Ah well my apologies everyone. I did it all from memory, and it's usually pretty accurate, but I guess my brain inserted ST300 instead of powerglide. I do know there are two versions of the powerglide and only one of the ST300. I suppose it was the 'heavy duty' or 'big block' powerglide they were using for comparison anyway, which the ST300 shares more in common with. So it's not all that inaccurate afterall. Even if the components differ, the premise is the same if not very similar. One forward clutch pack and a band for low gear, and a clutch pack for reverse. Unless the Powerglide differs vastly from this, the parasitic loss would be very similar, I would think. I know for a fact through personal experience that 'seat of the pants' feel is very noticeable when going from an ST300 to a TH375. This is where I base my statements when shifting from 1-2 on the 3 speed trans. The TH375 did take off faster, but not much. More difference was after shifting into 2nd, and then even more when going into 3rd where the car slowed down vs the ST300. From 20 MPH+ the ST300 was the superior transmission. Good to see there are some here who are familiar with this transmission! I didn't know about drilling a hole to improve shifting. Thanks for that info! Gary
Use one with a lot of torque in front of it and then get back with me. :Brow: True that 18-26 hp wouldn't mean as much on an engine that produced 500+ hp, but for a street driven machine, that's a lot of power lost. People go on about cam swaps, adding headers, etc. and won't get that much power out of those parts, so think again about how much you're losing. Gary Edit: one thing to always keep in mind: the more torque you have, the easier you can use tall gears (transmission and/or rear end). There's a reason why newer cars with higher RPM powerbands and less torque have multiple gears in the transmission, some with more than one overdrive gear, plus the locking converter. There's another transmission that Subaru uses that doesn't even have any 'gears', it uses a variable pulley/chain that alters the size of the 'pulley', thereby changing the ratio of spin. Less torque = more gears and higher numerical rear end ratio. More torque = less gears and lower numerical rear end ratio. This is for street use. You can combine the two and get holeshot drag queens, which is popular of course for racing.
This may be true for the switch pitch converter, but the ST300's I used were '68 models, which were standard single stall converter setups. You can justify anything if you're trying to talk yourself in or out of something, to make sure you believe you're making a right or better/best choice. Truth is, I've mulled over this for years myself and came to the conclusion that everything has pros and cons, and if you can make a choice based on what's best for the combination, whether it be cost wise or time/effort invested, how long it will last, etc. etc. then you can come to a more educated decision and feel better about it that way. Never be afraid to admit you were wrong. Not saying you are here and now, I'm just saying this in general and is applicable to everyone, myself included. Admitting you were wrong is an educational experience, and you can never learn anything if you believe you already have all the answers! Gary
LOL We had a Nova with a 250 6 cyl and a power glide and it would do 65mph in low gear and would go all the way to a buck 15 in high gear. we beat up a lot of V-8's with this in the old days, car was a lot of fun. It had a 2bbl on it too. Just like Gary said, they would shift into 2nd and you could pull away with the glide. They would get pissed when they found out they just got beat by a 6 popper. My old 56 Chevy had a glide in it and you could push start that sucker at about 35mph. How it did that I have no idea but it would work. Just like Gary said if there is not a lot of power under the hood a trans that does not need a lot of power to operate will run faster. I think Speedway Motors has intakes for a 300 motor. I know they sell some specialty stuff. Guess not, thought they did just checked. All in all the little 2 bbl with make some good torque, yank you out of the hole in a hurry. Go to nailheadbuick.com I found some info on firming up the ST300, they also had fixes for the dual 4 bbl Offy intakes that will give you 50 more hp. for the Nailhead.
I have a iron intake if u or anyone needs it. Cost me 200 plus shipping. U can have it for 200 plus shipping I will eat the shipping that I paid. I know that's a lot but had a hard time finding one at the time
I'm not afraid of being wrong and I thought there wasn't many parts the ST300 shared with the powerglide so I admit I was wrong writing that as Tom has pointed out. Even though they don't share very many. And I'm sorry your car didn't have the switch pitch converter in your '68 ST300 because that is the coolest thing about them! I didn't have time earlier to elaborate about the "loss" of HP with a higher stall speed from what I read earlier, the thing I read on a racing forum is where an engine was dyno'ed with a 4,000 stall speed and then again with a 5,500 stall speed and the higher stall speed converter made 250 less HP!! Even though the car went faster in the QM with the higher stall it didn't translate very well on the chassis dyno. Sorry for leaving you hanging on that one but I had to leave earlier. What I am not wrong about is that I don't care for 2 speed transmissions, I don't like them, I don't like them!!! As soon as I KILLED the powerglide in my '65 Impala I opted for a 700R4 because I really wanted a shorter driveshaft for that car, even having the shorter one made the driveshaft shop was still concerned about how long it needed to be! :eek2: Plus I had the 700 laying around so I put it back into service. This whole thread is the guy wants to bolt on parts and get some better get up and go. The best thing for that is better gearing. He didn't say he likes the way it accelerates out of the whole but he wants more higher RPM power. I'm sure he wants quite the opposite, more off the line get up and go. Just bolting on a 4bbl intake and carb will do the opposite of what he wants, it will make that 2 speed highway geared car not be able to get out of its own way even more than with the 2bbl from a dead stop! Of coarse if he likes the ST300 he could just go with a set of 4.11:1 rear gear ratio and eventually install a Gear Vendors unit behind the St300 to drop the 4.11 down to a 3.2058:1 with its .78:1 O/D. But still that would only give him around a 7.3:1 1st gear multiplication ratio(not very much). But with one of the O/D transmissions say the 200R4 the 1st gear multiplication ratio would be a whopping tire shredding 11.2614:1 with the same 4.11:1 rear gear!!! While the 700R4's ratio would be an outrageous tire melting 12.5766:1 with the 4.11 gear!!! In most cases those ratios would be to much, but with a smaller CID lower power engine like the sbb 2bbl 300 the 4.11 combo with one of the O/D transmissions would probably be good to go if he didn't plan on swapping in more cubes or more power, but with the extra gearing a 4bbl and dual ex would help the top end and kill some of the low end to perhaps gain a bit of traction down low. No its not all about drag racing, and that was hilarious by the way Gary!! Drag queen!! LOL!! :laugh: Good one!! You do come up with some classics!! Like the BBB's girdle referred to as a jock strap, that still makes me laugh when I think of that. Anyway I do like the modern gearing even for the street, I do like to be able to pull out into traffic without making the guy I pull out in front of not have to slam on his brakes, it helps keep the carbon cleaned out as well. :Brow: But if you like the ST300 more power to you, its just kind of hard to pull out into traffic from a stop sign on a 20 mph roll. Derek
This is not true based on my experience. I guess your experience with a Powerglide is different than mine with an ST300, because the ST300 will spin the tires, even with a single stall converter...and this was with a B body Lesabre and a 350. On dry pavement. On wet pavement, the tire(s) would spin so easily that if you opened up the Qjet from a dead stop, it would rev up and the speedometer would read 80 MPH, where it would stay until it reached a speed where it could catch up with itself. It shifted out of low gear at 80 with a 2.93 gear at about 5100-5200 RPM. This was factory setting as far as I know. With the 455 traction was an issue below 30 MPH. It would give one hell of a smoke show from a dead stop! lol Similar reaction in my '68 Skylark with the 350-2. I had many people comment on this car's ability to take off with a 2.73 gear, ST300 and 350-2 saying they couldn't believe how well it did. Then I put the TH375 in it and it took off a little better in 1st, but then it was weaker in 2nd and 3rd vs the ST300. Backing out of a driveway and dropping it in a forward gear while still rolling backwards (we've all done this, right?), and the tire lights up, but then spins faster and easier once it gets hot. The 350-2 with the ST300 did this. Nothing weak about this combination at all, takeoff or top end. I've laid down 100+ foot black marks without powerbraking. Imagine what the 455 did. It was insane. I had to baby it up to 30 MPH if I wanted my tires to last, and then opening it up then it would STILL burn rubber, just not as bad. When I did floor the 455 from a dead stop, it would immediately rev up to valve floating RPMs as if the thing was in neutral. Tire smoke so bad you couldn't see anything but smoke in the rear view mirror. Speedometer hanging out at 85 MPH or so, it refused to shift into high gear while doing this. It would continue burning and screaming until you actually reached the speed on the speedometer, then finally shifted. I think the 455 shifted it at higher RPM than the 350, or so it seemed. The black mark was from my driveway UP a hill, down the road just before the hill plateau. This was about about 1/4 mile long (maybe a little less), and it left visible rubber all the way to the top of the hill. This was a 1/4 mile long (approximately--maybe a little less) black mark. Needless to say, tires didn't last long if I did this too many times. The damn thing would lay 'short' (less than 20-30 feet) black marks just using the tiny primaries on the Qjet! (This was the 10:1 455) Talk about a passing gear! Kick in the detent solonoid to pass someone and no 3 speed transmission compares. It feels so much stronger when going from high to low than a 3 speed does going from 3rd to 2nd. I had to be careful when doing this with the 455 though, as the car would get unstable, especially around curves. Then there's the stories of drifting around curves at 50+ MPH... yeah fun times! I'm amazed I'm still alive today with all the crazy **** I've done in my youth. All these engines were 100% bone stock with some tuning tweaks. That's it! The torque multiplication of the ST300 is incredible. I guess maybe that's what makes it different than the Powerglide?.... It didn't feel like you were taking off that fast though...but watch the speedometer and your surroundings and it told a different story. (this is with the 350's; the 455 would push you back in the seat so hard I had to hang on to the steering wheel for dear life--that is when it gained traction) The Lesabre with the 350-4 and ST300 did low 15's @90 MPH in the 1/4 if that tells you anything. And 1/4 mile runs were not its strongsuit. Mid range and top end speed was where the car performed its best. It would take curves better than the Skylark, if you can believe that. I've never driven any car like it before or since. But to say it trips over its junk trying to take off is simply not true at all, at least in my experience. Quite the contrary. The take-off is much smoother, without any sudden jerking like with a lower gear and 3 speed trans. It still spun tires, but did so with style. lol As fun as the 455 was, in retrospect, I would have kept the 350 in it because it handled way better. There's more to a car than raw straight line power. Sorry for the stories. I got a little excited reminiscing. :Brow: My descriptions still do it no justice. It's one of those 'you had to be there' to get the full effect and complete understanding. Gary
Cool story Gary. Yeah, I didn't care for the powerglide in the '65 Impala especially when the sbc 283 was in there, it couldn't even spin the tires on wet pavement or even ice with that setup!! And the car even came with a 3.36:1 rear gear ratio to boot!! A bit of a different story with the 383 in it though, I could tell from the start the powerglide wouldn't last very long with the extra torque. I can't see a ST300 being to much better behind a sbb 300 than a sbc 283 if the 2 cars weighed the same. Being that the '65 Skylark is much lighter than the '65 Impala I'm sure it is similar in off the line performance as the Impala as well because the General would of installed a taller gear in the lighter Skylark. The sbb 300 doesn't make the torque as a sbb 350 so the performance with that trans is probably different than what you experienced with your car I would suspect. The Impala was 18 seconds with the 283 in the QM before electronic ignition and in the mid 17s afterwards and went from 15 1/2 mpg to 17 mpg with that change alone. I would suspect that the Skylark with the sbb 300 2bbl is probably in the low 17s to high 16s in the QM as it is now. With electronic ignition the car could gain a 1/2 second and better gearing could gain even more. After the 383 killed the P/G, with the 700R4 the car not only picked up in 60 ft times from 2.3s to 1.9s it also picked up mph, from 98 with the P/G to 101 with the 700R4 and from 13.8s to 13.2! Went from mild highway driving of 15 mpg to 20 mpg. Oh yeah, the powerglide had the advantage of the 10 bolt rear end with the 3.36:1 rear gear in it to get the 13.8 QM times, shortly after the 700R4 was installed the demise of the of the 10 bolt happened and a 12 bolt got swapped in with only a 3.07:1 rear gear I just installed a posi unit into it to run the faster times with the 383/700R4 combo even with the 3.07:1 rear gear the car is traction limited so aired down to 15 PSI heated drag radials to run those times(same tires on ALL runs with both engines). So yeah, I know about taking off easy with tires that have 35 PSI on the street now with the 700R4, even with the P/G the 383 was traction limited. Although a powerglide with a sbc 283 bolted to it isn't a sbb 300 with a ST300, but my brother's friend the guy that owned the small block '64 Skylark before my brother from whom I bought the car from, drove the car with the St300 and 2bbl sbb 300 told me about how the car was a dog off the line but was a great highway cruiser with that setup.(can't remember what the factory rear gear was, I swapped in a 12 bolt with 3.73:1 gears in the car) And that was with the switch pitch converter operational, he did say that was like an extra gear though. A sbb 2bbl 300 is rated at 210 HP @ 4,400 RPM and 310 ft lbs @ 2,400 RPM while your '68 2bbl 350 was rated @ 230 HP @ the same 4,400 RPM and 350 ft lbs of torque @ the same 2,400 RPM. You of all people know the machining variances of the engines back them, your '68 350 could of been closer to the "blueprint" spec than other engines and combined with power tuning it eked out even more HP from it. That being said you can't just generalize that an engine that can be on the other side of the 'blueprint" spectrum plus 50 CID smaller would perform like what you had just because it has the same trans. Although it could be tweaked to get it closer to where your was its still 50 CID less than yours to compensate for that a gear change would have to be done to around a 3.36:1 to make up for the less torque. Just so you know that I was never putting down your car, I was just trying to help the OP with his car. Have to leave again and help setup a surface grinder, I'll be back much later. Derek
Much of it had to do with the power tuning. When I first got the cars they didn't perform that well, admittedly. Though it is possible to do obviously, not everyone's setup will run that well....and yes, you make a good, valid point: my engines ran pretty strong and could have been that I got 'lucky' on the factory specs variances. I did state earlier that lower torque engines won't do as well with it, so I do realize his 300 CID engine won't be what a 350 could do torque wise. I guess I just got carried away with my own memories. True that a lower gear and a multiple geared trans will net him much better performance with 300 CID (I also mentioned this earlier, less torque does better with this sort of gearing). Lot of money to spend on something that he said he just wanted a bit of a 'pick-me-up' on though. A 4 barrel isn't the way to go though, not with an ST300 and 300 cubes and (probably) a 2 series gear, if he's looking for performance (which he said he was), rather than a 'coolness' factor. That engine no doubt uses the small base Rochester 2g, which sits on 278 CFM. This can be improved greatly by either having that 2g rebuilt for more CFM (around 350 I think you can get them), or an adapter plate and put a large base 2g on it, which have 4 sizes available depending on application and year: 352, 381, 423, and 435 CFM ratings. Again, there are ones out there that have been hogged out/redone with 500 and even 600 CFM, which would be too big. A 352 or 381 would be the largest I'd recommend. Before anyone asks how do you determine which is which, well I'm still on that same quest myself! Very vague descriptions and part numbers galore make this quite challenging, though I have found out some reliable information already. Anyway, larger 2g with a power tune, and a scavenger series "Y" pipe will add noticeable power over the combination he has now, and won't cost him a fortune. His powerband will remain about the same, with more torque down low and mid range, while boosting HP in the mid-upper RPMs. That's as good as it can get without breaking the piggy bank and gutting the car out to put in newer technology. Gary PS- Sounds to me like the Powerglide you used was the 'small block' version. Much weaker than the ST300 or the 'big block' Powerglide. I believe the gear ratios were different between the PG and ST300, so yeah, different transmissions. I like the ST300 obviously, and have always been torn on whether to use another transmission based on the pros and cons. Ah well, good memories, and cool story Derek! I gotta get going too. Peace!
" I can't see a ST300 being to much better behind a sbb 300 than a sbc 283 if the 2 cars weighed the same. " One day I had my Dad's new 67 Buick Special with 300 2bll and ST300. A guy I new had a 67 Chevelle 283 2bll and powerglide that him and his buddy thought was pretty fast and would have no trouble beating me. Well we lined up, took off and by the time I hit 60mph he pulled in behind me! Anyways Derek there was quite a difference between the two. I think what is being lost in the comparisons between the ST300 and other transmissions is the added torque multiplication of the switch pitch stator off the line. And like Gary says passing gear was great!
Well, it isn't "much better" than the Chevelle, I didn't say the same. The Chevy's were typically around 100 lbs or more than its sister Buick counterpart. Plus the sbc 2bbl 283 was only rated for 195 HP @ 4,800 RPM and only 285 ft lbs @ 2,400 RPM whereas the sbb 300 was rated at 210 HP @ 4,400 RPM and 310 ft lbs @ 2,400 RPM. So with 17 more CID and 15 more HP and 25 more ft lbs of torque the Chevelle never had a chance even if it wasn't heavier. This is all with not knowing what the 2 cars were running for rear gear ratios as well or if the guy you were racing choked? You say he pulled in behind you like you were racing on a 2 lane side street or country road so if you were a fender faster and slowly pulling away from him and he was on the on coming traffic side he could of known he was beat and slowed down to get on the right side of the road? Not sure because you didn't specify but that is what I'm reading in between the lines anyway. The story was ok but if you wrote more of the details it would of been better and I wouldn't of had to guess on the details. Gotta love the kill stories when a Buick beats a Chevy though no matter how short! The only reason I own the Impala is that I got such a great deal on it with how solid it is, was thinking of making it Buick powered? :Brow: Derek
Put together a 10:1 350-2 nothing special engine and put an ST300 behind it and some plain jane highway 2 series gears and power tune it. I'm super super tempted to do this myself... then take videos of it in action. lol Hmm... My only drawback is the gas mileage. I have to keep RPMs around 2,000 @55 MPH or so, which a 2.73 with 26" tires will do, approximately. I have to consider interstate driving too, so 70-75 MPH at less than 3,000 RPM is desired, preferably around 2,500. Putting in a 2.41 and it wouldn't shift out of low until around 90 MPH...but it could also go in REVERSE that fast too! lol... another shine runner. Decisions, decisions. As a note of interest, this is where the peak torque sitting flat at 2400-2800 RPM (torque was same number from 2400-2800 @399 ft. lbs., which was a very conservative number because no blueprinting or massaging benefits were taken into consideration), with a wide band from 1800-3800 (over 375 ft. lbs. in this range) would help IMMENSELY. Peak HP showed 277@4500 RPM with a 500 CFM 2g. (as shown in another thread where I posted results for this combination). Could do the entire 1/4 mile run in low gear. Or even in reverse!! :laugh: Gary Edit: seems my memory on this transmission is more vague that previously believed. It seems the reverse gear ratio is in fact 2.76:1 NOT 1.76. I don't know why I was thinking that. Either that or there is conflicting information out there or maybe simply a typo. Oh well.
You're right it was on a 2 lane paved hiway, but no traffic coming so I don't think he let off, but honestly don't know for sure. I have no idea what the rear axle was in either car, would have been standard equip, I imagine; the Buick was for sure. It was almost 50 yrs. ago (back when I was young and foolish) so I don't remember any more details lol. All this being said probably the best bang for the OP would be a power tune on what he has and then swap in some high 3 series gears and a TH2004r.
Yeah that race was a couple months ago wasn't it. :eek2: Not sure what road you were on but I would always be nervous that someone would pull out in the on coming lane or a cop would be hiding somewhere if I did something like that, probably why I only raced that way once. I would have to agree with the statement in bold, the rear gear would be the first change to do, that alone would make a huge difference especially if he got a rear gear knowing a 200R4 would be the next thing to get swapped in, like a 3.73:1 to 4.11:1 would REALLY make a difference. If the OP doesn't care to much about gas mileage and likes the car with the new rear gear in it he can wait to change the trans when(if) it breaks? The gear change would be around the same $$ as buying a rare cast iron sbb 300 intake and a carb to fit it. I like my idea the best if someone has the $$ to do it of installing a sbb 350 crank stroked to 3.990" in the sbb 300 with a heavily ported '64 4bbl aluminum intake and a set of max ported TA Rover heads on a sonic checked block bored out to 4.00" if its thick enough, to make it an 10.8:1 compression 401 CID sbb!!! This way wouldn't care to much what gear was in there or what trans was behind it as long as it could handle the power. Derek
Yea, that was the one and only time I raced that way too, we didn't have a lot of traffic on that road back then but was still a STUPID thing to do! That 401 ci would be really cool!
This is funny, the guy asks about having a little more power and there are pages and pages of arguments about a transmission, and stroking the motor with Nascar rods. he probably does not know what to do at this point he has not been back. I have never seen in my life so many arguments here on what to do with a Buick motor. and of course a Buick motor is going to beat a Chevy, it has no torque! nice to have lots of info but this is just nuts. BTW, what should he do to make the 2g carb give more power. or should he put a 4bbl on it LOL.
just to put a bigger 2 with out porting manifold will do very little, it will help you kill your gas mileage for sure. 4 barrel has to be good for 12-16 hp. buick in 1970 list 260 hp for 2 barrel and 285 for 4 barrel with same valve specs and compression, am sure that was with duel exhaust on the 4 barrel and single on the 2 barrel.
We do tend to get carried away, that's for sure. Hey it's all in the spirit of Buicks, and many of our posts were pertaining to parts or potential upgrades he has or could upgrade to. I wouldn't call it arguing, more like discussion. You know how it is here. Threads get hijacked on a regular basis, not intentionally, but it just ends up that way. If everything was direct and succinct with no sidetracking, it would be kinda boring in here. lol These are just suggestions obviously. He can take it all in and make a more educated decision for himself. Even you couldn't resist earlier on in this thread with your Powerglide story. haha. It's all good. BTW, the bold is a nice example of embellishments we all tend to place on some things to stress a point, even though we're just on page 2. Gary
