262 vs 267 sbc
 

Which of these is the more under factored and would be worth working with? The 3.50" bore sounds way to small but didn't one of those engines qualify well at Indy one year in an El Camino? Dime rockets or?

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

Call or PM Billy Nees. I think He has experience with both those. He is the expert. PM me and I will give you his number.

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

I think you are referring to an El Camino that had a 262 (4.3) V-6 that was near the top at Indy a few years ago. I think the last name was Fickler. Was the wife of a guy that worked at Aeromotive. Now the best 262 V-8 I know of, is a guy out of Div 1- Brian Philbrick(sp?) out of Ontario, Canada. I have been working on the 267 combination for a little while and have found good things and some bad things about the 267. Some can be cured with money and others, well you just have to live with. The big issue with either combination is going to be finding good cores to work with, especially the 262 V-8. I have collected a bunch of 267 stuff and more carbs than should be allowed in one shop.

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

This is interesting because I saw Briane's (car at the Class Nationals.
We had a short conversation about the small engines.
Great guy.

Curious these two engines so close in cubic inches.
Kind of wonder why GM made them in the first place?
Then they the different displacements?

Wondering which of these two engines GM used to manufacture the mini LT1?
OR was it a whole new bore stock combination?

Dan

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

Probably an emissions experiment.

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

Mini lt1 different again, went back to 265 same dimensions as the fifties engine.

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

interesting original 265 is 3.75bore X 3 stroke- small dimension rod bearings
262 is 3.67 bore X 3.1 stroke-large dimension rod bearings
267 is 3.5 bore X 3.48 stroke-also large dimension rod bearings

262 was a popular engine in the Monza it replaced a 350 that was substituted at introduction in 1975 due to engine shortages -only available for 2-3 years

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

I believe that El Camino was Bob Shaw's old car. And I think it was a 229 ci.

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

You may be right. I do remember he had one, but can't remember much more than that. Debra Fickler was the lady I remembered in a 4.3 V-6-262 EFI El Camino. Seems like the Fickler El Camino was usually a good qualifier. 262 V-8 was 75-76 only and 267 V-8 was 79-82. The 267 is auto only, although I saw one with a 4 speed in a Malibu at GM. If Dad was still living, he could tell me why they had that car, built that way.

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

Shaw's elCamino was 4.3 v6 (262 cid) with TBI fuel injection.

It's a 350 v8 with two cylinders removed.

Everything equal and same displacement, more cylinders will make power than smaller number of cylinders up a v10/v12.

More small intake strokes per four stroke cycle makes more power than fewer and larger intake strokes. The carb acts larger than it actually is with more cylinders.

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

I have found a complete 262 in a Monza coupe as I have said on here before. Now for the second time in two weeks a 267 has come through Barney Moravits shop here in San Antonio. The owner will trade this one for a 1 piece crank 305 short block I have. I'm thinking about a IHRA Gt stock co.bo in an 83' Camaro. So that's why I'm asking which one?

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

The one with the longer stroke & biggest carb.

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

Then I guess it would be the 267. Funny about the 4 speed Malibu 267 I had a 4 speed 79' 305 that ran like a 267. That car was slow.

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

The 267 cores are also a lil easier to find over the 262

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

A 262 is basically a 305 with a smaller bore and stroke. If you're set on building a Monza, I would call it a 77 or 78 and put a 305 in it. I think that the extra cubes and stroke would more than offset the 9 HP difference. A Monza isn't an easy or cheap car to do correctly.
The 267 can be used in a 79-83 Malibu or Monte Carlo or 79-81 Camaro. Change some trim and facias on the Camaro and you can run a bunch of different 350s and 305s in it besides the 267(do you see where I'm going here?).
To answer the original question, IMHO, the carb on the 262 is easier to deal with than the Dual-jet on the 267. I think that the 81-83 267@ 150 HP(79-80 are higher) is softer than the 76 262@ 171 HP.
I would do an 81 Camaro with a 267 and find someone smarter than me to deal with the Dual-jet.

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

The two cars that we have available are a 83' Camaro already setup for a 305 with a 12 bolt and 5.13s, metric 200 trans, etc or a 75 Camaro that is being raced with either my old 305 or a 350. The 83 ran I or J last and was just a 3 to 4 tenths under car. So one car would run in Gt with a 262 or 267 and the other would need a nose change at least and run a 267. Well it's raining for the third day here guess it's time to go get muddy in the junkyard!

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

or you could call your 75 a 76 and run a 305 2V @180.

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

That would work well and we actually ran it something like that up north but that's another story. Found a v8 Monza hatch back in the yard, missing carb and radiator. That's two v8 Monza's in two yards 10 miles apart.

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

If they're solid cars, go for it. Monzas are cool!

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

So how does one work around the Dual Jet? Or should I ask how much HP can be made on a carb rated at 287 CFM?

It gets even more interesting if you convert apples to apples. Since a 2BL is flowed at 3 inches vacuum and a 4BL is flowed at 1.5 inches of vacuum, you need to multiply the 2BL CFM by roughly .707 to get a value you can directly compare to a 4BL carb.

So 287 X .707 = 203 CFM

Using a quick online CFM calculator:
267 CID, 5500 RPM, 80% VE........ would need about 350 CFM minimum

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

Well, let's see, with a (seriously) restricted engine you don't think about making HP. You make as much torque for as long as you can.
I can assure you that a 287 CFM 2V will be flowing at least 100% VE. How can I say that? If everything is right in the combo, the engine WILL be pulling vacuum long before it gets to the finish line. OBTW, try explaining that to the man designing your cam.

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

Billy, I understand the VE will be higher. I used a lower number in the calculation just for a number. To use 100% in the calculation would only further show inadequate the carb is.

Since the wife want's to drive and I've acquired another car......I guess I'll take a stab at it.

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

To give a bit of perspective to what Billy is saying, compare the 267 to a Mopar 273 from the '65-'67 era:

Mopar - 287 max disp, 1.437 B&B carburetor that meters fuel like a straw in the wind, 10.2 compression, .400 lift cam, 176 power rating.

Chev 267 - 280 max disp, 1.375 Dual Jet that meters well, 9.5 compression, .357/.373 cam (heads will flow better on the exhaust than the Mopar), lighter reciprocating weight, better transmission (TH200), 150 power rating.

Not a cake walk, but very possible. The 273 has been beat on since the '70s, so don't expect to achieve the same level of performance in a month.

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

OK got a 267 block and crank but no heads. 513 castings look like one off deal. Will continue the hunt this weekend.

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

What Billy said plus this
carb is rated 287,on dyno with air turbine will pull more than 287 cfm.
Mike Taylor 3601

Re: 262 vs 267 sbc
 

Hey Mike, not for nuthin but a 267 and a 4 speed in your car would be a crapper full of fun!