I have just sonic test 3 BBB blocks, 73,74 and a 76. On all three we had to set the velocity setting on the metter much higher than your typical Chevy or Ford for it to read correct according to the bore size. The norm found in the Chevies and Fords is 1.825 to 1.850, yet the 74 BBB topped off at a 1.980, and the other two around 1.950's. According to the owner of the meter who does only race motors for big time racers including a former Winston Cup driver he said he has never seen an iron block with this kind of numbers before, to regulate the meter for density. At that time I told him about the rumor in Buick having a higher density of nickle and he said "it's possibly true. Nickle being softer and more flexible than iron is possibly why our blocks can stay in one piece for the amount of horse power they make with out breaking like the competition. Especially with the kind of HP mine made on the dyno and as thin as the cylinder walls are, if it would of been a SBC it would of came apart". This is not to say that for sure it has more nickle than others but it definitely has alot differnce in materials between the others. Giving the cylinder walls more flexibility is good in a way but than if the block moves around it looses cylinder pressure and thats not good. I now see how important it is to have hard block poured in the water jackets in this motors for racing applications. fernando
rh455, how does that make any sense at all? If the Olds is cast thicker and weighs more, then how is that you can agree to the theory that an engine cast thinner is more likely to have high nickel content? Maybe I got lost somewhere, if so, please clarify. tlivingd, are those measurements off of the periodic table or is that the weight per mole of substance? By definition atomic mass is the periodic table weight, carbon is 12.01. Iron is 55.(something). The density, however, of Fe is 7.8 g/mL or so, I dont' remember it all that well. However, this is for pure elements, not the case in alloys.
yes the atomic mass is weight per mole. on some periodic tables here is a link http://www.noblemind.com/search.exe?Form=iron&var=2 I, for two reasons put in the weight per cubic inch and ft. it's easiser to think about cubic foot of steel than molar weights. and two it shows there are more than a few types of iron alloys when you see 3 diffrent irons most people already have to understand that the iron is a nickel iron alloy (if indeed it has nickel in it) and for the other thing with thinner webbing. if you have a 2x2 and a 4x4 piece of wood what one is stronger? the 4x4 is. now if you have a 2x2 of steel and a 4x4 of wood what one is? the 2x2. it all depends on strength of the material and the nickel in correct amounts will add strength to iron to make it stronger. the same thing holds true for roll cages. if I use a mild steel (electrical conduit thin wall for example) for the pipe. vs. a steel with chrome and molybdenum (chro-moly) it makes it stronger and you can use a thinner material to get the same strength and in some if not most cases it will get lighter because you dont need to use larger material to get the same strength
Buick also used Aluminium on parts like the brackets, front timing cover, waterpump, and the waterneck on the intake. I think this would account for some weight savings.
Sorry, that's not I meant when asking the first question, of course, on all periodc tables 1 mol gram * ----------------------------------= moles MW(periodic table weight) as per your link yet, did you mean 7.89 as atomic weight? a density is only good if a volume and weight is known. In fact, if someone knows the volume and weight of a bare block, the a general estimate can be made of its composure.
I found a " NICKEL" under the back seat of my 70 Buick GSX Stage 1 when I bought it, so therefore... I would say that in my experience the Buicks, do have more nickel in them!
Ha Ha! this is a interesting topic. Sounds like a big mystery, I can see most of the arguments but how can we find out for sure?
I will put a call in to Denny Manner tomorrow and ask him.. but I am pretty sure The 455 was cast with a high nickle alloy iron. I can tell you that of all the motors of that family (400/430/455) I have had apart, seen apart, or heard of being taken apart..(and that would be thousands), I have never had to, or heard that anyone else had to, use a ridge reamer to get the pistons out. I have taken apart two chevy motors in my life, and both of them had to have the ridges reamed from the top of the cylinder to get the pistons out. So that's some practical input.. I have also never seen exhaust valve recession in a cylinder head, even after being run hard on unleaded fuel. JW
No rocket science here, just the fact that higher nickel content doesn't mean it has to be heavier. It just seems common sense that to make a thinner block as strong as the heavier counterparts, use stronger materials. I have several sets of heads (Buick and Chebby) in the garage. The Buicks range in mileage from 21,000 to 100,000. Not one needs seats. I have a Chevy head that has not been on the road since the 70s, has been rebuilt once. It's been in a piece of equipment since the 80's and the valves are beat so far into the head that I have no choice than to put new seats in. This thing hasn't been over 3000-3500 rpms since the rebuild. It's not a canted valve motor either, it's a 153 4 cylinder w/ 8.0:1. Every Olds motor that had before I switched to Buick needed seats (recommended by machinist). Like Jim W said, I've got 4, 455 blocks in the garage the worst has a ridge so minor, you can barely feel it with a finger nail. I don't proclaim to have the proof, but it just makes sense to me that the Buicks are just as strong (or more dense) as the others but is lighter.
My 71 has hardened seats from the factory....apparently they started doing this somewhere near April of 71? Can someone confirm this?
I agree with Jim, I have rebuilt a 67 400 with 128k on the engine and a 74 with 100k. Neither required a ridge reamer, and neither had any cylinder taper greater then .0005. Now I don't know if it's the nickel content, but there has to be some reason these engines don't chew up bores like Chevies do. o No:
Actually the 472-500 Cad. motors are one of the lightest big v8 blocks there is, its just a little heavier than the 455 BBB's are!
Jim, and everybody else watching this thread, Scotty Guadagno told me the same Exact thing about Buick engines 10 years ago, I believe he also speaks from years of experience with our Buick engines and I know he is another expert in this field [Buicks].:TU: :Smarty:
Model Size Weight(lbs) Notes Buick 455 600-640lbs. (the later may be with accessories) Cadillac 500 750lbs. Chevy 350 535lbs. Chevy 454 685lbs. Olds 350 560lbs. Olds 425 660lbs. (flywheel, exhaust manifolds, cross over pipe, starter, water pump, alternater, carb, 5 quarts oil, distributer, etc.) Olds 455 620lbs. Pontiac 389 650lbs. (a 455 should be the same weight) source: [Classic Olds
well, sure it makes sense, except those counterparts who have made their engines with the heavier stronger products happen to have very heavy engines. There's a limit to the ammount of nickel that can be added, it is used in alloys alongside Fe as a strengther. By itself, nickel isn't that hard, sort of like the relationship between cast and forged pistons: forged pistons can expand because it is just more dense aluminum than cast, forged is also commonly heavyer, although some crazy alloys can be used to make them lighter than cast. This is what makes forged materials easier to weld to as well as softer. Also think of aluminum, not the strongest material, but little Hondas and BMWs have managed to make their vehicles run hundreds of thousands of miles between rebuilds. It can be argued that this can be credited to beter engineering or fuel injection plus overhead cams, but would that cause the pistons to have less wear?
