v8 regal ?

Discussion in 'V-8 Buick Powered Regals' started by dloyd, Mar 21, 2007.

  1. dloyd

    dloyd Active Member

    anyone know what year regals came with a v8 and what size
    and type engines did the factory use? thanks.
     
  2. Stage1 Jeff

    Stage1 Jeff Guest

    later years (84-87 I think) available was the olds 307 v8, which was a real slug
     
  3. stew'86MCSS396

    stew'86MCSS396 Well-Known Member

    What year Regals are we talking about? For the '78-'87 G-body platform, I've seen Pontiac 265s, Pontiac 301s, Olds 307s and SBC 305s.
     
  4. 71gs3504sp

    71gs3504sp Well-Known Member

    My 87 Buick Regal 'T' had a Olds 307, great running motor, no horsepower but I had a 3:07 posi rear axle!
     
  5. dloyd

    dloyd Active Member

    the 78 to 87 g-bodys. so when i have to order suspension parts for mine.
    i want to get the heavy duty parts especially in the front end.
     
  6. supercrackerbox

    supercrackerbox Well-Known Member

    What kind of "heavy duty" suspension parts are you after? Aside from thicker sway bars on the turbo models and maybe lighter springs on the NA V6 models, I'm pretty sure they all got the same stuff.
     
  7. dloyd

    dloyd Active Member

    front and rear springs, shocks and bushings. this 455 is heavy in the front.
    its riding low and not handling and i have some tire rubbing in the front and
    back. i really need to do something about this. these parts seem to be worn out. iam afraid if i use v6 replacment parts it wont solve the problem.
     
  8. stew'86MCSS396

    stew'86MCSS396 Well-Known Member

    When I still had the 455 Regal, I thought the extra weight dropped the front to the perfect height. The slop was taken care of with the biggest sway bar I could find at the time a Moroso piece. Dunno what your after but keep in mind that a stock Monte SS with F41 suspension, the front springs are rated at 420 lbs-in. Most of the crowd that I hang with say handling wise, the g-body could benefit from a higher rated spring w/ most running the Moog 5660 restored ride height untrimmed. Some guyz have been using the F-body rears w/w/o isolator as one side is not pig tailed so you can trim to your height preference. Check the link...
    http://www.jeffd.50megs.com/moog_spring_page.htm
     
  9. Vern

    Vern Well-Known Member

    I agree with stew on the springs the Moog 5660 is a hugh improvement. Sway bars I love the 36mm hollow front sway bar. It was for the WS6 Trans Am/IROC but is a bolt on for the g-body and last I knew still available from GM cheaper than the pretty painted aftermarket bars. Put that with the thicker rear bar from a Turbo Buick/442/MCSS along with new bushing. (again for TB/442/MCSS) and you have a great rideing great handling car even with a big block up front. Oh yea especially if combined with some decent rims and tires. I use 15x7 up front with 235/60/15 and 15x8 rear with 275/50/15.

    PS Also add aftermarket poly end links and poly sway bar mounts.
     
  10. dloyd

    dloyd Active Member

    thanks guys. thats what iam looking for. iam allready using 235 and 275 by 60
    on the car with the 84 t-type rims. mine was a turbo car so it allready has the
    8.5 turbo rear end and sway bar. so looks like i need the heaver front bar and the moog springs and poly bushings. that will give me a start. thanks
     
  11. lilstg1

    lilstg1 stab it and stuff happens

    i don't know if anybody remembers chris reed on here (stg1rgl) but he had the same problem with his and he got some front springs out of a regal wagon. it seemed to fix the problem. he had the springs out of a 86 gn in it at frist. i don't know if it's true but he told me the difference in the weight in the sadan and the wagon was about the same as the v6 and the 455.
    ~stephen
     
  12. Leviathan

    Leviathan Inmate of the Month

    Sorry, no go.

    The Wagons front springs are the same spring ratio as the sedan. They Wagon is actually about 150 lbs lighter than the stock sedan according to the factory curb weights.

    The rear springs are a touch beefier owing to the increased cargo capacity.
     
  13. double nickel

    double nickel New Member

    Hello everyone,

    New to this board and have a question. I just picked up a 1952 Roadmaster sitting on a 78 Regal chassis, I also have a 73 455 buick and th400 transmission for it. Are there any motor mount that will work with this? Any factory transmission mount or do I have to make one?

    Thanks
     
  14. dloyd

    dloyd Active Member

    no one makes frame pads that will just bolt right in for a 455 in a g-body.
    i used ta perf. frame pads. you have to drill new holes in the frame. they
    won't line up with any of the exsisting holes in the frame. you can buy a trany cross member from summit for a g-body for dual exhaust.
     
  15. RATROASTER

    RATROASTER BPG#1291, GS-CA#2265

    I'm going to go with stock replacements for an 86 Regal w/ 307 and AC. I'm not much of a racer so I think Moogs might be overkill for me.
     
  16. Vern

    Vern Well-Known Member

    Davey, Do what you want but I would consider at least going to the stock GN/442/MCSS springs as they are not stiff. Do stay away from poly bushings in anything other than the end links or sway bars as they would make the ride harsh.
     
  17. Loyd

    Loyd Turbocharger junkie

    Would not go with the stock Regal spring (Moog 5600) with a heavier motor, as the spring rate is pretty winpy

    For Regal front springs -
    Moog # (Spring rate) Application
    5600 - (370 lb./in) - Stock Regal/Monte/Cutlass/GP fronts
    5606 - (420 lb./in.) - GN/Monte SS/442 fronts
    5660 - (670 lb./in.) - IROC/S-10 spec(G-Body stock to 1 inch low)
    5662 - (706 lb./in.) - IROC/S-10 spec(G-Body stock height)
    5664 - (760 lb./in.) = IROC/S-10 spec(G-Body stock to 1 inch high)

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rate . Approx
    . . . . . Spring Wire . . . Load . . . . . . . Load . Free
    Moog#- I.D. - Dia. . . - Height - Load - Height Height
    5600 - 4.080 - 0.672 - 11.000 - 1600 - 346 - 15.616
    5606 - 4.080 - 0.690 - 11.000 - 1530 - 420 - 14.637
    5608 - 4.080 - 0.687 - 11.000 - 1640 - 424 - 14.880 (Thanks Alec)
    5610 - 4.080 - 0.687 - 11.000 - 1750 - 424 - 15.190 (Thanks Alec)
    5658 - 4.085 - 0.690 - 10.750 - 1405 - 579 - 13.176"
    5660 - 4.085 - 0.720 - 10.750 - 1538 - 639 - 13.159
    5662 - 4.085 - 0.740 - 10.750 - 1690 - 706 - 13.149
    5664 - 4.085 - 0.760 - 10.750 - 1863 - 767 - 13.184

    All of these springs use one "square" end and one "tangential" end.
    Spring I.D. = inside diameter of coil
    Wire Dia = wire diameter
    Load Height - spring height with the load from the next column
    Rate Load Height - spring rate at the load height
    Free Height - height of spring out of the car

    http://bbb-carb.com/moog_Coil_Springs.htm

    Table filtered for spring that would fit the Regal

    http://chicagolandbuick.org/pdf/Moog_Front_Regal_Coil_Springs.pdf
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2007
  18. alec296

    alec296 i need another buick

    for 455 go with the 5610s i had them in my regal, sits high like a monte ss
    ride isnt harsh like the camaro springs and will sit higher than stock
    if your running the 307 go for 5608 will sit up slightly over stock
    but if your springs are worn out these springs will bring it up 2 in at least
     
  19. dloyd

    dloyd Active Member

    thanks for the info guys. iam going with the 5660 up front and the stock springs in the rear and a set of kyb shocks.
     

Share This Page