The only thing GREAT about the SBC was the same thing that made its predecessor, the stove bolt six great. That is that they made each one for about 40 years making for plentiful repair parts availability and interchangability. They both were about the clunkiest engines built for their time. Both are adequate if maintained, but neither were GREAT.

The SBC has a too small camshaft, the early ones had too small connecting rods and a valve train system that is barely adequate without modification. The valve guides were prone to about the fastest wear of any engine I can think of. It only took them 32 years to come up with a way to keep the valve covers from leaking.

The stovebolt six, had a VERY weak bottom end due, not only to a three main bearing design, but also a TOTALLY inadequate lubrication system. It took them 20 or more years to come up with a decent rod bearing design and pressure lubrication system. In the old days (yes I'm old enough to remember them) when you saw a car coming from a distance with a cloud of blue smoke following it, the odds were VERY high that it was a stovebolt six under the hood.

The stovebolt six was replaced with a really good design in '63 with seven main bearings, hydraulic lifters, and a decent lubrication system. Then after just a few years of that, they couldn't stand it being such a good engine so they put an integrated head/manifold on it that was prone to cracking. A whole industry sprang up to fill the need for welding and repairing the cracks.

Yeah, Chebby makes great engines.

Have a great day,