In 1975, Chevrolet introduced the smallest of the small-block V8s to power its new Monza sport compact—with a mere 262 cubic inches.
Above left is the original 1955 Chevrolet V8, displacing 265 cubic inches and rated at 162 hp. A game changer in the auto industry, the small-block V8 was continually refined and enlarged through the years, ultimately reaching 400 cubic inches in 1970. To the right is a new version introduced in 1975, and at just 262 cubic inches it was the smallest of the small-block V8s ever offered in production form.
In displacement at least, the 262 seemed like a trip back to the start of the small-block timeline. The purpose? Mainly, to provide smooth and economical power for Chevy’s sporty new compact, the Monza. General Motors’ Wankel rotary engine was the original plan for the Monza, but the rotary was cancelled just before it went into production.
1955 Chevrolet 265 CID V8
With 4.40-inch bore spacing and a 9.025-inch deck height, the 262 V8 shared the same architecture as the rest of the small-block family, and it shared most of its components and the same exterior dimensions, too. However, its bore and stroke were unique among small-blocks at 3.671 inches and 3.10 inches, respectively. Handicapped by its small displacement, meek 8.5:1 compression ratio, two-barrel carburetor, and the primitive emissions controls of the time, the 262 was rated at just 110 hp at 3,600 rpm and 200 lb-ft of torque at 2,000 rpm—32 percent less power and 22 percent less torque than the 1955 original.
No, 110 hp doesn’t sound like much, but the 262 V8 was a significant upgrade in power and smoothness over the Monza’s base engine, the 140 CID (2.3L) Vega inline four with 87 hp. The V8 was a tight squeeze in the Monza’s engine bay (above) with its emissions gear, power steering, and air conditioning installed, as we can see. Dealer mechanics soon discovered that the no. 3 spark plug on the left bank was impossible to remove, and a factory bulletin soon came that advised unbolting the front mounts and jacking up the engine an inch or so to gain access. That’s nothing compared to the servicing challenges on more contemporary cars, but it was major drama at the time.
1975 Chevrolet Nova Sedan
The 262 V8 was optional on both the Monza 2+2 hatchback and fhe formal-roofed Monza Town Coupe in ’75 and ’76, and also, briefly, on the 1975 Nova. Due to emissions certification issues in California and high-altitude areas, Monza buyers there were treated to a 350 cubic-inch V8 in place of the 262. But with the same two-barrel carb, low compression ratio, and restrictive emissions gear, the larger small-block offered just 125 hp. In 1976, a 305 CID V8 with 140 hp was available on the 2+2.
In its January 1975 issue, Road & Track magazine tested a Monza 2+2 with the 262 V8 in a comparison with the Mustang II V8. There, the editors reported a 0-60 mph time of 13.4 seconds and a quarter-mile stroll of 19.5 seconds at 72.5 mph. Long story short, the 302 CID, 133 hp Mustang II left the Monza in the dust, though the magazine ranked the Chevy best for its superior comfort and fuel economy. For 1977, the odd little 262 was discontinued and Monza buyers were offered a more familiar 305 CID V8 with 145 hp.
You are comparing apples and oranges. The 265 cranked out 162 *gross* horsepower, while the 262 put out 120 *net* horsepower. The 262 didn’t produce “32%” less power than the 265, they actually put out similar power. The author apparently doesn’t know the difference between net and gross horsepower ratings. This is like when some boomer says “I wish gas were still 29¢ a gallon” without taking inflation into consideration. C’mon, you should know these things. Fire the author of this article.
Yes, I was going to include a note on SAE gross vs net ratings but decided it was superfluous since these are ratings. Maybe i will add one.
I understood it as a comparison of advertised horsepower between the original mouse motor 265″ and the later smogger 262″.
What outside forces convinced auto manufacturer’s advertising folks to switch from gross to net HP ratings anyway, was it to sell more cars or other factors?
Mainly because with the end of the muscle car era and increasing focus on emissions and economy, there was reduced marketing emphasis on hp ratings. The whole thing had become an elaborate dance. Engines could produce more or less output than their advertised ratings via gaming the dyno results. One famous engine was rated at 450 hp at 5600 rpm when it was well known it could pull to 6200 or more.
Sounds like a particular Corvette aluminum big block, probably had another 50 horses or so hidden under that part of the power curve…
Man, you must be the smartest automotive pundit that I have ever read! You should buy this site and fill us all in on your knowledge 🙂
Typical internet bully! I’ll bet you would not be such an ass to the author if you were face to face…
A rule of thumb- before you post such mean-spirited crap, ask yourself “would my mother approve of what I am about to write”?
Thank you! Mac is a great writer and this site is one of the highlights of my day. I also like that the comments are reasoned and add to the knowledge base. It really is irritating when some trolljumps in and mouths off.
Maybe it was a Vega in drag, but the Monza was a good looking car, with some of the flavor of a Bill Mitchell favorite, the 4-Rotor Corvette concept. I especially liked the Olds version. Later, they came out with a notchback Monza that sold better, whatever message that sends.
As I recall, My Black ‘79 Malibu classic 2 door had the 262 V8 from the factory. Not a 305 for sure, and not the V6.
It performed as the article described but was reliable, if slightly underwhelming for a V8.
Really liked the car and had no problem selling it when our family needed more room.
That would be the 267 V8. Similar displacement but a tiny 3.50 in bore and same stroke as the 350, 3.48 in. Small bores were in vogue at the time for emissions.
Right! 267. Thanks
Chevy, Olds, Pontiac, and Ford all built small-bore V8s in around this time. Sort of interesting, maybe we should do a story. Thanks for the idea.
It’d be interesting to find out if any of them were worthwhile. I seem to remember most of them being boat anchors. Ford’s 4.2 harder to make fix than it is to just swap out for a 302, for instance.
That was as informative and interesting as any string of comments I’ve seen in a dogs age… thanks guys.
GAK,,,my ex-wife had a new ’77 Monza when I met her. It had the 305, and was probably one of the worst cars in memory, and I’ve had a few. She considered it a step up from her Vega, but had no idea what a V8 even was. It was bought under her brothers direction who raced stock cars at the time. While the 305 did address the spark plug issue, make no mistake, it was a poorly engineered car. Oh, it went in a straight line alright, but handled poorly, lousy brakes, that were fine for a Vega and winter was unmanageable, I hated that car! Had rust that equaled most Asian cars. I had a friend whose GF had a Mustang ll Cobra, V8, and the 2 cars were dead even in a drag race. The V8 Mustang ll suffered all the same issues as the Monza. I think the others with a V6 may have been better, but the V8 was a poor choice.
Had Buick version with the V-6. It came with rear sway bar plus panhard rod, don’t know how common that was. handled well, loved that car.
Have a ’79 El Camino with that smaller then a 265 V8. Partsmen have a hard time getting their head around that smaller V8. Always thought it was a gas hog until I started driving it on a regular basis. It was one of those that the gauge read from full to almost empty in a heart beat – but you could drive it forever on near empty.