Talk:Pontiac V8 engine

message: The article says the 421s had "a rolled fillet crankshaft". Huh? I presume it meant "billet". Can somebody clarify?  Trekphiler 21:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it not a typo.  The fillet is the area at the extreme ends of the rod journals, kind of a sunken in area before the smooth machined part reaches the unfinished part of the crank between the rod jouurnals.  A rolled-fillet is stronger than a standard one.--King V 23:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fillet]] of [[Pontiac Catalina|Laurentian]]?

message: Someone posted a old article from Hot Rod magazine from March 1968 about the Pontiac OHC V8 http://www.wallaceracing.com/ohc-v8-cover.html  maybe it could be use as a reference --sd-100 February 10 2008  —Preceding comment was added at 14:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Hot Rod article

message: It was widely said at the time that the 151in3 Iron Duke pushrod 4-cylinder used in a variety of smaller GM cars of the '70s and '80s (most notably the Chevy Citation and other front-drive X-bodies and the S-series pickups, as well as a somewhat-uncommon base engine on the cheaper front-drive A-bodies such as the Chevy Celebrity) was "half of a Pontiac 301".  Is the Iron Duke/Tech4 engine a variant or descendant of the 195in3 Pontiac 4-cylinder mentioned in this Wikipedia article?  If not, what's the relationship between the Iron Duke and the Pontiac V-8?  Even if the answer is "none", this tale was common enough in the day (both heard in bull sessions and written in car magazines) that mentioning the association would be a worthwile inclusion in this article.  Sorry - I'm not enough of a Poncho guru to be useful in this.
Darwinianphysicist (talk) 20:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the 151in<sup>3</sup> Iron Duke/Tech4 a derivative of the Pontiac V-8? 

message: The math might not work for the bore and stroke cited for the 455.  Bore of 4.1875 and stroke of 4 7/32 gives a CID of 464.8, not 455, using 8*Pi*R-Squared*height.  Checking the math for the 389 and 400, they calculate correctly using the formula I cited.174.97.138.249 (talk) 15:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pontiac 455 

message: Placed here:
==Experimental V8s==
===427 Hemi SOHC===
Without documentation on Mopar's involvement with the Hemi I find the claim to be witout substance. Mickey Thompson had already developed Hemi heads for a Pontiac engine, and Pontiac had very capable engineering staff.
This was a project started by Pontiac with the end goal of building a Pontiac 427 Hemi. Pontiac asked Mopar (Chrysler, Dodge, Plymouth) for help in designing it and making it work. Surprisingly, Mopar actually agreed and sent over several of the engineers that designed both the 392 and 426 Hemi. The goal of making a Pontiac Hemi succeeded but was never produced.
Features:
* Thin Wall, Cast Aluminum Block
*  Bore x  stroke ( Mains)
* Forged Steel  rods (Ram Air V style)
* 12:1 compression
* Mechanical Port Fuel Injection
* Large Valve Heads:  Intake Valve,  Exhaust Valve
* Small Valve High RPM  Intake Valve,  Exhaust Valve
* Splayed Main Caps, head bolts tie into main caps. Head bolts do not pull on the cylinder wall causing distortion.
* Cam Drive: Fiberglass Belt
* Max RPM (High RPM Engine):  >8000 rpm
* Engine Weight: Estimated  complete
* Dimensions: Width: , Length: , Height: 
* Power: estimated  @ 7500 rpm
===421 2 Valve SOHC===
===3 Valve SOHC===
===389 4 Valve DOHC===
Originally made in 1966 for the Pontiac GTO.
Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relocated "Experimental V8s" OR content  

message: There is a big warning box at the top of this article that dates from 2010.  If we take the criticisms seriously and work diligently to address them we can remove the warning box, and have a much better article. 
It is weak that there is still (in Mar. of 2020) really only one legitimate citation for this long article, which tends to support the criticism made by whoever wrote up the box that it's based on original research.   Let's fix this! ZeroXero (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's improve this article!  

message: Is there any verifiable source stating that the 1963 326 actually has a bore of 3.78in, and not 3.72in ?
It is indeed written as-is in the 1963 brochure, but it could very well be a typo ; and the story of it being intentionally mislabeled seems weird (as a quick computation using the available bores and strokes for 1963 yields 336cu in) and that could all be a post-hoc explanation rather than a fact. Clarrieu (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famed 1963 326