The "epic" 430 rebuild caper!

[elagache]

Dear Dr. Frankenbuick and Bob Mando,

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!

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?

Cheers, Edouard

[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/...216%20Mods.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]

Dear Buick enthusiasts!

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

[elagache]

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

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? . . . . . )

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!

Cheers, Edouard

[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]

Dear Dr. Frankenbuick and Team Buick members,

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!

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

Biquette_primed.jpg

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!

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!

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!

Cheers, Edouard

[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]

Dear Dr. Frankenbuick and Team Buick members

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.

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!

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!

Cheers, Edouard

[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]

Dear Dr. Frankenbuick and interested onlookers,

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!

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!

Thanks again for all the good advice!

Cheers, Edouard