1955 Chevy Tested at GM Proving Grounds

1955 was a break out year for Chevrolet. It's new small block V8 designed by engineer Ed Cole, who'd later become the President of GM, was going to set records.
Production of the original small-block began in the fall of 1954 for the 1955 model year with a displacement of 265 cu in (4.3 L), growing incrementally over time to 400 cu in (6.6 L) in 1970. Several intermediate displacements appeared over the years, such as the 283 cu in (4.6 L) that was available with mechanical fuel injection, the 327 cu in (5.4 L), as well as the numerous 350 cu in (5.7 L) versions. Introduced as a performance engine in 1967, the 350 went on to be employed in both high- and low-output variants across the entire Chevrolet product line.
Although all of Chevrolet's siblings of the period (Buick, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Pontiac and Holden) designed their own V8s, it was the Chevrolet 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 it and its descendants in their vehicles.
Finally superseded by GM's Generation II LT and Generation III LS V8s in the 1990s and discontinued in 2003, the engine is still made by a GM subsidiary in Mexico as a crate engine for replacement and hot rodding purposes. In all, over 100,000,000 small-blocks (as of November 29, 2011) have been built in carbureted and fuel injected forms since 1955. In many respects, the later Generation II and Generation III engines still in production today for various vehicles still trace some of their design lineage to the "small block" design concept first laid down by Ed Cole and his team.
The small-block family line was honored as one of the 10 Best Engines of the 20th Century by automotive magazine Ward's AutoWorld
For availability and licensing inquiries, please contact:
www.globalimageworks.com/contact
Ref: S114

[@exxusdrugstore300]

This is really GM's finest hour. Beautiful, tasteful styling without any excess and a masterpiece of a V8.

[@peteshea8010]

But oh those K-Mart grade interiors...

[@t.d.mich.7064]

My first car was a 55 BelAir. 265, 3 on the tree, two tone paint, and a Big Back Seat for those drive-in movies! The good old days!

[@peteshea8010]

This car was an efficient and dangerous crapbox by today's standards.

[@t.d.mich.7064]

@@peteshea8010 I managed to survive my 55 Chevy! Man! No seat belts, airbags, crumple zones, GPS Navi, or cup holders! It did manage to total out a Cadillac that tried to occupy the same space I was. Guess what, I walked away without a scratch! Guess that old crapmobile wasn't too bad, huh?

[@peteshea8010]

@@t.d.mich.7064 Old cars were death traps by today's standards: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZDVZoiAp92Wmc0

[@kfl611]

I bet you miss that car, maybe not its performance, but the car.

[@michaelmika2995]

I put a 327 in mine, a Chet Herbert roller cam, dual quads, fuelie heads with 2.02 valves and a 4.88 posi rear. I then took it to Islip speedway on Long Island to the then drag strip. I don't remember the time for the quarter-mile but it was fast. The good ol' days.

[@peteshea8010]

The cars in the "good old days" were dogs by today's standards.

[@peteshea8010]

@RS There are a host of new vehicles that don't meet your stereotype. Three quickly some to mind: 1) Camaro, 2) Mustang, 3) Dodge Challenger (particularly STR8 and beyond)

[@peteshea8010]

@RS Have you ever watched movies that were filmed "on location" back in the original muscle car days? Take a look a the cars you see driving in regular (not staged) traffic. Very few of them were high performance cars. Back in the day, "muscle cars" comprised only a small percentage of total passenger vehicle sales. Also, even the fastest of the "muscle cars" back then would have essentially nothing on a new 2.0T Honda Accord, particularly after the first 60 feet. (The Accord suffers from off the line traction issues due to its front drive/open differential layout, given that load transfer off the front of the vehicle and onto the rear under hard acceleration.) And of course the Accord isn't a dedicated performance car. Rather, it's a mass market family car.

[@TerryByrdJr]

@@peteshea8010 so fucking what nobody asked you let that man be great

[@moboutmen]

Man, I was into that old film.....then GONE!

[@kex5000]

Love watching these thanks for posting

[@jjackson4829]

24 miles per gallon with a V8, not bad. Not many V8s in this day and age do that well on fuel economy!

[@DANTHETUBEMAN]

yea the fix is in.

[@mysock351C]

The fuel economy numbers today are fairly pessimistic compared to those of yesteryear, namely due to government regulation requiring manufacturers to give more "realistic" numbers. Also those engines were anemic as hell. Even the V8's only made around 160 HP. With more powerful engines you'll use more fuel just due to generating more power when accelerating from a stop. A good V8 today in a car will easily do 28-30 MPG if you don't push it.

[@animalcorvair]

the best i ever got out of my 56 was 16... now my corvairs do get better than that,, an i bet now that i have a 331 with pro injection it may do better that 16

[@TheTurpin1234]

They lie.

[@joeygarren2714]

They add hwy and city, that's how they use to tell MPG

[@elioselectric468]

The first 265 had no oil filter and the power steering was a single ram system driven by the alternator shaft.

[@theoriginalt-paine3776]

Swear the original 265 had a generator rather than an alternator, but yes, you are correct apart from that.

[@milojanis4901]

@@theoriginalt-paine3776 Generator-You're correct....

[@elioselectric468]

Yes, I meant generator.

[@theoriginalt-paine3776]

@@milojanis4901 lol, yea, I know, using correct in that context was bad English. Sorry, it's my second language.

[@theoriginalt-paine3776]

It also had that pipe, I don't know the technical term for it, but it came out of the bottom of the engine bay to exploit the draft created when the car was in motion to pull air through the breather/oil filler pipe, and vent the crank case gasses. I think the original 265 was rushed to market. I mean Chevrolet needed something to compete with Ford's flathead (or was the Y-Block already in production by '55?), and Mopar had been making Hemis since like '51 I think when the Desoto Firedome V8 came out. Chevrolet needed and OHV V8 badly, and while the 265 was very primitive, it sure got the job done. As did the 283, which did some with an oilfilter on the block, didn't it?

[@maxtechtech7478]

my buick lucerne gets 30 mpg at 50 and 24 mpg at 70. how we have come so far in fuel efficiency

[@jackwatters9502]

The guy at Chevy in 1955: “Let’s see how many times we can say turbo fire and beyond compare.”

[@genehunsinger3981]

AHH MAAaannNN! Anouncer guy was just getting to the good stuff and they cut em off,,,BUMAGE!!!

[@nobullziggster4070]

In 1955 GM was the first company in the WORLD to make 1 Billion Dollars.

[@timkunsa7249]

1:20 He's moving...what 2 gears are 4 positions apart and OK to shift to while moving forward?

[@lostsoul3154]

Crankcases vented to the atmosphere, inefficient carbs, lotsa unburned leaded fuel (esp. at idle), the first V8s used oil. We still love 'em though. Ha. Did I mention no safety features at all?

[@mysock351C]

Those performance times are terrible. But then again this was when an OHV engine was a new thing.

[@BigEightiesNewWave]

Our 65 Impala wagon only had a 2-speed also.🤣

[@peteshea8010]

Chevy shamefully offered the Powerglide (2 speed automatic) through the 1973 model year in some models, though it was essentially obsolete by 1956, when Chrysler first offered their (3 speed automatic) Torqueflite.

[@Vfh........y]

We had a 65 Impala Coupe hardtop. With a 283 engine. I wonder if it had the 2 speed transmission. Of course it was automatic

[@peteshea8010]

@@Vfh........y That transmission was called Powerglide. It was similar to the Dynaflow in many ways. While more reliable, it also had a lousy reputation for acceleration and economy.

[@nfwsrt8zl12]

The fuel mileage is better than some of car now days

[@jeffcolt9185]

I'm willing to bet you when they took this test, this car only had a 2 bbl carb, they should have took this test with a power pack to 265, 4bbl and dual exhaust

[@kfl611]

20 seconds from 20 to 60, was that what they said? Yikes.

[@lostsoul3154]

Yes, a 2-barrel was used here. You could tell by the single exhaust coming out of the driver's side.

[@davidcampbell1899]

GM would have shit in those days if they saw what a 2.5Ltr engine could do in A Toyota Camry 60 years later! 45 MPG and 130 MPH 0 to 80 in 12 Seconds LOL!

[@bilbobaggins4710]

The styling still kicks ass tho..1955 Chevies are iconic

[@ginomorris4873]

Lol probably not seeing as Toyota has a ton of great gm tech in their products . .

[@jennacarr2777]

Actually the 283 ci Chevy would sprint to 60 in 6.8 sec on pizza cutters in a vett chassis ! Why is that funny most cars still can't do that !

[@shitbox7413]

If the engineers would’ve only known what these cars would become...

[@scottwiler8881]

sizzling performance snappy too funny

[@jacobbernhardt2492]

24 MPG!!!!!!!!

[@peteshea8010]

So says the guy reading the advertising script. He specifically states 19.5 MPG at 70 MPH, which is incredibly poor by today's standards - particularly for vehicle of that weight to actual (SAE Net) power ratio.

[@DANTHETUBEMAN]

24mpg highway three speed with over drive,, just go back to making these cars and use some aluminum to get 27mpg.

[@peteshea8010]

Did you want the entire video? Fuel economy fell to 19.5 MPG at 70 MPH, which is lousy. And the vehicle's 0 - 80 MPH time is laughably poor by today's standards.

[@johntron1237]

No don’t go back there extremely slow 10 to 35 mph in 11 seconds Jesus Christ I mean if it’s that slow it better have good fuel economy

[@LeonardStProduction]

...to 80 mph in 23.7 secs, how is that for acceleration! LOL

[@KingRoseArchives]

Could beat a Henry J any day and since then they've made some modifications to the engine making it a bit more perky.

[@toddcharry]

19.5 miles per gallon at 70 mph, not too bad really, and gas was about 23 cents a gallon. Cars were certainly more interesting in the 50's and 60's than the look alike upside down soap dishes rolling along today.

[@scottwiler8881]

+King Rose Archives perky

[@scottwiler8881]

+King Rose Archives yea thanks for posting

[@TheOzthewiz]

Gas may have been 23 cents/gallon BUT, consider that a GOOD wage in '55 was about 50 dollars/week!

[@jessesan2003]

0 to 100 in 60 seconds

[@jessesan2003]

24 mpg on the track no stopping

[@JoeHynes284]

and at 50

[@vector6977]

24 highway is pretty good even now. This was before "muscle cars"

[@peteshea8010]

19.5 MPH at 70 MPH, per the narrator reading from the script. That's horrendous by today's standards for a car of equal performance.

[@MrDjh66]

Ahhhhhhhh yes Islip speedway great times

[@markmalasics8413]

Gotta love all the punks and Millenials out there making fun of the acceleration. Can't comprehend the difference between a modern day performance car and a 65 year old family car weighing twice as much. And then we wonder why they vote Democrat.

[@bobjackson4287]

Yeah this was the first year that Chevy used Ed Cole's small block engine. As with any brand new engine it was not perfect, but its a engine that is built to this very day. They will never understand engineering something so well that it lasts 50+ years. Hell the LS1 in 1997 on paper was not that impressive performance wise compared to matured design of the small block and now it's the amazing engine everyone swaps into everything. These are the same kids that would buy gm's "2.7L Turbo" as GM insists on saying it in the Silverado's and think it will outlast a 5.3 or 6.2 pulling 6000+ lbs every day.

[@milojanis4901]

@@bobjackson4287 Its because of the heads, which flat ass outflow the old SBC-Like comparing a 40mph wind gusts to a hurricane!! From the heads down, the old SBC is plain superior. World Products a actually casts a traditional SBC that has the same bolt pattern on the deck as the LS1, so you can run LS heads on the 'ol small block. In dyno tests, the old SBC consistently made 10-15hp more than the LS block when both ran the same heads and cam!! Ed Cole would be the highest paid engineer at GM if he was 35 years old again!!!!

[@gingerbread1032]

My 2005 Chevy Silverado v6 only gets 13 mpg. Maybe Ill sue the hell out of general motors Corp.

[@peteshea8010]

It's a vastly heavier vehicle than this Chevy. And something's seriously wrong if you're only getting 13 MPH traveling at 50 MPH, which is the speed this old crapbox was traveling to get the reported mileage. You DID what the whole video, right? BTW: My bone stock 1999 1LE Z28 could easily top 28 MPG when traveling at a steady state 75 MPH with the AC blasting and nearly 350 SAE Ne HP under the hood. If you watch the entire video you'll learn that this old Chevy's fuel economy at 70 MPH was a mere 19.5 MPG (with somethign less than HALF he SAE net HP of my Camaro). And really, that Camaro isn't overly efficient by 2019 standards.

[@gingerbread1032]

Pete shea . You your clunker and your z28 can go to HELL, PETROL PENISBOY.

[@gtracing1586]

Pete shea I’m sorry but 28 is bs. There’s no way you can get that much mpg unless you have smaller tires and it’s reading wrong.

[@leshpar]

My kia spectra with 138 HP can very easily out accelerate this car.

[@FuckSlowShit]

We all know the Chevy Bel Air will outlast the lifespan of that Kia Spectra lol

[@anthonyk]

i would make this car go 0-60 in 9 sec because this car is not safe anymore

[@ricksadler797]

Ugg

[@reddog-ex4dx]

For some reason I had a horrible memory when that shade of pink came up. Just awful.

[@weav10000]

lol salamander

[@myphonyaccount]

electric is way faster