Chevy 262 Engine Specs

Intro

➤ See the Family Page for specs common to all engines in this family.

The Chevy 262 is the small block Chevrolet built when horsepower was no longer the only thing anybody in Detroit had to worry about. Introduced for 1975, it arrived in the middle of fuel-economy pressure, emissions rules, lower compression, and a market suddenly much more interested in how far a gallon of gasoline went than how much rubber an engine could leave behind. Chevrolet still wanted a compact V8 for ordinary cars. The 262 was the answer, briefly.

At 262 cubic inches, it became the smallest regular-production displacement in the traditional Gen I small-block family. Chevrolet got there with a tiny 3.671-inch bore and 3.100-inch stroke. That small bore is the important part of the story. It limited valve size and breathing room, which meant the 262 did not have the easy performance potential people associate with the larger 327, 350, and 400. Same small-block architecture. Considerably less room to inhale.

And Chevrolet was not trying to make it inhale like a race engine anyway. The 262 was built around mild heads, a mild hydraulic cam, two-barrel carburetion, modest compression, and economy-era calibration. Output lived around 110 horsepower with roughly 195–200 lb-ft of torque. Nobody at Chevrolet expected that number to make teenagers start hiding money from their parents.

What the 262 did offer was familiar V8 behavior in a smaller package. Smooth idle, conventional Chevrolet small-block serviceability, enough low-speed torque for ordinary driving, and eight-cylinder manners without stepping up to the fuel appetite of the larger engines. In the right compact or intermediate car, with sensible gearing and realistic expectations, that was a legitimate job.

The mistake comes from assuming every small-block Chevrolet is a performance engine waiting for the right catalog. The 262 is not a 350 that somebody forgot to finish boring. Its small cylinders put real limits on valve size, airflow, and displacement potential. A giant cam, oversized carburetor, and heroic cylinder heads do not turn those limitations into character. They usually turn a mild little engine into one that has misplaced what little bottom-end torque it started with.

Its production life tells you how well the idea fit Chevrolet’s long-term plans. The 262 lasted only through 1976. The 305 arrived as a larger, more useful small-displacement alternative and became Chevrolet’s main economy-minded small-block V8 for years afterward. The 262 solved a short-term problem and then got out of the way.

That short life does not make it meaningless. The 262 shows just how adaptable the Gen I small block had become by the mid-1970s. The same basic architecture that had powered fuel-injected Corvettes, Z/28 Camaros, and high-performance 327s could also be squeezed down into a quiet economy V8 when the market demanded something completely different.

Today, a 262 makes the most sense when originality matters or when the engine is already healthy and doing the job it was built to do. Replacing a perfectly good one in a correct car just because the number is not impressive solves a problem that may not exist. Spending serious money trying to make one behave like a 350 usually creates one.

The 262 was never a hero engine, and pretending otherwise does it no favors. It was Chevrolet’s brief mid-1970s attempt to keep traditional V8 manners alive while everything around the engine was demanding less fuel, fewer emissions, and considerably less fun. It did that job. Then Chevrolet found a better answer.

↑ Back to the Top, Before the Casting Numbers Start Lying

---

Overview

The 262 arrived at almost the opposite end of the Gen I small-block story from the original 265. In 1955 Chevrolet had needed a modern V8 because buyers wanted more power and performance. By 1975 Chevrolet needed a smaller V8 because fuel prices, emissions standards, economy concerns, and changing vehicle packages were all pushing the other direction. The engineering family had not changed. The assignment certainly had.

Chevrolet designated the 262 as the LV1. It retained the familiar 90-degree Gen I layout: cast-iron block and heads, 4.400-inch bore spacing, five main bearings, in-block camshaft, pushrods, and the general packaging that had made the small block so useful for twenty years. What changed was how little cylinder Chevrolet put between those bore centers.

The bore measured only 3.671 inches, considerably smaller than the 3.875-inch 283 and 307, the 4.000-inch 302, 327, and 350, or the 4.125-inch 400. Stroke was 3.100 inches. Those dimensions produced roughly 262 cubic inches without requiring Chevrolet to invent another engine architecture just to offer a smaller V8.

That tiny bore imposed limits the familiar external appearance can hide. Large valves need physical room inside the cylinder, and the 262 simply does not have much of it. Valve shrouding becomes a bigger concern, huge performance heads make little sense, and the engine cannot take advantage of the same airflow hardware a 350 can use. The cylinder wall gets a vote before the parts catalog does.

The factory combination acknowledged that reality. Chevrolet used small-valve cast-iron heads, flat-top pistons, a mild hydraulic flat-tappet camshaft, a two-barrel intake, and two-barrel carburetion. Output was roughly 110 horsepower and around 195–200 lb-ft of torque. Those numbers sound miserable beside a muscle-era small block because they came from a completely different assignment. Chevrolet was building an economy V8 in 1975, not trying to sneak an L79 past the emissions lab.

Low output does not automatically mean poor drivability. A mild cam, small ports, conservative carburetion, and modest rpm requirements can work perfectly well together in a light enough car with reasonable gearing. The 262 was intended to make ordinary V8 power smoothly, not produce a dramatic horsepower number. Keep it within that job description and the combination is at least mechanically honest.

Where it falls down is reserve capacity. A 350 can hide mediocre gearing, extra vehicle weight, too much camshaft, or a slightly foolish parts combination behind another 88 cubic inches. The 262 has no such emergency fund. Take away low-speed cylinder pressure, install gearing that keeps the engine below its useful range, or bolt on parts designed for a much larger engine and the little V8 runs out of torque quickly.

That makes camshaft selection especially important. A long-duration performance cam closes the intake valve later and shifts useful power upward. On a 350, enough displacement may keep the bottom end tolerable. On a 262, that can leave an engine with very little happening below the rpm range where an economy-era street car spends nearly all its time. The lumpy idle may sound ambitious. The accelerator pedal usually knows better.

Cylinder heads deserve the same restraint. The small bore limits how much valve diameter is useful, while enormous ports reduce mixture velocity at the modest airflow levels the engine can actually produce. A mild head matched to the bore and displacement is not a restriction somebody forgot to fix. It is often the reason the engine behaves reasonably at all.

Carburetion works the same way. The factory two-barrel was selected because the engine did not need enormous airflow. A modest four-barrel can be made to work on a carefully planned build, especially with small primaries, but bolting a giant carburetor on 262 cubic inches does not create demand for the airflow. Carburetors supply what an engine asks for. They do not issue cubic-inch loans.

The 262 also illustrates why displacement alone is a rotten way to sort Chevrolet engines. Chevrolet later used the 4.3-liter label for completely different engines, including V6 and later V8 designs. The traditional 262 is specifically a 1975–1976 Gen I small-block Chevrolet. Calling something “a Chevy 4.3” does not tell you enough to order an oil filter without asking another question.

Its brief production run is one of the clearest judgments on the concept. Chevrolet used the 262 during 1975 and 1976, then moved to the 305 as the more useful small-displacement V8. The 305 provided substantially more displacement while still serving the economy, emissions, and packaging goals Chevrolet was chasing. It gave engineers more breathing room and customers more torque without abandoning the familiar small-block package.

The later 267 did not represent a direct resurrection of the 262 formula either. It used an even smaller bore but paired it with the longer 3.480-inch stroke associated with the 305 and 350. That gave it a different bore/stroke relationship and different character. Chevrolet tried several ways to make a reduced-displacement Gen I V8 work during the economy years. The 262 was merely the first and shortest-lived of that particular bunch.

For restoration work, originality can give the 262 a reason to stay exactly where it is. A correct engine in a correct 1975–1976 car is part of that car’s history, even when the horsepower figure does not impress anybody leaning over the fender. Not every old Chevrolet needs to be rewritten as the version somebody wishes had been ordered.

For a performance build, the economics turn around quickly. The 262 shares enough Gen I dimensions and mounting logic to make alternatives plentiful, and larger small blocks provide more displacement, better bore size, broader head choices, and much more torque for similar machine-work and assembly cost. Once originality is gone and serious rebuilding money is being spent, cubic inches become remarkably persuasive accountants.

That is the useful way to understand the 262. It was not Chevrolet forgetting how to build a small block. It was Chevrolet using an extraordinarily adaptable engine architecture to solve a very specific 1975 problem: keep an affordable, familiar V8 available while fuel economy and emissions were rewriting the rules. The solution worked well enough to reach production. The 305 worked better enough to replace it two years later.

↑ Back to the Top, Before the Casting Numbers Start Lying

---

General Specs

Displacement	262 cu in / 4.3L	Bore / Stroke	3.671 in × 3.100 in
Production / Use Era	1975–1976 limited-production economy V8 era	Bore Spacing	4.400 in
Engine Family	Chevrolet Gen I Small Block	Deck Height	9.025 in
Block Material	Cast iron	Rod Length	5.700 in
Cylinder Head Material	Cast iron	Main Journal	2.45 in
Fuel / Induction	2-barrel carbureted	Rod Journal	2.10 in
Cam Location	In-block camshaft	Main Bearings	5
Valve Layout	OHV / pushrod, 2 valves per cylinder	Firing Order	1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2
Common Main Caps	2-bolt	Distributor Rotation	Clockwise
Rear Main Seal	2-piece	Weight	~575 lbs
Balance	Internal	Dimensions	~28H / ~26W / ~29L

Exact parts and specs can vary by year, vehicle, emissions package, service replacement history, and whether somebody already rebuilt the thing with whatever was cheapest at the machine shop. Use these numbers as the family baseline, then verify the specific engine before ordering parts or machining anything expensive.

↑ Back to the Top, Before the Casting Numbers Start Lying

---

Variants

The 262 is one of the easy ones. Chevrolet essentially built one factory version: the LV1, a 3.671-inch-bore, 3.100-inch-stroke economy V8 with hydraulic lifters, small-valve cast-iron heads, a mild camshaft, and Rochester two-barrel carburetion. It was rated at about 110 net horsepower and 195 lb-ft and served in the 1975–76 Monza and 1975 Nova. Transmission choices, emissions equipment, and application details changed around it, but Chevrolet never developed a separate four-barrel, high-compression, performance, heavy-duty, or other materially different 262 package. It arrived to provide cheap V8 manners during the fuel-economy years, did that one job for two seasons, and handed the assignment to the larger 305.

↑ Back to the Top, Before the Casting Numbers Start Lying

---

Key Notes

The 262 is easy to misread because it wears the small-block Chevy name but doesn’t bring the usual small-block payoff. It was Chevrolet’s smallest Gen I V8, built during the 1975–1976 emissions and fuel-economy squeeze, and it was never meant to be a street-performance hero. Treat it like a baby 350 and the math will make you look foolish before the engine even gets warm.

The 262 was a short detour, not a long-running performance family. Its 3.671-inch bore and 3.100-inch stroke gave Chevrolet a small-displacement V8 for a specific era, not a foundation for big power. That bore is the first clue. It doesn’t give the engine the breathing room, valve room, or airflow forgiveness people expect when they hear “small-block Chevy.”

Rare and desirable are not the same word. The 262’s short production run makes it unusual, but unusual doesn’t automatically mean valuable. There’s no 262 LT-1, Fuelie, L79, or secret factory street bruiser hiding in the weeds. If somebody’s selling one like a rare performance piece, make him prove something besides scarcity.

The small bore changes the parts game. The 3.671-inch bore limits valve room and head choice harder than most people expect from a small-block Chevy. Heads, valves, chambers, gaskets, pistons, camshaft, compression, and carburetion all have to respect the size of the engine. Parts that behave on a 327 or 350 can make a 262 feel like it’s dragging the car around with a rope.

The 262 was built for economy-era duty, not horsepower bragging. Low compression, mild cam timing, small displacement, emissions calibration, and ordinary induction kept it in the practical transportation lane. That’s not an insult. That was the job. The problem starts when somebody expects it to act like a performance small block because the valve covers look familiar.

The original spec sheet only tells you where the engine started. The engine on the stand tells you what decades of use, rebuilds, and parts swapping did to it. A surviving 262 may have been overbored, re-cammed, re-headed, swapped, or dressed with parts from larger small blocks. With an oddball engine like this, the details deserve more checking, not less.

Parts interchange can fool people. Yes, the 262 belongs to the Gen I small-block family, but that doesn’t mean every common small-block part is a smart match. Heads, pistons, camshaft, intake, carburetion, exhaust, timing curve, and gearing all have to respect the displacement. “It bolts on” is not the same thing as “it works.”

The 262 doesn’t have enough torque cushion to hide bad choices. Too much cam, too much carburetor, lazy gearing, weak compression, or oversized heads can turn an already small V8 into a noisy disappointment. A larger small block might cover up a sloppy parts list. The 262 will hand you the receipt and point at the problem.

Overboring calls for measuring tools, not wishful thinking. The 262 isn’t a magic stepping stone to a cheap performance build. Measure the block, check wall thickness if the build justifies it, and don’t assume extra bore is sitting there waiting because other small blocks had more room to play. Guessing with machine work is how a cheap project turns expensive with no performance to show for it.

The rebuild math gets ugly fast. If the block is worn, cracked, missing key original context, or headed for a performance build, a 350 core usually makes more sense before the machine shop even turns the lights on. That’s not disrespecting the 262. That’s refusing to spend good money fighting a small, low-output starting point when better cores are sitting in the same family tree.

The 262 works when the assignment is honest. It can make sense for originality, curiosity, or a correct mid-1970s application. For easy torque, cheap horsepower, or a practical street build, a 305, 327, or 350 usually makes more sense. The 262 isn’t worthless. It just isn’t a budget performance miracle.

The 262 is part of the small-block Chevy family, but it’s not the family member you call when heavy work needs doing. Preserve it if correctness calls for it. Build it mildly if the car needs it. But don’t ask a tiny emissions-era V8 to carry 350 expectations just because the bolt pattern looks familiar.

↑ Back to the Top, Before the Casting Numbers Start Lying

---

Bottom Line

The Chevy 262 is not hard to understand. People just keep trying to promote it into a job it was never hired to do. Chevrolet built it for 1975–1976, right in the middle of the fuel-economy, emissions, compression, and insurance squeeze. The old horsepower party had already been broken up, and the 262 was Chevrolet trying to keep a familiar V8 option alive while everybody else was standing around reading regulations.

That narrow mission is baked into the engine. The small 3.671-inch bore limits valve room, airflow, head choice, and upgrade potential before the first catalog even gets opened. Add modest displacement, mild factory hardware, and economy-era calibration, and there just is not much hidden hero waiting to be uncovered. It has small-block Chevy bones, sure. Bones are not horsepower.

That does not make the 262 junk. In an original car, a survivor, or a correct mid-1970s application, it can idle, cruise, behave itself, and do exactly the modest job Chevrolet gave it. There is nothing wrong with honest work. The trouble starts when somebody decides a cam, carburetor, heads, and a machine-shop bill will somehow turn the little thing into a bargain 350. At that point the engine is no longer the weak link in the plan.

The 262 usually makes the most sense when it is already there. For originality, curiosity, survivor duty, or keeping a correct car correct, it has a legitimate reason to stay. For easy torque, cheap horsepower, resale appeal, or a serious street build, the argument gets thin in a hurry. A 305 gives more breathing room. A 350 makes the whole discussion shorter.

So preserve one when the car and history call for it, maintain a good runner when the job stays modest, and leave the hot-rodding fantasies to engines with enough bore and displacement to appreciate the effort. “Worth preserving” and “worth modifying” are not the same thing. The 262 only needs to win the first argument.

↑ Back to the Top, Before the Casting Numbers Start Lying

---