I guess the wording of the original post was what took this whole thing out of whack. What you really want is support saying the 300, 340, and 350 are good options for the light cars that you guys are building... When my book is done you will have tons of info to give people a reason to want to build a SBB. There are many reasons including the fact that they can be found for next to nothing and lots are around. If you want to help push people toward the Buick engines shoot them my e-mail address and I can help fill them in.
I expect the chevy motor will hold up. From all indications it is a more than worthy successor to the old SBC and with clean gas, injection and synthetic oils we're seeing a quarter million miles out of most modern engines. But I'm guessing that a well built SBB could approach that these days also since the basic components are so similar. The biggest difference makers seem to be the gas and the oil. And that's sort of the point here. With so much common ground in structure, materials and layout, where do the key differences really lie? Is bearing life really that different? Is ring and piston wear different at all? Is there any significant difference between the seals in the new engine and what can be done at minimal cost in the old? Honestly I don't think so. Bushings vs roller bearings... no question roller bearings can be better. So what does it cost to equip the earlier engine with them, or more to the point, does the increased life and lower operating friction justify the cost? Since roller cams allow greater leeway in cam lobe design, does this give better performance within the expected operating envelope? Maybe, maybe not. Does the combustion chamber design intrinsically reduce emissions, increase power, or provide other benefits? Possibly. But without access to detailed testing results we can't really say. All we can do is make assumptions and we all know what assume means. So the actual benefits of the basic engine itself are incremental. They undoubtedly do add up to a measurable difference, but the real difference has to be somewhere else, and the only place left is in the induction and the engine management system. Almost every conceivable intake and runner configuration had been tried long before the new engine began life on the computer screen, so there is really no new news there. The layout and volumes were optimized for the operating envelope being considered but again this is just incremental improvement. It does make a difference though. Vertical runners into the heads gives a very small final push from gravity. Optimized individual runners raise and widen the powerband. Optimized plenum volume increases maximum power output. Compared to a 4bbl engine, this is probably the source of most of the power gains, and by carefully matching the cam profiles it can be even further enhanced. There is still the same old trade off between top end and bottom end but it is a little easier and does make for a better engine. But it's still all about moving air. Could an equivalent intake be designed for the SBB? Yes. The only thing lacking is the near vertical final drop and the added benefit from that (or the difference) is small. If TA really wants to do something with the 350 head that they have in the planning stage they will consider vertical intake ports and a matching EFI manifold. To my mind it would give the engine parity and in several ways superiority. But bear in mind that all of this intake fanciness really only affects things at WOT. The rest of the time we are intentionally restricting the intake system so as long as distribution is equal any one is just as good as any other. If you are a turbo or blower guy, that last drop into the head basically means nothing. How much does the Vortical flow in the combustion chamber mean? Well considering it was designed for lower emissions it probably does mean something there. It may be worth something in terms of scavenging the cylinder. But the SBB chamber design is also pretty good so I don't think that one knocks it out of the park. So what we're really looking at is the advantage at full throttle, and as Steve said, there will always be someone faster. That is the one thing you can count on. But in everyday driving when you are already faster than 99.9% of the cars on the road, (Think about it, that's one in a thousand. Really, it's much worse than that.) who are you racing anyway? If it's someone specific, then may the one with the most money win. The final pieces of course are efi, COP, knock and O2 sensors, egt and a controller to put it all together. All of these are more than possible, they've been done. To our benefit, the turbo V6 boys have been hard at work on these issues for years and they really aren't even half a step behind the general. Over on BritV8 we've seen individual port egt probes tied to adaptive software controlling individual injectors using Megasquirt 3. I'm not absolutely certain COP has been done on a Buick engine but it has on quite a few others and is fairly easy to implement. So I really don't buy into this underdog mentality. Meeting emissions standard with such a setup is not going to be an issue. The cost of building an engine and doing it right is high. In comparison to the labor involved the parts are fairly cheap. If you can do your own work you can build a killer engine for less than you can buy a mundane one. For a little more in component costs you can make it competitive with anything coming out of Detroit or Japan for less than you can buy one of their new or reman engines completely outfitted. Why did GM choose to design a new engine rather than use the Buick V8? Politics, marketing, and money. It had nothing to do with shortcomings of the existing engine because any of those could have easily been changed to the newer designs. Quite simply, there is not even ONE single basic fundamental difference in the engines that could not have been changed to the new specification. Now, just one final shot across the bow to Bammax. I'm sorry and I'll apologize in advance but I just can't resist it. The MGB is not a Volkswagon. To suggest that it is demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge on the subject. Just about the only common element they share would be 4 wheels. I would suggest that before offering ridiculous comparisons you might want to educate yourself as it will cut down on the embarrassment. If you like I can offer you some links. JB
Why is it all these small block threads have all the tizzies in them? I just don't see that in the other threads.
JB, most of us here have never had anything to do with an MG so are not in a position to comment on which engine would be the best to swap in, or which one we would choose which are not necessarily the same thing. I would pick the SBB either the 300 or 340 because to me it would seem & look "right". But if I wanted to think out side the box I might choose an LS or maybe a GM 3.6L v6 or a new Hemi or ???? BTW the LS series is not a Chevy engine but a GM engine, even Caddy uses it. Even though each division used to have there own engines you could still say they were all GM engines and I liked all of them were beter than Ford or Chrysler. The LS engines came out in the /99 trucks (the 96 to 97 trucks had the old sbc with votec heads) and did have iron blocks. I think that the flex fuel engines all have aluminum blocks. The 5.3 definately lacks low end torque, my only complaint with it.
GM didn't upgrade the SBB instead of designing a new engine because it had been out of production for 18 years already. The 3.8 v6 had been improved upon up to the max that it could be for economical mass production and was becoming obselete so there was no point in redesigning the old SBB. It was probably cheaper to use a clean sheet design to incorporate all the improvments necessary to meet the modern requirements of emmissions, economy, performance, durability, etc. The only "political" aspect that I can see is that an auto company always has to bring out new designs, otherwise the buying public will see them as unprogressive with poor engineering skills.
Never said an MG was the same as a VW. Just that they both share the same target demographic. MG is closer to a Triumph or Alfa, all of which I think are cool because they aren't the same old car you see every day.
That's a reasonable opinion, and I was going to let it go at that. But the thing is, it's pretty much the same as saying that all '69 Camaros should have the same inline 6 cylinder engine that the base line model came with. Sure we all know that the SS 396 and Mom's grocery getter were the same car but one was a powder puff and the other was a fire breathing dragon. Same with the MGB (the model with the inline 6 was actually a different car, the MGC), when they finally got around to installing the 215 it transformed the car, and nobody who has ever driven one will ever be able to look at the car the same way again. In fact if the British car industry hadn't been so messed up (sort of like we are now) it would have saved the company. JB
If I were going to put a V8 in an MGB, I would use a Ford 302 with aluminum heads. The combination or narrow dimensions, strong performance capabilities and low cost would be the reason for my choice.
you keep beating us (the Buick faithful) over the head for not jumping to the SBB's defense - while I've never run one and prolly never will, the real beating should go to the aftermarket who have ignored it for so long. Aftermarket heads ? Nope. Single plane intake ? Keep dreaming Can you even get a set of forged replacement pistons anymore ? If my Sporty had an empty engine bay, I'd be putting in a LS derivative. My daily driver 2005 Envoy XUV has a baby LS 5.3 (LH6 to be exact - first of the DoD motors) geared at 3.73 it hauls around the hulking 5600# SUV like it was much lighter and manages to eek out over 20 mpg under 65mph with the A/C cranking - it even does a decent job of towing my 4100# GS plus ?1500# trailer. on 87 octane. ... getting 13-14 mpg. Love'em or hate'em there is no denying that the GM series of LS engines are state of the art for a pushrod motor.
OK, I'm awful sorry for that, just don't know what got into me there. It's a good thing GM is putting those new motors in anything and everything. It's just so good I'm sure it'll overcome all their other troubles and then with the government's help we can all draw big retirement social security checks, and maybe use dollars for wallpaper like I saw up on Kelly's island. Sorta tells ya what a buck is worth these days. Factor that in and we're buying engines for basically nothing. Gotta like that. And the Buick faithful will live on forever. Well why not? It makes more sense than some of what has been on here doesn't it? Man, I guess I'd really better get the old flame suit on now. Why can't I learn to just shut up? JB
This is also the reason why some of the SBB threads get heated! There are only about 20 harcore Buick 350/340/300 people out there and we are fighting an up hill battle to meet our goals. We do silly things like spend 5 times what we should spend on engine builds and continue to repair the engines when/if they mess up... I am not going to stop pushing the 350s, even if I blow up 20 of them... This is why I collect them and keep pushing things to the limit! Lets all have fun with whatever engine we want to run... It does not matter AT ALL to me if people put in a chevy engine, the only sad part is they can not ask engine questions on here any more LOL...:beers2:
You guys think that's sad, you want to know what's Really sad? I'm not even one of the Buick Faithful. There, now I've said it. My secret is out. My first car wasn't a Buick GS, it was a Cutlass Supreme. You know, the '70 model just before they ruined it, when it was at the very pinnacle of its run. Helluva car and I still want one. I'd still have it today if my ex hadn't bent the frame in six places. She didn't last long after that. But we move on. Fact is, I've never even owned a complete Buick. Just pieces. Engine pieces to be exact. I really do like the engines. Specifically, I like the engines because they work so well in MGBs. But don't worry guys, if every MGB on the planet was fitted with a Buick engine there'd still be millions upon millions to spare. But if you can convince me that the LS is a better choice, you might some day be able to get rid of me. You'll probably have to wait until my 340 wears out though. Let's see.... you think 30 more years give or take will do it? JB
Absolutely! I've got both a 472 and a 500 waiting to do something with. My 70 Skylark doesn't have an original engine, so that's going to be up for grabs, engine wise. Current non-Buick options are: 472/500 Caddy, 5.3 or 6.0 LSx, or even a turbo diesel if I could ever find one for a good price. The other engines I already have. I'm not dead set against keeping a Buick engine in there though. I bought it with a later 350 SBB. With the price of gas, a Series II 3800 from a 95-02 F-body and a pair of turbos is looking much more attractive.
I want to megasquirt a displacement on demand 472/500 Caddy using the Caddy 358 4-6-8 setup. There is a Youtube video of someone who's done it on what appears to be a stock engine. I wonder what kind of power and mpg's I could pull from one. A 4 liter 4-cylinder should still pull pretty good.
Well as for me, even though I think the LS is a better engine, I wouldn't even try and guess what a better engine for the MGB is. Lots of factors that go into what the best engine for something like that is and I've never turned a wrench on or even sat in an MGB. I don't know what fits, or what it takes to make one of those little things hook up with any V8 powering it, or what it takes to keep from twisting it into a knot. Pretty much what I know about an MGB is that I can spot one! I would also say that even though I think that they have made huge engineering advancements with the LS. It has potential for huge power and a bottom end that's built to take abuse, none of the cars that I would like to build are anything that I would want it in. I wouldn't put it in an Buick, or in an old hot rod. Better built doesn't make it more appropriate for an application. I can get plenty of power to have a lot of fun in a street car with a small block Buick or a nailhead. As for an old hotrod, a nailhead is enough to make any car from the 20's or 30's scary and it's got the cool factor that the LS will never have. A person doesn't have to know anything about cars to appreciate a nailhead in an open engine bay.
All this talk really has me thinking now. I would love to have an 11-12 second car. I wonder what would be cheaper...to build the 350 that I currently have or to go get an LSx build it and drop it in. I mean I love the fact that my Buick still has the original motor in it...but it takes a lot more work & $$$$ to get it there. So again, for those of you who have experience in this....what would be the cheaper route for me?? To build what I have or buy a junkyard LS?? o No:
Is the rest of your car set up already? Good fuel system, good rear end, good transmission, high stall converter, boxed rear control arms, headers, good ignition, large exhaust system-etc?
None of that. But this isn't anything that I expect to be done by tomorrow...I've got time. I've been driving it daily for the last 2 weeks...but everything on the car could be gone through, rebuilt or replaced.
