The "epic" 430 rebuild caper!

[elagache]

The first *genuine* reason for child safety seats!

Dear Dr. Frankenbuick and Bob Mando, :shield:

Well, never had kids and given how screwed up our world has gotten . . . I have to conclude that's just as well. Because . . . . .

No worries: class three hitch, secure the doors and china in the trailer and make sure the dog stays to the back. Then buckle-up kids, we are going on vacation! :car:

The pathetic truth is that ONLY with your turbo going at full bore do the kids really need the child safety seats that are required nowadays!

you guys might want to take note that my antivirus software is tripping out when i go to access that page. says i'm being attacked by the Blackhole Exploit Kit.

*Sigh* nope, the Internet isn't very safe either. Sure wish we would not only restore these old cars but also the innocent world from which they came . . . . . .

Oh well, at least we can dream can't we? :bgrin:

Cheers, Edouard :beers:

 

[Dr. Frankenbuick]

:you guys might want to take note that my antivirus software is tripping out when i go to access that page. says i'm being attacked by the Blackhole Exploit Kit.

They removed the virus threat at File Den. It is safe now. I put the link back in my earlier post (http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/9/30/249718/Cobra 040216 Mods.mpg).

The pathetic truth is that ONLY with your turbo going at full bore do the kids really need the child safety seats that are required nowadays!

Actually, that is the supercharged Mustang six years ago less 250 HP (Dr. Frankenstang's creation). I like how it unsettled my lady. She has run 12s at the track in my big block Buick, but this was different for her.

 

[elagache]

Finally engine work about to start! A few loose ends.

Dear Buick enthusiasts! :shield:

Finally, the plan has been settled, I've given the folks at Orinda Motors a deposit, and the 67 430 V-8 is going to dismantled starting tomorrow in order to be inspected sent over to the machine shop. When that happens, I'll finally get some of the measurements that will allow me to at least start on the build spec sheet and certainly there will be additional questions then!

On Friday, I took a last batch of photos of the engine as it came out of the 67 Electra 225. You can view them here: http://gallery.me.com/elagache#100053. While I was at it, I also uploaded some photos of the engine compartment while the car was getting the replacement fender. http://gallery.me.com/elagache#100061. I sure would appreciate any suggestions or comments on this ongoing rebuild effort and any comments on - fitting the monster into the car!

There are two loose ends that I would appreciate a little specific feedback on. I've cruised around Team Buick and the V-8 Buick forum for advice on cooling fan configurations. As far as I could tell, for a "daily-driver" sort of configuration - a conventional fan and fan clutch was recommended as the best overall scheme for that sort of service. Greg at Orinda Motors has selected a 6 blade fan and fan clutch from a local vendor and he assures me that will take care of the airflow needs. The car will have a beefy TA Performance aluminum radiator and transmission cooler. Any counter-opinions on the current fan plan? Are there differences in fans that I should worry about?

The other problem I'm bumping into is in selecting the rear end ratio for the car. Initially, I was being encouraged to go with a very high rear-end ratio because of my towing requirements. However, I'm having second thoughts because this will really hurt the car's fuel economy. After all, this is a "torque monster" Buick engine - right? Also, I don't want to tow a huge RV trailer, but something more modest. So with gas prices headed back up, I think I want to pick a compromise rear-end ratio. Below, are some calculations of the car's cruising RPM at 70 mph with the 200-4R transmission. Paul Muller suggested that I factor in some reduction in the type diameter when towing. When I assume a 5% reduction, the 3.08 rear end ratio looks really good even for towing. Do folks have any thoughts on this? Is there anything I'm overlooking that I should consider when selecting the rear-end ratio?

Car's operating RPM under various conditions.

RPM at 70mph for 2.78 rear end ratio (in 0.67 overdrive):
Normal: 1732.3
Assuming 5% compressed rear tires: 1823.5



RPM at 70mph for 3.08 rear end ratio (in 0.67 overdrive)
Normal: 1919.2
Assuming 5% compressed rear tires: 2020.3



RPM at 70mph for 3.23 rear end ratio (in 0.67 overdrive)
Normal: 2012.7
Assuming 5% compressed rear tires: 2118.6

Thanks as always for all your help! Any and all pearls of wisdom greatly appreciated!

Cheers, Edouard :beers:

 

[elagache]

Pictures of a dirty engine block - completely stripped!

Dear members of the Team Buick "brotherhood" . . . :shield:

Finally the 430 has been broken down and the block is on route to the machine shop for cleaning, magnefluxing, and assuming all that goes well, machining. Before it left Orinda Motors, I took a few snapshots. There is a gallery of photos for the curious: http://gallery.me.com/elagache#100064.

I have two turbocharged and one supercharged vehicles. So, the calculator is a bonus for me. Boosted vehicles make the impossible possible (great mileage and unbelievable power). Having had one, I now want a power adder on everything. Maybe we can get you to try ......................... That cam would not be bad for ............... Hmmm.................. .

Paul Muller was kind enough to exchange a few emails with me on the details of actually making supercharging work for this engine. I can't say that I'm tempted by the actual power exactly, but the potential power and fuel economy is very appealing.

Still given that I'm now settled on a big-block engine, I just can't use so much power . . . . .

(besides on the dragstrip and lets be honest, wouldn't an airstream trailer look silly going down the quarter mile? :finish: . . . . . )

However, the benefits of power-boosters certainly are a win-win for car owners. Buick certainly has to be given credit for trying to get turbocharging accepted for mainstreaming vehicles. Too bad the virtues of this technology aren't more widely accepted.

I'll need to start ramping up for the machining . . . so surely new questions are just around the corner!

Thanks to everyone for your help! :thumbsup:

Cheers, Edouard :beers:

 

[Dr. Frankenbuick]

Are you planning to tow in drive and use overdrive when not towing? That is how overdrive transmissions are generally produced to tow. Overdrive is a fair weather gear with a small drum and minimal clutches to save on rotating mass. They are made to come out of overdrive at almost any application of power, and even the massive overdrive 4L80E in my diesel suburban requires towing in drive. A stock transmission would burn up the small and minimal overdrive clutches if forced to tow in overdrive.

This makes a difference in what gear you should use. I like the .323 if you do not plan to tow very often and generally use the car as a transpotation. I would like the .308 if you are mainly going to tow with it.

 

[elagache]

Towing, overdrive, "boosting" and a car to do it with!

Dear Dr. Frankenbuick and Team Buick members, :shield:

First, there are some critical developments in this 430 engine rebuild caper! After considerable uncertainty . . . . it appears there will be a car to put the engine in! How incredibly convenient! :bgrin:

As the photo shows, the car has been primed and they hope to have the car painted this week!



So all this discussion isn't superfluous after all!!

Are you planning to tow in drive and use overdrive when not towing? That is how overdrive transmissions are generally produced to tow. Overdrive is a fair weather gear with a small drum and minimal clutches to save on rotating mass. They are made to come out of overdrive at almost any application of power, and even the massive overdrive 4L80E in my diesel suburban requires towing in drive. A stock transmission would burn up the small and minimal overdrive clutches if forced to tow in overdrive.

Well, I thought I would judge the actual road conditions - but mostly yes. When the car is towing, I assumed I would keep the car locked in drive most of the time, but when there is a stretch of level or slightly downhill road ahead, I would allow the engine to cruise in overdrive because the trailer wouldn't be that much of a burden. In order words I would try to do what I assume any car-savvy person would do - especially given the price of gas! :angry:

This makes a difference in what gear you should use. I like the .323 if you do not plan to tow very often and generally use the car as a transpotation. I would like the .308 if you are mainly going to tow with it.

Hmm, what's your thinking as far as going with the "stouter" rear-end ratio for the general purpose configuration of the car? Is it mainly to make the car a little more lively? I would expect that even with 3.08, the car will still be a brisk performer around town. Is there some other aspect of the 3.23 rear-end that lends it suitable for general-purpose use?

As long as I've got the microphone, the block should emerge from preliminaries soon and questions like compression ratio will have to be addressed. Paul Muller has been kind enough to give me a crash education on various boosting options. It seems like the car really won't need the extra power and the rebuilding the engine to perform well with turbocharging or supercharging seems incompatible with the goals for a high-performance naturally aspirated engine. So it seems to me that I've got to stick to my game plan. However, . . . . *temptation* remains! :finish:

Is there anything I should consider in the rebuild right now that would allow the engine to perform well now, but would still leave the door open for a booster scheme in the engine's future?

Inquiring minds want to know! :laugh_1:

Cheers, Edouard :beers:

 

[Dr. Frankenbuick]

As the photo shows, the car has been primed and they hope to have the car painted this week!

That is starting to look like it will be going somewhere complete. Will you keep the same colors?

Is there some other aspect of the 3.23 rear-end that lends it suitable for general-purpose use?

The wagons came with a 3.23 as they were heavier and were often used to tow. The shorter gear helped get all of that weight moving and prevented the engine from lugging. It made pulling the load easier on the entire drive-train. I think that would still be a great all-round gear for you with overdrive and ocassional towing (have your cake and eat ..........)

You would lose the advantage of the overdrive if you mainly use the car for towing (since towing will be done in drive at a 1:1 ratio). The way to make up for this is by having a taller rear gear (3.08). You will have more power then the average engine and 400 transmission package in wagon. This should help get it all moving, but at the expense of some responsiveness and increased stress on the entire driveline. This just leaves it a less robust package, but it will get better mileage towing.

Is there anything I should consider in the rebuild right now that would allow the engine to perform well now, but would still leave the door open for a booster scheme in the engine's future?

ARP mainstuds (or TA block girdle depending on power above 550-600 HP), ARP rod bolts (sportsman or other forged rods above 650 HP), Forged pistons with more depth to the first ring-land, a dynanic compression between 7.5 and 8:1, chrome top ring with more ring gap (.006-.007 per inch of bore), second ring gapped slightly larger then first, .035"-.060" quench distance, a cam with 114*-116* lobe seperation with minimal overlap and mild duration (your 212 would be OK though).

 

[elagache]

Thanks for the booster beef-up recommendations!

Dear Dr. Frankenbuick and Team Buick members :shield:

Thanks for the information on beefing up the engine to permit some kind of modest boosting. If I were to do this later on, I would keep it on the modest side. Still, it doesn't seem such a stretch that I can at least entertain the idea. :hurray:

That is starting to look like it will be going somewhere complete. Will you keep the same colors?

Yup! I even managed to find actual 65 Buick paint chips on eBay. The car has been repainted once, but that job had already matched the original paint as well as eyeballs can tell. Between the old paint job and the paint chips, the paint specialist at the body shop was very happy with his test batches. So this part of the caper looks on target!

The wagons came with a 3.23 as they were heavier and were often used to tow. The shorter gear helped get all of that weight moving and prevented the engine from lugging. It made pulling the load easier on the entire drive-train. I think that would still be a great all-round gear for you with overdrive and ocassional towing (have your cake and eat ..........)

Uh, not to question the opinion of the good doctor, but according to the 65 Buick service manual, the wagons of that year had the 3.08 ratio (and that's what was replaced last year.) I'm thinking that even if the car has occasional towing duties, the rest of the time the car will have more of sedan duties - without a lot of hauling heavy stuff. Given that the 65 sedans had a 2.78 rear-end ratio, I thought that I could get away with 3.08 without stressing the drive train too much.

And to be perfectly honest . . . the news headlines keep turning my thoughts towards higher fuel economy! :angry:

ARP mainstuds (or TA block girdle depending on power above 550-600 HP), ARP rod bolts (sportsman or other forged rods above 650 HP), Forged pistons with more depth to the first ring-land, a dynanic compression between 7.5 and 8:1, chrome top ring with more ring gap (.006-.007 per inch of bore), second ring gapped slightly larger then first, .035"-.060" quench distance, a cam with 114*-116* lobe seperation with minimal overlap and mild duration (your 212 would be OK though).

Thanks for this detailed description of the required upgrades. This is consistent with what Paul Muller had recommended. I think if I ever went this direction it would be nudge the horsepower closer to 500 hp. The only reason to even consider this would be if my greed turned to something so heavy to tow that the car would be straining.

It is probably much ado about nothing, but I certainly don't want to rebuild this engine every 5 years so . . . . kinda want to cover as many bases as possible on the first go!

Thanks again for everything! :thumbsup:

Cheers, Edouard :beers:

 

[Dr. Frankenbuick]

Uh, not to question the opinion of the good doctor, but according to the 65 Buick service manual, the wagons of that year had the 3.08 ratio.

You have to look past 65 to find wagons like you intend with a bigger engine and ST 400 trans installed. Look at the 66-69 Spotwagon and you will see they used 3.23s in wagons with a ST 400 trans and 340/400 engine. Again, these gears were easier on the drive-train when dealing with more power. Also, remember your 200R4 has a wider gear ratio then the ST400 (see ratios here:http://www.oldengine.org/unfaq/leadfoot/trans.htm), and this will further stress the drive-train after shifts. I think 3.08s will be fine, but are not optimal for your combination. I would use 3.23s (like Buick did) if I were building a wagon with your goals.

I think if I ever went this direction it would be nudge the horsepower closer to 500 hp.

You could manage with forged pistons, rod bolts and mainstuds if you promise not to go beyond 600 flywheel horsepower and follow the recommendations for piston design, ring gap, DCR, cam and quench suggested.

 

[elagache]

Thanks - cuz in some things I am dated!

Dear Dr. Frankenbuick and interested onlookers, :shield:

Thanks for the broader perspective - cuz I just plain didn't know what Buick was up to in 69!

You have to look past 65 to find wagons like you intend with a bigger engine and ST 400 trans installed. Look at the 66-69 Spotwagon and you will see they used 3.23s in wagons with a ST 400 trans and 340/400 engine. Again, these gears were easier on the drive-train when dealing with more power. Also, remember your 200R4 has a wider gear ratio then the ST400 (see ratios here:http://www.oldengine.org/unfaq/leadfoot/trans.htm), and this will further stress the drive-train after shifts. I think 3.08s will be fine, but are not optimal for your combination. I would use 3.23s (like Buick did) if I were building a wagon with your goals.

I didn't know how Buick changed as time went on. I suppose in 65, Buick choose the 3.08 rear-end in part to compensate a bit for the car being a little underpowered. Crunching the numbers shows that the 3.23 rear end is still reasonably comfortable. So you have convinced me! :thumbsup:

You could manage with forged pistons, rod bolts and mainstuds if you promise not to go beyond 600 flywheel horsepower and follow the recommendations for piston design, ring gap, DCR, cam and quench suggested.

Cross my heart . . . . I promise! :car:

Thanks again for all the good advice! :finish:

Cheers, Edouard :beers:

 

[Dr. Frankenbuick]

Thanks for the broader perspective - cuz I just plain didn't know what Buick was up to in 69!

As a teen with a part time income in the late 70s and a desire to go faster with a Buick, Dr. Frankenbuick was forced to become more worldly concerning mixing and matching parts. Going to the junk yard was like going to the mall, and yard parts were plentiful and cheap. Most of the good parts from known cars were already long gone, and this left lesser known cars that had the same parts (wagons and V6 cars for rears). These were still plentiful if you knew they were there.

One of the better of these creations was a 65 four door Skylark with a broken V6 and 3.08 posi rear for $100, a 430 traded for a 340 and TH 400 from the yard at $75. It smoked a little and burnt some oil, but it would move out. Well, at one point a friend bought a new 85 Iroc Z and set his sights on old Smokey as his first victim. They were lined up every way possible with the same result every time: the Z saw the 65 tail lights and a cloud of smoke. It was several weeks before any line of communication was reopened! Of course, another lesson learned was that minimal assessment and rebuilding, as opposed to just patching things together, helped these creations sustain life longer. And so, the good Dr. was well on his way to his specialty of reviving and reinventing those resting (or rusting) quietly for his own perverted satisfaction.


:laugh_4:

 

[elagache]

Thanks for the memories!

Dear Dr. Frankenbuick (and Team Buick members) :shield:

As a teen with a part time income in the late 70s and a desire to go faster with a Buick, . . . . . .

Thanks so much for sharing with us this story of how you obtained your medical "degree" in the art of souping up Buicks! :thumbsup:

One of the better of these creations was a 65 four door Skylark with a broken V6 and 3.08 posi rear for $100, a 430 traded for a 340 and TH 400 from the yard at $75. It smoked a little and burnt some oil, but it would move out. Well, at one point a friend bought a new 85 Iroc Z and set his sights on old Smokey as his first victim. They were lined up every way possible with the same result every time: the Z saw the 65 tail lights and a cloud of smoke. It was several weeks before any line of communication was reopened! . . . . .

I LOVE it!! :finish:

Part of my crash course in automotive drive train technology, I've been really surprised by the choices made by Detroit. Your friend must have been really shocked, but I wonder how many folks second-guess the powerplants in their cars. As I've been educated by folks like you and Paul Muller, I'm really surprised that initiatives like Buick's own turbocharging efforts in the 80s didn't catch on.

Ya' think this time Detroit will get the message?

Cheers, Edouard :beers:

 

[elagache]

News flash: 430 block passes Magnaflux inspection.

Dear Team Buick big block fans, :shield:

Just a quick news update on my efforts to rebuild my 430 V-8. The block passed Magnaflux inspection and all indications are that I have a really solid starting point for this build. The machinist sees no signs that this engine has been reworked since leaving the Buick factory. It's as good a point of departure as you get.

I'll meet with the machinist next week to get the details and take some photos of the bare block before he goes to work on it. I'll be sure to bring all the wonderful advice you'all have given me!

Thanks again for all the help! :thumbsup:

Cheers, Edouard :beers:

 

[Dr. Frankenbuick]

Yes, engine pictures would be nice, and some when there is paint on the body too!

 

[elagache]

Well, at least bare block pictures

Dear Good Dr. Frankenbuick and members of the Team Buick "Brotherhood" :shield:

Yes, engine pictures would be nice, and some when there is paint on the body too!

I visited "da patent" on Monday, but alas no final paint on this poor car. The welds to repair the door panels from the very un-wise aftermarket external rear-view mirrors my Dad put on the car are standing in the way of getting the car painted. Must not be an easy repair, because it keeps being put off. Oh well, I hope they'll bite the bullet and get on with it!

As to engine block pictures. Well, what do ya expect from a cleaned engine block? Here are 4 photos I took this morning at the machine shop:

http://gallery.me.com/elagache#100077

I've got to make up my mind on the compression ratio. If I could trust the California Air Resources Board then I would stick to Dr. Frankenbuick's suggested 9.75:1. However, I'm worried about what might happen if the bureaucrats get even meaner toward "mature cars." At the moment nothing is shaking my confidence in the good doctor's recommendation. Unless someone gets me discouraged 9.75:1 it will be! With that decision made, I can order the pistons and get on with this build!

Thanks as always for the helpful encouragement! :thumbsup:

Cheers, Edouard :beers:

 

[elagache]

65 Buick getting "greener"

Dear Team Buick members, :shield:

Alas, everything is slower and more complicated than I ever could have feared. However, there is at least a little progress on getting my venerable wagon out of the body shop. They have finally painted the car! Here are some photos of the shop's match for 1965 Buick "Seafoam Green."

http://gallery.me.com/elagache#100093

Over the years I hadn't noticed how much the green had faded. It isn't going to give the car any additional sympathy from the environmental movement, but it's nice the see the car with her original Seafoam Green again!

Cheers, Edouard :beers:

 

[Dr. Frankenbuick]

That is starting to look very good Edouard. I can almost picture the trim and bumpers on it. You are getting there, and once it is done the angst will be forgotten.

 

[elagache]

Better to ask a pro than to end up with an epic - disaster!

Dear Team Buick members, :shield:

If you remember my first postings on this forum, I was sternly warned to be very careful to avoid having a Buick engine rebuilt by someone who didn't take the tight Buick tolerances seriously.

Alas, when I met with the local machinist working on my 430 block I got a "yeah, yeah . . . sure, sure . . . tight Buick tolerances." Then when I tried to get the parameters for forged pistons I was basically told: "this is no place for amateurs - let us pros figure this stuff out."

I certainly agree that I'm a newbie (never mind amateur), but the reason I was trying to get these specifications was because on one else had stepped to the plate to make sure this engine would do what I wanted. In particular, that this engine would be very fuel-efficient (as much as big-block Buicks can be.) I was looking to spend a ton of money and the one thing I lacked was an expert to put the components together such that I ended up with what I wanted.

It was time to give up on the idea of having the engine built locally. After some thought, I've decided to ask Jim Weise and Tri Shield Performance to build an engine for my trusty billy goat wagon. If there is anyone who can squeeze fuel economy out of these stout engines - he can.

The process of coming up with engine specs has just started. So far, what Jim has suggested tell me I was on the right track (thanks in so small part to advice I found here!) Yet, Jim has also surprised me with good ideas I had dismissed for lack of good information. So finally I'm feeling much more hopeful about this project. There was no way this build was going to be cheap, but nothing could be worse than squandering good money on quality components that aren't put together properly.

So the epic 430 rebuild caper takes another turn. Stay tuned for the next episode in this soap opera!

Cheers, Edouard :beers:

 

[pmuller9]

Dear Dr Frankenbuick

I would like to revisit something that was played with back in the 1970s and early 80s during the
oil embargo.

The game was to take a mild cam profile and do an asymmetrical intake lobe with a long trailing
ramp that would close the intake valve on the seat close to 90 degrees. This would allow just
over 13:1 SCR while maintaining an 8:1 DCR.

Low end torque was traded for engine efficiency. However I don’t remember seeing anyone
experimenting on a large displacement engine where there was torque to spare.

Would you be willing to re-run the simulation of the TA 212 cam retarded 11 degrees from its
straight up position so the intake valve closes on the seat 75 degrees ABDC using a SCR of 11:1.
Also increase the total volume from 435.9 to 462

Would it be possible to profile the TA 212 on the simulator so the intake valve closes at 89
degrees ABDC while holding the rest of the lobe parameters at the normal TA 212 specs
and use a SCR of 13:1

If this is doable please make any changes that you feel would be beneficial.
I’m looking forward to your feedback.

Thank You

Paul

 

[bob k. mando]

I suppose in 65, Buick choose the 3.08 rear-end in part to compensate a bit for the car being a little underpowered. Crunching the numbers shows that the 3.23 rear end is still reasonably comfortable.


errr, that's backwards thinking.

numerically higher gears are typically referred to as being "shorter" ( the 3.23 ) and result in faster accelleration, lower fuel economy and higher engine rpm at a given speed. they are typically used in applications where the engine is on the underpowered side OR when the application is expected to do a lot of towing or hauling.

numerically lower gears are typically referred to as being "taller" ( the 3.08 ) and give you a higher top speed ( unless drag limited ) and better fuel economy at the expense of accelleration. torque monster engines love taller gears for highway cruising and many of the mid-70s BBB applications were down around 2.56 to 1.

Car and Driver did one of their heads up tests between the Mustang and Camaro years ago and the Ford SVO guys told C&D to make their top speed run in 4th gear because the car was drag limited to a lower speed in 5th. we never found out what the Mustang would turn because C&D blew up the test mule in 4th. that's one of the VERY few times that you'll actually see somebody go for a shorter gear for a top speed run.



After some thought, I've decided to ask Jim Weise and Tri Shield Performance to build an engine for my trusty billy goat wagon.


can't hardly go wrong there.

good on you for having the stones to yank the project out of the other guys shop when it became clear that he wasn't interested in listening to you.



Yet, Jim has also surprised me with good ideas I had dismissed for lack of good information.

if Weise doesn't mind you posting some of these tidbits it would be interesting to hear. he's had a lot of success with these engines.




I've got to make up my mind on the compression ratio. If I could trust the California Air Resources Board then I would stick to Dr. Frankenbuick's suggested 9.75:1. However, I'm worried about what might happen if the bureaucrats get even meaner toward "mature cars." At the moment nothing is shaking my confidence in the good doctor's recommendation. Unless someone gets me discouraged 9.75:1 it will be!

not to completely monkey wrench you, but are you aware that LP conversions are popular in Europe? they run silly CR numbers like 18 or 20 to 1.

that might permit you to bypass the CARB board altogether.