Performance enhancement for Newbies - any good guides?

Dear Buick performance enthusiasts, :shield:

Guess what, all this talk about performance enhancement is infectious . . . . . (surprise, surprise! :bgrin:)

However, not everyone has all the years of engine tinkering that lots of gurus on this forum has. If you are a Newbie, you don't even know what are the sort of things you should be asking about.

I sure would love to find a "Engine Performance Enhancement" 101 book, website, or something. Is there something folks around here would consider at least a "not too lousy" introduction to the sort of techniques that can be used to enhance an engine's performance and what are the trade-offs involved?

One book that's out there is: How to Build Max-Performance Buick Engines (S-A Design) (Performance How-To) Amazon has it here: http://www.amazon.com/Build-Max-Per...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1294085024&sr=1-1 The reviews are mixed, but it seems like it might be okay for Newbie type. Any thoughts from this crowd? Is it worth trying to ferret out of the local library?

Thanks for all the good stuff about them wonderful Buicks! :shield:

Cheers, Edouard
 
That book is a good read. Has some good thoughts and ideas.

Start by telling us what you have, and people can suggest stuff. A budget is always a consideration.

Probably the best advice is to save up money for a complete performance makeover. You can waste a bunch of money buying one thing at a time and putting it on the car, and never really feel a big difference. Gather all the items and make all changed at one time.
 
One thing I have noticed, not only on this site but several others that I frequent, is questions which indicate that the writer lacks quite a bit in understanding the basics of automotive design. We oldtimers started by simply repairing the crap that we were forced to drive because most of us were dead broke most of the time! If the basics aren't understood the principles of souping up an engine or improving handling don't stand a chance. The first thing anybody should do is school themselves on basic theory; either through books which are available in most libraries, or by getting help and advice from somebody who has been working on cars for a long time. After that the improvements will begin to make sense. :hurray:
 
Thanks, aiming for a "daily driver" with a little MORE!

Dear carmantx,

Thanks for responding! :)

That book is a good read. Has some good thoughts and ideas.

Okay, that's a good enough recommendation for me to try to figure out . . . . exactly how do you get stuff out of a public library anymore?? :bgrin: Otherwise, heaven forbid, actually spend money at Amazon? :laugh_3:

Start by telling us what you have, and people can suggest stuff. A budget is always a consideration.

Probably the best advice is to save up money for a complete performance makeover. You can waste a bunch of money buying one thing at a time and putting it on the car, and never really feel a big difference. Gather all the items and make all changed at one time.

Well the car is a 1965 Buick Special wagon. You can peek at my blog for pictures and stuff (http://www.teambuick.com/forums/blog.php?u=18743). Right now I'm torn between trying to rebuild the car's existing 300 cid V8 and considering something else: either a 350 V8 or the "more" 455. :shifter:

The performance enhancement question really boils down to can I coax enough out of the existing 300 V8 to make the car a fun car to drive, or should I give up on a historic, but rare, engine in favor of any engine that will be a huge step up - before I start enhancing the performance.

I'm really torn between the history of the 300 and the fact that I've actually lived and worked with this engine for 35+ years, or the desire to get the car to perform much better and be more reliable, fun to drive and all the rest.

So the reason I'm asking is in part to see what might be possible for the 300. I'm hoping it can be brought back at least to its factory horsepower of 250 (but I'm not even sure.) How much further can this engine be pushed without difficult trade-offs? It seems clear to me that either the 350 or the 455 can be assembled in a way that would make the car fun to drive. I'm sort of looking for an "excuse" in the complexity of ether choice that will make it easier to go one engine choice or the other.

Sorry, kind of a convoluted answer, but it is the best I can do!

Thanks for replying!

Cheers, Edouard

P.S. Until the budget "gets ya" I fully agree on the view of getting the job done once and right. I would prefer to spend more and get things actually settled than to nibble at the problem. In the end, the penny saved will certainly be pound foolish. Already "been there, paid for that" on this car! :rolleyes:
 
Well, I have no experience with a 300. A bunch with a 350 and more with the 455. I can tell you this.
The 350 can make nice power, and be consistently fun to drive.
The basic 455 can make awesome power.
 
Thanks: history vs practicality?

Hi Carmantx,

Thanks for providing me with another bit of consistent info.

Well, I have no experience with a 300. A bunch with a 350 and more with the 455. I can tell you this.
The 350 can make nice power, and be consistently fun to drive.
The basic 455 can make awesome power.

What you are saying isn't just a matter of personal experience. The 300 cid V8 in the car was only built for 2 years. The Buick 350 was manufactured for over 20 years. Even the 455 was built for 3 times as long as the humble 300. Gearheads just didn't have as much time with that old engine to see what they could do with it. It is honestly the ancestor of the more modern 350.

That's where I'm at on this project. How much of a stickler for historical accuracy do I want to be with this car? Trying to hang on to the original engine pushes me into a realm where folks have much less experience. It also means parts are much harder to find and that will only get worse with time. Given that the 350 incorporates all the lessons Buick learned in the 300, it is a better engine. Obviously the same applies to the 455 which owes more to the 300 than the earlier generation Nailheads.

*Sigh*, its the sort of talk that clearly moves me in a particular direction!

Thanks again.

Cheers, Edouard
 
well theres one thing for sure, you can get a lot of info here and ♠on the web.. Theres a few guys that are presently running straight 8,s at Bonneville, and they are pretty far out there on performance. Most of my new info I get on the web. Howefer you have to remember not all of it is correct. Personally have general knowledge of a few old cars, and also a few Buick old gurus I talk to. I try to help with stuff that I have personally done, and try not to lead anyone astray, as when I do thankfully theres guys here who will correct me right away. So just use judgement on all the info, and check it out you will learn a lot, stick with the basics on Buicks for performance, they all are good engines. The 455 is the big boy in the bunch, they are the ones that give the hemi boys a go for the money, thats the one I would get for peformance.♠
 
Last edited:
Thanks for saying it like it is!

Dear 39CENT,

Thanks for putting all the good information here into context!

. .
. I try to help with stuff that I have personally done, and try not to lead anyone astray, as when I do thankfully theres guys here who will correct me right away. So just use judgement on all the info, and check it out you will learn a lot, stick with the basics on Buicks for performance, they all are good engines.
. .

Certainly important words to live by! I'm definitely inclined to be conservative. I don't intend to this sort of stuff over and over!

The 455 is the big boy in the bunch, they are the ones that give the hemi boys a go for the money, thats the one I would get for peformance.♠

Thanks for another endorsement of the 455. Clearly that's the biggest "bad boy" around. However, I'm trying to get my wagon back into the condition of a cruiser - the ultimate road-trip machine. So I'm weighing other considerations like reliability and even (heaven forbid) fuel economy. :car:

I've gone ahead and ordered the Build Max-Performance Buick Engines book (since the library didn't have it - it's discrimination against Buicks I tell'ya!) I hope it will help me understand the overall concepts so that I ask better questions!

Thanks again!

Cheers, Edouard
 
I'm not much on caring about what was original on a car, unless it is for value, and value only matters if it is for sale or is intended to be an investment. I like what we build to be driven.

Ok, just to give you my perspective. I am currently building a 72 skylark convertible driver for myself. We have built the other cars in my signature, and my son has most of them. So I have fast stuff everywhere. I also have buildable 350's and 455's sitting all over the place. What am I going to put in for a driver? At the moment, probably a 350. I just want a turn the key and drive car, not fast, not showy, just to drive. Sure, I could build a basic 455 and it would be reliable, but I would want to squeeze out every ounce of power and pound on it daily. The 350 will just be smooth and easy. So that's what I decided to do. For now. The cars not finished yet, and who knows what it will end up with.
 
I get the feeling that you would really prefer to stay with the 300 (The old friend) if it could get good economy, enough power to be fun and be reliable.
Consider the following:
The 300 is the lightest of all the engines mentioned above.

Restoring the 11:1 compression ratio and using lower octane pump gas is possible with the use of a Water/Alcohol injection system.

Several cam companies such as Crower make performance/mileage cams for the Buick 300

Investigate replacing the carburetor with a Retrotek Powerjection system.

If you stay with 9:1 compression ratio and want 300+ horsepower add a Procharger . The Powerjection system will accommodate up to 20 lbs of boost as a blow through system. 8 lbs of manifold pressure should produce around 300 hp.

As suggested the 455 is a good option. Build the 455 as a low end torque monster with economy as the main goal. Install a numerically low rear end ratio or an overdrive and have reasonable economy and an engine that will last and be fun to drive.
 
Last edited:
Just when I "thought" I'd made up my mind!!

Dear carmantx and pmuller9,

*Sigh* . . . just when I thought I had decided what I wanted to do! :confused:

What am I going to put in for a driver? At the moment, probably a 350. I just want a turn the key and drive car, not fast, not showy, just to drive. Sure, I could build a basic 455 and it would be reliable, but I would want to squeeze out every ounce of power and pound on it daily. The 350 will just be smooth and easy. So that's what I decided to do. For now. The cars not finished yet, and who knows what it will end up with.

That's the direction I was leaning towards. The Buick 300 with the cast-iron heads were produced for only 2 years (65-67). Even though parts are still amazingly common, There isn't nearly the choices that are available for later engines like the 350. The 350 provides the undeniable benefit of a larger displacement. Since I'm no stickler for history, it seemed like a good compromise.

I get the feeling that you would really prefer to stay with the 300 (The old friend) if it could get good economy, enough power to be fun and be reliable.
Consider the following:
The 300 is the lightest of all the engines mentioned above.
Restoring the 11:1 compression ratio and using pump gas is possible with the use of a Water/Alcohol injection system.
Several cam companies such as Crower make performance/mileage cams for the Buick 300
Investigate replacing the carburetor with a Retrotek Powerjection system.
If you stay with 9:1 compression and want 300+ horsepower add a Procharger . The Powerjection system will accommodate 20 lbs of boost as a blow through system. 8 lbs of manifold pressure should produce around 300 hp.

Golly, I didn't think such exotic options were available for the 300. I had found the cams, but just to illustrate my predicament, the cast-iron 300 had a high-compression of 10.25:1 not 11:1 (that was only in 64! http://www.teambuick.com/forums/showpost.php?p=77125&postcount=6). Okay, so I have more homework to do!

As suggested the 455 is a good option. Build the 455 as a low end torque monster with economy as the main goal. Install a numerically low rear end ratio or an overdrive and have reasonable economy and an engine that will last and be fun to drive.

Oh temptation! :bgrin: Still I'm feeling gun-shy over the 455. The tale of of this 65 Buick Special Wagon http://www.gmcguy.com/1965_buick_special_station_wagon.html suggests to me that this really pushing the 65 design a little hard (at least as far as cool systems are considered.) I was planning on upgrading to a 200-4R transmission, but that transmission will provide its fuel economy benefits for the 350 as much as 455. Plus the 4-speed transmission will help for duties like towing.

Given all the proposed goodies to add to the 300, the same performance enhancements could be considered for the 350, so it too could be come one powerful machine.

So . . . . . aren't my choices clear? Anybody got a 3-sided coin! :laugh_3:

As they say . . . . so the plot thickens

Thanks for all the interesting feedback! :thumbsup: - I'd better get back to researching all this stuff!

Cheers, Edouard
 
I'm not up on the HP the 350 puts out

I could be wrong about this seeing that I'm new to the Buick motors. Through my research, if you're thinking of a 455, I think I would prefer the 430. Here is my way of thinking. The 430's were 10.25-1 compression which produced 365hp stock not to mention the 475fp of torque, while the 455 had only one model with a higher hp in the Riviera GS in 70 that had 375hp, the rest for 70 had 360hp and 350hp, after 70 when compression changed the 455 had considerably less hp. Granted the 430 was made from 67 to 69, but the engine specs are basically the same. I can't remember what site I found that info on otherwise I'd attach a link.
 
I could be wrong about this seeing that I'm new to the Buick motors. Through my research, if you're thinking of a 455, I think I would prefer the 430. Here is my way of thinking. The 430's were 10.25-1 compression which produced 365hp stock not to mention the 475fp of torque, while the 455 had only one model with a higher hp in the Riviera GS in 70 that had 375hp, the rest for 70 had 360hp and 350hp, after 70 when compression changed the 455 had considerably less hp. Granted the 430 was made from 67 to 69, but the engine specs are basically the same. I can't remember what site I found that info on otherwise I'd attach a link.

Thanks for your reply.
You are correct.
If a total rebuild is part of the project then the 455 can be brought up to 70 specifications omiting the 75 and 76 cylinder heads.
 
Golly, I didn't think such exotic options were available for the 300.


water/alky injection was actually a trick that Olds was using on it's version of the turbo 215 from 1962/63.

considering that most Rover intakes could be put on a 300 with thin adapter plates, the amount of trick stuff that could be fabricated is almost limitless.




There isn't nearly the choices that are available for later engines like the 350.

TA is nearly ready to release their aluminum Rover head. that head will fit on the 300 and is expected to flow as much as the best turbo v6 heads ( given that it's basically the same design ).

no one has EVER offered an aluminum head for the 350. and there are issues with intake runners / pushrods that may make it impossible to place one of these new Rover heads on a Bu 350.



while the 455 had only one model with a higher hp in the Riviera GS in 70 that had 375hp, the rest for 70 had 360hp and 350hp

the 1970 Stage 1 motor is rated lower than the Riv engine but that's a lie from the factory. GM didn't just have cube limits on the engines they would permit in the A-bodies, they also had hp/pound limits that they were forcing all models to NOT exceed ( insurance reasons ) except for a few, very special, designated 'sports' models.



The 430's were 10.25-1 compression which produced ... 475fp of torque

the 1970 455s were rated at 510 ftlb.



after 70 when compression changed the 455 had considerably less hp

http://musclecarclub.com/musclecars/buick-gs/buick-gs-history.shtml

eh, from 71 to 74 they had moderately less hp.

you must remember that GM changed their rating method from SAE Gross HP in 1971 to SAE Net HP in 1972. the 1971/72 engines are practically identical so you can see that the ~90hp difference between the two engines is approx what the Net vs Gross penalty is.

if you want to compare apples to apples you'd have to penalize the 430s ~75-90 hp if you want to compare them to any of the 1972 or later factory ratings.



I can't remember what site I found that info on otherwise I'd attach a link.

look under '*Reference' at the top of the page. i don't think we list factory torque ratings but we do list factory HP.

and there's always The Old Car Manual Project. if they've got a copy of a particular year sales brochure it will be in there.
http://www.tocmp.com/




If a total rebuild is part of the project then the 455 can be brought up to 70 specifications

as long as you change out the pistons during the rebuild. no matter what, the 1971-74 pistons have a deeper dish than was used in 1970.
 
455, not on specs, but popularity.

Dear 65Cat68Riv,

I could be wrong about this seeing that I'm new to the Buick motors. Through my research, if you're thinking of a 455, I think I would prefer the 430. Here is my way of thinking. The 430's were 10.25-1 compression which produced 365hp stock not to mention the 475fp of torque, while the 455 had only one model with a higher hp in the Riviera GS in 70 that had 375hp, the rest for 70 had 360hp and 350hp, after 70 when compression changed the 455 had considerably less hp. Granted the 430 was made from 67 to 69, but the engine specs are basically the same. I can't remember what site I found that info on otherwise I'd attach a link.

Well, actually I had pondered what would seem to be the unthinkable for this crowd - going all the way down to the 68 400 cid V-8. The reason being that I could find some remanufactured engine places with them. Since extreme horsepower wasn't my need, I wondered if a milder engine might be gentler on things like - my cooling system. I just checked, I could find on the web a 425 V-8, but I didn't find a 430 in a 30 seconds of looking for one.

However, I did a rough check of the difference in performance and it sure seemed like all of the 400-series engines are very similar in their characteristics. So given the overall similarity, I was leaning toward the 455 simply because it is so much more popular in terms of aftermarket support.

Just to stir up the pot a little further though, I was wondering (if/when) I have the engine rebuilt if I shouldn't try to bring the compression ratio down to a more "regular gas friendly" 9:1 (or somewhere there about). In the current scheme the car will have plenty of power, but alas a gasoline appetite to match. Since I want to use the car for vacation cruising, I sure would like to make it as fuel-efficient as reasonable after-market technology can do.

Cheers, Edouard
 
you've opened my eyes with the gross to net hp, I thought the reasoning for the lower hp was due to the compression dropping from 10-1 in 70 to 8.5-1 in 71 dropping down to I think it was 6.5-1 in 74, all from what I thought was the good ole EPA whom we have all come to love and respect.

not to change the subject, but you seem very knowledgable, what do you think of the pointless ignition module over standard points systems?
 
Dear elagache

I never took into consideration the after market support with the engine regarding your swap.

I remember driving a few decades ago when the only choices were leaded or unleaded. My 65 401 nailhead has the 11-1 and I run 87 in it, it called for premium fuel in 65, but my philosophy is back then premium was unleaded, I put over 6k on it this past summer, no tick or pings, it ran like a top and even at that compression I was getting 15mpg on an average.

I'm hoping I'll see that this summer with my Riviera, but only time will tell.
 
The reason being that I could find some remanufactured engine places with them.

be very, VERY leery of generic rebuilders. Buick's require what are typically considered to be 'excessively' tight bearing clearances ( 2 thousandths or LESS ) and if they are not built to this spec you have got nothing but a hand grenade on your hands.




was due to the compression dropping from 10-1 in 70 to 8.5-1 in 71

this did have a serious impact but both 1970 and 71 are rated in Gross HP. as you can see, Net made a much larger difference in the published rating than did the compression drop.

the other thing is that the slightly lower CR can actually be a benefit. if you don't have very high quality fuel in your area, an 8.5 engine may run just fine on regular octane where a 10.25 might require Premium. of course, that's not a very big consideration for a show or track car.

see Edouard's post.



I think it was 6.5-1 in 74

the low was 7.9:1 and that was for the 1975 and 76 engines. that's due primarily to the crap heads on those engines.




what do you think of the pointless ignition module over standard points systems?

don't have much experience with points but from everything i've heard you can make them run just as strong as an HEI. the benefit to the HEI is less and easier maintenance.
 
Thanks, this fear had already crossed my mind!

Hi Bob Mando and other Team Buick gurus, :shield:

The reason being that I could find some remanufactured engine places with them.

be very, VERY leery of generic rebuilders. Buick's require what are typically considered to be 'excessively' tight bearing clearances ( 2 thousandths or LESS ) and if they are not built to this spec you have got nothing but a hand grenade on your hands.

Funny you should mention this very point. I certainly hope it is okay to use such sites to get an idea of what sort of engines are out there. However, I do remember your warning from when I first joined Team Buick! Before I try to have any Buick engine rebuilt, I'll be back, with hat in hand, looking for some good advice on who to have do the work such that I end up with a nice Buick engine - not a boat anchor!

the other thing is that the slightly lower CR can actually be a benefit. if you don't have very high quality fuel in your area, an 8.5 engine may run just fine on regular octane where a 10.25 might require Premium. of course, that's not a very big consideration for a show or track car.

I'm still mulling over all these things, but I might be willing to trade some horsepower for more flexibility in choice of fuels. On the other hand, I just went to a lot of trouble to figure out that difference in cost between premium and regular was narrowing. So maybe lowering the compression ratio is really being penny-wise and pound-foolish. So this too will have to wait for more mulling over.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us all Bob! :thumbsup:

Cheers, Edouard
 
Back
Top