While it's nice to see the BBB get some ink in the car rags, sure wish they could get it right.. The pistons in that story are 25 to 25.5 cc... no more that that. Had to chuckle when I saw 32cc.. Compression on that engine is 9.25, with the specs they listed, and the volume the pistons truly are. Love the fact that the writers come here for info in the first place, and then of course you all come back here after reading it, to see if it's really true. I knew this was coming from one of the major car rags, just as soon as the major sponsor (Edelbrock) started making new 455 heads. It was just a matter of time. Look at a dyno test of any ported iron head 455 that I built almost 10 years ago, and reported the dyno test with pictures, and you will see what the non-ported alum heads will make for power. No real new ground being covered here. And imagine that.. an SPX intake is not the hot ticket with a 212 cam and a 9.25 compression ratio.. wow who would have thunk it... :grin: ou: Now, in CC's defense, they are not sheep-dipped into Buicks like we are, and I was happy to see them include parts from one of our vendors in the test. The carb size on that motor is adaquate.. I would not expect to see any more power with a bigger carb, at this HP level. Next month will be a different story. The E heads will be interesting, I have seen the flow numbers out of the box, as well as heard several not too great stories when it comes to them, but I haven't used a set.. I will be interested to see what they find in a head to head comparison. I am sure they will go on and on about the Chevy rockers on the E head, but will they attempt to build a quiet motor is the question. Or will they point out that fact that you don't need anything more than the stamped steel shaft type rocker, for everything but the hottest street motors. And I am afraid what they won't tell you is that the TA SE STG 1 heads really come alive with inexpensive bowl and chamber work. In a way that leaves the E heads in the dust at that point. I have sold probably a couple dozen sets of TA heads now, and every one has had the bowl and chamber upgrade. It takes an alumium head past the point of what an iron head is capable of, regardless of what you do to that iron head with a grinder. That's why your source for complete Buick 455 buildup info has been, and will continue to be, this web site. Because there are a lot of folks on here doing this work, and reporting it.. the knowledge base is so much greater than CC can provide with the time they will invest in this project. But we will see what CC has to say about the heads, but I don't expect them to report stuff they don't know. By the way... the best version of the 750 Holley/SPX/STG 1 head/413 cam/header motor that they tested.. makes the same HP as this engine.. That's one of our board member's cars, that I just finished a stock appearing perf resto on.. and it's not an exotic beast, it's pump gas, all factory iron components, and idles better than a 413 cam will. JW
If anyone is interested. Larry... That's copyrighted material, and we can't post it here. While I agree we have done it in the past, it often has been months if not years or decades old material, that no one is trying to sell magazines with. Please, folks, do not scan and post that article here. JW
Do the said pistons (TA_1621B) come with rings or not?? Because if the don't really the best value in the forged piston line is the Wiseco pro-tru. 575 with pins and rings.
I'll agree that the best source for Buick V8 power building data is found here on this board,that's why I frequent this site and I'm a proud supporter of it.I don't think that any one magazine can offer the support or knowledge contained here,none.On the other hand,how many times have we heard the complaints of no Buick coverage or very little attention from the mainstream rags about our cars?I think that CC deserves at least some props for trying,one of the staffers owns a '67 GS which has been the topic of a few articles during the past year(suspension,hydroboost brakes and the annual "starting a fresh engine")and perhaps others that I can't recall.I remember Douglas Glad's post inquiring in this site a year or more ago looking for some info,again,at least they are trying.Altough mostly considered a Chevy and Ford magazine by many(a lot of people call it Camaro Craft),there will be a lot of people reading this month's issue that have never seen,let alone considered a Buick big block for motivation.Even with the lame compression and tame TA212 cam I bet that a lot of non Buick people will be impressed by the numbers with no exotic parts used. I agree with others that the low SCR is due in anticipation of the use of the AL heads with their smaller chambers.I thought that the Performer vs. B4B statement in the article was going to incite some discussion here either way. Lastly,I hope that the series becomes a good sampling of what's out there for our engines for all to see and maybe get some more healthy discussions going on in here.I'll have to fault the staff at Car Craft for not mentioning V8Buick as one of the sources for the article.:grin:
I need your e-mail address to do that. Can't attach things through the BB. Sorry Jim, I wasn't sure. Makes sense.
Summit sells the Wiseco piston set in question for $649... not sure where your getting that price, but I think it's either an out of date website, or old info... No, that TA 1621B/speed pro piston does not come with rings. Be very careful about shopping for pistons by price. I used a couple sets of those Wiseco's here recently, and they go in at .005 piston to wall. No offset in the pins... The first motor I did with them we put in at the manufacturer's spec.. that was a pretty mild all iron build, in a GS with a mild cam and tight converter. It has an objectionable amount of piston slap when cold. I won't even consider shipping the car.. because of this particular setup, with exhaust manifolds and a fairly quiet exhaust, when it's cold and you gradually accelerate away from a stop, it's really noisy.. sounds for all the world like a rod knock. I called Wiseco and talked to a tech, they are very aware of the problem, and are re-designing the piston some time in the future. On his recommendation, I installed the next set at .004. Trying to give that part an honest go at it... In fact, they are in that motor in the picture. That one is a 4 speed, and because of the tighter clearance as well as the differences that a stick car's engine sees in load, it's livable.. but it will be the only car that goes out of this shop with those pistons. Still too noisy for my tastes. And the time had come for me to build an exclusive piston, to fit the needs of my builds. In a build with headers, and a wilder cam, it wouldn't be so noticeable, but it's certainly there. I will be using the TA 1621B pistons in mild stock rod motors in the future. In all of the level 1A or higher motors I build, I have a new piston being built for me, to use in conjunction with a 6.8" Eagle rod. Correct specs for a drop in installation of this rod, with just offset grinding and widening the rod throws on the crank. Also compression distance, to allow for a zero deck with just a .020 clean up cut on the block. I had this piston built, because I run a zero deck on everything, and was tired of cutting .050 off the deck, even in upgraded rod motors. Plus I could go to a longer rod, reduce the piston and pin weight, and have an offset pin put in that piston, to eliminate the noise issue, even with the good 2618 material. Win win all around. I would suggest that if your not interested in listening to piston slap, that you use either the TA 1621B or if you want to step up to a better ring package, go with the 1611B SRP piston. If you have a wild build with fairly loud exhaust and headers/or don't care about noise, then you can use those Wiseco's. Just so you know.. JW
Another comment on the CC article - they decked the block a piddly .005, ending up with the pistons .045 down in the hole. WHY? If they're going to deck it, then why not deck it right and get the quench distance better than .081? :eek2: ou:
Thanks Jim your help is much appreciated. That price is from flatlander and they are the flat top pistons. I think they are accurate because the price was $549 a while back and it just jumped up.
They said that they were .045 in the hole, and they cut .005 off from there. Why? Because they are doing a dyno test and swapping heads, and like I said above, once you whack over .020 off the deck, you have to cut the intake side of the heads to get the intake manifold to fit correctly. That would be a huge pain and a lot of extra work, if you are going to use a couple different sets of heads. JW
Ya, I see they have the reverse dome Wiseco for $605. Good price, but value has a lot more involved in it than just price. JW
Once again, Jim, thanks for all your input and for all you do for us! Hope to see you in Ohio this summer!! Yards
A different spin ...even though they are a little off the mark I kind of liked to see the effects of component mismatching on a dyno. Jim you are the most knowledgeable guy out there on this stuff and every motor you put together is optimized to its fullest and we all learn from you big time by following your lead. However their article "I think" is kind of cool from a learning standpoint to see mistakes -combo mismatches and the documented lower numbers those motors turn as a result. Sometimes an example of what not to do is just as beneficial as an example of what to do. Good post Hectic and V8BUICK really should have been mentioned in the article !!!!! J
A few things are off base with this article. It says they use an internally balanced flywheel was used and the short block combo is as basic as it can get and duplicate. The only non stock parts are arp rod bolts and the pistons. And the engine uses BONE STOCK oiling and stock gears needed to be cut .010". The article should at least say that the BBB engine is made externally balanced. :idea2: The clearances used for the rod and mains would be good too and say also as it is important. There is no mention of cam bearing mods or the TA bearings. As for the oil pump gears needing to be grinded .010" The stock gasket is around that thickness. Anyway TA sells the proper gasket kit. Depending on the chevy rockers they use on the edobrocks they might bleed alot of oil pressure. My guess is next month they spin a bearing(s) and blame it on the BBB oiling system along with the big mains. That mag should have first hooked up with Finishline or Tri-Shield etc. before doing such a build. For an international publication you would think they would get it right especially with sites like this one. Ray
I thought the same thing regarding bearings and oiling (our achilles heal) ...it will be interesting to see if it holds together and for sure they should have actually talked to the experts first ....J
I respectfully disagree with some of these last few posts. The stock oiling system is a non issue. With a lower performance level engine such as what they're building the rpm won't be at the levels that will stress a properly machined and assembled shortblock that oiling will cause a bearing failure. Its amazing how these bone stock engines in Stage 1's even survived off the showroom floor with that line of thinking. There's way too much made of our oiling systems at least in my opinion. And you need to take the intended application into account. Engines are engines, if the machine work is correct i.e. things that should be perfectly round are round and things that should be perfectly flat are flat, it doesn't take someone only associated with this board to assemble one and have it make good reliable power. They most likely researched the program before they started turning wrenches. Besides they had Mike T. and none other than Bruce Kent to glean information from during the assemblage of the article. And it doesn't get a whole lot better than that. I'd venture to say you give a guy like Jon Kaase a shot at building one of these 455's and he'd build a winner in anyones book. And most likely we'd learn something in the process. We moan and complain when nobody pays the Buicks any attention and then moan and complain when somebody writes an article. And doesn't mention somebody from this board or differs from what they perceive as the ultimate power maker. :spank: The engine so far is just a starting package, not meant for much else but a basic baseline to build from. I remember one of those CC guys came on here and did some inquiring some time ago. I just bought and read the article and sure I can see a few things I would have done differently but lets give the guy a shot and see what comes of it. Then when or if it falls short we can complain and moan some more and not get any coverage in the future. And anyone that knows me can vouch, I really detest second best efforts on anything.
:gp: ....And if this opens the door to some vendors to start mass producing parts for our cars at reasonable prices all the better. I am definitely jealous of Chebby build prices!
I agree with most of what you say Dave, but a simple phone call to either Mike or Bruce would have lead to correct CC number for the piston. So no, they did not do the proper research. That was my whole reason for posting about it. Several folks previously brought up the low compression, and I simply wanted to correct the info. JW
OK, I can see that - just strikes me as short-changing the whole thing a bit (but I'm very likely being WAY too picky) :laugh: . I'm still wondering if their hp/torque numbers aren't high, and if so - why? o No:
