 290 hp (216 kW), actual output was around 360 hp (268 kW). This block is one of 3 displacements that underwent a transformation for the 1968/1969 period when the main bearing size was increased from 2.30 in to 2.45 in.

307

A 307 cu in (5 L) version was produced from 1968 through 1973. Engine bore was 3.875 inches (98.4 mm) with a 3.25-inch (82.6 mm) stroke.

The 307 replaced the 283 in Chevrolet cars and produced 200 hp (149 kW) SAE gross at 4600 rpm and 300 lb·ft (407 N·m) of torque at 2400 rpm in the 1960s. The later emissions-modified versions produced just 115 hp (86 kW) SAE net, giving the engine one of the lowest power-per-displacement ratings of all time. Chevrolet never produced a high-performance version of this engine, though they did produce, for Outboard Marine Corporation, a high-performance marinized 307, rated at 235 hp (175 kW) and 245 hp (183 kW) SAE gross, depending on year, that shipped with the Corvette/Z-28's cast aluminum valve covers and Rochester QuadraJet carb. Chevy also built other versions of the OMC 307 rated at 210 hp (157 kW), 215 hp (160 kW) and 225 hp (168 kW) SAE gross.

One of the biggest myths about the 307 is that all the blocks were cast with a very low nickel content. However, some 307 blocks, such as casting number 3970020 with suffix VxxxxTHA (x's in place for date), had 010 and 020 stamped under the timing chain cover indicating high tin and nickel content.

327

The 327 cu in (5.4 L) V8, introduced in 1962, had a bore and stroke of 4 in (102 mm) by 3.25 in. Power ranged from 250 hp (186 kW) to 375 hp (280 kW) depending on the choice of carburetor or fuel injection, camshaft, cylinder heads, pistons and intake manifold. In 1962, the Duntov solid lifter cam versions produced 340 hp (254 kW), 344 lb·ft (466 N·m) with single Carter 4-brl, and 360 hp (268 kW), 352 lb·ft (477 N·m) with Rochester mechanical fuel injection. In 1964, horsepower increased to 365 hp (272 kW) for the now dubbed L79 version, and 375 hp (280 kW) for the fuel injected L84 respectively, making the L84 the most powerful naturally aspirated, single-cam, production small block V8 until the appearance of the 385 hp (287 kW), 385 lb·ft (522 N·m) Generation III LS6 in 2001. * L79, L84 1963-1965; Chevrolet Corvette. This block is one of three displacements that under went a major change in 1968/1969 when the main bearing size was increased from 2.30 to 2.4 inches (58.4–61.0 mm). In 1965 the SS malibu choice of the 327/350 hp know as the "L79", with a aluminum manifold, holley squarebore carb, chrome valve covers, a huge 8" balancer, huge 2.02" intake valves and could only be ordered with a 4 speed trans.

400

A 400 cu in (6.6 L) small-block was introduced in 1970 and produced for 10 years. It had a 4.125-inch (104.8 mm) bore and a 3.75-inch (95.3 mm) stroke. Initial output was 265 hp (198 kW) and was only available equipped with a 2-barrel carburetor. In 1974 a 4-barrel version of the 400 was introduced,while the 2-barrel version stopped production in 1975. 1976 was the last year that the 400 was used in a Chevrolet Passenger car, available in both the A-Body and B-Body line. While popular with circle-track racers, the engine was prone to cooling troubles if cylinder heads without steam holes were used. they mostly put out 250 hp stock.

Later Small Blocks

This section documents the odd-size small blocks developed after the 350 appeared in 1969. Many of these basic blocks are variations of the 350 design.

262

The 262 was a 262 cu in (4.3 L) 90° pushrod V8 with an iron block and heads. Bore and stroke were 3.67 in (93 mm) by 3.10 in (78.7 mm). Power output for 1975 was 110 hp (82 kW) and 195 lb·ft (264 N·m). The 262 was underpowered and was replaced by the 305 the following year.

This was Chevrolet's second 4.3 L-displacement powerplant; two other Chevrolet engines displaced 4.3 L: the Vortec 4300 (based on the Chevrolet 350, with two cylinders removed), and a derivative of the LT1 known as the L99 (using the 305's 3.736-inch bore, 5.94-inch connecting rods, and a 3-inch crankshaft stroke).

This engine was used in the following cars:

    * 1975-1976 Chevrolet Monza
    * 1975 Chevrolet Nova

267

The 267 was introduced in 1979 for GM F-Body(Camaro), G-bodies (Chevrolet Monte Carlo, El Camino, and Malibu Classic) and also used on GM B-body cars (Impala and Caprice models). The 267 cu in (4.4 L) had the 350's crankshaft stroke of 3.48" and the smallest bore of any small-block, 3.500 in. The 3.500" bore was also used on the 200 cu in (3.3 L) V6, which was introduced a year earlier. (The 200 was a Chevrolet V6 engine based on the small block with the #3 and #6 cylinders removed).

It was available with a Rochester Dualjet 210 - effectively a Rochester Quadrajet with no rear barrels. After 1980, electronic feedback carburetion was used on the 267.

While similar in displacement to the other 4.3-4.4 L V8 engines produced by General Motors (including the Oldsmobile 260 and Pontiac 265, the small bore 267 shared no parts with the other engines and was phased out after the 1982 model year due to inability to conform to emission standards. Chevrolet vehicles eventually used the 305 cu in (5 L) as its base V8 engine.

305

The 305 variant of the small-block Chevrolet had a displacement of 305 cu in (5 L) with a 3.736-inch (95 mm) bore and 3.48-inch (88.4 mm) stroke. The 262 was considered underpowered for use in vehicles with a wheelbase greater than 110 inches, so GM engineers decided to increase the bore diameter from 3.671 to 3.736 inches (93.2–94.9 mm) and increase the stroke from 3.10 to 3.48 inches (78.7–88.4 mm) (from the 350). Some performance enthusiasts have noted a marked resistance to performance upgrades on the 305 because of its small bore, poor selection of aftermarket cylinder heads, and the relatively high availability of 350 cu in (5.7 L) engines.

Induction systems for the 305 included carburetors (both 2 and 4-barrel), throttle-body injection (TBI), tuned-port fuel injection (TPI), and sequential fuel injection (GM Vortec).

After 1996, its usage was limited to light trucks and SUVs as the Vortec 5000.
Year    hp (kW)    lb·ft (N·m)
1976    140    250    w/2bbl.
1977    145    245    w/2bbl.
1978    140    240    w/2bbl.
1978    160    235    w/4bbl.
1979    130    245    w/2bbl.
1979†    125    235    w/2bbl.
1980    155    240    w/4bbl.
1981    150    240    w/4bbl

† California Emissions

The 305 was used in the following cars:

    * 1977-1993 Chevrolet Caprice (includes Impala)
    * 1977-1986 Pontiac Parisienne
    * 1976-1979 Chevrolet Monza
    * 1976-1979 Chevrolet Nova (also GM X-body clones after 1976)
    * 1976-1992 Chevrolet Camaro
    * 1976-1988 Chevrolet Malibu, Chevrolet El Camino, and Chevrolet Monte Carlo
    * 1978-1992 Pontiac Firebird
    * 1978-1980 Oldsmobile Cutlass (US Market only, Canadian market 1978-1987)
    * 1991-1992 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser
    * 1981-1987 Pontiac Grand Prix
    * 1975-1979 Buick Skylark
    * 1977-2003 Chevrolet/GMC Trucks, SUVs, Vans
    * 1991-1992 Cadillac Brougham

LG3

Years:1976-1980

Dualjet 2 bbl carb version with 8.5:1 compression.

LG4

Years: 1980-1987

The LG4 was the "low output" 305 cu in (5 L) (compared to the L69). It produced 150 hp (112 kW)-170 hp (127 kW) and 240 lb·ft (325 N·m)-250 lb·ft (339 N·m). The addition of a knock sensor for the engine management system in 1985 allowed an increase in compression and a more aggressive spark timing map in the ECM. As a result power increased for the 1985 models to 165 hp (123 kW) from the 150 hp (112 kW) rating in 1984.

L69

Years: 1983-1986

The L69 was the last true H.O. engine. The High Output 5 L (305 cu in) , featuring higher compression of 9.5:1 with heads of the to-be-discontinued LU5 Cross-Fire fuel injection engine, and utilizing camshaft and 4" catalytic converter of the 5.7 L (350 cu in) L83 which was used on the Corvette of 1982 and 1984. Complete with a 2.75 inch exhaust system, topped by a recalibrated 4-barrel carburetor, dual snorkel air cleaner assembly, aluminum intake manifold, aluminum flywheel, electric cooling fan, and furthermore a knock sensor including more aggressive spark timing, this engine produced 190 hp (142 kW) @ 4800 and 240 lb·ft (325 N·m) of torque @ 3200 rpm. In most cases, being mated to a 3.73 or 3:42 ratio limited slip rear axle and a T5 5-speed or 700R4 automatic, this engine provided its driver with a wide range of rpm to play in.

LE9

Years: 1981-1986

The LE9 5 L (305 cu in) was the truck/van version of the High Output 305. It also had flattop pistons for a 9.5:1 compression ratio, the "929" truck 350 camshaft for more torque, 14022601 casting heads featuring 1.84/1.50" valves and 53 cc chambers, a specially calibrated 4bbl Q-Jet, the hybrid centrifugal/vacuum advance distributor with ESC knock sensor setup, and lower restriction exhaust. The engine made 210 hp (157 kW) @ 4,600 and 250 lb·ft (339 N·m) @ 2,000 rpm.

L03

Years: 1987-95

The L03 was the "low output" 5 L (305 cu in) (compared to the 305 TPI LB9). It produced 170 hp (127 kW) and 255 lb·ft (346 N·m) of torque (190 hp (142 kW) at 4,400 rpm and 275 lb·ft (373 N·m) at 2,400 in 1993-1995 GM trucks). This engine used throttle-body fuel injection. The TBI uses a unique injector firing scheme, for every rotation of the engine, each injector fired twice.

LB9

Years: 1985-1992

Introduced in 1985, the LB9 was the first Chevrolet small block to have tuned-port fuel injection (TPI). It was introduced with 215 hp (160 kW) and 275 lb·ft (373 N·m) and varied between 190 hp (142 kW)-230 hp (172 kW) (with 275 lb·ft (373 N·m)-300 lb·ft (407 N·m) of torque) over the years offered. It was an option on all 1985-1992 Chevrolet Camaro & Pontiac Firebird models.

350
Not to be confused with Buick V8 engine, Oldsmobile V8 engine, or Pontiac V8 engine.

The first generation of Chevrolet small-blocks began with the 1955 Chevrolet 265 cu in (4.3 L) V8. But it was the 350 cu in (5.7 L) series that came to be emblematic of the Chevrolet small block V8 engine. The engine's physical dimensions (oversquare 4.00-inch bore and 3.48-inch stroke, 102 mm by 88 mm) are nearly identical to the 400 hp (298 kW) LS2 engine of today, but much has changed. It is by far the most widely used Chevrolet small-block; it has been installed in everything from station wagons to sports cars, in commercial vehicles, and even in boats and (in highly modified form) airplanes.

First usage of the 350 was in the 1967 Chevrolet Camaro and 1968 Nova producing 295 horsepower (gross); other Chevrolet vehicle lines followed suit in the year 1969.

The GM Goodwrench 350 crate engine comes in several variations. The lowest priced uses the pre-1986 four-bolt casting molds with two dipstick locations; pre-1980 on the driver's side and post-1980 on the passenger's side. This engine was produced in Mexico since 1981 as the Targetmaster 350, and now the GM Goodwrench 350.

ZQ3

Years: 1969, 1970, 1972-1975

The ZQ3 was the standard engine in the 1969-1970 Chevrolet Corvette. It was a 300 hp (224 kW) version of the 350 cu in (5.7 L) small-block, with 10.25:1 compression and hydraulic lifters. It used a Rochester "4MV" Quadra-Jet 4-barrel carburetor. This was the first block produced that featured the larger 2.45 inch main bearing versus the older 2.30 inch main bearing in 1968/1969.

The 1969 ZQ3 produced 200 hp (149 kW) and 300 lb·ft (407 N·m) with 8.5:1 compression, dropping another 10 hp (7 kW) in 1973. 1975 saw the ZQ3 at 165 hp (123 kW) and 255 lb·ft (346 N·m).

L46

Years: 1969, 1970

The L46 was an optional engine on the 1969-1970 Chevrolet Corvette. It was a 350 hp (261 kW), 380 lb·ft (515 N·m) version of the ZQ3 with higher 11:1 compression.

LT-1
LT-1 from a 1970 Chevrolet Camaro Z28

Years: 1970-1972

The LT-1 was the ultimate 350 cu in (5.7 L) V8, becoming available in 1970. It used solid lifters, 11:1 compression, a high-performance camshaft, and a Holley four-barrel carburetor on a special aluminum intake to produce 370 hp (276 kW) and 380 lb·ft (515 N·m). It was available on the Corvette and Camaro Z28. Power was down in 1971 to 330 hp (246 kW) and 360 lb·ft (488 N·m) with 9:1 compression, and again in 1972 (the last year of the LT-1) to 255 hp (190 kW) and 280 lb·ft (380 N·m).

There was also a later small-block engine called the "LT1".

L48

Years: 1967-1980

The L-48 is the original 350 cu in (5.7 L), available only in the Camaro or Chevy II/Nova in '67 & '68. In '69 it was used in almost everything; Camaros, Corvettes, Impalas, Chevelles & Novas. From '75-'80 it was available only in the Corvette. L-48's use a Hyd Cam, 4bbl Qjet, Cast pistons, 2 bolt main caps, "Pink" Rods, #0014 Blocks & #993 heads. Power output ranges from 300HP(gross) down to 175HP(net).

The L48 was the standard engine in the 1971 Chevrolet Corvette. It produced 270 hp (201 kW) and 360 lb·ft (488 N·m) with an 8.5:1 compression ratio.

The 1976-1979 L48 was the standard Corvette engine and produced 180 hp (134 kW) and 270 lb·ft (366 N·m). The 1980 L48 stood at 190 hp (142 kW) and 280 lb·ft (380 N·m) from 8.2:1 compression.

In 1972 the only way to get a L48 (4bbl V8) in a Chevy Nova was to get the Super Sport Package. This is indicated by the 5th digit in the VIN being a "K". 1972 was the only year you could verify the Super Sport package by the VIN.

In 1973 the "L-48" had cold air induction (throttle activated) and developed 190 hp (142 kW) (net). Beginning in 1974 the hp was reduced for several years until it reached a low of 165 hp (123 kW) (net) in 1975, before rising again.

L82

Years: 1973-1980

The 1973-1974 L82 was a "performance" version of the 350 producing 250 hp (186 kW) and 285 lb·ft (386 N·m) from 9:1 compression. It was down to 205 hp (153 kW) and 255 lb·ft (346 N·m) for 1975. It was the optional engine again in 1976-1977, producing 5 hp (4 kW) more. The 1978 L82 recovered somewhat, producing 220 hp (164 kW) and 260 lb·ft (353 N·m), and then 5 hp (4 kW) and 10 lb·ft (14 N·m) more for 1979. 1980 saw yet another 10 hp (7 kW) and 15 lb·ft (20 N·m).

L81

Years: 1981

The L81 was the only 5.7 L (350 cu in) Corvette engine for 1981. It produced 190 hp (142 kW) and 280 lb·ft (380 N·m) from 8.2:1 compression, exactly the same as the 1980 L48, but added computer control spark advance, replacing the vacuum advance.

L83

Years: 1982, 1984

The 1982 L83 was again the only Corvette engine (and only available with an automatic transmission) producing 200 hp (149 kW) and 285 lb·ft (386 N·m) from 9:1 compression. This was again the only engine on the new 1984 Vette, at 205 hp (153 kW) and 290 lb·ft (393 N·m). The L83 added Cross-Fire fuel injection (twin throttle-body fuel injection).

L98

    For the new Generation IV V8, see GM L98.

Years: 1985-1992

The new 1985 L98 added tuned-port fuel injection "TPI", which produced 230 hp (172 kW) and 330 lb·ft (447 N·m). It was standard on all 1985-1991 Corvettes (rated at 230 hp (172 kW)-250 hp (186 kW) and 330 lb·ft (447 N·m)-350 lb·ft (475 N·m)). Optional on 87-92 Chevrolet Camaro & Pontiac Firebird models (rated at 225 hp (168 kW)-245 hp (183 kW) and 330 lb·ft (447 N·m)-345 lb·ft (468 N·m)) 1987 versions had 10 hp (7 kW) and 15 lb·ft (20 N·m) more thanks to 9.5:1 compression. Compression was up again in 1991 to 10:1 but output stayed the same.

LM1

The LM1 is the base 5.7 L (350 cu in) with a 4-barrel carburetor (usually with a Rochester Quadrajet) in passenger cars until 1988. Throughout its lifespan, it received either a points, electronic, and/or computer-controlled spark system, to conventional and feedback carburetors.

LM1s were superseded with the LO5 powerplant after 1988.

L05

The L05 was introduced in 1987 for use in Chevrolet/GMC trucks in both the GMT400 (introduced in April 1987 as 1988 models) and the R/V series trucks such as the K5 Blazer, Suburban, and rounded-era pickups formerly classed as the C/K until 1996 which includes chassis cabs and 4-door crew cabs. Although usage was for trucks, vans, and 9C1-optioned Caprices, the L05 was also used with the following vehicles:

    * 1992/1993 Buick Roadmaster sedan and station wagon
    * 1991/1992 Cadillac Brougham (optional engine)
    * 1993 Cadillac Fleetwood
    * 1992/1993 Chevrolet Caprice Wagon (optional engine)
    * 1993 Chevrolet Caprice LTZ
    * 1992 Oldsmobile Custom Cruiser Wagon (optional engine)

L05 usage was replaced by the GM LT1 after 1993 in GM B-Bodies until production ceased in 1996.

In mid 1996 the L05 was equipped with Vortec heads used in the 1996 G30.

L31

The L31 replaced the LO5 in 1996 - known as the Vortec 5700. Known as the GEN 1+, this was the final incarnation of the 1955-vintage small block, ending production in 2005 with the last vehicle being a Kodiak/Topkick HD truck. Volvo Penta and Mercury Marine still produces the L31. The "MARINE" intake is a potential upgrade for L31 trucks.


:D