Once you drive a 401 with a Dynaflow and feel it pull you back into the seat you'll forget all about that very underpowered 300; - leave it to the cars it's more suited to, the A-body stuff. A Dynaflow with the 401 is a great driver, no passing gear, all pull and power, utilizing that famous Buick torque the way it should be; quiet and fast. Step on the gas and let the 401 do it's job. The other thing you haven't considered is the rear-end ratio. That car probably has a 3.08 in it, and it might have a 2.73. The 300 works better with a 3.78 or 4.11. With a 3.08 that thing will have a 0-60 time of about 25 seconds, a Mercedes 190 diesel from the same year will pass it. Forget about keeping up in modern traffic. And it will suck down the gas too; you're moving an awful lot of weight around with an underpowered engine and a transmission that's designed for a big block. You'll be lucky if that rig puts more than 30 hp to the wheels. You throw any more stiffeners into that car all you're doing is adding weight, it's not going to be any safer or hold together in an accident no matter what you do, it's just not designed for collisions like a modern car is. Facts are facts; survivability in full frame cars is a myth, there's a very good reason they're built this way now and why everyone has abandoned the full frame. (except for trucks which are accident rated entirely differently because they're still considered a "commercial vehicle") That wagon already weighs over 4400 lbs; - add 4-500 more pounds in siderails and other doo-dads you're now dealing with over 5000 lbs, - way too much for that pathetic little 300 even if you put variable timing and fuel injection onto it or turbo-ed it. Just because that 300 is high compression doesn't mean it has power. It would be better suited in my 2001 LeSabre with a modern computer management system on it though. At absolute worst with a 401 and Dynaflow back in it you could turn around and sell it for more than enough to buy a late model wagon that is safer for crashing and cheaper to run. Load and modify that 300 to fit and that car is yours forever, no one will want it. Sell the 300 to a guy who needs it for his 'Lark. Yes, it's still your car, and you can do what ever you want. All I ask is please, think this one through before you make a car-altering decision. Just my nickel's worth, for what it's worth.
Exaggerate much? The factory actually installed that sbb 300 in the '64 LaSabres, not much difference from the '63 to '64 model years. That '65 300 is rated @ 250 HP @ 4,800 RPM and 335 ft lbs of torque @ 3,000 RPM which isn't as underpowered as you're describing! With the trans that he has, IIRC is a ST400 which if he gets a st300 converter will have a higher high speed stall for off the line starts combined with the extra, better 1st gear ratio to get moving. Will it be a QM drag queen, I would have to say no but it won't be that bad of a driver either and not nearly as bad as you're describing even with the extra bracing weight that would be under 150 lbs the way I described to do it.. BUT here's the kicker, he has a BBB 430 that is on an engine stand and he has a '65 Skylark so he might decide to install the BBB 430 in the '63 with one of his the ST400 transmissions and the sbb 300 in the '65 Skylark with the other ST400? The '63 with the 430/ST400 combo will be WAY better than a Nailhead/dynaflow combo. The BBB 430 makes even a 425 Nailhead look like a punk in the HP/torque arena. 425 N/H was rated @ 340 HP @ 4,400 RPM and 465 ft lbs @ 2,800 RPM, while the 430 was rated @ 360 HP @ 5,000 RPM and 475 ft lbs @ 3,200 RPM. Now all he needs to do is get over the car having an X-frame and he's home free.
No question, it would make it a lot better. But it would cost a small fortune to modify and install everything, and I was under the impression that keeping costs in check was a consideration. Either way, he's got enough evidence on this topic to make his decisions, the rest is up to him. He's heard from the "for" and the "against" crowds, each with valid points. Let's see what he decides and where he takes it. My apologies to the Skylark crowd, but I always thought the 300 was a bit of a dog. Every dog has it's day though. Just a general question: How many people regularly run their engines up to 5000 RPM? I'm not sure I put much faith in those kind of numbers, if I ran my old Buicks up to that speed they'd threaten to fly apart. But then again, I run pure stock engines with no mods. I guess the one thing I'm not clear on here is just what he's planning to do with this car; - turn it into a hotrod or use it as daily family transportation...I probably missed that somewhere, I guess I do that a lot, ...so just what are you looking to do with the car Ronnie?
I don't disagree with you on crash survivability, but that test between the '59 Chevy and the 2008 Malibu was bogus and proved nothing. Look at the video. There was practically a cloud of rust, metal flakes and assorted junk that came out of the '59. The only valid test would be between a brand-new '59 and a brand-new 2008. Nobody (hopefully) would be dumb enough to conduct that test. I'm sure that the new '59 would still be the loser, but you gotta compare apples with apples. As to X frames - many manufacturers used an X-shaped reinforcement in the center of a perimeter frame for ragtops. Since the convertibles lacked the rigidity provided by a steel roof, they had to stiffen the frame. Typically, when we refer to an X-frame, we are talking about just that - an X-frame with no perimeter component. I think GM was the only major manufacturer to do that. Someone will probably prove me wrong.
Not sure why you think the costs will be so high, he already has the 430 and ST400? The hardest part to install the 430 will be the frame pads so the motor mounts will bolt the engine in the frame. If he decides on using the sbb 300, all he would need is the '64 frame pads, motor mounts, fan shroud, move fuel line to other side, and battery tray from a '64 so its on the other side(which he can more than likely get a repop Impala one that will be for the other side that will fit right in) to install that one and the under hood engine harness from a '64. The BBB 430 can use the N/H shroud for that year, needs fuel line on other side, battery on other side, and '64 under hood engine wire harness, good to go. What small fortune are you talking about? No one said he'll be spinning the engine @ 5,000 RPM regularly that's just where the FACTORY(stock) max HP is rated at, but its there if he wants to, should be able to spin it to 5,500 RPM without hurting the BBB 430. The max torque is rated from the FACTORY @ 3,200 RPM which is only 400 RPM higher than the N/H is rated from the factory at which will be more useful in that car than where the higher RPM HP rating is at to get the weight moving. The sbb 300 engine were "dogs" because of the ST300 transmissions that were bolted to them with highway gears in them more so than being the engine's fault. With more modern gearing the sbb 300 with a 200R4 and a at least 3.42:1 rear gear would make a good combo even in the wagon. Even with the ST400 bolted to the sbb 300 would be better off the line than with the st300 even though the ST400 takes more power to run the gearing makes up for it especially with the dual stall speeds it has. My '77 Grand Prix I had back in the day(mid 80s) had a Pontiac 400 with a TH400 and a 2.73:1 rear gear that I wouldn't really call that car a dog, it didn't break any speed records either but was a decent driver for a 4,000 lb(that was the dry weight that was listed on the title) car. That P400 was only rated @ 150 max HP and only 300 max ft lbs of torque back then too. Even though it was the post '72 HP/torque rating, comparative to the sbb 300 rated @ 100 HP and 35 ft lbs more with the pre '72 rating wouldn't be that far off from the P400 if they were rated the same. The sbb would probably still have around 195 HP and 290 ft lbs of torque if rated with the pre '72 SAE standard. GEARING!(makes a huge difference how a car will drive)
John, I think you're right, GM was the only company to go with a full X frame for the 59 model. From what I've read the whole idea was to reduce weight and lower the profiles of the cars by incorporating some of the structure into the rocker areas. It was GM's first attempt at unit body construction, they were slowly morphing over the body to be more self supporting like the Mopars and the T-Bird were. The problem was wile it tested out OK to the standards of the day, they had made a crucial error in that if the frame suffered an impact on any one of the corners it would shear or weaken the bolts holding the whole works together and then the next time the car got nailed there would be a catastrophic failure. That's what they did with that Malibu test against the 59; they hit it at the right point where the car was the weakest, as the frame failed, the rest of the car folded up as sheet metal is want to do, they hadn't added any cross bracing from the beefed-up side rails so as the front fender rose it folded right up whereas a modern car would break away. A note about the Chevy they used in that test; I read the add before they bought it and wrecked it, it was a nicely restored car, nothing wrong with it. As a result of the bad press (Nader's book) and the resulting uproar, Chevy quietly recalled their cars and made the requisite changes to beef up the frames and make them stand up to corner impacts. When Buick introduced the X-frame into their cars in 1961 they were drastically improved. They had beefed up the lateral stability on them, and they no longer popped apart on corner impacts. It's built like a bridge truss. By 1964 they had a solid car. In 1968 my father was working for an engineering firm that had received a contract from a movie studio to design a car ripper, and the only car they couldn't rip apart was a 1964 Impala, so I'd say GM got it right by then. My point is, the cars from the 60s are death traps compared to late model vehicles, they do what they are designed to do and they hold up well enough. Know it, deal with it, and accept it, that's what they are. There is no way you are going to improve on the crash-worthiness of those cars, that's like comparing apples to oranges. If you're concerned about body twist and the like because of a high torque Buick engine, you have nothing worry about, the frame will hold up to anything you can put into it. You won't be popping windshields out when you nail the gas. Side impact? Nothing will improve on that, absolutely nothing. Add as many stiffeners in you want, it's all the more steel that will fold up if hit. Look and see how nicely ladder or perimeter frames fail, you'd be surprised, they're not any better. Not to mention, most T-bones are above the frame level anyway and those doors have no crash protection at all. The X-frame bodies though have a stronger rocker set up so one might actually be better off in one than a perimeter frame. The only way you are going to improve on that car is to take it completely apart and replace all of the internal structure with a modern roll cage design, and then add side beams to the doors that work into into the roll cage. That's just not possible on those cars.
In post #58 if you read the whole post(wouldn't be fair if you didn't seeing how long most your posts are that I read all of it most of the time) you would of seen that what I wrote had nothing to do with stiffening the frame. It had to do with stiffening the floor pan and rocker panel, that is that much higher than the frame, that when the door is bent in all that it can be bent in, it will start pushing trying to bend the floor pan inward but the tubing in the rail won't let that happen. Either the car will be pushed sideways and or the body to frame bolts will start failing, knocking the car off of the frame keeping more area in the passengers compartment more intact. It should help a bit to a point, but no guaranties. Plus the car has a B-pillar in between the front and back door, also being a 4 door the doors are shorter than a 2 door car so less door to get slammed into the passengers compartment. I agree with you after seeing that video of the floor welding that the '63 car with its perimeter rocker panel makes it look as good if not better than a later perimeter frame car in a T-bone situation. But not sure how much I trust that stamped sheet metal rocker either? Would have to see a side by side comparison of say a '64 vs a '65 T-bone comparison to know for sure? Wonder if there are back in the day crash test data like that with these old cars that may be posted online somewhere?
I would go along with post #61. Obviously the owner can do whatever he wants with his car, but anything other then installing a 401 and Dynaflow will hurt the value of the car. It will also be reinventing the wheel. Although parts for a 55-year-old station wagon don't grow on trees, they do exist; custom fabrication of parts will not be necessary. In the long run the stock driveline will be the fastest and least expensive way to get the car running. Somewhere along the way the Dynaflow got a bad rap. It is ideally suited to a big car with a big torquemonster engine and it has a reputation for reliability. I have said on this forum before, that if I was going to purchase a first-generation Riviera, I would look for a '63 just to get the Dynaflow. Some folks don't know this, but in the early '50s, some Oldsmobiles and Pontiacs got Dynaflows after the Hydramatic factory had a bad fire. I think that one of those cars would be a real find! As to crashworthiness - if that is a big deal to the wagon's owner - I would strongly recommend that he find a newer car; a lot newer. I tell everyone who rides in my Model T for the first time, that it is a deathtrap on wheels. The same is true for most pre-'90s cars.
Sorry for not getting reply in. I just havent had time. I don't even know why i started a thread during the first weeks of my son being born, or cant remember but it must of been a good day when i originally posted it. At work somedays i do 12's, wake up at 440am mon to fri and get home and have so much to do. Work is hard so i cant get any forum time during. But as far as what i want out of this wagon. I want something that will be super reliable, something i can take on far trips with an engine and trans i can get parts for at big house parts stores. I need a big block or a small block that can haul. I want to haul boats, trailers, or even a small camper on it.. it had a tow hitch on it allready. The 300 wont make it in the wagon. Going down 100cubic inches is not what i want to do. I don't want to hit the track but i want the wagon to pull hard. I like the 425 but think when im in need of a part, orileys wont cut it. I like th400's and th350's. A gears vender looks like a good investment on this. I want the 430 for my skylark. It came out of a 65 skykark so i know itll fit. The frame swap really interests me. Like alot. I just need way more info on both frames side by side to continue. The dash will stay but the door panels (i have none) might get upgraded to a newer style and cut to fit. The devaluation of the wagon means nothing to me. I dont really care about those things. I got the wagon, engine and trans for 1,100$. And i dont plan on selling it. If i was into high doller classic resales I would a bought a Chevy. So im going to build it my way and for me. Engines I have in mind are the buick 425, 430 and 455. Im also thinking about putting in a Oldsmobile 425, 455 or 350. With the buick and olds 425's on the top of my list with a th400 with rv gears. And if a 4l80e makes it way into my shade tree shop then shoot. I could see what cost more, a 4l80e swap with computer or the th400 GV unit set up. Just want to say thanks for all the replies and i always keep up on the tread even if i take forever to reply
My 401 with the 400 TH does about 2500 miles a year through the Rockies, 3.08 posi axle helps keep the costs down on fuel, and with that kind of torque it accelerates going uphill and will pull a house across the country if need be. IMHO it's a great powertrain and I love it. I also have the 430 with a 400 TH with a non-posi 3.08, it's much more powerful, but uses more fuel. Either way, if you want long-haul capability there is nothing like a Buick big block and the TH 400, but I wouldn't say no to a Dynaflow. The only thing I don't know is whether the Dynaflow can tow, if you want to drag a trailer all over the country, the TH 400 is probably your better bet. Now there's nothing wrong with an Olds motor, I like them too, but as far as comparisons go, the Buick is lighter and produces more torque. It breathes better than an Olds ever can. The Olds will oil better, but at high RPM they both will starve unless heavily modified. So it's six of one, half dozen of the other.
Those 401/425's are hard to come by cheap I'm finding. One in paticular, a 425 is at 500$ with no valve covers otlr rockers.. I understand the valve covers but why would an engine come with no valve covers? Is he trying to hide something? The last couple of bad engines i got always had one pushrod missing, so i never got that. What were they trying to measure or ect... It's good to hear good mileage from such a big engine.
I'm not sure why it is that my 401 combination does better on gas than the 430 does, because it shouldn't. I have to tear down the carb in the Wildcat, it might have a well plug issue or something, because it just lovers fuel as compared to the Electra. The reason I say it shouldn't is because the BBB is lighter and breathes better than the Nailhead, so there should be less weight and higher efficiency going on. But it isn't. The Electra delivers between 18-21 mpg, and the Wildcat is between 14 and 16. For all I know the reason the Nail is more efficient is because it was all rebuilt whereas the BBB in the Wildcat is all original and has never been pulled apart. But, at $5.50 a gallon I have to be a bit concerned about mileage because over 2000 miles it adds up. It's still cheaper to fly from Edmonton to Victoria than it is to drive it in one of my convertibles. It's also an hour and a half flight as opposed to 13 in the car.
Some of the '64 LeSabres came with sbb 300s in them from the factory, so with the '64 sbb 300 frame pads and motor mounts you could bolt a sbb 350 in there as well if you think that is enough engine for your needs? Should be able to pick up a good running sbb 350 for what you can sell the intake and carb for off of the 1 year only cast iron 4 bbl one on the sbb 300 you have. Make sure the '64 LaSabre sbb 300 frame pads will bolt to your frame first though if you consider this route because even though the '64 LaSabres came with sbb 300s doesn't mean the frame pads will bolt to a '63 frame? I'm saying they might because the '64s came with the sbb 300 and are basically the same frame.
Welcome Wagon Man! I have a couple of opinions about your project. There are lots of choices now with the engine and transmission. Consider the rear end gearing - that component is probably the most difficult to deal with (change), $ or just time spent trying to change could be a deal breaker. It probably has a 3.08 ratio, which is a great highway or overall gear for a torquey engine like a 401 or 430/455. That means a TH400 or ST400 would be great choices. A dynaflo would be a direct bolt in-in fact I have one I would give you one from a 63 Wildcat-but I'm sure it would need to be rebuilt. And it would have to be shipped across the country. I like Derek's observation about the 64 Lesabre motor mounts and frame mounts in combination with a 350 Buick...the ST400 you have already might work with that. On the frame I understand concerns for safety. I've never worried about drum brakes or single master cylinders so it looks like I'm just willing to accept the risk. You will probably need a brake upgrade and that would be much more meaningful to your safety than reinforced side rails. Regards, Ted
Well i did it. Could be the nail in my head, but i went against all opinion/advice. Today i got a olds 425 and a th400. Real good deal. Both said to be rebuilt. The engine looks nice but im going to open it up some to see if its not just a paint job engine. Now the th400 and the converter are freshly rebuilt. You could see the fresh gaskets and all. Im going to unload and put some pictures up
Well, that'll make it step out, one of the last rebuilds I did was a 425 that ended up in a 68 442. Good motors they were...is the TH400 a switchpitch? Should be a good fit for what you want to do with the car; - good score.
A set of 6.800" BBC rods a little altering them and a set of Olds 455 pistons, stroke the crank from 3.9375 to 4.25 and presto changeo you now have a 455! Stroke a 4.250" stroke Olds 455 crank another .300" and use shorter BBC rods for even more cubes! That is if you need to do anything to the Olds engine. There should be an Olds sister car in '64 that came with a 425, so you may be able to source frame pads and motor mounts for your frame from a '64 Olds whatever the sister car was that had the same frame. IIRC the trans cross member I posted a link for was for a TH400 for a '64 X-frame car as well?(if not, its for a powerglide trans?) You'll need the Impala battery tray so you can install the battery on the passengers side and the Nailhead engine harness should be pretty darn close except that the starter is on the opposite side. The '64 fan shroud from the '64 sister car or even the Nailhead one may work? Shouldn't be a difficult swap.
