The "epic" 430 rebuild caper!

Dear Team Buick big-block gurus, :shield:

I have been trying to get enough preliminaries out of the way so that I could start asking the really big questions about rebuilding this 430 engine from a 67 Electra 225. I think I have an overall plan for this job, but . . . there are a few minor details! I would greatly appreciate any thoughts on the plan so far and especially on the puzzlements I’m running into at the moment.

The general scheme is to have the block machined locally and have “Buick sensitive” work done by TA Performance. The parts list is roughly this:


  • EGGE Pistons (L2255-8)
  • TA high capacity water pump (TA 1537BHP - ??)
  • TA reconditioned connecting rods (TA 1629A)
  • TA cam (TA RV-12) and hydraulic lifters (TA 1406)
  • Aluminum intake manifold (Probably Edelbrock Performer)
  • TA Performance "Stage-1 street eliminator" aluminum cylinder heads. This application requires 2" Intake and 1.650" Exhaust valve openings. Also need 455 lifters and pushrods to match heads.
  • TA aluminum valve covers (like TA 1327B) (ought to be worth at least 50 more horsepower! :bgrin: )

At the local machine shop the following would be performed:

  • The engine would be first disassembled, hot tanked, and cleaned.
  • Then the block and crankshaft would be magnafluxed.
  • Next the crankshaft would be inspected and machined as required. The block would be then bored for the new pistons.
  • The TA reconditioned connecting rods would be installed.
  • The oil passage modifications would be performed.
  • The TA RV camshaft and lifers would be installed.
  • Then engine would be then reassembled with new freeze plugs, and the block would be rebalanced.
  • Finally the aluminum heads would be cleaned and rechecked.

Back at Orinda Motors:

  • They would install the aluminum cylinder heads and Edelbrock Performer intake manifold.
  • They would install the high-capacity water pump and provide a new fan clutch and fan.
  • Install new timing cover with oil pump built-in (some confusion here - see below).
  • Change oil pan from mid-sump to rear-sump using 1971 or newer pick-up tube.
  • A HEI distributor would be installed.
  • The exhaust manifolds would be reused after cleaning and possibility porting.
  • A new alternator with built-in voltage regulator would be installed.
  • Finally either a rebuilt or replacement carburetor would be installed.

To look ahead at the final goal, this engine is going to be matched to a 200-4R transmission from California Performance Transmission and will somehow be squeezed into the family “Billy goat” (a 1965 Buick Special wagon). Details on this to follow in due time!

In addition to any overall observations from the big block engine gurus, I have some three questions (so far! :bgrin:)


  1. The only TA Performance high-capacity water pump that seems to fit on this block is TA 1537BHP. Is this going to give me a problem in fitting the engine into a 65 Special engine compartment?
  2. My notes from my last meeting with Orinda Motors are ambiguous with regards to whether or not to get a replacement oil pump. Given that this engine should end up at a nominal 500 hp, should the oil pump be replaced, and if so, should I go all the way to the TA Performance high-performance oil pump assembly (TA 1533A)?
  3. I have waffled between trying to go fuel injection and sticking to a carburetor. My last “zig” was toward a rebuilt QuadraJet. However, when I started to search the web for such a beast, they seem very hard to find for a Buick (yet again :angry:) and it seems for this engine configuration, I might want a specialty carburetor rebuild. The reason I started worrying about this comes from the QuadraJet rebuild products of JET Performance http://www.jetchip.com/Shop/shopdisplayproducts.asp?sppp=10&catID=36. To make my life really miserable, they have 9 different flavors of the QuadraJet and none fit exactly what this engine will become. The closest is the: Stage 2 | Light Truck Part #: 36002 (bottom of the web page). Are these sorts of carburetor modifications really important or are they more effective at extracting money from unsuspecting customers? :clonk: Any thoughts about how to obtain to get a really thrifty QuadraJet so that this car can get as decent gas mileage as the 60s technology allows? If I end up buying new components such as a fancy carburetor and new HEI distributor, am I really going to save that much money over a throttle-body fuel-injection system?

Thanks in advance for your time and wisdom!!

Cheers, Edouard

P.S. This engine should be a high-compression (10.25:1) model (according to the Team Buick reference and it is - of course - always right! :thumbsup:)
 
The Epic

Sounds like a good solid plan. Doing everything right the first time is the way to go.

However as tothe edelbrock manifold, it never showed me very much promise. We had a 455 on the street for several years and have one in our 1953 HENRY J drag car and found great success with an Offenhauser 360 manifold. They come in single or dual 4bbl styles. They are readily available on E BAY for very good prices. Just look on the Offenhauser section.
make sure you do the oil mods to make this engine much more reliable and live longer.

I would look into a good set of headers as the biggest flow problem we've encountered is on the exhaust side.

Other than that, it looks like you've got a winner.

Good luck and keep us posted.
 
I'm kinda surprised at the cam selection. At a *minimum* I would be considering the TA-212, but with the aluminum heads I think something even more radical would be in line. I drove around with the TA-212 for many years, and it is a great combination of tame & WOT power.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to accomplish with putting in such a tame camshaft, then topping off the engine with fantastic-flowing heads.

With those aluminum heads, I would even suggest a custom-designed camshaft. I believe that TA will make one at no extra charge, although you obviously have to wait a few extra weeks. That way, they can *match* your combination to your performance desires, considering all the things like head port flow etc.

Also, I like the TA SP1 intake manifold. I've used it for a long time with great results.

The general scheme is to have the block machined locally and have “Buick sensitive” work done by TA Performance.
If that includes having the short block completely done by TA, I think that's a great idea. However you seem to indicate that some kind of "local" machine shop will be doing the lower end work, which contradicts what you said above...

-BC
 
Thanks - "method in the madness"

Dear HenryJ and BC,

Thanks for your thoughts. Indeed there were a few details that I should have added that explains the choice of the intake manifold and RV cams. So here it comes!

However as to the edelbrock manifold, it never showed me very much promise.

Well, Edelbrock manifold has great promise in another area important to me - it allows me to close the hood!! Comments here and on the V-8 Buick forum suggested that racing-style intake manifolds raise the carburetor so much that getting the hood closed is dicey.

In addition, my goal for the car is not racing but as a "born again" SUV (as the great American station wagon once was). The Edelbrock intake manifold provides good performance at lower RPM. So for a tow-vehicle that should work out fine.

I'm kinda surprised at the cam selection. At a *minimum* I would be considering the TA-212, but with the aluminum heads I think something even more radical would be in line. I drove around with the TA-212 for many years, and it is a great combination of tame & WOT power.

Well, there are two reasons for the RV style cam: extra low end torque and high fuel economy. The hope is to get the car up into the high-teens for overall gas mileage and maybe as much as 20 mpg on the highway with overdrive. I'm really hoping to take the car out on the open road as I used to, and ya'know, gas isn't getting any cheap nor gas stations becoming more numerous.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to accomplish with putting in such a tame camshaft, then topping off the engine with fantastic-flowing heads.

This is a long story that I explained in its fullest misery here:http://www.teambuick.com/forums/showpost.php?p=77994&postcount=6. Basically, trying to stick with the stock heads is likely to cost me almost as much and could lead cracked heads anyway. While I'm not using the aluminum heads in their traditional racing role, I will benefit from better fuel economy and reduced weight. So even for a cruiser, these heads will be a real plus for the car.

Cheers, Edouard

P.S. Thanks to Paul Muller's help, I have a likely candidate for the carburetor: the Jet performance rebuild of a QuadraJet #35002 http://www.jetchip.com/Shop/shopdisplayproducts.asp?sppp=10&catID=36.
 
I agree with the others, you have come up with an interesting combination.

Head quality makes the Buick engine. I'd like to back up and look at your overall goal. You want it to be mild, torquey engine. good for towing? I would go to the 212 cam, and drop compression to 9:1. We have a 10.25 compression motor, and could not get quality gas to run on. Best we have here is 90 octane. And if it is true 10.25, not just 10.25 pistons, then it will be tough to drive on pump gas. Racing fuel for us is $9 per gallon and a pain to get to blend.

If you need a Buick 455, 800cfm carb built, I can build one for you. I do a bunch for our Buick friends, and local folks. I do it as a hobby, with good parts from gessler or ruggles.
 
Can't get good gas in . . . . Texas?

Dear carmantx,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this project.

Head quality makes the Buick engine. I'd like to back up and look at your overall goal. You want it to be mild, torquey engine. good for towing? I would go to the 212 cam

Okay question-1: why the 212 cam? Very high on the priority list is fuel economy. If I shift the peak torque upwards 500 rpm or more - that ain't going save me any gas. Especially, when I have a 200-4R transmission with overdrive.


and drop compression to 9:1. We have a 10.25 compression motor, and could not get quality gas to run on. Best we have here is 90 octane.

What!?!?! Ya'mean you can't get good gas in - Texas!! :bgrin:

Maybe you should try moonshine instead!! :D

Seriously, I'm leary about lowering the compression ratio because we did that back in 1979 to the car's existing 300 and it hardly seemed to help at all for fuel economy. Given that the engine will run more efficiently with higher octane, I thought I would at least be no worse off. In California, 91 octane premium seems quite common, so I didn't think this was a problem even across the nation. Is premium vanishing everywhere else? So question-2: should I lower the compression ratio? What's the win with that? It is going to cost me more so there better be something good in it.

If you need a Buick 455, 800cfm carb built, I can build one for you.

Sure, if you guys keep changing the specs on this engine - I'll never get even started on this!! :bgrin:

Oh well, it's late for a Sunday night - I'll call it a day and look again in the morning.

Thanks again

Cheers, Edouard
 
On the compression deal.

I don't think it would run well on 91.

Depends on how you build the motor. Are you planning to zero deck the block? there is a difference in having a 10.25 piston, and having 10.25 compression.

Just my .02 worth. I think, like the others have mentioned, you will have best power by matching up all of your components.

And I drink all the moonshine.
 
We have a 10.25 compression motor, and could not get quality gas to run on. Best we have here is 90 octane. And if it is true 10.25, not just 10.25 pistons, then it will be tough to drive on pump gas. Racing fuel for us is $9 per gallon and a pain to get to blend.
Are the heads on this engine the stock cast iron with no modifications?
What distributer and ignition system were you using at the time?
 
Puzzled on compression

Dear Carmantx,

On the compression deal.

I don't think it would run well on 91.

Depends on how you build the motor. Are you planning to zero deck the block? there is a difference in having a 10.25 piston, and having 10.25 compression.

Just my .02 worth. I think, like the others have mentioned, you will have best power by matching up all of your components.

I'm puzzled by this. 10.25:1 isn't a particularly extreme compression ratio. Both TA Performance and Orinda Motors thought it was acceptable. In fact, I thought somebody on Team Buick was running an engine with this compression ratio on regular gas. There are folks running with much more aggressive compression ratios on today's premium without complaints.

And I drink all the moonshine.

Aren't you selfish!! :bgrin: Can't you share at least some with your car!! :alc:

Cheers, Edouard :beers:
 
The static compression that can be used with a pump gas engine is dependant on the intake closing point determined by he camshaft. Engines with late closing intake valves generally need more static compression to function propperly, and engines with earlier closing intake valves will have a lower of tollerence for static compression. Choosing any camshaft for any pump gas engine should take into account this dynamic compression as well as the power range and type of the camshaft. There is a good explaination and a downloadable calculator for dynamic compression here: http://cochise.uia.net/pkelley2/DynamicCR.html. I would make sure the cam shaft selected for the pump gas engine keeps the dynanic compression between 7.5:1 and 8.0:1 for best engine function and performance. You can adjust your static compression to suit a particular camshaft if you find a cam profile you like that does not provide a good dynamic compression ratio with your planned static compression.

I ran a few TA cams through the calculator with your planned engine perameters. The best one I found was the "sleeper" 288-94H. It can be used with stock rockers and provides 7.7:1 dynamic compression with 10.25:1 static compression with 66 cc heads, 14 cc dished pistons, .035" gasket, and .025" piston to deck clearence (total .060" quench is the max you would want to use). The 288-98H also was good at that static compression range, but seems more radical than you want to go.
 
Last edited:
But, but, but, . . . what happened to the mild-mannered wagon?

To the most honorable Dr. Frankenbuick, Sir! :shield:

With all due respect to your impeccable academic credentials. . . . .

The static compression that can be used with a pump gas engine is dependant on the intake closing point determined by he camshaft. Engines with late closing intake valves generally need more static compression to function propperly, and engines with earlier closing intake valves will have a lower of tollerence for static compression. Choosing any camshaft for any pump gas engine should take into account this dynamic compression as well as the power range and type of the camshaft. There is a good explaination and a downloadable calculator for dynamic compression here: http://cochise.uia.net/pkelley2/DynamicCR.html. I would make sure the cam shaft selected for the pump gas engine keeps the dynanic compression between 7.5:1 and 8.0:1 for best engine function and performance. You can adjust your static compression to suit a particular camshaft if you find a cam profile you like that does not provide a good dynamic compression ratio with your planned static compression.

Hitting a guy after dinner and a glass of wine huh! Okay, this will have to wait until tomorrow - you are *SO* over my head that the Space Station might collide with it!

I ran a few TA cams through the calculator with your planned engine perameters. The best one I found was the "sleeper" 288-94H. It can be used with stock rockers and provides 7.7:1 dynamic compression with 10.25:1 static compression with 66 cc heads, 14 cc dished pistons, .035" gasket, and .025" piston to deck clearence (total .060" quench is the max you would want to use). The 288-98H also was good at that static compression range, but seems more radical than you want to go.

However, I have enough cognitive function left (or so it appears) that I can pull out my TA Performance catalog and: . . . .

The RPM range is 2500-5500 . . . so there is the 5000 pound trailer sitting there - how am I going to start moving that trailler it before I can tap into all that luscious horsepower? Nevermind the fact, $4.00 a gallon gasoline - it don't say good fuel economy! Now if you pay for my gas . . . . :bgrin:.

Now to quote the TA Performance description:

Good street/strip cam (strip? with a travel trailer? :confused: ). Gives 30+ HP over stock cam. Stock rockers ok (good thing too - I can't afford anything else!) TA valve springs recommended (ka-ching $$$) Small stall converter recommended (WHAT, stall converter required on my mild-mannered and faithful wagon!?!?!) Power Brakes okay (Well, I hope so, how you do expect me to stop the car and travel trailer - the flintstones way!!) Average idle, 1000 in park . . . (request denied! :bgrin:)
Uh, still seems a little assertive for my tastes . . . ya'know, mild mannered, boring, unpretentious, . . . . a station wagon!!!

What are you guys trying to do with my wagon!! Make a monster out of it!!?!?!???

Oh sorry, Dr. Frankenbuick . . . . no offense intended. :bgrin:

All appearances of humor in this posting were intended - so laugh!! :D

Cheers, Edouard :beers:
 
It would not be a monster, but it would pull higher in RPMs then the RV cam. I put them both in comparison plotted over RPM using Dyno2003 below (green is the torque curve and red is the horsepower curve). You can see that even with great flowing heads the RV cam is all done pullig at 4500 rpm. The 288 is good to 5500+. There is less torque with the 288 at lower RPMs, but not enough to make a big difference. I just dont think you will be happy running out of steam at 4500 rpm, and your heads are made to breath at a higher rpm to make power.

You would need to have your 200-4R built with a little more stall in the converter (about 500 over stock) to use the 288 at 10.25:1 static compression (7.7:1 dynanic compression). It would still have stump pulling torque, would have some impressive horspower (75 peak over the RV-12) and good economy when going easy on the pedal and in OD.

Running the RV12 through the dynamic compression calcualtor at 10.25:1 static compression yielded 8.75:1 dynamic compression. That dynamic compression ratio is better suited to racing gas and would be very detonation prone in a pump gas engine. Reducing the static compression to 9.25:1 with the RV-12 gave us 7.8:1 dynamic compression. That would be a very good static compression ratio for that cam if you still want to use it. I used the lower static compression ratio (9.25:1)with the RV-12 in the Dyno2000 comparison below.


430_Curves.jpg
 
Last edited:
The dr. there might have said this, but again, sticking a 10.25 piston in an engine doesn't necessarily net you 10.25 compression.

Good luck, keep us posted on your progress.
I have a 10.25 compression piston that ran a 10.24 in the 1/4. Trying for a 9 this season.
I am building a 9:1 cast piston 455 for my convertible, with a custom ground cam, stock heads, SP1 intake, Qjet and headers. It will have enough torque to pull my house off the foundation. Your only pulling a 5000# trailer. Put a stock used 455 in it and work on the braking system. You could pull it 0 to 60 quicker than a prius can drive it.
 
Thanks Steve for taking the time to present such valuable information and Carmantx for your replies also.
Here is additional info that might help.

The compression height on the Egge piston is 1.954. Egge didn’t have the dish volume available without actually going to the shelf and measuring it. Guessing it to be around 15cc.

Waiting for verification on the stock deck height. Hopefully it is 10.57
Depending on finished deck height, static compression can be as low as 9.6.

This engine will spend most of its time between 1600 and 2000 rpm. The main goal is fuel economy so we want to push the limits of the DCR and be closer to 8.25.
The lock-up converter will be activated during cruising.

The heads will use 2.00 intake and 1.625 exhaust valves. There is no interest in power above 4500 rpm. The actual goal is a flat 500 ft-lbs of torque in the operating range stated.

Thanks in advance for additional feedback.

Paul
 
I used the dimensions from these pistons in the DCR calculator: http://www.fastengineparts.com/products_view.php?id=1271. The .09 x 3.50 dish works out to 14 CCs and I used .025" down the hole with a .035" (felpro blue) gasket. Stock 430 pistons have been recorded as 16 CCs. You would be .058" down the hole with your pistons and predicted deck height. I would expect you will be reducing that to improve quench since you are going to press the limits of detonation and ignition timing with a high DCR. I also continue to think that an 8:1 DCR is all you want to do with today's gas and the chance that 91 octane is all that is available in a lot of locations (long cruises/vacations).

I used the bigger valves in Dyno2003 as I have actual flow figures loaded for Gessler's stage-one comp port iron heads. The TA aluminum heads flow slightly better then Gessler's with the stage one valve, but I think the aluminum heads with smaller valves will flow similar to Gessler's iron heads with the bigger valves. I think those curves above will be very similar to the actual power produced. I have tested the Dyno2003 predictions against several motors that I have dynoed. Peak power is always close, and the shape of the curves are always very close.

I could not own those heads and not let them do what they do best (let them live). I would trade off some low end torque for some fun and try to make it up with more vacuum advance in the distributor and the lock-up converter. But, that is just me.........................................
 
Dr. Frankenbuick

I would like your take on this.

I would expect you will be reducing that to improve quench since you are going to press the limits of detonation and ignition timing with a high DCR.

The trend seems to be that Quench is not important and Spherical dish is producing better results. Was talking to CP about a custom set of stepped pistons and they suggested spherical dish. HRD heads do some of our head work and Al reports as much as 20 HP gain on the 355 stock car engines using spherical dish. JE and others seem to be in agreement.
I’m from the old school which says squeeze the mixture toward the spark plug and create some turbulence.


What is your thinking on this?

Thanks
 
I think it is like being in Rome. When you have a large, funny shaped, combustion chamber with quench pads, you use quench to promote turbulance, cool hot spots and reduce detonation. When you have a small round combustion chamber that will still have good compression over a dish shaped piston top, the dish will promote faster flame travel requiring less spark advance and also reduce detonation. Each has its place, but I woud not try to change one into the other. When in Rome: do as the Romans do!
 
Thanks - trying to balance those "intangibles."

Thanks Steve, Paul, and everyone else who has contributed here! :thumbsup:

Sorry to have been "missing" from here yesterday. My Internet connection hardware decided to flip-out on me. :angry:

I'm still trying to get my head around this whole discussion of dynamic compression ratio. However, I can see that pushing the engine toward a higher dynamic compression ratio will help the car's performance even for more "humble" tasks like towing. However, pushing too hard could cause knocking with today's 91 octane gas.

Paul sent me an email pointing out that the TA Performance 112 cam would provide more "breathing room" on the DCR. When I look at the 112 specs, I see it would still provide good fuel economy and a mellow idle. The shift in peak torque RPM shouldn't be so extreme as a heavy load wouldn't be "tamed" with the 200-4R. So it may be time for me to shift the build specs yet again. Stay tuned . . . .

Perhaps I should have given this thread: the great 430 build soap opera! :D

Cheers, Edouard
 
Back
Top