300 Buick Deck Height

I have looked for two days regarding the 300 Buick Deck Height. I am attempting to find the actual block deck height. The 231 V-6 is 9.540" and I am attempting to find the actual measurement of the 300 Buick. If it is the same (insert evil laugh here) my plan is closer to working than before. (more evil laugh). The V-6 should be relatively close if not the exact same measurement as the 300. Would someone happen to know the deck height.

Dallas

 

are you going to mod a v6 intake to work on your 300? :Brow:

 

Something like that. I was thinking bottom end stuff but the E-Brock V-6 intake manifold water passages would be nice to cut off and use on an experimental 300 intake that i would hypothetically use the top end of an Edelbrock SBC single plane intake and adapt it with adapter plates to the Buick head. That is all hypothetical of course.:Brow:

 

Hello??

 

The 308 Screamer is something that I dreamed up. I used a set of wooden spacers to adapt a SBC intake to a set of SBB (350) heads just to see if it was feasible. It looks like it may work due to the port spacing being really close. I just need to get the measurements correct and it can only be done on the 300 block. The deck height change brings the heads closer together making it easier for me since there is less room to fill. The 350 Buick may be a possibility but the spacers would be enormous. I will have to see what the difference is once I get the measurements for the 300 motor. I am determining If I can send a Edelbrock V6 Manifold to Australia (where I am stationed) and measure it up and fab up some aluminum adapters. If all works, I should be able to make an intake or at least a set of adapters. I would use the top end of the Edelbrock Victor Single Plane pictured below. :Brow:

 

You will run into issues with the cam, the 350 cam not only has different journal sizes but the lobes are spaced a bit differently. Possibly enough that the lobes will get wiped. That would mean a custom cam, and unless you could find a cam blank with round lobes it would mean a billet cam. The pushrod holes in the heads would also have to be elongated, which could possibly put you real close to breaking into the intake runners in the heads. This too is an unknown since nobody has tried it. Not trying to discourage you here, but these are real issues you'll have to address.

You might want to think about getting a set of the TA Rover heads when they come out in about a year. Since they're based on the V6 heads they are going to be fantastic on flow rates, probably better than the 350 heads right out of the box before you even do any porting. In the meantime you could be building the short block and sorting out your intake. There'd be no cam issues so you could spend those resources on the heads instead. But also, be aware that cam lobe/rod interference is something to keep a close watch on, especially with non-stock rods. #2 and 4 are the trouble spots.

Jim

 

Hello??

the number i have is 9.543" for a SBB 300ci deck height. can't vouch for it. the v6 being based on the 300 block, that is what i would expect.



that 3 thousandths variance from the v6 spec is probably well inside the factory production tolerances.

 

sbc to a 300; dont have one to test fit.

sbc to sbb; sbc is a 70 degree intake, sbb is a 90 degree intake. that requires 10 degrees on one side. matching the sbc to the sbb will require about 3'' of spacers.

sbm to sbb; sbm is a 84 degree intake. matching requires less than 1'' of spacer. this requires only 3 degrees on one side.

the sbc is about 1/4 to 5/16'' longer than the sbb

the sbm is about 1/2'' longer than the sbb.

you will still have to make a t/stat housing and valley pan.

if you want a single plane intake, contact mark burton or me. either one of us can build you one. other than that, buy a t/a intake and port it.

 

GS Johnny and BKM, thanks for the info. I was looking for the measurements just to see if something would fit and be an easy install. Did you try a Pontiac? What is the price for your single plane intake? I do appreciate your info and it shows that someone else has been down this road. The intake that I am making is for a 300 with 350 heads. I can machine both sides of my spacer to fit these angles, it should not be a problem. The water cross over will come from a used Edelbrock 231 Buick intake since I found out the deck heights are exactly the same and the valley pan will be a bolt on piece for my spacers. I may have to rethink the SBC intake manifold since the ports are longer or cut the intake back. Appreciate all of your info. Thanks

Oh and BTW the 300 buick would be a 90* intake as well, it just has a shorter deck height, the angle would be the same in this case and the intake would be narrower.

 

bbb & pontiac fit in the pocket. forget about port line up. not even close.
didnt know v6 was equal fit to 300. again, have no 300.

have a sbc cut to 90 degree. yuk. 350 might be longer than 300(?), so the sbc could be even further port apart.

other than that, i know nothing.......

 

Did you try a Pontiac?

Pontiac's have the passenger side head forward, backwards from the SBB stuff. if you were going to try that, you'd have to section the Poncho intake down the middle and offset it the opposite direction.

Bore Spacing:
SBB = 4.240"
BBB = 4.750"
Nail = 4.750"
AMC = 4.750"
Cad = 5.000"
SBC = 4.400"
BBC =4.840"
SBF = 4.380
BBF = 4.630"
SBM = 4.460"
BBM = 4.800"
Old = 4.625"
Pon = 4.620"

as you can see, the SBB/v6B/Rover bore spacing doesn't leave a whole lot of options for viable swaps.


350 might be longer than 300(?)

which 350? longer how?

the SBB 340 and 350 are taller deck than the SBB 300, yes. taller than the SBC 350 actually. within 4 tenths of a BBB deck. same bore spacing as the 300 / 215 / v6B though.



bbb & pontiac fit in the pocket.

i have absolutely NO idea what you're getting at here. uzzled::laugh:




forget about port line up. not even close.

BBB has the same port order as the SBB 350, it's just too long due to the ~1/2" extra bore spacing and wider because of the taller deck.

the SBB 350 and BBB have totally different port order than the earlier gen SBB stuff, that's true.

 

I just don't understand why you want to put 350 heads on a 300 block. Not being a purist here, it just seems a lot of expense where you could use it better in other ways. I don't know what a billet cam costs these days but it can't be cheap. And have you checked to see if you'll cut into the intake runners making clearance for the pushrods yet? By the time you've done all the work and bought all the parts, especially considering that the "screamer" you're wanting to build would just about have to have the heads ported as well and it'll very likely take you a year to put it all together, I just have to ask. Wouldn't it make more sense to just destroke a 350 using the 300 crank, or else wait and buy the TA Rover heads for the 300? Or just use the 300/340 heads and port them? Are the 350 heads really that much better than the 300 iron heads to make it worth all that trouble and expense? I guess I just don't really understand the motivation here.

Jim

 

Wouldn't it make more sense to just ... buy the TA Rover heads for the 300?

actually there are aluminum race heads available for the Rover right now. UK and Aussie manufacturers and markets.

i was assuming ( ou: ) Lightning was wanting to go SBB 350 because it was cheaper?

maybe runner size considerations? think i'd still rather go with a 340 head and not have all these problems with the cam and bearings and intake.

why ARE you asking about SBB 350 heads instead of SBB 340 heads, Lightning?

and where did you get these hypothetical power output numbers? did you run the engine specs through a software dyno?

 

I will try and answer all of the questions, so this post maybe long and I will give you as many details as possible.:Smarty:
In 1997 I was stationed in Yokosuka Japan. I absolutely hated it and refused to leave my ship. There was no Drag Racing and I was very negative. :ball: I did have a copy of Desktop Dyno (eventually Dyno 2000) and a computer. I stayed on the ship for 1 year without leaving 1 time. I spent countless hours of my off time that whole year dynoing and building head flow profiles and camshafts for the Dyno sim program. For 1 year I tested every theory that I could possibly find, Volumetric efficiency, port volume vs port velocity, bore vs stroke, single plane vs dual plane.....you get the picture. Not on the dyno, but on paper and computer. The SBB really had no following at this time and there were more parts available. Everyone wanted to run a Big Block saying the SBB was a Boat Anchor. I was given many 350 Buicks in my lifetime and I still have about 20. No one respected it in the High Performance world. On the street in stock form it ran really well since it had tons of torque and was as reliable as sunrise. Hot Rodded....It did not perform as I expected, so I set out to create the perfect SBB . The bore was smaller than the stroke (oversquare) and this is not "ideal" for performance and power. I looked at every possible solution. The 350 cannot be bored larger than 60 over. The 350 has the "BEST" heads for a SBB. Hands down, no comparison. Why do you think it was redesigned in 68 vs leaving the same head design on it. The volumetric efficiency of the cylinder heads was the next thing I looked at. Putting bigger ported heads on the 350 makes it run good, but what if I went the other direction and put a smaller motor under the same ports. The heads flow the same but they are filling a smaller volume. This increases the amount they can refill the cylinder in a given time frame. That is the same as adding larger ported heads to increase the engines volumetric efficiency. The 300 block weighs more cause there is more meat in the block. Itcan accept a larger overbore .100!!! That would only give you a measley3.85" bore. In other words the same bore to stroke ratio as a Pro Stockmotor. Almost as large as the maxed out 350 block. The 300 block cannot accept tons of stroke, like all SBB and the V6, the cam is located close to the crank. So, I figured that the V6 runs really good what about a V8 version of it. :TU:
I have a set of the original ported Gessler 350 heads that I had made in 2001. I had every intention of building a 350 since I had been racing the 350 Buick since before I had a drivers license. But this 308 motor has been eating me alive. The DYNO 2000 program came up with almost 500 hp in every scenario, hyd cam, solid cam, hyd roller cam....it does not matter.:eek2: The damn thing runs good no matter what. The intake runners of the 300 are more suited for performance than the 350. The longer the runners the more torque it will produce. It has to do with the port velocity of any given port. The LS-1 capitolizes on this thought, tall skinney ports. The velocity remains high but the volume is immense. That is why the engine performs well, but the 350 Buick has a tall narrow port in the head as well as the long runner intake manifold. It should build lots of torque, and it does. The 300 allows me to use Rover parts, newer oil pumps, water pumps, machine my block to accept 6 bolt mains. The whole 9 yards. This is exactly what the "Grump" did in Prostock in 1972. He ran a 292 ci SBC cause the heads really flow well for the amount you feed. Plus he got a weight break.

I honestly believe the LS series engine is built off of the 215/300/340/350 design with a little SBC thrown in the mix. To build an aluminum block engine they had to start at the last aluminum block V8 they had before.

There has to be a way, with off the shelf parts to make 500 hp N/A using this design. The SIM program cannot be that far off. Try it yourself!! 3.8" bore 3.4" stroke. A set of 350 SBB heads and any performance cam profile you want. Give it decent compression and a single plane intake manifold.

BTW the 300 cam journals are a small issue. Just machine the journals out to accept 350, 400-455 cam bearings. The lifters should still be in alignment, its a mass production piece, why change something small like that on the block to change the entire casting. It makes no sence. The 340 and 350 blocks should be exactly the same (minus bore size), just the heads, intake and camshaft changed.
I hope I answered any questions and then some.

 

That helps. But here's something that doesn't. The lobe spacing of the 300 and the 350 are not the same. This is from direct measurements we carried out on another thread within the last year. It only makes sense when you realize that the position of the port runners is the cause. I do not remember the exact figures, something like 5/16" off center on the middle lobes. And of course 455 lobes would be nowhere near close. So in all probability using a 350 cam in a 300 block it's going to wipe the center eight lobes, or at least some of them.

That's why I recommended the TA heads instead. Patterned off the TA V6 heads, they should have ports that are better than the 350 iron heads, and at a reasonable cost (verses Willpower or some such at 5 grand) or destroking the 350. You'd have to get creative with rods and pistons, plus the mains aren't right though. All in all, I'd say those heads are the best bet.

Jim

 

The bore was smaller than the stroke (oversquare)

"undersquare" actually, but we know what you mean.




So, I figured that the V6 runs really good what about a V8 version of it. :TU:

that's the direction a bunch of us have been going. :beers2:



The 340 and 350 blocks should be exactly the same (minus bore size), just the heads, intake and camshaft changed.

no, here's the problem.

the 350 has the center exhaust ports siamesed while the earlier SBB's have the center intake ports siamesed.

350 valve order is IE,IE,EI,EI
'Rover' valve order is EI,EI,IE,IE

in order to have room for the center intake runners in the 'Rover style' block, Buick offset the pushrods and cam lobes from the center. the Rover style block does NOT have evenly spaced lobes on the cam. if the 350's lobes are offset, they are offset the opposite direction from the 'Rover style' blocks.

also, the siamesed exhaust layout is prone to a heat spot in the center of the head in all out performance applications.

 

I was aware of the heat spot on the heads, just like the SBC. I was also aware of the valve ordering and the cam journals being a different size. I was unaware of the lifter bores being spaced differently to accommodate this valve spacing. I was under the impression that the lifters and cam lobes we spaced the same between both engines. Like I had stated before, it is a mass production piece and keeping costs down is leaving things the same just making new pieces to fit on it is how that works. With that said....the 340 has to be the same as the 300 block since they used similar heads. That would mean the 340 has the same lifter bore spacing as the 300 and that the 350 is all on its own. Is this a correct statement? If that is the case could'nt I just have a roller TA 300 blank ground with the IE,IE,EI,EI pattern to eliminate both problems? Would the pushrods be at a goofy angle or still relatively verticle to operate the valves? How much of an offset are we talking here....1/2 inch or thousandths of an inch?

 

I'm sorry...Jim posted something similar with more details that could answer a few more questions. I did not see it first. Maybe a 350 head cannot fit a 300 block. I would have to see what happens to the valvetrain once the lifters and pushrods are installed. It sound like 5/16" would be way too much to compensate for and the 350 maybe the only SBB with the "good" heads.

 

the 340 has to be the same as the 300 block since they used similar heads.

except the taller deck, yeah. and TA sells the same cams for use in both the 300 and 340.



it is a mass production piece and keeping costs down

siamesed exhaust manifolds use two fewer bolts ( meaning less assembly time and cost ) to attach them, are simpler to cast and slightly more durable than an all discrete runner manifold.

it's also the same pattern as the BBB and SBC. personally? i think the bean counters got to them.




could'nt I just have a roller TA 300 blank ground with the IE,IE,EI,EI pattern

as i understood it, cam blanks are cast with the lobes "roughed in". could be wrong about that though. call TA or Comp Cams or somebody, it never hurts to ask.




The 350 has the "BEST" heads for a SBB. Hands down, no comparison.

how so? it's still open chamber with no quench area, yes?

i haven't looked at them, but you might really want to consider looking at 4.6L Rover heads. they are quite a bit newer and might have a more advanced design.


for reference, here's a page Gregg keeps linking us too:
http://www.roversd1.nl/sd1web/capacity3.html

 

I understand the Rover heads all have about the same ports. Noticeably smaller than even the '64 alloy 300 heads and considerably smaller than the 300/340 iron heads, but then Dan Jones has gotten flow out of a set of '64 heads that rivals some pretty good SBF units. Might want to do a search.

Otoh, I was just looking at the specs on TA's V6 heads. 275/200 cfm maxed out. That's some pretty huge port flow for a small block, and is there any reason to think that the Rover version will be any different?

Then you're back to intakes. I don't know how much you could do with an aluminum 300 intake but at least it's a starting point. An iron intake might also be a decent starting point. Plus, I know a guy who will make you one if you like...

Oh, and on those pushrods, if you do a search on my name you'll probably find that discussion. We had pretty exact measurements.

Jim