Cammer: The Pontiac OHC Six

LEGACY

The next GM car to offer a belt-driven overhead camshaft was the Chevrolet Vega, which debuted in 1971. It spawned a Pontiac version, the Astre, in 1975, although Pontiac didn’t use the Vega’s 140 cu. in. (2,286 cc) OHC engine for long. For 1978, the Vega four was replaced by the 151 cu. in. (2,471 cc) pushrod “Iron Duke” engine, which Pontiac used well into the eighties.

By the late seventies, belt-driven overhead cams were becoming very popular, particularly on inexpensive four-cylinder engines. Sadly, many later timing belts were far less robust than Pontiac’s was and some OHC engines had an alarming tendency to eat valves if the belt snapped. By the beginning of the 21st century, concerns over belt longevity — and the high cost of changing a timing belt on a modern transverse engine — prompted a move back to timing chains. Timing belts are now becoming rare; even Honda has adopted chain drive for its more recent engines.

Hydraulic valve adjusters for OHC engines were slower to spread to other mass-market cars, although they began appearing on some luxury cars in the early seventies. They are now almost universal on OHC engines, mostly to help control exhaust emissions. (Having owned several cars that required valve adjustments every 15,000 miles (24,000 km), the author also considers hydraulic lash adjusters a tremendous convenience.)

It’s unfortunate that the Pontiac OHC six became something of a dead end. The Sprint, in particular, offered a combination of decent power, modest weight, and respectable fuel economy that was not seen again on an American car for years afterward. Along with the turbocharged Oldsmobile Jetfire V8 of a few years earlier, it was among the most sophisticated American engines of its era. The OHC six had its faults, but none of them was crippling and most can be rectified today with a competent rebuild and regular oil changes.

The stillborn OHC V8s are even more tantalizing. Even if they had made to production, it would probably have been on a very limited basis, like the earlier Super Duty engines. However, if DeLorean and McKellar had gotten their way, the performance engines might well have spawned mass-production derivatives, if only for homologation purposes. It’s easy to understand why the prospect of bolt-on OHC heads for the GTO had buff book editors salivating.

Unfortunately, it was not to be. Only one of Pontiac’s OHC V8 engines made it to the street, a SOHC 421 that Mac McKellar received as a parting gift on his retirement in 1982. Installed in McKellar’s 1963 Grand Prix, it was a fearsome sleeper, a sad — and potent — reminder of opportunities missed.

# # #


AUTHOR’S NOTE

A little over a year after this article was written, we learned of the death of Malcolm McKellar, who passed away on April 8, 2011. He was 90 years old. McKellar outlived his former boss, John DeLorean, by six years: DeLorean died in 2005 at the age of 80.


NOTES ON SOURCES

Our sources on the development of the “Cammer” included Jim Black, “Buyer’s Guide: 1966-’67 Pontiac Le Mans Sprint,” Hemmings Muscle Machines June 2009, and “Pontiac’s Fantastic Six,” (n.d., The Pontiac-Oakland Club Overhead Cammers Chapter website, www.overheadcammerschapter. 150m. com, accessed 10 April 2010); Ray T. Bohacz, “Mechanical Marvels: Chain Gang: Exploring Camshaft Drive Mechanisms,” Hemmings Classic Car #12 (September 2005), pp. 66–69; Marc Cranswick, Pontiac Firebird – The Auto-Biography (Car & Motorcycle Marque/Model) (Poundbury, Dorchester: Veloce Publishing, 2003); Christopher M. Drew, assignor to General Motors Corporation, “Rocker Adjusting Mechanism,” U.S. Patent No. 2,934,051, filed 28 May 1956, published 26 April 1960; John Ethridge, “Tempest’s New Cammer!” Motor Trend Vol. 17, No. 9 (September 1965), pp. 40-44; Kit Foster, “1967 Pontiac Firebird Sprint: OHC from John Z’s PMD,” Special Interest Autos #150 (November-December 1995), reprinted in The Hemmings Motor News Book of Pontiacs: driveReports from Hemmings Special Interest Autos, ed. Terry Ehrich (Bennington, VT: Hemmings Motor News, 2001), pp. 118-127; John Gunnell, Standard Catalog of GTO, 1961-2004 (Iola, WI: Krause Publications, 2003); Wick Humble, “1961 Pontiac Tempest: But cars aren’t supposed to have curved driveshafts,” Special Interest Autos #48 (November-December 1978), reprinted in The Hemmings Motor News Book of Pontiacs , pp. 78-86; Roger Huntington, “Much More Muscle for 1966,” Car Life Vol. 12, No. 10 (November 1965), pp. 57–60; Don Keefe, “Department X: The 1964 OHC-6 Banshee Coupe,” High Performance Pontiac November 2001, pp. 38–41, and “Grand Performance: Pontiac’s luxurious muscle car: the 1964 Grand Prix,” Special Interest Autos #195 (June 2003), pp. 24–31; Jeff Koch, “John Z. DeLorean: Thoughts and memories from the immortal creator of the GTO, 30 years later,” High Performance Pontiac February 1994, pp. 22-23; Alex Markovich, “New Cars: What’s Ahead in 1966?” Popular Mechanics Vol. 124, No. 4 (October 1965), pp. 96–100, 219–220H; George Mattar, “1966 Progressive Pontiac: PMD’s advanced overhead-cam-six Tempest for 1966,” Hemmings Classic Car #7 (April 2005), pp. 46–53; “McDonald, F. James,” Generations of GM History, GM Heritage Center, history.gmheritagecenter. com/wiki/index.php/ McDonald,_F._James, accessed 11 September 2015; Mike Mueller, “When Less Was More: Pontiac Overhead-Cam Six-Cylinder,” American Horsepower: 100 Years of Great Car Engines (St. Paul, MN: MBI Publishing Company, 2006), pp. 117-121; Eric Nielssen, “Pontiac’s New SOHC Six,” Car and Driver September 1965, reprinted in Car and Driver on Pontiac 1961–1975, ed. R.M. Clarke (Cobham, England: Brooklands Books Ltd., ca. 1986), pp. 36-38, 59; “1966 at GM: Plastic Grille, OHC 6 Among Pontiac Innovations This Year,” Car Life Vol. 12, No. 10 (November 1965), pp. 50–52; Jan P. Norbye, “How Hot Can a Six Get?” Popular Science Vol. 188, No. 6 (June 1966), pp. 70-73, and “Sensational New OHC Six from Pontiac,” Popular Science Vol. 187, No. 2 (August 1965), pp. 37-41; Jan P. Norbye and Jim Dunne, Pontiac 1946-1978: The Classic Postwar Years (Osceola, WI: Motorbooks International Publishers & Wholesalers, 1979); the Old Car Brochures website (oldcarbrochures.org); Pontiac Motor Division of General Motors Corporation, “Four leading car experts report on Pontiac’s Break Away Squad for ’69—” [brochure], September 1968]; Jim Schild, Original Pontiac Firebird and Trans Am 1967-2002: The Restorer’s Guide (St. Paul, MN: Motorbooks, 2007); and J. Patrick Wright, On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors: John Z. DeLorean’s Look Inside the Automotive Giant (Chicago, IL: Avon Books, 1980).

Additional technical details came from Ray T. Bohacz, “Mechanical Marvels: Henry’s Bent Eight: The 1954 Ford 239-cu.in. V-8 engine,” Special Interest Autos #195 (June 2003), pp. 54–56; Doc Frohmader, “Pontiac OHC” (2006, Webrodder.com, www.webrodder. com, accessed 14 April 2010); Donald J. Hoffman, 1966, “Hydraulic Lash Adjuster,” U.S. Patent No. 3,273,548, filed 29 September 1965 and issued 20 September 1966; Michael Lamm, “Fishbowl: 1955 Ford Crown Victoria Skyliner” from Special Interest Autos #37 (November-December 1976), reprinted in The Hemmings Motor News Book of Postwar Fords: driveReports from Special Interest Autos magazine, eds. Terry Ehrich and Richard Lentinello (Bennington, VT: Hemmings Motor News, 2000), pp. 48–55; and Jan P. Norbye, “Comparing the Compacts: Valiant • Falcon • American • Chevy II,” Popular Science Vol. 187, No. 5 (November 1965): 90–94, 184.

Information on Pontiac’s other OHC engines came from Eric Dahlquist, “Big Medicine from Pontiac,” Hot Rod March 1968, pp. 30-35; Don Keefe, “Dept. X: Malcolm ‘Mac’ McKellar’s 1963 Grand Prix is powered by the world’s only surviving OHC 421 Pontiac V8!” High Performance Pontiac October 1990, pp. 30-31; Rocky Rotella, “Pontiac V8 Engines – Photographing Legends,” High Performance Pontiac March 2010, www.highperformancepontiac. com, accessed 10 April 2010; and Bob Wicker, “An Interview with Herb Adams” (January 2010, Pontiacs Online, www.pontiacsonline. com, accessed 10 April 2010).

Additional background information on other American OHC engines came from the Auto Editors of Consumer Guide, Encyclopedia of American Cars: Over 65 Years of Automotive History (Lincolnwood, IL: Publications International, 1996); Ray T. Bohacz, “Mechanical Marvels: Only in a Jeep: The 1962 Willys Overhead Camshaft 6-cylinder Engine,” Special Interest Autos #187 (January-February 2002), pp. 54–56; John R. Bond, “Willys 4wd Wagoneer,” Car Life Vol. 10, No. 3 (April 1963), pp. 54–61; “Evolution of the Wills St. Claire” (2008, Wills Ste. Claire Museum, www.willsautomuseum. org, accessed 11 April 2010); Pat Foster, “The Other Overhead-Cam Six,” Special Interest Autos #150 (November-December 1995), reprinted in The Hemmings Motor News Book of Pontiacs, p. 123; John Gunnell, ed., Standard Catalog of American Cars 1946-1975 Revised 4th Edition (Iola, WI: Krause Publications, 2002); Roger Huntington, “Will Camshafts be Kicked Upstairs? Progress Report on Overhead Cam Development, Yesterday, Today or Tomorrow?” Motor Trend Vol. 16, No. 7 (July 1964), pp. 56-57, 90-92; and Maximiliano Pallocchini, “Tornado: Historia, creación y origenes,” Club Amigos del Torino, 3 August 2012, www.clubamigosdeltorino. com.ar/ index.php/ component/ k2/ item/ 5-tornado-historia-creacion-y-origenes.html, accessed 4 August 2015.

Some information on the Red Baron came from Moldy Marvin, “The Tom Daniel Story” (2004, Ratfink.org, www.ratfink. org, accessed 11 April 2010).

We also consulted the following period road tests: Jim Dunne, “’66 Tempest: A tiger in performance, a dog on gas,” Popular Mechanics Vol. 125, No. 5 (May 1966), pp. 82-84, 230, and Bill Hartford, “A Rip-Roarder…with Rattles,” Popular Mechanics Vol. 129, No. 2 (February 1968), pp. 96–98, 208; John Ethridge, “OHC in a Tempest,” Motor Trend Vol. 18, No. 1 (January 1966), pp. 46-49, and “Sporty Specialties: Cougar & Firebird,” Motor Trend Vol. 19, No. 5 (May 1967), pp. 34-37, 41-42; “Pontiac Tempest Sprint,” Car and Driver December 1965, and “Pontiac Le Mans Sprint,” Car and Driver February 1967, reprinted in Car and Driver on Pontiac 1961–1975; “Pontiac Tempest Sprint & GTO: It’s Still….Six for the Money and Eight to Go!” Car Life May 1966, reprinted in GTO Muscle Portfolio 1964–1974, ed. R.M. Clarke (Cobham, England: Brooklands Books Ltd., ca. 1998); and “A Brace of Birds: The Sprint and the 400 from among Pontiac’s Five Firebirds,” Car Life August 1967, John Ethridge, “Fire Breathing Bird…first of the spring from Pontiac,” Motor Trend Vol 19, No. 3 (March 1967); “Firebird Sprint: The Sensible Supercar,” Cars December 1967; Steve Kelly, “How Do You Say ‘PFST’?” Motor Trend Vol. 19, No. 7 (July 1967); “Look What They’re Doing to the Firebird Now,” Car Life April 1968; Jon McKibben, “Fitch Firebirds: With the Corvair market diminishing, John Fitch finds another car to improve,” Road & Track April 1968; and “Pontiac Firebird Sprint,” Road & Track June 1967; and Sergio D’Angelo and L’Editrice Dell’Automobile LEA, “Pontiac Firebird Hardtop Coupe,” World Car Catalogue 1969, all of which are reprinted in Firebird and Trans-Am Muscle Portfolio 1967–1972, ed. R.M. Clarke(Cobham, England: Brooklands Books, Ltd., 1998).

We later updated the article to note the passing of Malcolm McKellar, based on information from Richard Lentinello, “RIP, Mac McKellar,” Hemmings Daily, 2 May 2011, blog.hemmings. com, accessed 15 June 2011; and Paul Stenquist, “Malcolm McKellar, Pioneer of the Pontiac Overhead-Cam Engine,” New York Times 3 May 2011, wheels.blogs.nytimes. com, accessed 15 June 2011. We confirmed McKellar and DeLorean’s dates of birth and death via the Social Security Death Index.


RELATED ARTICLES


48 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. Great article Aaron! Milt Schornack of Royal Bobcat fame had some good words concerning the OHC six in his book. It appears they did some testing with headers and a tri-power setup on the sprint six engine. It would be quite the sleeper if it weren’t so loud.

    1. Pontiac did some similar experiments — the PFST project, developed by Herb Adams, used three Webers and headers. It was a pretty good setup, but it was too noisy to pass muster, and GM had banned multiple-carburetor setups.

      (Once interesting side note is that McKellar’s engine guys tried to create a common baseplate for the Tri-Power set-up so they could tell the corporation it was a single six-barrel carb. It didn’t work, though.)

  2. Grandpa was a Pontiac man for years – I was carsick numerous times as a young boy in the back seat of his 1966 Tempest OHC-6/Powerglide four-door.

    Years later, the car ended up in my hands, but the top end of the six had already died – I pulled the engine and replaced it with a Chevy 350 and THM350. Always loved that car – the dash was jewel-like with its deep-set gauges, and I always marveled at the “Wondertouch” power steering and brakes.

    The car is long gone, but I still have the OHC valve cover up in the attic somewhere – always thought it was a true piece of automotive art.

    1. Top-end oiling was a persistent problem with these engines when they were new — inadequate flow to the cam covers, particularly when the oil was dirty. I’m told that with modern oil and regular changes, it’s not a big deal, but it killed a lot of cammers when they were new(ish).

  3. How does an engine designed by (presumably) capable, experienced engineers make it into production with a design flaw like this?

    1. Mac McKellar actually took pains at the design stage to reduce camshaft wear; the lobes were twice the normal width, for example, in an effort to reduce surface pressure. However, hand-assembled test engines may not reveal issues that crop up with assembly-line engines owned by people who only change their oil once a year.

      As I understand it, the camshaft damage to the ’66 and ’67 engines was usually caused by one of three things:

      1) Incorrect machining of the metering hole in the restrictor that that controls the flow of oil to the camshaft journals. A lot of ’66 and ’67 engines came through with too large a metering hole, effectively reducing oil pressure to the cam and lash adjusters. This problem could be exacerbated by an incorrectly machined or clogged primary oil passage (the line through which oil flows to the cam cover), which could happen with infrequent oil changes or poor-quality oil.

      2) Too rough a finish on the contact area of the cam follower, where the follower actually touches the cam lobe, scuffing the cam.

      3) Broken retaining clips. The ’66 and ’67 engines used little metal spring clips to hold the lash adjuster to the cam follower during assembly. This was just an assembly-line convenience; once the cam cover is assembled, it’s not necessary. However, they just left the clip in place on the assembled engines, which would occasionally break when the engine was running, damaging the cam and/or valves with the pieces. The later engines omitted the clips, and simply removing them from the 230 will avoid the problem.

      For the most part, these were manufacturing/assembly issues, rather than design problems. Without talking to old Pontiac engineers, I don’t know why they weren’t fully resolved until the ’68 model year; if they’d been taken care of in the first few months of production, I’d file them under “teething problems.” I assume it comes down to the fact that design engineers don’t control production, and vice versa, as happened with the con rod breakage on the Fiero engines years later. (In that case, Saginaw foundry division was aware of the metallurgical problems, but they had no incentive to fix them.)

  4. This engine should have been an option in the 73-74 Ventura GTO. With an appropriate suspension and steering it would have been an excellent road car for the time and sales would have exploded during the first oil embargo.

  5. Can anyone help with a diagram of the timing marks for a 68 Pont Firebird 6 ohc engine. It would be greatly apprecceiated. Thanks.

  6. I have a OHC 6 without a Z (code) build date I think is L076 (DEC. 7th 1966) But can not find any code starting with a Z? I was told this engine was never loaded into a car or frame and was sent to a school for testing? Do you thoink there would be any truth to this? Thank you Rick

  7. Needing a diagram of a 1969 250 OHC 6 timing marks

  8. I thought the cammer poncho was awesome,–especially the Sprint, and I wonder–do blue prints/photos exist for the never-produced DOHC 389? Or even the SOHC 421 & SOHC 428? The tri-power OHC-sprint? Taking a page out of Govt., I wonder what “vices” those jerk-Globalist(imo) Board Members of GM had–evidently none that Delorean was able to exploit. I mention this because Pontiac is no more but for idiots that didn’t want to “ruffle” Govt. feathers, like the moribund Roach and the drooling Donnor-Dumber–two killers of Pontiac-Power, and Legend.

    1. I assume the blueprints for those engines still exist in the files somewhere (certainly for the SOHC — as the conclusion mentions, Mac McKellar ended up with one of the prototype engines). It’s possible some of the prototypes are in the Heritage Center, along with other abortive GM engines like the SOHC Cadillac V-12, but I haven’t checked.

      It’s easy to understand why the SOHC and DOHC V-8 projects ended up not going anywhere, regrettable as it may be. Pontiac already had engines more powerful than senior corporate management thought was prudent; the division didn’t have a NASCAR program where a hot SOHC 421/428 would be really useful; and price escalation and insurance rates were already making the really hot cars unaffordable to most of the kids who wanted them. And that’s without even getting into the emissions certification issues. If the SOHC/DOHC engines had made it out of experimental, they probably would have been roughly as attainable as the Ford SOHC 427 or Chevy’s early Z-11 427 “Mystery Engine.” For the street, a Ram Air 428 or 455 would have been a lot cheaper and probably more practical.

      Still, I would be lying if I said I didn’t find the idea of a Trans Am 303 with overhead cams intriguing…

  9. I need a starter for a 1967 firebird,4.1 liter overhead cam sprint with a two speed power glide trans. or a gm part number, picture anything thanks in advance Tony

  10. I’m afraid I really don’t know — sorry!

  11. GM UK (Vauxhall) introduced a belt driven SOHC four engine in 1968, using some design cues from the Pontiac 6, the camshaft in an aluminium housing and large followers, but with solid lifters. Very few European engines had hydraulic lifters then.
    However it was slanted 45 degrees, more like half a V8, although it helped it fit under hoods more easily.
    It wasn’t a great design, no more refined or efficient than old fashioned ohv engines from contemporary Ford or BMC offerings, and nor easy to work on either.
    I suspect some aspects of its design were influenced by Pontiacs development work, can you verify or deny this?.

    Roger.

    1. Roger,

      I honestly don’t know — I haven’t looked closely at Vauxhall’s behind-the-scenes history in that era. If I find anything out in that regard, I’ll comment here.

      1. If you haven’t already you should check out Vauxpedia that has lots of useful information on what Vauxhall was up to in terms of development.

  12. I have a 4.1 ltr ohc motor and two speed powerglide trans up for grabs I pulled out of my 69 firebird. located in ct

    1. Did it sell?

      1. Hey Charles,

        I generally advise caution when it comes to publishing your email address and/or phone number online — if you’re sure you want to do that, I’ll approve it, but I take no responsibility for the potential consequences or flood of spam.

  13. Can a base 67 Firebird 6 cylinder ohc engine be modified to be a sprint engine? If so, what reference is available to complete the conversion?

    1. I’m not qualified to advise anyone on modifying engines — sorry!

    2. I would imagine higher comp pistons and sufficient flowing manifolds along with a hipo carb setup.

  14. I just picked up the base overhead cam 6 engine from a 68 Firebird. My Dad worked at the Pontiac dealership when these cars were new. He said the only one that gave cam trouble were the ones the older people had. He any younger people that drove them kept them revved up high enough I guess to keep the cam lubed.

  15. I just purchased a ’68 firebird for restoration. I need tghe 6 cylinder overhead cam motor for it. Any for sale?

    1. I don’t sell parts, cars, or engines, sorry!

    2. I have a original 66 from a tempest if your interested

    3. i have a ohc 6 from 67 Lemans, complete for rebuild except quad carb, will look at offers. thank you

    4. hi, if you are still looking I have a ’68 ohc 6 motor may still run been out of car for awhile, I am in Oregon.

    5. Yes i have a 1967 OHC out of 1967 Fire bird Sprint rebuild able My email is chrissharon6 [at] msn [dot] com Thank you!

      1. Chris,

        I edited your email address to make it slightly less machine-readable — if you really want me to put it back the way it was, I will, but I take no responsibility for the spam-bots of the world!

  16. It’s a damn shame that GM is such a bullheaded company when it comes to innovation.

  17. My first car was a Pontiac LeMans bought from my grandfather. It had the OHC six 2-barrel. I enjoyed the car for a year and then sold it to my parents. They had to rebuild the top end twice and finally junked it at 67,000 miles. The cam design was definitely flawed. Interesting to read all the knowledgeable comments about this engine.

  18. I worked, as a mechanic, at a Pontiac dealer and was excited when these cars stated coming in to be sold. They drove well and were economical. A few months later the only excitement was trying to keep them from eating their overhead cams. I could not believe that GM would release such junk.

  19. hi, i have 66 tempest custom still has the original engine ZD CODE that came factory in it with the optional four speed, it has 98.000 miles on it, at 80.000 miles had to put cam assembly on the engine, but she run’s just fine, and the only rust spot’s are at rear glass and above back bumper, floor’s solid, and i have rare 67 firbird ohc 6 sprint that came factory with transistorized ignition, the amp box mount above the heater, and it has the factory wiring, do you have something like this, tell me about it thank’s k.t.

  20. Can anyone confirm an attempt to extend the Pontiac OHC engine lifespan in Australia powering Holdens that soon fell apart once it was revealed to be close in power to Holden’s own V8 during that period?

    A pity it never lived on particularly in Australia along similar lines to the Australian versions of the Ford Straight-6 that eventually became the Ford Barra engine (topped with 320-420 hp 4.0 Turbo variants).

    1. I’ve never heard anything about that, although it does sound reasonably plausible. (I assume such a thing would not have been the Pontiac OHC six per se, but rather a similar OHC conversion of the existing Holden six, so as to preserve as much of the original tooling as possible.) There’s certainly a lot of precedent for that kind of thing. Of course, given how much GM-Holden probably spent tooling for the locally built V-8, I can see how they would ultimately have decided not to also go forward with an extensive revamp of the existing six, especially if it produced similar power.

  21. Loved your article on the OHC6.
    I’m still driving my 1967 LeMans, 2-door hardtop. Tahiti blue, OHC6,1-bbl Rochester carb, with the 2-speed power glide transmission.
    I bought her new in December, 1966, in Austin, TX. I drive it monthly with more than 178.000 on her. She’s 100% original with the same hub caps, gas cap, car keys, interior, etc.
    I overhauled the engine in 1979. The timing belt, with 142,000 miles on it, actually looked good. She still has the same cam and lifters.
    The main reason I still have this car is it’s beautiful design, at any angle, as well as such an easy driver.
    I just wanted to talk about Becky Blue (her name) since she’s at the New Braunfels Classic Car Restoration shop for a complete redo. It’ll be her 50th birthday coming due soon.

  22. I have always liked these Pontiac OHC sixes. I never owned one, but I did come close to obtaining a very old and beaten up 67 Lemans Sprint back in the 80s.

    These engines are very cleverly designed, and I still do not understand how they are more expensive to make that the corresponding Chevy stove bolt 6.

    For instance, the block is very simple: There is no machining for a cam, oil pump, lifter bores and lifter galleries, fuel pump, and a distributor.

    The oil pump, distributor, and fuel pump are mounted on a die cast aluminum assembly (somewhat analogous to the die cast front ends on Cadillac and Buick V8s). All of this was driven by an auxiliary shaft that was, in turn, driven by a pulley that was also used as the cam belt tensioner. This whole assembly moved up and down on a pad, machined on the lower right side of the block and was held to the block by four bolts working in slots in the die cast assembly. The whole assembly could be moved up and down against the block to achieve the proper cam belt tension. It was prevented from tilting out of alignment by a slot milled into the pad on the block and corresponding key in the assembly. Like the four mounting slots, inlet and output oil galleries in the block matched with slotted passages in the assembly.

    It seems to me that casting and machining a die cast part is less expensive than performing similar operations to make cast iron parts.

    There is more expense in making and setting up gears to drive the cam (as in the Chevy 6) than in making pulleys and a timing belt — this is even cheaper than making sprockets and a silent chain, as some other 6s used.

    The cam is held in another die casting, again, easier to machine than a cam in a cast iron pushrod block.

    I see this engine as being very adaptable to all sorts of uses, from a heavy duty truck engine (longer strokes could more easily be accommodated in a higher block that used the same tooling as the car block) and head design would be practically unlimited, with later aluminum technology, a cross flow head, and even a DOHC head. Performance, in other words, could be easily manipulated more cheaply than in the normal pushrod design.

    Unfortunately, Detroit’s lack of attention to engineering a reliable design was capitalized on by companies like Toyota and Honda, who found cheaper ways to make better parts and, much to their customers’ delight, didn’t expect their customers to do their trouble shooting for them.

    A word about the “Y Block” design of the block (and Y Blocks, as well!). Deep skirted blocks, so despised by the Cfhevy-Synchophant car rags, was a design used by GM, as well, such as the Small Block and Nail Head Buicks, in Chrysler’s B and RB V8s, and AMC’s old 287/327 V8s, besides Ford’s Y Block, Lincoln Y Block, FE, MEL, and SD truck motors.

    The purpose of the deep skirt is not to provide a means of using cross bolted main caps to increase the strength of the main caps, as those aforementioned car rag writers would have us believe.

    First of all, the purpose of cross bolted mains wasn’t to reinforce the main caps. It was to keep the main caps from “walking” on their seats and consequently allowing the mains to spin. This was a problem when slamming a two-ton stock car into a high speed corner at nearly 200 mph and then letting off of the throttle. The forces in the block are tremendous in this case, and anchoring the main caps was the problem. Ford FEs and Mopar 426 Hemis accomplished this by tying the main caps to the deep skirt with cross bolts.

    Pontiac, back in the early 60s, accomplished the same thing by using four bolt main caps on their skirtless V8 blocks in the early 60s — something Chevy later copied to solve similar problems.

    Furthermore, in a V8, it can be argued that the “Y Block” deep skirt does directly support the crankshaft partially, as it is clear (contrary to the silly arguments made by the most famous car rag) that in a V8 engine, the crank isn’t being pushed out the oil pan opening, it is being pushed at a 45* angle to perpendicular. This, however, is immaterial in an inline six.

    A famous inline six made by GM that used the deep skirted “Y Block” was the old Detroit Diesel, such as the common 6-71. The deep skirt is used to strengthen the engine longitudinally, which is why this design is quite common in many engines today. Regarding the Pontiac OHC 6, it would give the engine the durability needed in its high performance garb to push relatively heavy intermediates and pony cars around with surprising performance.

    Regarding the question posed by one of the posters in this thread, the Sprint engine differed from the base six, not only in having higher compression and a Rochester 4v Quadrajet, but in having a more radical cam and different, stronger rods. The block also has room to accept the long-stroke Chevy 292 truck inline six crankshaft.

    John Z DeLorean had admirable skill as an engineer, and this Pontiac engine is part of his legacy, along with other automotive designs you have related to us on this sight. It’s a shame that his business ethics didn’t match his skill, but the Pontiac OHC 6 is a design I’ll always admire.

  23. Have you ever heard of, or do you have any information about, an over head cam engine based on the Corvair horizontally opposed six cylinder engine? This engine was proposed for the GM Astro I show car in the mid 1960’s. The over head cams, one on each cylinder head, were belt driven, similar to the Pontiac’s OHC 6. This engine would have been in development around the time of the development of the Pontiac engine.

    1. The Astro I is mentioned briefly in the Corvair article and I think in the Opel GT story as well. Detailed information about its engine is surprisingly sparse. As far as I could gather, the show car didn’t actually have a running engine (not atypical for concept cars) and it’s not clear if there was a running version of the engine; it does not appear to have been a serious production prospect. It was notionally based on the existing Corvair engine, but taken out a bit in bore (which probably would have meant new cylinder barrels) for a displacement of 176 cubic inches. I have no information on the belt drive.

      1. Aaron, thanks for the info. I had an occasion to sit (or rather, repose, because of its laid back seating position) in the Astro I, but it was almost 4 decades ago, and although I knew of the significance of the car at the time, I didn’t memorize all details about it. I did notice it had sloppy spot welds in the engine compartment. The car did not run in our presence, so I can’t verify if whatever engine was in it was runnable. I understand that it now has a common 140HP (four Rochester H carbs) engine, mainly because somebody got tired of pushing it all over the place. I’m working with someone who is working with someone who insists there are six or seven operational Cammer engine prototypes in the wild (outside of GM), and he insists that he absolutely must have one. As you indicate, there is very sparse information about this engine. Someone claims to have the blueprints for this engine, but I’ll bet he has the blueprints for the experimental Rochester fuel injection Corvair engine. I have seen those, as well as a box of parts (but not assembled on an engine). I was hoping you might have had some insight or leads as to a direction of information about the Cammer engine, but you are reinforcing the concept that there is simply nothing out there to be had. I thank you for your info and response.

        1. If there were any operating prototypes, I’ve never heard of any — which doesn’t mean they don’t exist, necessarily. It’s certainly conceivable that Chevrolet engineering (or the corporate Engineering Staff) toyed with the idea of rigging up an OHC Corvair engine, but whether it got beyond paper plans and mockups, I don’t know. (The divisions in those days had “Advanced” engineering budgets for R&D projects not necessarily intended for production.) By the time the Astro I was built, the likelihood that Chevrolet would have seriously considered a more expensive high-performance version of the Corvair engine was pretty remote.

  24. Who has blueprints on the experimental cross-flow DOHC Pontiac-6? Those could be 3-D’d via sintered metallic powders & triple-lazers in a metal-substrate 3-D replicator. The greatest cost would be the alumno-titanium sintered powders. Is there a Pontiac Museum where a example may lie? A portible scanner could obtain enough info to replicate a DOHC alloy-head, and I would expect the patents have long expired.

  25. I got to own a 69 Firebird Sprint in the late 70’s early 80’s. Swapped 3 speed manual to M 4 speed and changed rear gears, not sure of #’s. Not the best off the line but it was sweet from 15 to 110. One of the funnest highway cars I have owned. Had to sell do to way to many tickets but I still smile thinking of that sweet ride.

  26. I owned a 1966 Tempest Sprint option, 3spd, 3.55, standard steering, brakes, etc. Went like crazy on the highway. I put 69,000 miles on it with no problems whatsoever. Drag raced it quite a bit and used nothing but Kendall GT-1 racing oil. I then purchased a 1968 Tempest Sprint with the same set-up, plus 15/1 steering ratio, heavy duty rear axle and traction-lock differential. It was a 250 cube and was a much better engine for off the line. I managed a record run with it at 15.29 at 86 miles per hour. With a fours speed and 3.90’s I could have easily got down into upper 14’s. Put 68,000 miles on it and also had no problem with the engine.

  27. Well get this… Mac McKeller was my cousins husband… he was a wonderful person to know and ride with in those new GTO take home cars… yep at 17 I had the pleasure of riding with him every night in a new car for a week while I visited with my relatives… God bless Mac and the rest of my family.

  28. Enjoyed reading all the responses here.I bought my first new car in July of 68, a Lemans Sprint optioned 3 speed, metalflake Verdoro green with y paunchet white interrior.First week I owned it , it developed an severe oil leak at the external oil pump housing – apparently not sealed correctly at the factory.I never had another problem with the car – drove it daily for 7 years and put 105, 000 mileson it.w What a really nice and fun car to own A totally reliable car and a lot fun to drive. I will own anot one some day.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Click here to read our comment policy. You must be at least 18 to comment. PLEASE DON'T POST COPYRIGHTED CONTENT YOU AREN'T AUTHORIZED TO USE!
Except as otherwise noted, all text and images are copyright © Aaron Severson dba Ate Up With Motor. (Terms of Use – Reprint/Reuse Policy) Trademarks referenced herein are the property of their respective owners and are used here for informational/nominative purposes.