Just got this HotRod in the mail yesterday and I read this "Oddball Engine Buildup" article first, since I saw that they were using a SBB. I have to admit that on one hand the power numbers the guy got out of that engine are impressive. However, I came away feeling like the other guys here who said, "why not just build a 340 (or 350, for that matter)? I mean, the displacemnt ended up being 349, so why not just build a 350 in the first place? It seemed to me that this buildup was like someone taking a 366 c.i. BBC industrial truck engine, boring it to 4.25", putting a 4.00" in. stroke crank, porting the peanut-port heads to Oval Port size, stabbing a big cam in it and topping it with a Victor intake and Holley HP 850 carb. and proclaiming "WE BUILT A 500HP 454 BBC 'TRUCK' MOTOR!". Dude! you could have just built a regular 454! While this article was interesting, I think it points out the need not only to do a proper Buick 350 build, but also that fresh topics for car magazine articles are becoming harder to come by.
My name is Karl and I am a new V8 Buick member, KAM349. I am the owner of the 349 stroker featured in the March issue of Hot Rod. The engine is back in my 1967 Skylark. There is a lot of history behind this build which evolved over a 3 year period. This motor did not start out as a project for a magazine article. After finishing a complete restoration on the car 3 years ago, the motor spun a bearing. I was faced with the problem many of us face with Buicks, which way to go on the motor. At least 6 to 9 months were spent researching the options. Rebuild, 350, 455, Nailhead, Chevy? After much conversation with my engine builder, Dave Nelson (Dyno Dave) of Joe Sherman Racing, we came up with a plan. I wanted to stay with my original block and see what we could get out of it. I think the 300 is a very classic looking motor and I wanted to keep the car as original as possible. The engine evolved from a planned 300 H.P. mild street motor to what you see in Hot Rod. Dave worked on this in his spare time, which is one of the reasons it took as long as it did. The game changed when Marlan Davis showed interest. The engine had to make at least 1 H.P. per cubic inch for Hot Rod to consider doing an article. At this point Dave and Joe Sherman went back to the drawing board and came up with a custom cam, ground to their specs by Comp Cams. Dave also went back to the flow bench and refined the heads even further. The short block was already assembled with the 350 crankshaft and a mild Isky cam in it which was replaced with the Comp cam featuring their latest flat tappet hydraulic lobes. One point I would like to make is that Dave did not use or copy Burton Machines rocker conversion. Dave and I were not aware they existed until Sean Buick 76 sent him a post about them 3 weeks ago. Dave came up with this rocker conversion over 2 years ago when he saw how weak the Buick rockers are and their excessive wear problem. From the start this project was about basic hot rodding, making the most from the least. Money will buy H.P. these days. In the 60s it was not that easy. Thanks for your interest. KAM349
Dang, No good Buick builders ANYWHERE near me!!!!:rant: P.S. Apon further inspection that is a beautiful gold. Might be the color I want. What is it called, and any more pics??????:TU:
Welcome to the "family", Karl. That is a beautiful '67 you have there. That gold color looks like real gold, like the car was sprayed with satin gold dust. As far as your 300 motor, it's good to hear the background info. on it. I'm glad you were able to save the original motor. With that history with the motor, it makes the whole HotRod thing more interesting. As I mentioned in my previous post, it IS impressive what Dave did with your motor. BTW, no offense meant by my comments in that post. It's just that a lot of guys here really want to see a 350 build-up. Cheers! --Chris
Welcome to the "club" Karl. Sharp ride. It all makes sense to me. The article is what it is for more than one reason now. A nice informative how-to on what can be done to less mainstream engines and you've got the engine you wanted. I don't know if I would've done it that way but I can understand why you did it. If you extend the logic that has been mentioned then why build a 215? Then why not a 300? Then why not a 340? Then why not a 350? They are doing the same thing that some 455 guys give the 350 guys when they talk about building up a 350. "Forget that, drop a 455 in it!" The best part is you'll stand out from all those cookie cutter 350 SBB's:laugh: If it all about HP then you may as well give up and drop some sort of Chevy into it because when it comes to all out HP the Buicks will be hard pressed to compete at the top of the heap with them. However up to a point, modification for modification, the Buick powerplant can make a real impression. More importantly what do you have in the driveline backing up that engine? It must have a real nice lope to it at idle.
Hi KAM349, I would like to inquire oh how the engine runs, like what RPM is the idle and is it a liveable to deal with in a daily driver? I have a 300 running a Poston 110A cam and am very pleased although it does idle at 800 rpm and wonder on the comparsion with the cam grind listed in the article. Nolift inquired as well, but what is the drive train? Auto or stick and what rear end ratio are you running and as I am sure we all would like to know what kind of 1/4 mile times if you have had the occasion to take it to the track yet? Thanks and great build,
They probably did not want the Chevy to look weak compared to the Buick 350 for 1970. sorry to disappoint you, dude. pretty much every 'performance' engine that Chevy put out during the high compression / SAE Gross Rating era ( pre-71 ) had at least one variant that exceeded 1hp / ci. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_V8_engine ^be sure to check out the top rated 327 ... it exceeds the top rated SBC 350. you may think that the 10.25:1 compression of the 1970 Stage 1 is impressive but Chevies often exceeded 11:1. Buick was never in any danger of 'embarrassing' Chevy on published HP or CR ratings. While this article was interesting, I think it points out the need not only to do a proper Buick 350 build, but also that fresh topics for car magazine articles are becoming harder to come by. haven't read the full article yet ( just bought the mag tonight ) but they do say right up front that it's a design exercise in 'classic' hot rodding techniques. http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/hrdp_1103_how_to_hot_rod_any_engine/index.html My name is Karl welcome, Karl. it would appear that you have a most fortuitous set of initials. :Brow: However, I came away feeling like the other guys here who said, "why not just build a 340 (or 350, for that matter)? I mean, the displacemnt ended up being 349, so why not just build a 350 in the first place? shorter deck which makes for a more compact package which can fit more places, discrete exhaust runners ( no hot spot between siamesed exh valves ), possibly lighter engine and, as Karl notes, he's keeping it numbers matching. the real question is, "Why not put together a 5L, 4 bolt/cross bolted main Rover block with a 340 crank"? except for numbers matching, that would have all of the benefits of the 300 ... only more so in every area. :moonu: can you imagine if KAM was to slap some of those new TA Rover heads on that 300? :3gears:
one part of the article that i found disconcerting ... they claimed that turning down the crank mains saved them 60 pounds ? how the hell does that work? what is the final assembled weight of this engine supposed to be? http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/hrdp_1103_how_to_hot_rod_any_engine/index.html "Turning down the crank's mains to fit the 300 block results in reduced main-bearing speeds, lighter rods, and about a 60-pound weight savings."
Hi Karl and welcome to the board. First off Im glad to see you and Dave Nelson build the 300. The numbers you achieved are fantastic. I have always been a big fan of the small engine. Dont let some of these guys scare you off you could be a valuable asset to the group. The 350 guys have been hungry for some aftermarket support for some time and can be a little short. I have read the article multiple times and hoping you could provide some details. 1. What ratio were the SBC roller rockers you used? 2. Do you know what the deck height clearance (how far down in the hole was the pistons at TDC)was? I am assuming they were down due to the fact you used the thin steel shim head gaskets. 3. Does the cam provide a nice lope at idle? 4. Did you consider using a small journal chevy rod? I have considered building a similar stroker and thought the chevy rod might provide more options on length at a low cost. 5. Do you know the rod / stroke ratio? Thanks again for joining the group.
I think they meant that by turning down the crank they were able to use a 300 instead of the heavier 340. I'm guessing that's where that weight savings came from.
nice car and good project . congrats . man that car - i had a gold 2 door 67 with skirts and low miles ( no chromes though ) , nice car , 'til the left door and qtr panel lost a fight with a telephone pole . kinda weird seein that pic . del
If there is any weight difference between the 300 and the 340 it is minimal, certainly nothing like 60 lbs UNLESS you used the '64 alloy heads and intake. However, that combination along with the TA heads as Bob mentioned would be a very potent package, if used with a Wilpower intake, and light weight as well, coming in about 80 lbs over the 215 at right around 400 lbs. I totally understand trying every way possible to cut build costs, but the difference between a set of cast pistons and a set of custom forged ones is about $500. For that you get to specify exactly what you want, which allows the use of any rod, any wrist pin, any compression height, any dish, any crown thickness, any ring package, etc. and you get a piston that will hold up to any abuse. For any sort of a performance engine that seems to me a worthwhile investment. So you want long Scat rods? Nascar take-outs are a good choice at a cheap price. Move the pin up and it works. JB
The color of the Skylark is custom mix based on a 1967 Buick Gold Mist code, the original color. Glad you like it, a bit bright for some. The interior is a full Legendary kit. The suspension consists of SSB dropped spindles w/ disc brakes, lowered Eibach Springs, Edelbrock shocks and trailing arms, CPP sway bars and Camaro steering box. The trans is the original 2 speed rebuilt, as is rear end. When I built this car 4 years ago for my shop, KAM Auto Glass & Restoration, it was intended for shows. I did not know the engine would go south and that I would wind up with 390 H.P. under the hood. Good problem. I intended to up grade the trans someday, which will be sooner than later. For now I will see how the 2 speed holds up. I am considering a 700 R4 trans and posi rear end. Dave and I have been busy with customers cars and are just getting the Skylark buttoned up. I will let you know how it runs with the current cam. We have had so much success with this motor that we are planning a next phase to the 349. One point that seems to be over looked is that this is a high Torque motor for the street. It delivers 422 lb of torque @ 3,700, over 400 lb from 3300 to 4900 RPM. This is what I asked of Dave if we built this stroker. I wanted useable street power. Our next project may be something intended for a trailer. Dave will be sending in a post with regards to the engine questions. Thanks for the welcomes and interest. Karl
WHY BUILD A 300, INSTEAD OF A 340 OR 350 Hello, my name is Dave Nelson and I built the 300 stroker motor featured in Hot Rod. I apologize for such a long post, but I am attempting to respond, in part, to a long and somewhat controversial thread about the Hot Rod article. Regarding the issue of why build a 300, why not just build a 340 or 350? In our case, if we would have started out with a 340 or 350 it is unlikely we would have considered stroking a 300. Stroking a 300 with a 340/350 crank started out as an idea ( I did not know for sure it could be done ) and ultimately evolved into a challenge I couldn't resist. But as the project progressed, and I became more familiar with the architecture and linage of the 215/300/340/350, I could see that a 300 stroker combo has some advantages. It has some of the same advantages a 302 based 347 Ford stroker has over a 351 Windsor. It has been shown repeatedly that, with the same combination of parts, the 347 runs quicker and faster than a 351 Windsor. The 347 is one of the most popular Ford combinations and the 351 Windsor is usally stroked to a 408 with a 4 in. stroke. No question, the Buick 350 has a better cylinder head and it's obvious that the Buick engineers knew that the 340 was weak in the head department. But there is no performance advantage to the taller deck or larger main bearings of the 340 or 350. As mention in the Hot Rod article, Buick never adopted slipper-skirt pistons ( developed by Cadillace for their new, trend setting, 1949 331 V-8 ) and this is why Buick engines have very tall decks and extra long connecting rods relative to their stroke. Even though the 300 may be referred to as a low deck block, it actually has a relatively tall deck when compaired to other domestic push rod V-8's of similar displacement. It's about the same height as a 351 Ford Windsor, is a 1/2 in. taller than a SBC and nearly 3/4 in. taller than a 289/302 Ford. The limiting factor for stroking the entire family of Buick small blocks is the center-line distance between the camshaft and the crankshaft. It turns out that ALL of the Buick small blocks are the same from the 215 through the 350 and measure a short 4.335 when, as an example, compaired to SBC @ 4.521. The compression height of the Olds piston is 1.595 as compaired to the very tall Buick@ 1.81 to 1.83, depending on piston used. If you insist on long connecting rods, there is plenty of room to run a 6.0 in. or even a 6.125 rod in a 300 block. With a 6.125 long rod, you would need a piston with approximately a 1.42 compression height. The popular 383 Chevy CH is usually 1.433 with a stock length 5.7 rod and 1.130 with a 6.0 rod. A Ford 347 is 1.09 in. with a 5.4 in. rod and a 408 Windsor ( 4.0 in. stroke) is 1.365 with a 6.125 rod, for comparison. The 340 and 350 have a longer and heavier piston and connecting rod combination than the 300 stroker and reducing the mains from 3.0 in down to 2.5 in. significantly reduces the main bearing speed and friction and also lightens the crank about 4 pounds ( including the weight removed from the counter-weight due to the lighter piston and rod bob weight). The 340/350 push rods are nearly 3/4 of an in. longer than a 300 and when it comes to the valve train, every gram counts. Also, since a cylinder is supported at each end, by the deck at the top and the crankcase at the bottom, it stands to reason that the shorter cylinder of the 300 is stiffer than the extra long cylinder in a 340 or 350. Many engines builders agree that aftermarket blocks ( SBC and SFC as an example) can be worth more than 25 H.P. over an OE block ( in higher h.p. applications) mainly because of the heavier construction and the resulting stiffer and more stable cylinders of the aftermaket block. The lower deck block, lighter connecting rods, crankshaft, and intake manifold, all contribute to a lighter and narrower engine. More to come, Dave
