Infamous Automotive Inventions: Pontiac Creates a Cheaply-Made Crankshaft For Its V8s!

[@Wiencourager]

Everyone was trying to trim weight in that period. Even AMC shaved about 100 lbs off their straight six by lightening the crank, block, and heads, aluminum intake, and the infamous plastic valve cover. But they did their homework and it didn’t impact durability, except that valve cover.

[@douro20]

Rather forward-thinking with the plastic valve cover but too early- the material just wasn't good enough back then. They should have kept the sheet metal covers- you'd only be gaining a few ounces.

[@SGTJDerek]

AMC was better than they had any right to be. GM did them DIRTY when they backed out of their "partnership" on the Pacer.

[@69Applekrate]

Nice video. At 5min into about cost savings. Yes, if you ordered a 301 in your 79 Trans Am, it was discounted. It was a delete option FYI. Also, the 301/265 have unique harmonic balancers and flexplates/flywheels as they have counter weights in them. many do not know that. They fit other Pontiac sizes buy, should not be interchanged due to their counter weights. Pontiac Heaven

[@kyleismylove23]

My wife drag raced our 77 Grand Prix in a powder puff race. It was looking good and running great.Best e.t. 19.67 sec.@70 mph. A real neck snapper

[@samholdsworth420]

Are you Kyle posting on your wife's account?

[@billdang3953]

It managed to get a sub-20 second ET? That's a real achievement for a malaise era vehicle. I would have expected 22 seconds or longer (in other words, you could time them using a sundial).

[@grandsonofAlbertJohn]

​@@samholdsworth420😂 I see that....busted !

[@Atomwaffen-y3s]

A pre malaise 6 cylinder Gremlin would smoke it by 2 seconds.. and that's with the smaller 6.

[@Atomwaffen-y3s]

@@billdang3953 60's era 1200cc Volkswagon Beetles now had competition.

[@randyroberson3515]

We had a 1980 Bonneville with a 301; it was an entirely satisfactory and handsome car for $7600 brand new.

[@69Applekrate]

Nice video. In my 50 years of owning building, driving, racing Pontiacs, I have broken 2 455 cranks but, never a 301 crank. The short deck 301 was the perfect engine for the time. It was a time of downsizing and downsizing the great Pontiac V8 was the smart thing to do. If you compare other brands, Ford for example, they came up with a new engine every few years it seems. Pontiac just kept refining and improving the great original design. Pontiac was able to retain much of the original tooling and that meant a lot. I doubt anyone alive loves the Poncho V8 more than me but, I hope to be wrong on that. :) . I''ve dedicated much of my life to it. People wanted better mileage. The 301/265 shares the same short deck height as the 1969 303 Trans Am racing engine. The 301/265 also has the best dip stick design of all Pontiac V8s. It also has the best oil filter mounting. If Pontiac was allowed by GM to continue the 301 and Turbo versions, a few more years of development and Pontiac would have had a Mustang 5.0 killer! The 265 had a epa hiway rating of 27mpg and many people i have interviewed over the decades have told me that got that, or close to it. Further, the 301 TAs from 1979-81 were the best handling/cornering Trans Ams ever due to having less weight on the front end. Many people I have talked to got 100,000-200,000 miles with their 301s!!! I own a Pontiac parts yard and have owned over 650 Pontiacs including dozens of 301s. The first time I drove one, I was not expecting much but, was pleasantly surprised at how torquey they were! Their part throttle performance for street /city driving is about as good as the 350s and 400s! Yes. Sure, they run out of wind at around 4000+ but, few people driving on the street are ever in those upper rpm ranges. As an experiment about 20 years ago, I built a 265 and installed in my one of my 66 GTOs with headers and a 700 trans. Its street driveability was quite good though it did not tow my boat well up hills ( as expected). Still a good little motor. If Pontiac could have just developed it a bit further, alum heads, better crahks for performance versios, etc, There is no reason why it could not have continued one the Pontiac tradition for another 20 years. As a result of Pontiac being forced to drop its own engine- it lost a lot of loyal customers, including me. Dropping the Pontiac V8 led, ultimately, to the demise of Pontiac itself. Pontiac became a rebadged chevy after 1981. Still good cars but, not Pontiacs anymore. So, I like that little 301 and a lot of others did and do as well. More at Pontiac Heaven page

[@googleusergp]

100%. It became a "Chevy-iac" after the Pontiac V8 went away in the spring of 1981.

[@user-pgchargerse71]

Had as much development went into the turbo 301 as did the Buick turbo 3.8 V6, that might have been unbeatable in its time period.

[@242bleek]

If they were smart they would have embraced EFI and computer ignitions and not dropped the compression 3 points and choked them down. They saved practically no fuel and turned a good engine into a dog. It's a stupid way to try and save fuel. Gave American cars a horrible reputation.

[@rogergoodman8665]

In a lot of ways, Pontiac died in 1981 along with the V8 but didn't fall into its casket until 2010.

[@countryroadautopartsusa6466]

I would not argue against your knowledge. The 301 is much maligned and misunderstood.

[@CharlesM-rq5xv]

The crankshaft wasn't the most interesting part of the short deck Pontiac v8s. The heads were. Pontiac merged the intake ports together so each head had only 2 ports. This means 2 things. 1) They couldn't use a dual plane intake manifold to improve the low end torque that those engines desperately needed. 2) Since cylinders 5 and 7 fire back to back and shared a single port, Pontiac had to make that port wider than the rest. That means that the left and right head aren't interchangeable. Pontiac had to manufacturer 2 completely seperate heads for each engine.

[@MrSpartanPaul]

I noticed that in my uncle's Firebird back in 81. Just shook my head in disgust.

[@471Magnum]

Agreed. The cylinder heads were way wonkier than the crank. And the heads were unique left and right.

[@erikk1820]

@@CharlesM-rq5xv The heads worked well for their intended purpose. Fuel economy. And the turbos didn’t mind the wonky heads. The aftermarket is creating intake manifolds for them, which should be available soon.

[@CharlesM-rq5xv]

​@@erikk1820With the money that Pontiac could have saved making a 301 and 350 short deck engine using their traditional heads with a new well designed dual plane intake manifold instead of that turbo abomination, they could have gained fuel economy in other ways.

[@Bloodcurling]

​@@CharlesM-rq5xvT-Type and GN were also an abomination then. Compare the 87 vs 78. This engine should have been allowed to be developed. The powertrain could have kept going after 87. The Buicks changed bodies and couldn't use the engine after 87.

[@darrellsaunders4267]

I bought a new Formula in 79 with the 301.....smoothest running engine ever....couldn't even hear it running at idle....

[@OLDS98]

Thank you Adam. That 1977 Pontiac Grand Prix was great looking at the beginning of the video. You learn something new every day. I just thought all 301 V8's were under powered V8's. I was dead wrong. Thank you for bringing information to the channel.

[@grandsonofAlbertJohn]

We had a 1977 Grand prix, my dad used to bring up that in the '77 Grand Prix you could get a 301 V8 with a TH400, he said that was the only year they did that as far as he knew

[@kenthoch2296]

I loved the 301 V8! Being a mechanic in the 80s, never seen issue with the 301. I owned one 78 GranPrix SJ with the 301 4bbl. Wow drove it hard! It was actually pretty fast in its day. Had family and friends with 78/79 GranPrix with 301s, we all ran them hard. We still laugh about those cars today about how much abuse they took.

[@landontesar3070]

always thought the Gran Prix had the best dash layout

[@hughjass1044]

The Pontiac 265, the Chevy 267, the Ford 255....... Ahhh, the 80s! Most of today's 4 cylinders would kick their ass!

[@madmike2624]

I would say "ALL" modern 4 bangers would make those look silly!!~

[@Dac54]

Don't forget the Oldsmobile 260, available from 1975 through on some Oldsmobile and Pontiac models, and on the Buick Skylark from 1975-1977. While this engine wasn't all that powerful, at least the crankshaft had six counterweights, unlike the Pontiac V8s discussed in the video.

[@hughjass1044]

@@Dac54 Right you are! I did forget. I shouldn't have, though. A friend had one.

[@hughjass1044]

@@grandsonofAlbertJohn Your point? No wait, scratch that. Don't answer. I don't want to know.

[@madmike2624]

@@grandsonofAlbertJohn Happy Thanksgiving!!!~ Give thanks, not sarcasm.

[@desertmodern7638]

When I worked at a car rental agency in 1978 we had '78 Monte Carlos equipped with the Chevy 305 and '78 Grand Prix all equipped with the Pontiac 301. The 305 felt slightly more powerful, but the 301 more smooth, almost turbine-like. Rather counterintuitive in retrospect, obviously.

[@Flies2FLL]

One of the reasons for counterweights on a crankshaft is that they counteract the weight of the crankshaft throws, thus making the crankshaft stronger. Of course, a 4.9 liter V8 engine that makes 135-170 hp and never sees the other side of 4000 RPM means that this added strength would be meaningless.

[@DisabilityExams]

The snout of the crankshaft in my '74 Chevy Monte Carlo snapped off when I went over a bump. Finest pot metal GM could source.

[@jamessharp9790]

I briefly had a 1981 Trans Am with a 78 301 Four barrel, with a worked over QJet and open hood scoop. The 200 trans died pretty quickly, I replaced with a street/ performance TH350. It actually felt decent , especially with the 3:42 gear . It would actually lay about 10 feet of rubber , barked the tires hard on the 1-2 shift and chirped them a bit on the 2-3 shift and went reliably to 5200 rpm. I think you could outrun it on foot , but it was fun to drive.

[@johnrand93]

In Oct and Nov of 77 my father bought two 78 Grand Prix’s. One in Claret and the other in black, both loaded and both with buckets console and all the goodies. The Claret one had a Pontiac 301 and the black one had the Chevy equivalent. I used to romp on both cars and run the hell out of them both. The Pontiac engine was quick but not as fast as the black one with the Chevy engine. I could light the tires up until I let up on the black one but not on the Claret one. Those cars would kick hard as fast. Being 15 and 16 running these cars was so much fun. Unfortunately, my father, as usual, traded the Claret one for an 80 Park Avenue in Oct of 79 and the black one, he gave to my cousin to drive to college. I loved them with a passion and we never had a single issue with either. I rode them hard and never once did my father have to take either one to the shop for any reason. No transmission issues at all. He also bought my girl cousin, in Nov of 78 a 79 black formula with the gunmetal bottom and tri-tone red stripes, that separated the colors. That car had the same set up as the Claret GP and I drove the hell out of it as well. She drove that car 2 years and then gave it to her sister, who drove it another two years. That car never once went to the shop either. That had the Pontiac 301 and I really loved getting on that one, A LOT. I guess age must have gotten to them but as new cars, we never had a single issue. I was too young to know which carb was on them but I think the GP’s had two barrels and the Formula had a 4 barrel. The only issues the GP’s had were the chrome peeled off door panels but my father didn’t care.

[@peter455sd]

That red 77' GP looks awesome

[@unclebob7937]

Check Carrie Fisher's 77 on Blues Brothers.

[@milkyperformance]

Daily drive a 79 pontiac 310/th350. Decent power and been very reliable. Cruises 80 mph all day. Fuel mileage is about 12. Good car.

[@Bloodcurling]

You're way outside the efficiency speed, that's why you get city mpg

[@williamjones7821]

Yeah, my parents bought a used 77 Caprice Classic with the THM200. Smooth and wonderful. Until it wasn't. Now I know why third-party transmission shops were so busy in the early 1980s !

[@paulwatson1507]

The 301 that I grew up with was the Chevy small block 283 punched out to 301. A real hot Rod.

[@countryroadautopartsusa6466]

it was not a chevy engine. It was a Pontiac motor. Completely different.

[@paulwatson1507]

@ yes, I know.

[@firstielasty1162]

Many of the cars you cover I never liked when they were common. But your videos are excellent, informative and strangely entertaining. The details are really interesting. I suggest the chevette and pinto, if you haven't done them. I think they made a diesel chevette, even.

[@loveisall5520]

They did, it was the excellent Isuzu diesel transplanted. It was slow, but reliable and very economical. Same basic diesel that Isuzu used to great success in their small pickups.

[@jacobnorth8642]

I want one

[@MrTheHillfolk]

My dad's car was in the shop, and he borrowed a diesel chevette from a friend. Mom's diesel rabbit would leave that thing in the dust 🤣🤣

[@jacobnorth8642]

@@MrTheHillfolk i want those too! Especially the pickup ones

[@grandsonofAlbertJohn]

​@@jacobnorth8642was the Chevy version of that little pickup truck called a Chevy Luv. ? 🤔 that's my recollection

[@madmike2624]

Once again, Adam's unique topics come bubbling to the surface. I have never even thought about such a subject!!~ Bravo Adam!!!!~~

[@HAL-dm1eh]

As a Ford guy who had always had a hankering for the Trans Am I bought a 1980 Trans Am Turbo from someone once and was truly shocked at the fact he took out the 301 and replaced it with a hopped up 455 which was a direct bolt in. IIRC it was also hooked to the poor little original TH350, which stood up just fine behind that torque monster, as it began to contort the car at the B pillars.

[@rightlanehog3151]

Adam, 10 AM on a Tuesday morning was not when we were expecting a video to drop.

[@eyerollthereforeiam1709]

True, but I don't mind!

[@deanstevenson6527]

It's just 4 am here in New Zealand. I still give it a Kiwi Tick. 🥝✔️

[@bissonjoe2031]

Right, its about 7am here in California and boy do we appreciate it Sir

[@samholdsworth420]

I expect him to release a video every single minute of every single day UNSUBSCRIBED

[@GardoRotor]

We both made the bluh noise when you said THm200

[@Mikiszub]

Exhaust manifold on that 301 turbo is the stuff of nightmares

[@outtascope]

My first car was a '79 Buick Regal with a Pontiac 301 (the 4.9l cars). It wasn't bad, but markedly slower that 2.2L dodge Daytonas, both the naturally aspirated and especially that turbo intercooled '87 Shelby Z. My buddy also had a '79 Regal with a 305 in it. Power wise there wasn't a noticeable difference, but mine was far less problematic than his. I so wanted to put the turbo charger on that Regal (and fantasized about putting in a 5-speed), I'm betting that would have made it a real hoot (for the time) and given me a shot against the d-bag in town that had the T-type and used to regularly smoke me.

[@grandsonofAlbertJohn]

Does the effect of long-term high heat make them a p.i.t.a. to work with, as in broken off studs, bolts ? Or other reasons. ? I never had to take mine off my Turbo T/A

[@mattarambula6826]

My first new car was a 1979 Pontiac Grand Prix with the 301 2 bbl. I put over 80K miles on it before I traded it for another Pontiac. I kept up with the maintenance and it was a reliable engine. Never had problems with the transmission either. Miss that car at times.

[@stevesvoboda9404]

I owned a 78 Bonneville with a 301 4bbl. It ran great and was capable on the hwy.

[@erikk1820]

The 301 Turbo came with the TH350. Super smooth combo.

[@chuckwhitson654]

Slow is smooth

[@googleusergp]

Actually a CBC350 in 1980 and a THM350C in 1981, but yes essentially the CBC350 was a THM350.

[@V8_screw_electric_cars]

did turbo also had this crank?

[@erikk1820]

@@V8_screw_electric_cars yes, it did. Lots of guys out there running 15+ lbs of boost with no issues. It isn’t happy above 5000 rpm anyway, so no point in revving it hard.

[@grandsonofAlbertJohn]

​@@erikk1820the guy at TTAperformance can apparently really help get the most out of the 301 turbo....wish I knew what he knew, and fixes for these cars, were available back in '91-'95 when I had mine, an '80 T T/A.

[@louisrichards3702]

the drag racers are using the THM200 in some classes ,,for its light weight,and they have built it up into a reliable trans.just like the mopar guys use the 904 trans instead of a 727.in Super Stock drag racing behind a 440 or 426 Hemi.

[@sthier24]

I had a 77 Grand Prix with the 301 and Dual jet carb. It had THM400 trans. That car ran and ran...never had any drive train issues at all. Sold it with 170k miles. Wish I still had it. Did not know about the crankshaft. Best cruising car I have owned.

[@grandsonofAlbertJohn]

😊we also had a '77 GP with a 301 & TH400, my older brother drove to high school. My father always referenced that car, he said he wasn't aware of another Pontiac like that, the TH400 behind a 301

[@sthier24]

@@grandsonofAlbertJohn I bought mine used from my brother in 1981 with 70 thousand miles. First thing I did was go thru all the fluids. I dropped the transmission pan and took the old filter to the parts store to get a new one and that's when I found out it was a THM400. I was 18 years old and didn't know what I had. Anyway...it was a great car. When GM was on top of their game.

[@marko7843]

Wow, a 400 tranny but not a 400 engine, in the last year of the big GP.

[@davidforte964]

My 80 T/A has the 301, comp cam, good shift kit, 342 rear with other great features. Just saying the little guy doesn’t stop me from winning trophies.

[@erikk1820]

@@davidforte964 In stock form, it was good for 155 hp, which was almost 20 up from the hottest Mustang 302 of the era. Btw, the Pontiac 301 is actually a 302. Thd marketing guys called it a 301 to differentiate it

[@grandsonofAlbertJohn]

​​@@erikk1820right, 4.00 X 3.00. They stretched the truth a lot more up at Pontiac with their cough, cough, "350", but not in a bad way. If you've ever done the math......😂

[@jacobrzeszewski6527]

Oh boy winning alright. Against a kid in a naturally aspirated Civic.

[@erikk1820]

@@grandsonofAlbertJohn Yeah. And Fords been lying about their 4.9 being a 5.0 for decades. All part of the game.

[@DSP1968]

This was very interesting, Adam. And I had totally forgotten about the Pontiac 265 V-8 of this era.

[@thisisyourcaptainspeaking2259]

I agree the 301 was a smooth runner. We beat on ours pretty good actually and it took it well.

[@grandsonofAlbertJohn]

My dad loved the first year 301 in '77, 5 1/2 quarts of oil instead of 4 😁. When he hunted for 301s to put in an old Grand Ville or Bonneville, he looked for the '77s

[@bryanaisenbrey7188]

My employer in the early 80’s had a Buick Regal with a 301 4 barrel that piled upwards of 200,000 miles with nary a problem. Must have been a Wednesday car. He was a salesman and racked up about 70,000 miles a year. Minimal maintenance only on the car.

[@timmcooper294]

Ford came very close to this with the super light 255 v8 crankshaft in 1980-81 ish. Still 6 counterweights, but barely !! Another little known GM cost cutting attempt in the late 1970's was ADI ring and pinion gears..... Yes, austempered ductile cast iron !! Instead of the normal 8620 steel, specially heat treated cast iron was used to make ring and pinion gears for the 7.5" GM rear end as a cost cutting program. I don't know how many cars were fitted with these gears, but I read an SAE article on it many years ago. It blew my mind !!

[@billdang3953]

Sounds pretty typical given the Malaisee Era thinking in the automotive business of the times. Probably worked out somewhat OK due to the lack of HP in the engines of the day.

[@grandsonofAlbertJohn]

Like brilliant men like John DeLorean and Bob Lutz at GM said, when you have corporate stuffed suits bean counters in high-rise offices running a car company instead of car guys running a car company🤔

[@timmcooper294]

@@billdang3953 Yea, as Adam mentioned, new vehicles pull back timing and fuel during shifts, and also limit throttle electronically in the lower gears off the line to "cushion" the drive train. This allows todays high horsepower cars to get away with running pretty cheesy drive trains. Pretty sad , really, we are in a new, augmented reality Malaise era that is bigger and lasting longer than the late 1970's / early 1980's. Lots of big fast crossovers and giant pickup trucks loaded with stupid, distracting features....Yuck !!

[@raggdoll1977]

I also remember the 305's having "soft" camshafts

[@johnandrus3901]

True. A good friend had a Monte Carlo, with the 305 and a couple of the lobes rounded off. He is a great mechanic and was meticulous with servicing the car, but it happened, anyway.

[@daveThbfusion]

The legend was 305s had ... Rubber Crankshafts. Somewhat flexible I guess

[@rickster4455]

@@daveThbfusion The 305 Chevy had the same stroke as a 350, just a smaller bore. It was said to help with emissions. Still oversquare but closer to square.

[@capricetony]

The Chevy 267, 79-82 had the common camshaft issue, few and far between with 305’s I had Caprice’s, work fans all with 305’s and they ran 225k or more with no issues.

[@robbiebennett8185]

The 267 V8 had camshat issues. My parents bought 81 monte carlo with it and cam lobe worn out at 15000 miles. 305s were very reliable. Ive got 1986 silverado I bought new with 305. Extremely reliable engine

[@bungeycord5971]

I had a 79 grand prix with the 301 4 barrel. The transmission grenaded the day i paid it off. The engine ran very well and was smooth and pretty quick for what it was.

[@greggc8088]

Never knew that about the crank. Thanks for that nugget of knowledge. One thing I always took notice of when opening the hood with a 301 under it was the rather tall intake used. Short stroke and light recipricating mass-too bad it's weak or it could make a nice hi rev power combo. Side note-I saw many of these in the big Pontiac and Buicks crack heads if they ever ran the least bit hot.

[@Lurch4you]

My father had a 1978 Pontiac Catalina coupe. It was a pretty red with black vinyl interior. It had air conditioning, power windows & locks, but had the base hubcaps. It was powered by the 4 barrel 301. My dad called it the " oil eater " because it was always down a quart of oil.

[@grandsonofAlbertJohn]

That's interesting I wonder what caused that, I'd venture to guess most 301 owners found these engines to be the opposite of that, we had a 301, transmission, differential combination that was in three different cars over the years we lost track of the mileage, even 10-15 years ago we were still using that car changed the valve cover gaskets and drove it for years after that and it used absolutely no oil I have no idea how many freaking miles were on this thing at that point. I know a person in the county that had a 1980 Bonneville two-door white beautiful car 300,000 miles all original

[@countryroadautopartsusa6466]

@@grandsonofAlbertJohn Indeed. My 1981 TA never has had oil consumption problems.

[@jazzandbluesculturalherita2547]

You want strange? How about the late '60s to early '70s Buick Special, with the aluminum block 301 V8 and 2-speed auto trans? A friend of mine in HS drove the Hella out of one he owned, challenging and beating many other fellows' seemingly superior 'rods. That 301 was somehow torquey enough to twist up that 2-speed auto trans to amazing feats. Kind of like sprinter Steve Williams going by you to win the heat just as you neared the finish line! He or the previous owner swapped out the rear axle for what appeared to be a pickup truck axle, keeping the tall truck tires to boot! It was jacked up in the rear like the Starsky and Hutch ride. Those were the days!!!

[@compu85]

In the early 90s Mercedes still used a totally hydraulic transmission which was introduced in 1979. They added an electrical switch that would close at very high governor pressure - something that happened only at a wot shift. It would - briefly - interrupt the fuel pump relay, causing a torque reduction during the shift.

[@timkis64]

my friend had a 78 grand prix with a 301.my 75 2.8 v6 4 speed mustang would run circles around it while getting better fuel economy.

[@MrTheHillfolk]

8:54 the exhaust broke on the wifes 2014 jetta with an automatic trans. When you let it upshift by itself at full throttle,youre rewarded with DSG farts. They use some of the same strategies for cutting fuel and spark like they do for a DSG transmission.

[@georgeburns7251]

In my experience in manufacturing, it is always the engineers who come up with cost cutting innovations. They then present their ideas to management who then approve and notify accounting. Never seen an accountant present a cost savings change.

[@gordonborsboom7460]

They could fire themselves as a cost savings

[@alanhubbard1868]

Engineers design to specifications, if the specifications said loose a 1000 lb. then that what the engineers did. If the spec said reduce the cost of manufacturing 25% then engineers created designs that used less raw materials, and labor to produce the same product. Because of inflation in the 70's GM was always cutting cost. That 2 counterweight crankshaft was also cast, not forged. The 301/265 engine block was also called a thin wall casting if I remember correctly. Also Hot Rod and other magazines didn't really dig into or build 301's, mostly G and F bodies got engine swaps based on "older" more powerful engines from the late 60's. The late 70's downsized G body is still the weapon of choice for GM guys. I don't think I saw a photo of a 301 crankshaft until maybe the mid or late 80's, I honestly don't think any Pontiac Engine Designer or Engineer really want a photo of that "sausage" in the public eye.

[@gabrielv.4358]

What? no. Their bosse's force they to do that, isnt that?

[@devinhiggison1198]

I love the golden era high compression v8's. But with some love the smog era v8's can make just as much. I got a ready to install, all accessories/belts/carb etc 27,000 mile 85 Ford 460 from an f350 firetruck and the full dual exhaust from the truck for 500 dollars. No or else wanted it because it wasnt a 429. But I'd say it was a great deal. I was even given the chance to watch it run the weekend before he pulled it to make sure it was in good shape

[@dansmusic5749]

Dad bought a new ’78 Bonneville. It was a velvety smooth car and in all ways a luxury automobile. For a man used to a 400 V8 even a non-enthusiast car owner like my dad noticed a pronounce reduction of power from the 301 V8. It spun a main bearing at 77,000 miles probably due to my teenaged younger brother's impatience with the 301. The car was otherwise well maintained. The previous ’73 Catalina with 400 V8 was traded at about the same milage with no indication that it was in need of repair. The fact that I routinely “road tested” the 400 seemed to have little negative effect on it. lol

[@DanEBoyd]

Wow, I never knew that the 303 was a low-deck block!!! I believe Geoff Brabham had a hand in that engine. Building up a hot 301 does sound cool. Just think about a custom forged crank, the better heads - and cutting down whatever was the best OEM intake manifold (RA IV?) to work with the lower deck. I've read that Pontiac did indeed mass produce an intake manifold which the aftermarket could not improve upon!! I've always been a Ford guy, but I've always particularly loved Pontiacs too!

[@grandsonofAlbertJohn]

The name Brabham sounds familiar, in regards to the 303. (I've got the Pete McCarthy book from late '80s and a lot of HPP & PE mags😁). Yeah, I've read before, something like, the 303 project, 4.125 X 2.84 stroke was a low deck and possibly what inspired Pontiac engineers to later make the 301 the way they did. Sort of like....the SD-455 has A LOT in common with the NASCAR 366 block that Pontiac engineers developed in the late 60s/early 70s, these were never even mass produced for racers, much less the public. Point is, there's several things different on a Super Duty 455 from the traditional Pontiac V8s, but there's pics, and if anyone had one stashed somewhere, a 366 NASCAR block, there's its lost twin

[@shabadoo24]

In Canada full size Pontiac cars could be ordered with the gutless 4.4 Litre 267 Cube

[@urbo42]

The 231 Buick V6 in the late seventies were shaky beasts. Nothing ruined a Firebird more than ordering it with a 231. That GM massaged that V6 into the 3800 Series I and II was nothing short of a miracle. Pre-split crankshaft, the 231 was peppy. The 77 Grand Prix was also much less pleasant with the 301 when compared to the 350 and 403's. The larger engines were lovely.

[@douro20]

The 3800 Series II was probably one of the best V6s ever made. I personally think they should have kept it a little longer than they did, especially with the numerous problems with DOHC V-engines GM has had over the years.

[@gabrielv.4358]

@@douro20 Watch Junkyard' Digs video where he absolutely trashes an 3.8 v6. Never stopped working

[@joellamoureux7914]

I had a 301 in my 77 gp. No power,but went to almost 300k miles. Loved the LSD transmission. If you put in L it would stay in 1st until you hit redline. It then would shift to 2. At about 55mph!

[@buzzwaldron6195]

301 got great MPG for 1970s...

[@steveflor9942]

The main bearing journal diameter looks immense. Which creates drag.

[@grandsonofAlbertJohn]

3.00 inches in most Pontiac V8s, I mean 326, 389 and later engines (not the '50s V8s, I haven't looked at the specs on a while) the "large journal" 421, 428, 455 was 3.25 inches. I don't recall if the 301 was 3.00 inches, I wouldn't be surprised

[@steveflor9942]

@Sheisthedevilyouknowwho-ft9we Interesting! Happy Turkey Day. 🦃🦃🦃🦃🦃

[@CaseyRevoir]

3:42 the picture of the crankshaft is not here

[@hotpuppy1]

It's a little later>>shows regular crank and then later crank.

[@Porsche996driver]

Wait for it lol.

[@richards8872]

@@Porsche996driverthat’s why I kept watching but I checked the comments also lol

[@lawrencegolba2244]

My 76 Grand Prix 400 small block with THM 400 tranny had great top end. I got between 26-32 mpg highway with the Rochester 4 barrel carb.

[@Bloodcurling]

I doubt you did. Before modifications @50mph 22.7 with draft After modifications @50mph 24.7 without draft 5.7L LM1 8.2:1, 2.41 final drive, no OD. My car

[@jimeditorial]

After the 1977 downsize, up here in Canada we had Parisiennes with both 301s and 305s...my 301 was the first Pontiac engine I had ever seen in a Pontiac...in Canada, Pontiacs were built with Chevy engines.

[@jedjohnson6781]

I had a 1980 (?) Olds Cutlass Supreme with the 265 cu. in. V-8. Absolutely no power. Wife loved it. It was a cruiser.

[@kclefthanded427]

With that long hood, you could fit another engine

[@googleusergp]

As others noted, it was the right engine for the times. The "problem" with those engines were the "mechanics" that attempted to "fix" them. Nothing wrong with them, if you realize that they are economy engines and drive and maintain them as such. Correct, there is NO SUCH THING as a Pontiac small and big block V8. They were never, ever, ever, ever, ever referred to as that. For instance, most emission era Pontiacs use the same spark plugs, such as the Delco R45TSX plugs. Both the 301 turbo and the Pontiac 400 use a Delco #41382 fuel pump. So, for those that say they are "different", yes, but they are more common than one thinks. Not correct, the 301 CID V8 was a credit engine in 1979 on the Trans Am and did net the buyer a "discount". I'd take a Pontiac small V8 over just about anything, although the Oldsmobile small V8 is a second favorite of mine. With that said, I've had a 1980 Trans Am with a turbo 301 for years and my parents bought it new.

[@erikk1820]

@@googleusergp Yeah, proper maintenance wasn’t a thing back then. By 100,000 miles, the emissions Quadrajet was pouring gas down the sides of the cylinders, washing them clean and destroying the oil, and with it, the bearings. I also have an 80 TA Turbo, and I love that little engine.

[@LuciFeric137]

I ordered a 79 TA with 301 because that was the only way to get a 4 speed manual. It was delayed because of a train operators strike so I ended up taking a 79 TA with the 403 oldsmobile and auto.

[@richardadams207]

I was a crank grinder for many years-many of these cracked at the first rod throw, they needed straightening before grinding and had issues on the rear side of the thrust face.

[@ricksaint2000]

Thank you

[@albertdelay6458]

I still have the 1980 Grand LeMans that I bought new. I disconnected the power to the transmission torque converter so that it didn't up and down shift on it's on. It didn't affect the fuel mileage and it made it many miles after GM decided to recall them. I replaced it with a Turbo 350 in 1990. The car, assembled in Canada, came with the 4.3, 265. As a side note, this may have been the first attempt of the US to convert to the Metric system. If the bolt is blue, it's Metric, otherwise its SAE. A few years after the transmission was replaced, I decided to rebuild the 265. A portion of one of the main bearing saddles fell out when the machine shop was driving the cam bearings out. There had been no vibration, noise, or loss of oil pressure. I thought this was very strange but after watching this video, the damage may have been caused by the crankshaft design. I built a 1978 301 to replace the 265. If memory serves me correct, the heads and push rods were not interchangeable. Both the 350 transmission and 301/305 engine are still in the car. PS, BTW, the voice in the video sounds very familiar.😊

[@PapiDoesIt]

My wife's first car was a Lemans with a 350/350. Damn good car.

[@jessepaul9774]

I had a 78 Pontiac Catalina with the 301 and dual jet carb. The car got great gas mileage and was a good cruiser. Not fast by any means. But it was a very reliable car. Wish I still had it.

[@Foxonian]

My dad had a 1980 Pontiac Lemans coupe with the 265 V8 in it. Not a bad engine, but definitely not a performer.

[@robertholzhauer959]

I had a 77 Grand Prix with the 301. Bought it in ‘89 with 124K on it. Made it to 144K when the cam shaft went. But I loved that car. Bought a new 301 engine and had my mechanic put it in. Got 4 more years and 70K on that engine. Had to sell it though. Everything else was falling apart, but that engine was smooth and ran great!

[@thetony0185]

No wonder I was dusting everything back then, the 400ci small block in my 73 Impala was a strong runner, especially after installing a mild camshaft, I remember chasing down a 455 equipped Trans Am. Caught him at 90mph, passed him at 100mph and was gapping freight trains on him by the time I hit 110mph! When we exited the freeway, the Impala had a real choppy idle and he said no wonder! 😁

[@jimkoonce6574]

I saw a lot of broken crankshafts in the 301! Mostly owned or driven by younger people!

[@Stan-rj8ki]

Raced my 78 in school. Snapped the shaft and threw a rod...sent it to the junkyard 😂

[@fasst5511]

Modern computer controlled engines cutting power when shifting or abusive maneuvers is called Torque Management on GM vehicles. It is programmed into the PCM's calibration.

[@billgraff4809]

We had a 1978 Bonneville two door with the 301 4bbl and THM-350. The engine was smooth and delivered 20 MPG average and 25 MPG on the highway. I much preferred the Pontiac 301 to the Chevy 305 4 BBL in the 1980 Caprice two door I owned later, which averaged only 16 MPG, 22 highway and burned a quart of oil every 1200 miles due to Chevy's crappy valve seals.

[@tylerfrankel5374]

Interesting that you also let off the throttle between shift on your old automatics. I also do that, came to the same conclusion when I bought my first classic (86 ford with AOD). At first I thought it shifted too hard. But then I realized it just didn’t have any throttle cut between gears like modern vehicles. So you just kinda throttle it until right before you know it would shift and then let up, and the shift is smooth. Kinda makes it feel semi manual which is nice and I know my tired u joints are grateful.

[@atvtheory3151]

My wife bought a brand-new 1979 Pontiac Firebird with the 301 engine and the THM350. The engine was never fast off the starting line, but it would cruise down the freeway and pass other cars with ease. It was initially the family car, then my daily driver, then the "teenagers car". We owned it for over 30 years and put over 200,000 miles on it. Never burned oil or gave me any issues. GM has been rightly criticized for taking engineering shortcuts and ruining too many engines or transmission with bad designs but I think they got it right with the 301. Smooth running, despite the odd-ball crankshaft and good gas mileage for a V8.

[@robertvance1873]

The 307 V8 had issues to.

[@95Sn95]

76 GP is a gorgeous in my opinion, I was born in 73 so malaise era cars were my childhood so I have a soft spot for big boxy long hood cars. I think making a less than desirable engine go good, you take even a 301 port the heads, good intake, bump the compression toss a cam in it and it would bug right along nice, so many people say why bother toss in a whatever but what's cool about that.

[@KevinJames-yg9eu]

This Pontiac V8 has the same 301.59 cubic inch displacement as a Chevy or Ford 302. It was called a 301 in marketing but a 302 in the service manual. Pontiac also rounded 4.94 liters to 4.9, whereas Ford incorrectly rounds it to 5.0.

[@grandsonofAlbertJohn]

Pontiac stretched the truth with their "350", but not in a way that was cheating the customer, but the opposite 😁

[@xaenon]

It's just a wasy to identify the engine; to the average schmoe it means nothing. Go to an auto parts counter and ask for parts for a Ford 5.0 of such and such year and such and such model, you'll get what you need, and that's all that really matters.

[@Galfrid]

Ford didn't "incorrectly" round the engine up to 5.0 They rounded the 302 up (5.0) so it wasn't confused with the (4.9) 300ci inline 6. Most engines are rounded up or down, sometimes drastically so, for marketing purposes (especially motorcycles)

[@mikee2923]

Pontiac started shaving weight off their engines in 1975. They thinned the webbing where the main bearing caps bolt down to the point that the bolts actually protrude through the casting. This for some reason was only in the 400. These are known as the 557 casting blocks. The 350 and 455 didn’t have this.

[@fido139]

I like the Pontiac 215 V8. I know a guy that had one.

[@chevken1831]

I used to hear that every Oldsmobile V8 was a Big Block 😮. Even the 307!

[@billfioretti3013]

Even the popular Pontiac 326, 350, 389, 400, 421, 428, and 455 of the 1960s and '70s had shortcomings when it came to the rotating assemblies. Most used cast iron connecting rods. Many competitors connecting rods of the era were of much stronger forged steel.

[@rf159a]

Accountants telling Engineers how to make things better. Really works well/s

[@ignacio9552]

We had a 1979 Caprice Classic with the 305 Small Block V8 and I believe it had the 200 hydramatic transmission. It did not like being rev'd up at all. Failed one day when I floored it and downshifted from D (drive) to 2nd gear on the column to get some power and acceleration. It blew up and left a trail of transmission fluid. I was young and thought it could handle it like my dads old 1971 Chrysler Town and Country. AAMCO had a bunch of rebuilds ready to go for $900 in 1984 when this happened.

[@connormason7907]

My dad had a Caprice diesel back in the 80s. The motor blew up like they all did so they opted for a small block gasoline V8. One day a thief stole it not knowing it took gas, filled the tank with diesel and had to abandon the vehicle. It was found and returned to him months later

[@lilibethdoherty295]

My 1981 Trans Am was the Worst Car I have ever owned, The 301 Engine was Pathetic and the Metric 200 Transmission Clanked up and down when shifting the Cruise control would surge up and down, the hood hinges buckled and hit the windshield the door handles were made of the cheapest metal that cracked the rear brakes would lock sending the car sideways off the road and this all happened after the 36 K miles Warranty , Imagine that !

[@dougdanzeisen9608]

My dad had a '79 Lesabre with the 301 and the 2bbl carb in a quadrajet body. Slow but was extremely reliable through the years. No problems ever with the engine or transmission. The little engine revved much faster than a comparable 350-400 cid pontiac, due to the lack of the rotating mass of those missing counterweights.

[@gabrielv.4358]

That is very interesting

[@marckyle5895]

Pontiac put the hp peak for the 301 Turbo right at 4,000 and the torque peak at 2,000 RPM. it HAD to have 3:08 gearing, too. It ran like a peppy V-6 if you kept the tach between those two numbers.

[@erikk1820]

@@marckyle5895 Running well, it was more like a Chevy LM1.

[@vinnieluther6589]

We had 1980 Catalina Safari with the 301. I think it had a TH350. The engine was perfectly smooth. You couldn't tell it was running. I had to be very careful not to think it was off and try to start it again. It wasn't powerful. There was no tac, I don't know what RPM it shifted at. I would assume pretty low. Compared to a friend's 3rd gen trans Am with the Chevy 305, which I think shifted at 4500, it seemed like it didn't rev that high. The Pontiac 301 I think had a high rod stroke ratio of 2:1 which may be part of the reason it was so smooth.

[@charlietanner6211]

pontiacnever made a good engine back in day when they each had there own eng div bbuick was best worked on bunchs

[@davidpowell3347]

There might have been something like this with the Volkswagen "Bug" vs. the same year Porsche 356 which (some early ones) had a very similar 4 cylinder boxer engine but with much stouter internals and a big oil cooler - think the Porsche had fully counterbalanced crankshaft while the Bug didn't similar displacements but the Porsche had about 3 times the power ?

[@pcno2832]

I can think of 2 other advantages to a lighter crankshaft, though I don't know how significant they are. With a lower rotational moment of inertia, the engine can be more responsive for a given amount of power, since less of the engine power (which was quite limited with most of these engines) is invested in the momentum of the crankshaft; this is often given as the justification for the relatively rough-running Italian V8s with their single-plane crankshafts. Similarly, with less energy invested in the momentum of the crankshaft, less is wasted in friction when the engine is allowed to wind down. That said, I'm curious about whether anyone really experienced problems with these engines, or if their reliability questions were just idle speculation.

[@samholdsworth420]

You didn't show a picture of the crankshaft Adam 😂

[@mikekokomomike]

it came up later, around 04:38 after he shows a "normal" crankshaft. Just an editing error

[@69Applekrate]

yes he did

[@haircut2015]

Yes no pictures of the 301. crank when you where talking about it...

[@gabrielv.4358]

@@69Applekrate 'nt

[@davidpowell3347]

Was this engine said to be "externally balanced" with asymmetrically weighted front damper/pulley and/or flywheel ? If so getting those things out of the proper rotational/indexed position would make the engine shake badly. Also I understand these engines had a lot of metal cored out of the bottom end (main bearing support webbing and such) somewhat like the later Oldsmobile gasoline engines such as the 307 - greatly weakened the engine structure but probably was tolerated as long as the compression ratios were low and the RPM was kept down and the engine was not allowed to "lug" per having either automatic transmission or if manual a weak clutch ( would slip if you tried to lug it)

[@sassed12many]

My girl had a 76 Cutlass Supreme with a 260 ish V8. Who made that engine? So smooth

[@hotpuppy1]

@@Guns_N_Gears Wrong. Olds was 260. Chevy was 267

[@Porsche996driver]

@@hotpuppy1hot puppy for the win lol.

[@Guns_N_Gears]

@@Porsche996driver yep, it was a typo FOR THE WIN!!!

[@downix]

Several European V8s ran with two or four counterweights without issue, but they did this by being flat plane, rather than Pontiac's cross plane.

[@hutchcraftcp]

We had problems with a TH200 behind a 231 V6, I can't imagine it behind a V8

[@tedsmart5539]

Some motorcycle engines have 4 counterweights but crossplane cranks aren't in old cars.

[@dr.detroit1514]

Interesting video. I got to thinking that Pontiac was the only one of the BOPC divisions that didn't have separate small blocks and big blocks frrm the early years. The Pontiac V8 was too big and heavy to be a proper small block like the small block Ford or Chevy, but too small to be a proper big block like a Ford of Chevy big block. If Pontiac had decked the original Pontiac V8 an inch and created a true small block, then maybe GM would have allowed them to create a clean sheet big block design, with bigger bores, splayed valves, etc. That said, the 301 could be made to run fairly well, with some tuning. My brother had a friend who owned a '79 301 Buick Regal, that he had dyno tuned. It would beat 301 T/A's in stoplight drags. More power, lighter weight.

[@turnertruckandtractor]

The once mighty and powerful GM sowing the seeds that would ultimately doom it one bad decision at a time. Penny wise and dollar foolish. GM was still my favorite manufacturer at that time and I was a die hard fan. I wanted to be a GM dealer when I grew up. Thank God for unanswered prayers.

[@erikk1820]

@@turnertruckandtractor I really don’t blame GM much. No company has ever had to redesign every aspect of every car they made in such a short period of time. Especially with the technology of the 70s.

[@pauldizinno4949]

Pre-1980 (before the 301-T block) were the worst of them. The earlier blocks were thin casting. At least 2 that I know of failed early (friend’s dad’s 1978 Lemans (replaced engine) and my cousin’s 78 LeSabre suffered a cracked cylinder wall (overheating issue because of it). Seems many others experienced 301 failures as well.

[@stephenmoxley3004]

Wow! I didn't know this type of crankshaft existed in an American car. It looks so frail and wimpy. It also looks like it could break easily. Judging by the comments, these weren't prone to breakage. I could see someone building a 301 for Trans Am racing with a forged, fully counterweighted rotating assembly. That would probably be a stout motor and capable of high revs.

[@erikk1820]

@@stephenmoxley3004 The heads would be the big problem.