Please be as mundane in your answer as possible?

Even if you're just joking around I think you need to calm down a bit with these threads. I don't see the point in making a topic like this especially when it all can be seen as a joke thread to take jabs at others.

Even if you're just joking around I think you need to calm down a bit with these threads. I don't see the point in making a topic like this especially when it all can be seen as a joke thread to take jabs at others.


I personally think this is hilarious and I am having fun with it.

I personally think this is hilarious and I am having fun with it.


Hey people having fun is something I'm always glad to see, but I just don't find a point in making a thread such as this.

But hey if it isn't bothering anyone then pay no attention to me.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mwCZjGO6HIA/hqdefault.jpg

Hey people having fun is something I'm always glad to see, but I just don't find a point in making a thread such as this.

But hey if it isn't bothering anyone then pay no attention to me.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mwCZjGO6HIA/hqdefault.jpg


Actually, all members have the same choice as all the 'legitimate' decade related threads that flood these boards. Just read the thread title and skip over them.

I personally think this is hilarious and I am having fun with it.


Me too, It's all about having fun.

Dude, please, just stop it. You are embarrassing yourself and making it much worse for many others on here who want to start creative topics for certain reasons.

Dude, please, just stop it. You are embarrassing yourself and making it much worse for many others on here who want to start creative topics for certain reasons.


He is just joking.  ::)

Dude, please, just stop it. You are embarrassing yourself and making it much worse for many others on here who want to start creative topics for certain reasons.


Hah, I don't embarrass that easily. I hope you don't really believe that the many nonsensical threads posted here (similar to mine) are creative.

The joke here is that my 'silly' threads on the same subject matter are not that far removed from the very mundane serious threads on decade comparison.

However, I would defend their right to post those threads. I should get the same rights ... And I'm perhaps annoying less members.

Hah, I don't embarrass that easily. I hope you don't really believe that the many nonsensical threads posted here (similar to mine) are creative.

The joke here is that my 'silly' threads on the same subject matter are not that far removed from the very mundane serious threads on decade comparison.

However, I would defend their right to post those threads. I should get the same rights ... And I'm perhaps annoying less members.


We understand the joke, we just don't think it's funny.

We understand the joke, we just don't think it's funny.


Being a free society ... That's your prerogative.

We understand the joke, we just don't think it's funny.


It's also why a couple of threads just got locked recently too. ::)

It's also why a couple of threads just got locked recently too. ::)


No issues there...  ;D

Is this a trick question? What do you mean by 1995 and 1997 decadeologists? People born in '95 and '97?

Is this a trick question? What do you mean by 1995 and 1997 decadeologists? People born in '95 and '97?


He is just trying to be funny, lighten up.

Is this a trick question? What do you mean by 1995 and 1997 decadeologists? People born in '95 and '97?

He was having fun! He was saying the years 1995 and 1997, not births.

He was having fun! He was saying the years 1995 and 1997, not births.


Oh. But we don't really talk about 1995 and 1997 that much.

Dude, please, just stop it. You are embarrassing yourself and making it much worse for many others on here who want to start creative topics for certain reasons.


I really don't see what the problem is. No one here is interfering with your threads. We had our "decadeology war" several years ago, it's over now, you guys won and you more or less took the board over. But that's not enough for you, is it? I mean, anymore we basically leave you guys alone and let you do your thing, yet here you are trying to tell us what kinds of threads we should and shouldn't make. Seems a little hypocritical, don't you think?


We understand the joke, we just don't think it's funny.


And that's one of the biggest problems we have with decadeology, and why we fought so hard against it. You guys don't think anything is funny.  :P

I really don't see what the problem is. No one here is interfering with your threads. We had our "decadeology war" several years ago, it's over now, you guys won and you more or less took the board over. But that's not enough for you, is it? I mean, anymore we basically leave you guys alone and let you do your thing, yet here you are trying to tell us what kinds of threads we should and shouldn't make. Seems a little hypocritical, don't you think?


I wasn't responding to you. I actually wholeheartedly agreed with what you said previously on the other thread. What do you mean by "us"? I was overacting to only one person, that is the creator of this thread, I'm sorry that I misunderstood, but I'm not the one who's making threads on here though. So I don't see how I'm hypocritical. I just respond to what everyone else talks about on here. It's just when I see someone purposely doing it just to piss folks off or get someone else in trouble. I get that OP was joking though.

I wasn't responding to you. I was overacting to the other person, sorry that I misunderstood, but I'm not the one who's making threads on here though. So I don't see how I'm hypocritical. I just respond to what everyone else talks about on here. It's just when I see someone purposely doing it just to piss folks off. I get that OP was joking though.


No problem, and I apologize for being a little dickish before.

The thing is, as long as some of us old-timers stick around, occasionally the decadeology thing is going to come up and we're gonna poke fun at it every now and then. It's really nothing personal against anybody, it's just what we do.  So try not to let it bother you too much.

No problem, and I apologize for being a little dickish before.

The thing is, as long as some of us old-timers stick around, occasionally the decadeology thing is going to come up and we're gonna poke fun at it every now and then. It's really nothing personal against anybody, it's just what we do.  So try not to let it bother you too much.


Wow, I didn't realize you were a moderator on here!? Again, thanks for the post and we need more folks like you around here. Well I better be careful lol. I'm still kinda new to this site. I've been here for about 6 months now. I've archived this site and I know people my age who were on here years ago when they were 15 or 16 who aren't really active anymore. I could have joined long time ago but I just keep discovering new things everyday I guess!

Oh. But we don't really talk about 1995 and 1997 that much.

I've talked about 1997 before. But I haven't talked about 1995 that much! I should've done it around my birthday time! A MISSED opportunity! >:( ;D

I really don't see what the problem is. No one here is interfering with your threads. We had our "decadeology war" several years ago, it's over now, you guys won and you more or less took the board over. But that's not enough for you, is it? I mean, anymore we basically leave you guys alone and let you do your thing, yet here you are trying to tell us what kinds of threads we should and shouldn't make. Seems a little hypocritical, don't you think?

What?  I thought the old school members here were trying to stop the more recent generation from polluting the boards with decade sub-era threads.  The only reason new school members are able to get away with these threads now is because the older generation has pretty much run out of energy.  There's still a certain level of contempt that I don't think is fair for more recent posters.

And that's one of the biggest problems we have with decadeology, and why we fought so hard against it. You guys don't think anything is funny.  :P

That's oversimplifying the new generation.  Of course we love a good laugh, you just don't necessarily see it come out of topics that we're passionate about.  We do have fun when it's warranted, but you can't really pass off this thread's joke as harmless when it's still a matter of contention.  Go ahead and laugh if you think it's funny, just don't be surprised that you're not exactly flattering those who genuinely find these types of discussions intellectually stimulating.

I've talked about 1997 before. But I haven't talked about 1995 that much! I should've done it around my birthday time! A MISSED opportunity! >:( ;D


1997 was great but I noticed a cultural shift around the time that terrible Batman & Robin movie came out. Everyone was just #DONE.

It's also the year I got my............. Atari! I loved playing those side-scrolling shoot-'em ups  ;D The Atari vs. SNES vs. hey my shoes glow when I walk debates were to die for.

What?  I thought the old school members here were trying to stop the more recent generation from polluting the boards with decade sub-era threads.  The only reason new school members are able to get away with these threads now is because the older generation has pretty much run out of energy.  There's still a certain level of contempt that I don't think is fair for more recent posters.

That's oversimplifying the new generation.  Of course we love a good laugh, you just don't necessarily see it come out of topics that we're passionate about.  We do have fun when it's warranted, but you can't really pass off this thread's joke as harmless when it's still a matter of contention.  Go ahead and laugh if you think it's funny, just don't be surprised that you're not exactly flattering those who genuinely find these types of discussions intellectually stimulating.


Screw it, even though I have to go to work in a couple hours I can't sleep so I'd might as well just say what I've got to say.

First of all, as I told mqg96 earlier, as long as us old-timers are still around, occasionally the decadeology thing is going to come up and we're gonna goof on it every now and then. Again, it's nothing personal against anyone, it's just what we do, so try not to let it get to you too much.

I think the problem between the older and newer generations on this board comes down to how we perceive each other. To be honest I'm surprised that this even bothers you at all, because (and I don't know if I speak for all the older members here but I think I do) I've always been under the impression that you guys could give two sh!ts less about what we think of you.  Obviously that's not the case but that's how it kind of seems to us. I'm thinking that you probably feel shut out by the older members, but has it occurred to you that maybe some of us might feel equally shut out by the newer members? Because that's how it kind of feels to me sometimes.

The thing is, there are still some lingering bad feelings about the decadeology conflict and I don't think they're ever going to entirely go away. Again it comes down to a matter of perception.

I can respect where you're coming from.  You joined up long after all this sh!t went down and you don't see what the harm is in posting threads comparing years and all that and you've probably sat there numerous times thinking, "Why are all these old-timers such dicks about all this?"

Well, from our standpoint I think that some of us still perceive these decadeology threads as a complete lack of respect for us and for these boards. Which obviously isn't the case anymore but it still kind of seems that way. And the reason behind that is because these types of threads were specifically banned back in 2008, and if you look at the top of every decade board there is a sticky thread detailing what kind of threads are not allowed and why.

We made a specific rule in these boards banning these types of threads and the decadeologists were all like, "F*ck you guys and your stupid rule, we're going to keep doing it anyway."  At least that's how it came off to us.


The only reason new school members are able to get away with these threads now is because the older generation has pretty much run out of energy. 


That, and also it's because most of the older members have left, and that's perhaps the biggest reason why a lot of people here still have bad feelings about this. Now, again this goes back to perception, because to be honest I think the rise of Facebook had more to do with people leaving than decadeology did. I mean, let's face it, if it wasn't for Facebook I'm certain most of them would still be here. But the fact is, a lot of people did rage quit this site after the war of attrition was over, and it did forever change the vibe here.

Look, I know that you're new here and that you had absolutely nothing to do with what happened in the past and the last thing I want to do is come off like I'm trying to blame you for anything because I'm not. But I thought that it would only be fair to explain to you in greater detail how things got to be the way they are today. And to be honest I think it sucks. Not that the newer members are posting these threads because really I don't see any harm in them anymore. It just sucks that these boards are still so divided after all this time.

I'm actually glad we're having this discussion because, well at least we're having a discussion. 

And that's one of the biggest problems we have with decadeology, and why we fought so hard against it. You guys don't think anything is funny.  :P


We do some humorous things. And since when did decadeologists find nothing funny? Are you just making up consumptions so that people would believe you? Because it's not working.

The only reason new school members are able to get away with these threads now is because the older generation has pretty much run out of energy.

How do you know we've run out of energy? ::)

I support this thread 100%

We do some humorous things. And since when did decadeologists find nothing funny? Are you just making up consumptions so that people would believe you? Because it's not working.


I hate it when people make up consumptions!  >:(

Wouldn't you die if you didn't make any consumptions?

Wouldn't you die if you didn't make any consumptions?


I consume so ...  ::)

I consume so ...  ::)


I sure hope you do. Everyone here should be sure to consume at least three times a day. Starvation isn't fun.

We do some humorous things. And since when did decadeologists find nothing funny? Are you just making up consumptions so that people would believe you? Because it's not working.


On one hand, I admit that I may have been making some assumptions, which is the word I believe you were looking for.

On the other hand, you've more or less even further proven my point.

On one hand, I admit that I may have been making some assumptions, which is the word I believe you were looking for.

On the other hand, you've more or less even further proven my point.


http://i.imgur.com/blQWXn7.jpg

Did I make a funny? :D

I have gone through life not to assume anything.

I have gone through life not to assume anything.


An assumption a day keeps the doctor away.

"When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me."

— Oscar Wilde

"When you assume, you make an ass out of u and me."

— Oscar Wilde


You know what's way worse than assumptions? Drinking. Back in high school, I'd often drink at parties and man, lemme tell you, bad idea! I'd make the biggest fool of myself. They tell you drinking makes it easier to get laid but all I ever got was a slap on the face.

And you sure you know what happens when you assume?

Ass U Me
Hence the quote from Oscar Wilde above.

You know, if someone randomly came up to me and said "Ass U Me" I'd assume they were coming on to me.

You know, if someone randomly came up to me and said "Ass U Me" I'd assume they were coming on to me.


;D

http://i.imgur.com/blQWXn7.jpg

Did I make a funny? :D


No, you just made an ass out of u and me.  ;)

Wouldn't you die if you didn't make any consumptions?


I believe you're suppose to die of consumption...

Sorry, been reading to many Depression-era books lately.  :-X

I believe you're suppose to die of consumption...

Sorry, been reading to many Depression-era books lately.  :-X


You are? That's no good. If this is the case then these posters better smarten up with their consumptions about others or they'll soon get a nasty surprise.

I believe you're suppose to die of consumption...

Sorry, been reading to many Depression-era books lately.  :-X


Yes ... it was the old name they used to give to Tuberculosis.

Screw it, even though I have to go to work in a couple hours I can't sleep so I'd might as well just say what I've got to say.


Al-B explained thie history way better than I would/could have.


There used to be a poster who drank too much and someone who talked like a dog? You guys sure know how to party!


Whoever was behind the dog and the valley girl personas (we have more than one drunk here), I thought they were kinda funny.  Their problem was that they were at an 11/10, and that they could have kept the schtick up if they'd kept it at about an 8/10.


What?  I thought the old school members here were trying to stop the more recent generation from polluting the boards with decade sub-era threads. 


We actually aren't.  Well, at least I'm not.  And for what it's worth, you've been a good sport about it -- more so than most people would have.

It's been years.  It's driven off people with things to say, leaving only scripts/bots that bump their post counts almost a decade after it was clear that only one poster would ever be the guy with the most posts in the history of the board.  Even after whatever entity that called itself the Big Boards #999 dropped us from the list of boards worth tracking, probably because it took one look at the "content" of the last 100 recent posts and determined there was nothing here but a bunch of shell scripts...

But I digress.

https://45.media.tumblr.com/6037fea34d316243ca57de50eb27868d/tumblr_n8njsrGS121s7qnl1o1_500.gif

If DD actually manages to make an actual career out of his obsession, and if we were in some way a part of it -- even if by our hating him, we only made him stronger 10 years ago, I kinda feel good for the guy. 

It's long past time time for anyone who still gives a damn to let it go. 

Whoever was behind the dog and the valley girl personas (we have more than one drunk here), I thought they were kinda funny.  Their problem was that they were at an 11/10, and that they could have kept the schtick up if they'd kept it at about an 8/10.


By talking like a dog, do you mean like Scooby Doo with every word starting with an 'r' sound?


If DD actually manages to make an actual career out of his obsession, and if we were in some way a part of it -- even if by our hating him, we only made him stronger 10 years ago, I kinda feel good for the guy. 
 

He's gonna appear on all those talk shows advertising his book.

"David Letterman, do you ever wonder if 1995 was more like 1984 or 1946?"

"Uhh... No, not really..."

"Oh... *stares awkwardly trying to think of what to say next*"

Yes ... it was the old name they used to give to Tuberculosis.


Yeah.  :P

So, as Baltimorean said, you should stop making consumptions  :P

Yeah.  :P

So, as Baltimorean said, you should stop making consumptions  :P


Okay... you got me on that one!  ;D

Al-B explained thie history way better than I would/could have.

If you all don't mind, I'd like to expand further on what I said after giving this some more thought.

First of all, I'd like to say that I totally get why the younger people make all these threads, and I hope what I'm going to say doesn't come off as being condescending towards our younger members, it's just what I believe to be the truth. (Feel free to speak up if you disagree with me.)

When I think good and hard about what I was like in my teens and 20's, I realize that I had a much more sensitive awareness of the passage of time and I was much more in tune with current pop culture than I am now. For example back then, I certainly could see where 1970's culture blended into 1980's culture for a few years until the 80's gained their own identity, and how early 80's culture was different than late 80's culture. And also, had the Internet existed back then and I'd had instant access to all information and message boards where I could connect to people all over the world, I can totally see where I would have been fascinated with this and analyzed it to death with other people my age. 

And the "90's kid" thing? Think back to when you were an awkward, geeky, pimply, barely-out-of-puberty freshman in high school and you were totally intimidated by the juniors and seniors who, even though they were only 3 or 4 years ahead of you, seemed like grown men and women compared to you and it almost seemed as if they were from a completely different generation.  The "early 90's kids vs. late 90's kids" debate seems a little less nonsensical if you look at it in those terms.

Now a large part of what's causing the rift between the newer and older members is that a lot of us O.G.'s like to wax nostalgic about how great this site was before the decadeologists came along and ruined everything and ran off all our friends, but looking back now I think something like this would have happened sooner or later even if Donnie Darko had never showed up.

When I first joined inthe00s somewhere around 2003 (my profile shows 2006 but that's only because I've deleted and reactivated my account a couple times), the Internet was still fresh and new and novel to me and people my age. Here was a place where we could share ideas and joke around and get to know strangers from all over the world and this was all new to us, and we bonded over it. Many of us have met up in real life and have made real, long-lasting friendships from this site.  That's why this place means to much to us and why some of us are still so protective of it. 

I think that much, if not most of the conflict over decadeology stemmed from a misunderstanding between generations. As Darko kept starting more and more redundant threads despite us politely asking at first and later demanding that he tone it down, the other young members, who in hindsight really did nothing wrong other than share Darko's curiosity and enthusiasm, took his side. And as the threads just kept coming and coming the mods here (rightly) banned Darko and (perhaps too hastily) banned decadeology. And while the OGs (incorrectly yet understandably) looked at decadeology as some kind of toxic ideology that had to be quashed before it could infect the boards, the young people probably thought we were making a bigger deal out of it than it actually was and became more defiant.

Looking back, it's clear to me now that the decadeology ban wasn't clearly thought through and was more of a knee-jerk reaction than anything, and had cooler heads prevailed back then there wouldn't be quite as much underlying suspicion now and maybe more of the older members might still be around.

Here is how the decadeology ban reads:

There is now Zero Tolerance  of decadeology.

Quote from: ChuckyG on February 05, 2013, 09:17:49 PM

    It's not original, it's not in the least bit interesting, and it's being used by a small cadre of individuals who all got banned ages ago as a means to rile up people. Since we can no longer ignore, we just have to ban it entirely.

    No one, and I mean no one, would ever come up with stupid topics like this if they weren't trying to tick people off. I've never seen it anywhere else on any other forum.  From here on out, it's a zero tolerance policy on the crap.  Not even going to warn people anymore, just going to ban and block.


Decadeology is not tolerated on the forum and all topics found as such will be promptly deleted. You will directed to this thread for reference.

What is decadeology?

~ Decadeology is the discussion and/or comparison of two or more years or decades that have no bearing on one another. ~

You can go into as much detail or analysis about a year, decade, and so on as you like. Threads like (hypothetical names here) "Why 1994 was great", "My favorite year of the 80s" or "Why the 60s ruled" are okay. Histories and timelines are fine as well.

If one is inclined to look hard enough, I'm sure any year (or decade) x can be found to have similarities to year or decade y. Such decadeology topics lead absolutely nowhere, and while some topics here do not have a real purpose, decadeology's purpose is only to replicate itself ad infinitum.

A secondary characteristic of decadeology: if someone can create 100 nearly identical topics from your post, it's probably decadeology. For example:

"What did people think of the '80s in 1994?" leads to

"What did people think of the '80s in 1993?"
"What did people think of the '80s in 1992?"
"What did people think of the '80s in 1991?"
"What did people think of the '80s in 1990?"

and so on.

A better topic might be "What did people think of the 80s in the 90s?" or better still "How were the 80s perceived in the 90s?. That way you open up the discussion to more than one year, and it's all encompassing. It's still a grey area, but I can't create 100 basically identical topics from that question.

Please also note that all previous decadeology topics that have not already been removed will be locked down or deleted if they are posted in.

If you have any questions, please feel free to PM one of the Lead Moderators.

inthe00s Admin and Moderators


I might piss some people off by saying this but the wording of this seems rather vague and arbitrary, and it punishes an entire group of people for the actions of one. Things got way out of hand for a while, and there was a lot of assholish behavior from both sides. (Myself included.) While at the time, this


Decadalogy is similar. It's not original, it's not in the least bit interesting, and it's being used by a small cadre of individuals who all got banned ages ago as a means to rile up people. Since we can no longer ignore, we just have to ban it entirely. 

No one, and I mean no one, would ever come up with stupid topics like this if they weren't trying to tick people off.


may have been true, I don't think it is any longer.

Therefore I am of the opinion that we should remove the posts banning decadeology (because the ban hasn't been enforced in quite some time anyway, and if we did just out of the blue decide to crack down on it again, it would just end up alienating a lot of people who really didn't deserve it), or as CatwomanofV suggested, change the rule from banning anything that could possibly be construed as decadeology to, more simply, just not posting repetitive topics that are too similar to each other.

"But...but...if we lift the decadeology ban then that means we have to let Darko back in!" some of you might say.

No.

We didn't ban Darko because of decadeology.

We banned him because he was an ass. 



Feel free to IM me your complaints.  :P

That all seems perfectly reasonable to me.  :)

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.