From the Reference Section:
- Street Cam Selection Guide
- Buick 455 O.E. Camshafts
- High 10's Secrets for Your Buick 455
- 400/430/455 Poston Cams Grinds and Numbers
- 400/430/455 Kenne-Bell Cams Grinds and Numbers
- Buick 455 Drag Strip Tests from Kenne-Bell
    - Buick 400, 430, 455 Engine Specifications
- Buick Staging Chart
- Differences Between 1970-71 And 1972 and Later Type Block
- Head Flow Chart
- Cam Button
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: The "epic" 430 rebuild caper!

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by pmuller9 View Post
    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
    Paul,

    The program is not sophisticated enough to plot asymmetrical lobes. It understands symmetrical lobes in various degrees of aggression. I think your second request would be very interesting to see, but it is beyond my capasity with this software.

    The TA-212 with a 123* intake lobe center gives me a 7.95:1 DCR from a 11:1 SCR 462. I plotted your 11:1 SCR 462 with 75* IC event on the TA-212 over the earlier 9.75 SCR 430 with a 60* IC on the TA-212. Both engines have roughly 8:1 DCR. There is a link to a larger image here: http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/9/...mp%20TA212.jpg. I don't think there is anything unexpected below:


    Last edited by Dr. Frankenbuick; 04-23-2011 at 05:47 AM.
    Steve B.



    67 GS 525 Buick Stage IV
    66 GS Convertible
    65 GS HT
    63 Riv
    02 Subaru WRX Turbo
    03 Ford Cobra Convertible (Factory Supercharged)

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    114
    Rep Power
    0

    Thanks - little progress on the 430 caper

    Dear Bob, Dr. FrankenBuick, and Team Buick members,

    Sadly, there has been very little to report on this project. After getting my car painted, the body-shop has slipped back into taking care of the newer victims first. So I found the car outside in a light rain with nothing more than a piece of paper over the exposed tailgate area. I registered a complaint with the management and hope I'll see more progress next week.

    Switching engine builders has put that project at the back end of Jim Weise's busy spring engine building season. There are four engines ahead of me so until Jim catches up on his existing work, all I can do is explore a few ideas to squeeze a little more fuel-economy out of the car.

    Quote Originally Posted by bob k. mando View Post
    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.
    Thanks for explaining these differences. I'm still puzzled though by Buick's choice of a "shorter" rear end for wagons after 1965. The horsepower of these midsized wagons was still modest (250-280 hp). Perhaps towing needs were increasing through the decade so Buick made a quick concession?

    Given that I'm not short of power and torque, I'm sorely temped to go with as "tall" a rear-end as the mechanical components can stand. Paul Muller has suggested going with the 3.08 ratio and a limited slip differential to protect the rear-end from excessive stress.

    Quote Originally Posted by bob k. mando View Post
    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.

    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'll certainly provide reports as Jim starts to explore the problem. It is one of his engines that convinced me that a big-block Buick engine could actually give me better fuel economy than the 300 cid engine that in the car now. However, for something reason, people don't start with a large-displacement engine when they want fuel-economy . . . . I can't imagine why? . . . So Jim hasn't gotten a lot of requests like this!

    One suggestion he has already made is to go with hydraulic roller cam. Since that opened the door to a custom cam, Paul Muller has been suggesting to me "variations" to the 212 cam (thus the request to Dr. FrankenBuick).

    Quote Originally Posted by bob k. mando View Post
    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.
    It is a certainly an interesting idea for a vehicle that has only local duties where LP is available. However, since my goal is to make the wagon a road-trip cruiser so that's not very practice. Paul Muller and I also discussed an engine designed for E85 Ethanol, but again the fuel just isn't commonly available. So the compression ratio will have to cope with anemic 91 octane California gas.

    On to the good Doctor's contribution:

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Frankenbuick View Post
    The program is not sophisticated enough to plot asymmetrical lobes. It understands symmetrical lobes in various degrees of aggression. I think your second request would be very interesting to see, but it is beyond my capacity with this software.
    Thanks for making any runs at all! This sort of a cam strategy is getting radical, but computer simulations don't break any engine parts! When Jim Weise get to designing my engine, I'll toss this idea at him in case he has some clever simulation tool to examine this strategy for higher compression ratios.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Frankenbuick View Post
    The TA-212 with a 123* intake lobe center gives me a 7.95:1 DCR from a 11:1 SCR 462. I plotted your 11:1 SCR 462 with 75* IC event on the TA-212 over the earlier 9.75 SCR 430 with a 60* IC on the TA-212. Both engines have roughly 8:1 DCR. There is a link to a larger image here: http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/9/...mp%20TA212.jpg. I don't think there is anything unexpected below:
    Thanks for the plot and I've already squirreled it away in my collection. Let me know if your Internet services give you trouble and I'll gladly take over the hosting duties.

    From the standpoint of what is graphed, indeed the previous arrangements of the 212 cam produce more power. What makes this arrangement potentially worthwhile is something that cannot be simulated I assume. The higher static compression ratio should provide a more efficient engine and therefore provide more fuel economy. Since the engine has so much torque that Jim was worried about the choice of the 200-4R transmission - I could certainly afford to lose a little torque without diminishing the car's tow-capacity.

    So one more potential trick to squeeze a little more MPG out of the car!

    Thanks again for everyone's help!
    Cheer's Edouard
    Caretaker of a 1965 Buick Special "billy goat"!

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    275
    Rep Power
    0
    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

    Thanks Steve for taking the time and effort to run another simulation. Even though it shows what is expected, the info can be compared against calculated values to give confidence in extrapolated values for more extreme cases.

    Most of the time you see small displacement engines made to act larger by installing a power adder in an effort to have fuel economy and reasonable power. This begs for the opposite approach of starting with a large displacement engine and making it act smaller for fuel economy, the difference being in the process of decreasing the dynamic size of the engine, static compression ratios can be very high to increase the thermal efficiency. Thermal Efficiency for air with R as the compression ratio is: E = 1- (1/R^0.4)

    The engine chosen is a 455 +.030 for a 462. I just want to look at the cruising rpm which should be around 2000 rpm. (Since that is the lowest point on the graph anyway)
    Looking at the graph for the 430 (436 actual) at 2000 rpm the torque at that point is 475 ft lbs. Extending that value based on 462 cu in gives us 503 ft lbs. However the actual torque increase is not linear because the increase in port velocity with the larger displacement engine would increase cylinder fill (VE) for an additional torque increase above 503. I will use 503 for calculations and look at deviation afterward.

    With the intake valve closing at 60 degrees ABDC the adjusted stroke is 3.145 for a swept volume past that point of 372.6 cu in.

    With the intake valve closing at 75 degrees ABDC the adjusted stroke is 2.729 for a swept volume past that point of 323.3 cu in.

    We have just decreased the dynamic engine size by 13.2%

    503 – 13.2% = 436 ft lbs. The graph shows around 430 ft lbs which looks like it agrees. Since the compression ratio was raised from 9.75 to 11 the thermal efficiency is 3% greater and the calculated torque should be 449 instead of 436 for a 19 ft lb deviation. In this case since the effective engine size decreased by 13.2%, the port velocity and VE decreased causing an additional reduction in torque which should account for some of the deviation.

    Retarding the cam by 15 degrees moves the exhaust valve closing further into the intake stroke which affects torque and with the decrease in exhaust volume there is less scavaging effect. Grinding an asymmetrical intake lobe and not changing the exhaust timing should help.
    Additionally with the decrease in exhaust volume the exhaust valve timing can probably be changed?

    Now take this a step further and close the intake valve at 89 degrees ABDC and raise the SCR to 13. You still have a DCR of 8 and by changing the SCR from 9.75 to 13 the thermal efficiency increases by 7%. Also you now have a flat top piston with just valve reliefs at zero deck height.

    The adjusted stroke is 2.279 for a swept volume of 270 cu in. The dynamic volume decrease is 27.5% from when the intake valve was closed at 60 degrees ABDC.

    503 – 27% = 367 ft lbs. Add 7% for the increase in thermal efficiency = 393 ft lbs of torque.
    We know that the actual torque will be less than 393 but consider the following:
    Suppose the intake port volumes were reduced by 27% increasing the intake port velocity and change the manifold to a straight long runner cross ram design with EFI so there is more air mass moving in the runners. Low rpm torque numbers should be above 400 and the torque curve should be very wide.

    In the 1970s SBC engines using this scheme where getting 25 mpg with carburetion. Because the engines where small to begin with the major complaint was the lack of torque.

    The BBB using this approach with EFI, roller valve train, overdrive with lock up converter or 5 speed manual transmission should work effeciently.

    Please comment as there are always different ways to view a problem

    Paul
    Last edited by pmuller9; 04-24-2011 at 10:09 PM.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    114
    Rep Power
    0

    Body-shop progress - aiming for a conventional engine.

    Dear Team Buick members,

    Just a quick update on the status of my trusty wagon and the big-block engine to go in it. As noted in another thread - I've got tailgate parts issuez, but at least the car is starting to come back together at the body shop. Attached is a photo of the completed grill. Sure was glad to see that "familiar face" after so many months!

    Jim Weise is very busy with engines for the racing season, but we have exchanged a few emails. He has suggested something on the order of a bored out 442 cid engine with a static compression ratio of 9.25:1. He has proposed a cam with the following specs: 215/220 duration, low .500 lift, 114 lobe center. Still very early in nailing down the specs but still something very mainstream and conservative.

    There has been some fairly extreme proposals in this thread with regards to fuel economy. Even if that isn't the normal kind of extreme on this forum, I hope folks found it interesting. It may help someone come up with a particularly thrifty daily-driver. In any case, to be a properly "well-rounded" high-performance nut, it's worth pondering other kinds of high-performance - including fuel-economy. Sadly, we are getting encouraged to think more and more about this - every time we fill-up!

    Thanks for all the helpful suggestions and ideas!

    Cheers, Edouard
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Caretaker of a 1965 Buick Special "billy goat"!

  5. #65
    Did anything come of this or did it just kind of fizzle out? It is a shame if it did, but it is closing on a year since any post or update!
    Steve B.



    67 GS 525 Buick Stage IV
    66 GS Convertible
    65 GS HT
    63 Riv
    02 Subaru WRX Turbo
    03 Ford Cobra Convertible (Factory Supercharged)

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    114
    Rep Power
    0

    Still waitin' for da' engine!! (Re: 430 rebuild caper)

    Dear Good Dr. Frankenbuick and Team Buick members,

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Frankenbuick View Post
    Did anything come of this or did it just kind of fizzle out? It is a shame if it did, but it is closing on a year since any post or update!
    *Heavy sigh* . . . . . yes indeed no new posting . . . . . . cuz very little new to report!!

    Getting the car repaired from the accident damage was quite an ordeal. Even if the car mostly a "generic" GM A-body wagon, wagon parts for this incarnation of A-body wagons are extremely rare. I had a desperate struggle getting parts for the tailgate which simply needed rebuilding.

    Beyond that, there were the usual body shop hassles so the car wasn't finished until mid-July. However, they did a great job and the car looks wonderful as these photos attest:

    Biquette glamor shots 7:26:2011 - 10.jpg
    Orinda Classic Car Show - 27.jpg
    Biquette and fall trees - 16.jpg

    I was especially lucky to find a 65 Buick paint-chip set on eBay and they were able to match the color from that. The previous paint-job either faded or was seriously off (or both.) Painted in her proper "seafoam green" once more, all of sudden the car is "newly" 1965 again!

    As I think I reported to everyone, I decided to have Jim Weise and Tri-Shield Performance build the engine after I could see that I was way over my head trying to direct the engine build. I place the order in late May and expected the engine by the end of the summer or so.

    At the same time, I continued to search for someone to build for me a 200-4R overdrive tranny to get the best fuel economy for my trusty wagon. Eventually I placed an order with CK Performance in mid June.

    Everything takes longer that you hope, but the transmission was finally finished in September. However, the engine wasn't forthcoming. Jim reported delays associated with Tri-Shield performance relocating its facilities. With fall approaching, I wasn't too concerned. Along the way, I was convinced to make a "compromise plunge" into electronic fuel-injection. After another round of research, I was impressed by other Buick owners experiences with the EZ-EFI system of Fuel Air Spark Technology (F.A.S.T.). So instead of Q-Jet, the engine will at least start with that. I'll probably want to further upgrade from there, but EZ-EFI system would easy for Jim to get installed and for the folks there in Orinda to make work initially. Lucky for me, Spectra Premium makes a EFI ready replacement gas tank for the 64-67 El Camino that also works in my Special wagon (although it took a while to confirm that! )

    Well, autumn turned to winter and . . . . . Jim and Tri-Shield Performance still haven't completed the move into their new facilities. The engine for my trusty Buick will be the first that will be completed at the new facility. The machining has already been completed and according to Jim, the block looks absolutely beautiful. It is a 430 block overbored to 448.

    However, that's where things are at. In the meantime, the old 300 cid is definitely suffering from a loss of power that I assume is due to a worn camshaft. Since I'm in California, I'm trying to operate the car every 2 weeks simply to keep everything working and I'm hoping the worn engine will continue to limp until Jim can get the new engine completed and the drive train makeover can finally begin!

    So in short, the project has not fizzled . . . but it is decidedly stalled!

    Cheers, Edouard
    Caretaker of a 1965 Buick Special "billy goat"!

  7. #67
    Edouard,

    The car looks great. You need to get a picture of the finished tailgate after all of the trouble it caused. We need to see that it is in its place!

    I am sorry for your wait on the engine, and know how it can put a blight on a project. I can only hope that you receive it before you have moved away from your feelings for it. You can move worlds away from projects like this over time.
    Last edited by Dr. Frankenbuick; 01-29-2012 at 06:48 AM. Reason: sp
    Steve B.



    67 GS 525 Buick Stage IV
    66 GS Convertible
    65 GS HT
    63 Riv
    02 Subaru WRX Turbo
    03 Ford Cobra Convertible (Factory Supercharged)

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    114
    Rep Power
    0

    Talking Okay tailgate photos too! (Re: 430 rebuild caper)

    Dear Dr. Frankenbuick and Team Buick members,

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Frankenbuick View Post
    The car looks great. You need to get a picture of the finished tailgate after all of the trouble it caused. We need to see that it is in its place!
    Well okay - but remember . . . . you asked for it!!

    Biquette-1.jpg
    Biquette-2.jpg

    I've had some trouble photographing the car because the new paint is so shiny it saturates the digital camera. So that's why I've had to take the photos on a cloudy day.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Frankenbuick View Post
    I am sorry for your wait on the engine, and know how it can put a blight on a project. I can only hope that you receive it before you have moved away from your feelings for it. You can move worlds away from projects like this over time.
    Well, with a transmission sitting at Orinda Motors waiting for the engine . . . I'm really kinda of committed!! After all, only one of two things can happen: either I finally get this job done or the world comes to an end - right?

    Cheers, Edouard

    P.S. Ya' think that them Aztecs and Mayas knew something about how hard it is to build a big-block Buick engine?
    Caretaker of a 1965 Buick Special "billy goat"!

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Usk,Wa sta
    Posts
    430
    Rep Power
    0

    Exclamation

    The car looks great!I've been waiting 2 years myself for my 400 punched to 430 to get done....and my rebuilt T400 is sitting here in my garage
    JAMIE MCCLINTON
    STARTER/ALTERNATOR/GENERATOR REBUILDER SINCE 1979
    selling buick mini starters & alternators
    startncharge@rocketmail.com
    65 Special convertible
    69 Special Deluxe
    Lost to garage fire:
    69 cali GS
    72 Suncoupe

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    114
    Rep Power
    0

    Talking Transmission cupid? (Re: The "epic" 430 rebuild caper!)

    Hi Jamie and Team Buick members,

    Quote Originally Posted by 65specialconvert View Post
    my rebuilt T400 is sitting here in my garage
    Well, it is almost Valentine's day. Ya' think we should bring your T400 and my 200-4R together in a romantic setting and see what happens?

    Cheers, Edouard
    Caretaker of a 1965 Buick Special "billy goat"!

Similar Threads

  1. "1962 Buick Special Deluxe" Wheels & Tires (Aftermarket)
    By patshotrods in forum General Chat!
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-07-2010, 05:20 PM
  2. Is "Riviera" synonymous with "hardtop"?
    By Gas Giant in forum Interiors, Trim, Glass and Tops
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-04-2010, 07:47 PM
  3. I feel a"Thump"??or a"Bump"
    By Rusty in forum Tools, Shops, and Garages
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-13-2007, 05:55 AM
  4. "Shop" or "Assembly" Manual for 1962 Invicta
    By Adam Bernstein in forum Nailhead: 264, 322, 364, 401, 425
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2003, 12:54 PM
  5. "Buick Tech", "Buick Talk" or...
    By Bob in forum Site Help and Development!
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-12-2003, 01:25 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
TeamBuick.com Privacy Policy