That's an awesome cam for a near stock engine. I put it in a stock 70 engine and ran 14.05. Went to a level 3 and runs 13.77. You won't get 400hp from it but there's no intake manifolds available that will support 400+hp.
That's ok, when y'all are rebuilding your engines for the second or third time, I'll still be cruisin around in my weak ass 14 second, 25+ mpg driver. Heck, I might even want to go out of state with it and visit some friends and family or something, and won't have to worry about it overheating, breaking parts, visiting every gas station I pass, or going deaf. p People say 'why?' I say 'why not?'
Nothing but a dream for now bro. I'm just your resident goofball here on the forums who soaks up info like a sponge so I can sort out what I'm going to do when I do build it. I've pretty much got it all fingered out but my decision making skills of weighing all the pros and cons drives me nuts sometimes. I'm pretty good at research and retaining information, with some pretty good math skills and a good understanding of physics and science. I know a thing or two about Buicks and have owned 3 old ones in the past, and wanted to put one together once I get a few things organised. I'm not too interested in drag racing (though I've done it in the past) and it's cool and all, I'd just rather have a cruiser that I can have fun with and enjoy on a daily basis. Been in the autobody industry for over 24 years now doing mostly collision work, but I enjoy restorations the most. Been around cars all my life with my Dad. Been a passion of mine ever since I could walk. Nothing like the grunt of Buick power. I've had 2 350's, 1 430, and 2 455's and I loved them all. My plans are to roll the dice with the odds in my favor: finding a G body Regal which are still pretty easy to find, with a Buick 350 (also easy to find) basically stock but with a few durability upgrades and a small cam (as was mentioned earlier). I have a few tricks up my sleeve I plan on implementing inside the engine that will enhance its efficiency that mostly involve a die grinder and polishing wheel. :Brow: The jury's still out on the rear end and transmission, but those two will probably be based on what sort of prices and can find things for. I try to offer advice here and there if I believe I have some valuable input, but I have to reign myself in when it comes to becoming too involved. I'm still learning (as I believe we all are in our own way), but still have some knowledge that I enjoy sharing where I see a need. Thanks for your interest!
Hmmm, go turbo and give up the need for a bunch of headporting/roller cam and only need to spin about 5000rpm to get 400+hp....seems like an easy choice to me. http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/hrdp_1206_100hp_bolt_on_addition_the_buick_350hp_turbo_kit/
The Hotrod article was not really very flattering of either turbocharging or the specific kit used. The reality of the testing is that the baseline engine was a 75 low comp version of a Buick 350 with poorly flowing heads, no rebuild, junkyard fresh with unknown miles. With 6 PSI the HP jumped from 175 HP to 350 HP at the flywheel. With ported 68-70 heads, a turbocharger application camshaft, and a few other mods it would be a 300 HP baseline engine and an easy 550+ HP boosted with the bone stock bottom end. In fact the engine from the article makes such a great street engine it gets 20 MPG, stock camshaft, peak HP at 5000 RPM, and tire shredding torque from low RPMs... The owner said it would make a great tow vehicle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ui8jMXTJeOU This is my project: In place of the mock up block will be a roughly 400 HP 8:1 compression forged internal Buick 350.... I expect about 650 HP and TQ on a really low boost setting. An article I wrote about turbocharging here: I was playing around with some numbers the other night and this is what I found: Buick 350#1 low compression, bone stock engine NA made 175 Flywheel HP NA and 350 HP with 6 PSI. This is a gain of 29 HP per PSI of boost. Buick 350#2 low compression, ported heads made made 420 Flywheel HP NA and 630 HP with 6 PSI. This is a gain of 35 HP per PSI of boost. Buick 350#3 made 550 Flywheel HP low compression, ported heads made 550 HP NA and 1021 with 21 PSI of boost. This is a gain of 22 HP per PSI. Judging from the above information I can see 3 things: 1. The small bore, long stroke of the 350 LOVES boost. The HP gain per PSI is far beyond what is seen in most other engine families. 2. Ported heads enhance the gains of boost 3. Over about 14 PSI of boost the gains are less as the engine is getting close to the max flow potential
All in due time, my friend. Everyone here has input to offer regardless of which engine or combination they have, or used to have, or have done research on. You can bet your ass when it does finally happen, there's going to be a thread here about it and a step by step process with pics so I can add more than just words to the contribution on this forum. Until then, we'll all be here sharing stories and suggestions and tidbits of this and that. At least I'm creative enough not to just jump on some bandwagon without doing my own research and thinking on it. Buick is the reason why I didn't want to be like everyone else in the first place, at least at the time when they were practically unheard of a couple decades ago. I enjoy sharing things with you guys here. :beers2: ---------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 PM ---------- Great info Sean, thanks. ---------- Post added at 02:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 PM ---------- Oh, just one more thing...Sean...that 175 hp 350, you sure that was flywheel HP or SAEnet? In which case, it would have been even less gain per PSI, showing how important head porting is even more.
The low comp snogger 75 350 made an actual 175 HP at the flywheel with who knows how many miles on it. This also shows how the 300 HP 74 or 75 smoggier engine that was done in that video by Hot Rod was really pretty good considering how poor the heads are (either ported or not). People kept bashing that build however it had too low of compression, too much cam, and the worst heads. Had they started with a set of 68-70 heads the results would have been much different, especially if they decked the block to get the compression up.... Using 10:1 pistons does not yield 10:1 in most cases.... Closer to 9:1.
Yep. Amazing the difference those heads make. ---------- Post added at 07:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 PM ---------- Makes you wonder though, why do those later heads perform so badly. Everyone knows why the '75-'76 big block heads are garbage, but what about the later model 350 heads? I know they added more material to them to prevent cracking. Are the ports constricted or are they just shaped differently that creates more turbulence or less line of sight flow? And perhaps most importantly, can they be made to flow like the earlier heads with some contouring? The reason I feel this is an issue is because that leaves a lot of heads out there that would be good for nothing more than a boat anchor unless they can be made to flow better. Seems like a waste of potential, if there is indeed any potential for them. Any thoughts on this?
Sorry to the original poster if all this chatter is off topic.... I can delete all this if you want just let me know. I am working on getting a bunch of heads flow tested to determine which year the heads turn from good to bad. I am testing the following heads: 70,72,73, and 75 From what we know so far the 74-80 heads flow badly even with extensive porting and oversized valves. Back when TA was getting involved with helping out Hot Rod Magazine with the 350 build Mike JR from TA asked me which year heads they should use. I suggested the 74-80 heads since they never seem to crack, and many of them already have the oversized exhaust valves. On the other hand the early heads are prone to cracking, are hard to find compared to the later ones, and also more likely to have damage or work already done to them. So TA went ahead and suggested the use of the later heads and even with Mike P from AMP (an experienced Buick 350 head porter) and oversized valves the heads still fell short of what is possible with the early heads are capable of. The reason I am flow testing so many year heads is because then we can suggest the best casting for performance engines.... As of now I can say for sure that the 68-70 heads are going to give the maximum potential. What I need to find out is where between 71 and 74 the heads turn to crap. This will accomplish 2 things. 1. Then we can say for sure which heads are the best for performance and which years are boat anchors. 2. If the 73 heads flow as well as the early heads then we will have one definitive year that is the best. The 73 heads are less prone to cracking due to the extra coolant scallops. If they flow the same as the early heads these will be the heads to use.
I concur, but think about all those later heads that are plentiful and practically 'crack proof'... I wonder what makes them do badly. Runner design? Could this be corrected with some porting, and if so, would allow those later heads to be useful and not a waste. I imagine that IF they could be corrected with porting, that it would require more work, but if it's at least possible, then we'd look elsewhere for boat anchors. I wonder if sonic testing could reveal anything?
Info about how poor the later heads are: This is Mike from AMP... Sure they will work fine for a street car, especially with a mild cam, and they are more reliable than the 68-70 heads.
Sounds like the runners are different or something. Interesting. Just remembered, the Stock '71 heads flow about 190 untouched on the intake side, and 128 exhaust. Something doesn't sound right. The dyno numbers don't lie, SOMETHING is different about them. What's the VE % on earlier heads vs Later ones? ---------- Post added at 12:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 AM ---------- http://www.automachperf.com/350Stage1heads.html Here's some info on what 'appears to be' the later heads. Flow doesn't look too bad.
Soooo, would if you guys were building a 2nd engine that happen to be a 1968 would you have the 68 heads ported when the time comes??
Yes, spend as much money as you can on head porting and oversized valves. No one.... Glad I got all my custom stuff made already.
No one.... Glad I got all my custom stuff made already.[/QUOTE] Thats to bad... Would have been a cool upgrade. How hard is it to get the "physics" right when building the exhaust manifolds for a twin turbo set up?
Everytime someone makes something for our old Buicks they get bashed like h@#! So they stop making what ever it was they made. Sucks
