Richard deserves a lot of credit for digging up, literally in some cases, these engines and doing these tests. It's somewhat anecdotal information since there are so many variables like compression, cam timing, intake manifold design, etc. However, it's good information and I appreciate all the effort. Can you imagine what fun he would have if his budget included rebuilding all these engines to say 1970, high compression specs? He could add the 455 Pontiac, 455 Olds, a 500 Caddy, and many more. The possible combinations are endless. From the torque vs horsepower and rpm question, there are multiple truck motors which he'll never find or maybe have a hoist big enough to put them on the dyno like the 534 Ford, and International 549. At some point, Westech would have to come up with a weight limit for the dyno. And Richard would have to add the variable of rotating assembly inertia vs torque production. No doubt, Richard does a great job, thanks, Richard.
We are actually posting very similar to this soon, 455 Pontiac VS 454 Chevy VS 451 Mopar all very similarly built and all on the same engine dyno. Pretty interesting comparisons, just need to finish editing all the video :)
I love the fact that you not only give results, but also legitimate reasons for the results and also possible ways for improvement . At 71 , my arthritis is literally a pain everywhere , but still a shade tree mechanic at heart .
Which one? The #64 headed 70 455, the HO from 71/72, the 71-74 D port low compression engines, the 75/76 big car 455 with 7:1 and a tiny cam, or the SD from 73/74?
Buick 455 Stage 1, Top of the Heap 455,s Then between the Pontiac 455 and the Olds 455 i don't have much experience with those. Buick Stage 1 "The Hemi Killer" The Only 455 with that name.
@@SweatyFatGuy The SD of course! (If he can find one) The standard block was prone to cracking. My favorite T/A - 1973 white w/ blue stripes and 455 SD on the shaker.
@@jimmy_olds Probably true!. Just want to see the numbers it lays down. We had a 70 Caddy coupe de Ville convertible with a 472 that could roast the tires (yes 12 bolt posi) through 2nd till almost 90. Ask me how I know
Buick guys... remember when the 430 heads on a 455 were the secret sauce? 430 big port high compression 455! (big thanks to Richard for his hardcore testing!)
@Jeff Kopis 20yrs ago I got a low mile Regal to swap a 455 in. Picked up a set of these 430 heads, really did have larger intake port. Got a wrecked 455 Lesabre and pulled the engine. Then got T boned in the Regal. Tried to get another and sold the parts instead. I wonder if anyone has a set to send to Westech :)
78 regal, 455 buick,stage 1 cam with 400 turbo. I had a ball tearing the gears out of the stock rear end. could not keep the tires planted when the four barrel opened up. good times in the late 80s
What else did you have going on with the engine? I picked up a '75 Riviera this summer and am eager to get more power out of it once the snow goes away. Did you do anything else to yours other than the stage 1 cam?
Enjoying the 292 and 455 journey! Not that there’s much left you haven’t dynoed, but playing with motors you haven’t dealt with before sure is fun to see 👍
@@dvjracing5947 The Bentley 6.75 litter Turbo engine damn sure doesn't suck. 813 ftlb of torque at 1800 rpm with over 500 horses at 5000 makes it the monster torque engine ever put in a car. You should see the block and heads, stupid strong with 20 head bolts per head. I wish I had one in my truck.
Scott Brown - Those were ALL modded motors, too. Used to work on a GSX for a friend and it was really quite interesting what did and didn't work with the big Buick. He always used to brag about the factory torque ratings - 510 ft-lb! Quite a bit of torque there. And the Cadillac 500 produced 550ft-lb! Couldn't talk him into swapping a 500 Caddy into his Buick... Never could figure out why!
Yes the 455 Buick Block is light, thin wall casting. But can it take alot of Power ? I'm a big FORD Guy, ran Clevelands for years, about 10 Years Ago swapped a 521 Stroked 460 into my 86 Mustang, Wow insane Low End Torque ! I Love the Clevelands but the Torque of a 429-460 Ford is hard to beat, along with a Very Strong Bottom End, didn't even have to clearance anything for my 4.30" Stroke Scat Crank. 460 Fords have been known to make well over 1000 hp N/A with the Stock Block. Good Heads, Nice Solid Roller, and a Good Forged Rotating Assy. Love my Fords, but the Buick 455 Engines are my Favorite GM Engine. Incredible Torque Monsters. Just wish they had a Beefier Block.
@S Gray there are several guys running 800 to 900 hundred hp 455s,still using factory cast iron blocks, takes work and thinking, but it is being done. Check out a past time episodewith a white Buick Skylark ,had plenty power to run high 8s with a cast iron block. Takes a bit of thinking , but can be done
Back in 1980 I was driving a used 1974 Riviera with the 455. I spun a bearing while trying to get out of a snowbank. A friend with a 454 vet gave me $600 just for the block so he could work it and swap it into his vet. He said the Buick block was 170lbs lighter but was much stronger and could handle 750 lbs of torque and over 600 horsepower. I was happy because I only paid $900 for the Riv because the original owner was tired of putting gas in it during the gas crunch. Scrapping the other 4,600? lbs of metal got me $105. I know all this doesn't really apply to your test, but it brought back memories of that wonderful cruiser.
The big block Cadillac did great in its high compression heyday but they seemed to suffer the most from the low compression era. I’m a firm believer that Pontiac engineers did the best job of making low compression smog era power. Those SD and HO 455s were very impressive considering the constraints.
The only BBC I ever owned was a Gen 6 and it was great. Funny thing. When I bought the 34 foot RV it came in I drove it 120 miles home with no issues. The throttle response was weak but I just assumed that it had stale fuel from sitting for 3 years. The next time I drove it the poor thing stalled a few times and I was lucky to make it back to the storage lot. I checked the fuel pressure and it was zero. After cycling the key about five times it creeped up to 5 pounds. I ordered a new Delco pump for about $40 and the pressure shot up to 54 psi. The old pump still worked (very loudly) but the plastic hose was cracked nearly in two. According to the manuals that thing isn’t supposed to even idle with less than 30 pounds of pressure and mine somehow made 120 miles with 5 psi.
Hi, Rich.... That 2nd Ford 460 is a dog! Having owned a 74 era mill it was a retarded cam factory boat anchor. A buddy, Bill Ptak is our local Ford nut. His street mill runs 9.5 squuze, 70 429 CJ heads, hydraulic roller bumpstik and very unique O'Brien truckers pipes. HE SAYS about 525 horse pressure & around 600 twist. The cam is a comp dual energy. To make horse and/or twist IS not cheap. In his mho, the Ford needs different work than EITHER the GM'S or Mopar. It does, however, reward an astute builder with way over the crowd power. God bless. BRIAN.
Also, in regards to your musings on the 440 cam: Some truck engines have a relatively hot cam installed from the factory. I worked on school buses for a while. The Chevrolet buses had 350s with an Allison behind them. Although all the other brands had more displacement, and were physically larger, the Chevrolets were significantly faster. The little engines would give you the impression that they wanted to tear their selves out of the frame, and just leave the bus behind. My brother slung a rod in his 350 72 MC, and all we had on hand to replace it was an old 283. I did a quickie rebuild on the 283, and put a used cam and lifters out of one of those school bus engines in it. It was really peppy, and he loved it. Said it felt significantly stronger than the old 350.
@Jeff Kopis Not really. It's called frugality. That wasn't the first or last time I've swapped cams around. If you are buying a new cam every time you build an engine, no wonder you're poor...
@Jeff Kopis I still have one of those bus engines here. It blew the head gasket between a couple of cylinders, and the driver kept driving it long enough to cut a gouge in the surface of the block, so they sold it to me for the core price. If I ever get around to pulling it down, I'm going to take the number from that cam, and see if I can find the specifications in a GM parts catalog. They are excellent street cams, if you aren't looking for anything very radical.
This so reminds me of the infamous Round 1 "shootout" of the 1970 GS Stage 1 vs. 1970 Hemi GTX done by Muscle Car Review magazine back in Dec. 1984. The magazine editor Donald Farr put this match-up together with two guys (Lasseter and Badie) who had written letters to the magazine's Editor's Column. Lasseter simply thanked the magazine for giving the Buick its just due in a "50 Fastest" muscle car chart that the magazine had printed from all the old road tests of the day in their Nov. 1984 issue while "Mr. Mopar" Roy Badie was pretty pissed off and thus challenged a Buick GS 455 Stage 1 to a drag race saying that GS's ran "like they were tied to a tree". Farr then contacted both guys for a "run what ya brung" duel at the Gainesville, FL drag strip to see who was right. Neither car was set up only to run the other car. Both cars were basically stock street machines of the day and merely exhibited parity with each other. The 3.42 geared GS blew doors against the 4.10 geared Hemi, and that race has become legend. Mainly because it was just two average guys involved. Lasseter drove the 130 miles to the track from Georgia while Roy Badie trailered 130 miles from Largo, FL. So, speaking of torque, that right there says a lot about Buick torque! Drive it to the track with those 3.42's and still run 12.30's against the Hemi's 13-teens. .
I remember the article. The Buick was the heavier car, short 65 horsepower, and only had 20 more ft lbs of torque. Oh, and highway gears. And it won. I've seen many Stage 1s run in the 13s and 14s. The car was clearly prepped, and the hemi ran lousy that day.
One feature Buick 455 has is that it's a light weight big block. In fact it only weighs 50lbs more that a iron 350SBC and is something like 125lbs lighter than an iron 454. I very successfully raced 455 Skylarks & Regals is circle track hobby stock, factory stock, enduro, and figure-8 classes. Very few big block engines were used in these classes because most were just too front heavy to turn well. Never under any circumstances did anyone ever match the brute power of my Buicks. I still have one of those engines on a rack in my garage today. Aftermarket aluminum intakes are made by T.A. Performance and Edelbrock. I'm not sure what performance improvements they offer but they do save a lot of weight because the Buick intake valley is really huge. In fact a 455 with aluminum intake is probably only 20lbs heavier than a comparable iron head & aluminum intake 350SBC. Also you are correct when you say the stock exhaust manifolds flow well and I think they are usable up to near 500hp.
They are not 50 heavier than a small block Chevy but rather only 25 lb heavier. And you can get 525 horsepower out of them with Steelheads and once you get up to 600 hp you have to use the engine girdle for the bottom end
Aluminum heads and intake make it lighter than a sbc. It is my understanding that the Buick 455 is what the modern LS was based off of. Not sure if that is true or not.
It was light but it was a weak block. It did not have strong mains and the lifter bores do not stand up to the side loads of aggressive roller cams. It was also plagued with a weak oiling system. It was fine when stock but if you want to go max effort Buick you will want an aftermarket block.
The only 460 experience I have had was in my late teens I got a ride in a jet boat running a 460. It was not stock by a long ways, but it was NA. It had a big lumpy cam and a very high rise intake and short headers so common on jet boats. It ran about 90MPH on a very small lake. It clearly had a lot more in it, though it needed more shoe on the pump intake (sucking air at speed). He was using a MSD ignition with soft rev limiting to keep the engine in one piece. My brother and I were actually serving as movable ballast for testing. LoL
It’s interesting to me that the torquiest (rated) GM big block is the one with the shortest stroke (I think the Olds 455 is the longest stroke). Everyone talks about stroker engines making torque, but I would argue that it’s not the stroke, it’s just the cubic inches. In terms of bore/stroke ratio, up to a point I think favoring bore over stroke (oversquare) improves peak dynamic torque. Very loosely speaking, torque is proportional to cylinder pressure x piston surface area x crank lever arm. The catch is that piston surface area is proportional to the square of bore, but crank lever arm is only linearly proportional to stroke. Yes, there are factors of 1/2 floating around in there, plus it’s all very dynamic since cylinder pressure changes over the course of the piston stroke, as does the effective crank lever arm. But there’s a reason so many highly respected “muscle” era v8s tended to be slightly to greatly oversquare- the Chevy 283, 327, 396, 454, Ford 289/302, 427, 429/460, Mopar early Hemis, 273, 340, 383, 426 (Hemi and wedge), 440, Olds 350 (Olds 455 is an exception though), many Pontiacs, and of course the Buick 455. Bore has other nice side effects, like allowing bigger valves without shrouding. The downside is big bores tend to have poor emissions numbers, so a lot of engines have gone back toward square or under square in the last 30 years. Anyway, super interesting comparison even if there’s no way to make it perfectly “fair.” It’s fair enough!
Shaun Barlow I should have specifically said “muscle car engine.” If you open it up to land yachts and trucks, then the TwinSix wins at almost 600 ft.-lb. The 500 is an interesting one, but it has a LESS stroke-biased configuration than the Olds 455. It’s almost perfectly “square” at 4.3 bore by 4.306 stroke, compared to 4.126 bore x 4.25 stroke for the Olds 455. It’ll be nice when Richard gets his 500 on the dyno.
@@stevelacker358 anybody have a "muscle car" motor doing 415 mph at Bonneville on gasoline? Cad company holds the gasoline powered land speed record with the 500s little brother 472. That motor came in a lot of two door cars with big engines aka "muscle car" also without over inflated specs on engine power which was so common among GMs other nameplate's even to this day Chevy crate engines almost never make claimed HP and tq numbers on the dyno
We had a 1970 Buick wagon with a 455 when I was a kid. It was like a freight train. It probably had highway gears in it....if you had a long straight road...LOOK OUT! My older sister routinely ran that thing up to about 110 mph or so.
My parents 1973 455 Pontiac Safari station wagon with clam shell back tail gate. I routinely ran it up to 100. Dad would float the valves for fun. I gaped a lot of kids back in 1980, until the "oil light cam on". Dad replaced the 455 locked up block with a 400. Never the same.
I was out looking for some street Race Action...35 or 40 years ago....i get caught at a light with an Olds Vista Cruiser Wagon...1970 Vintage....Well this wagon just cleaned My Clock...i couldn't stay with him...more than once he busted my Ass...i never forgot that Ass woopen i got that night..Back when power was a Luxury...😆
My parents had a '72 deuce & a quarter. I buried the speedo @120 for 10 miles when I was 15. That was 2 years before the legal driving age here. Thank god I did not kill or hurt anyone. My friends thought it was cool, today I'm still afraid to tell my folks about it. That land barge was large and in charge when the air cleaner lid was flipped.
@@stevecoxiscool ...That was a Beautiful Car..Medium Metalic blue with wood grain...glass panels in the Roof....Fast as Heck...lol I would love to own one today...
When I was in mechanics class about 45 years ago we had a Ford 429 engine (I believe it was a 1969) that had the factory label on the valve cover and it was stamped 460 hp. The engine was for a police interceptor but the only way Ford would donate the engine was if they agreed to never put the engine in a car. We had it on a engine stand and setup so we could start it periodically. I would've loved to have seen that engine in a 67 - 68 Mustang GT.
@@duaneadkins1261 Makes me sick to think what happened to that when the school dropped shop class....or if they actually still have shop class swapped it for a fuel injected 4 cly. OBDII Toyota 1800cc rice grinder.
Several years ago you did a magazine article on building a peanut-port 454 for high torque, and I'm following that pretty closely on my 454 build... thank you for all that you do...!
I found your overall study of this particular comparison very interesting and enlightening. Through all of the engine Master programs they're always focusing on higher RPM horsepower. But you focus on the low RPM torque aspect that I've been wondering about, and getting a little results until now. I mean after all, from a realistic streetable application, this is the information that actually applies to good "Saturday night" Highway Cruisers. Your perspective in this video seems overlooked by the other Dyno guys. Thank you for discussing this. Although there were many variables as you indicated, the time that would be needed to make those engines exactly comparable is unrealistic. I feel your comparison approach is very realistic and fairly well on target. GOOD stuff right here. Dr. Richard- the "outlaw enginemaster"
Buick is definitely the torque monster of its day! Great stuff. Looking forward to turbo, and heads-cam-intake upgrades. Can you get the cam specs for all the stock contenders? It might be very illuminating. Richard Holdener rocks!
Richard, from my own experience: I worked at a tune-up center for a couple of years. It had rudimentary floor dynos that were meant to simulate driving situations. They would provide us with a direct torque number. Although it probably wasn't that accurate overall, it was very effective at measuring the relative difference between vehicles. So what I'm getting around to saying, is that the only cars (out of thousands) that I tested that would literally overpower the dyno, were 460 Ford, and 455 Oldsmobile station wagons... 472/500 Cadillacs, 455 Pontiacs and Buicks were the next closest. 454 Chevrolets weren't even in the ballpark.
Absolutely The 455 Olds makes nearly 525-550 torque, and depending on compression, nearly 430 hp. I have a .030 over 455 Olds in my 79 Trans Am (C heads, bracket master 2 cam, Edelbrock intake and carb).....it’s nasty. I can literally go up the steepest hills without punching the gas.
Man, the stock Buick curve is mated to the application really well. Shifting at 4800 RPM on a TH400, it goes to 2900 RPM. 3200 RPM on a 2-3 shift. Sweet deal. I'd test three cams in that Buick engine.. A 204/210-117, a 228/240-112, and maybe... a 248/254-114. Lift would be around .580", likely less, stopping the pulls at 5200. The 204 cam is an interesting one. I firmly believe that GM pushed the LS into being atkinson cycle at 1400 rpm, and a big block can also do it with an appropriately sized cylinder head.
Good episode. Since I'm an old guy and was fooling around on the street when this stuff was new, I can say that you did not call out a Buick in light(er) body combo. Big 4-door sedan sure, they were tanks and the weight held them back. But in a Skylark, nope. On the street you'd get your butt handed to you. Given tire limitations and unknown traction the Buick could moderate the throttle easily and pull for all it was worth. All the other stuff was screaming, and with RPM comes moderation issues. So the "cool" Buick guy would just run away and hide. And the frenetic smaller V8 guy would be frustrated and disappointed. On a prep'd track with concentration - it's a different thing ... 😁
In regards to the 460's output, I think that's pretty spot on. Our 96 F250's EFI 460 is supposedly 245HP/450TQ. If you factor in headers & no front accessories that seems about right. We use it exclusively for hauling hay, animals & ranch supplies. My opinion is that thing is a turd bucket even with the factory 4:11's.
I bought a 68 Javelin several yrs. ago and one of the owners installed a 1972 Buick 455 in it. It had a Kenny Bell stage 2 cam ,headers and the stock intake manifold that was gasket matched to the stock heads and he was running a Quadrijunk carb and was able to run times at the drag strip of around the 12.50's mark. He tried a Edelbrock intake with a Holly carb and he said it slowed the car down. The car was running a 3.23 geared rear he tried running a lower gear and again it slowed the car down.The guy I bought the car off of tubbed and back halfed the car and installed Nitrious but never used it which was a good thing because the bottom ends in these motors in stock form will turn into a hand grenade.
I know where I can get my hands on a 1970 Buick 455 with a SF code out of a Riviera it has me thinking. I know it was a hoot when I used to pull up to the high test pump in my low compression Javelin and take on gas while my two Nephews were over at the Cam 2 pump taking on high priced race gas with their high compression mopar and Chebby BB powered cars.
A 1995 Ford 460 in a pickup is rated for 370 lbs of torque. Gale Banks run a Ford pick up on a chassis dyno and at the rear wheels I think it was 330 lbs of torque. Which means on your dyno it would produce similar results as the one you ran. Now with that said this is a modified truck only motor. After they quit putting them in cars they extended the cylinder liners added an external weight to balance the motor and added a longer skirt on the pistons for better piston stability under load then mix that with a lazy cam. With that done now you can put them in 5 ton trucks and they last. Ford added an egr bump in the exhaust port and according to the people that ground those out that was worth about 50 hp. Everybody was saying that the pistons on the 440 mopar were set down further in the block. If those pistons were moved up so that they had proper quench it would be interesting to see what it would make. For those that don't understand quench it squeezes fuel which atomises fuel better. The ideal clearance is .050. This is were fuel economy (burn all the fuel) improves and emissions drop.
I’d love to see a carburetor comparison like you mentioned. Not because it will make a difference on a 300hp engine but it would shut up all the people who think it will. I’d also love to see you spend more time on the 460. But I’m a ford guy. Love the channel, love your posts on Facebook, keep being awesome!
Richard, we are all here because of your loyalty to us viewers. You try to make the playing field as level and honest as possible which sometimes can be impossible to obtain, especially as times marches on and OEM parts become rare. I'd say the 440 Mopar definitely has some kind of camshaft in it and your first 460 Ford dyno test of the '68 motor turned out torque and horsepower numbers I'd expect from a fresh 8.5:1 460 and a mild RV cam. The Ford marine camshaft standard package was good for 320 horsepower-330 Hp. That was with standard wet exhaust log manifolds and a camshaft of about 216 degrees of duration for the intake @.050 lift . 436 lift and 224 degrees exhaust duration with .481 lift. The stock passenger car '68 cam was 186 degrees duration @.050 intake advertised 256 , exhaust 200 degrees @.050 lift 270 advertised Intake lift .436 Exhaust lift .487. Remember the '68 had the straight up timing chain and not the retarded 4 degrees at the camshaft and 8 degrees at the crankshaft smogger. As I found out , to determine lift @.050 for a Ford camshaft, simply subtract 70 degrees from the advertised factory duration and you'll be spot on . This only applies to Ford manufactured camshafts. Ford was still selling the Cobra Jet 429 hydraulic cam, the hydraulic police grind which when matched with the SCJ manifold and a 780 Holley put out 365 horsepower with the marine wet log exhaust manifolds. Throw on some 2 inch over the top headers and you're at 400 horsepower with 8.5:1 compression.
I think this is some of the best TH-cam engine content out there right now. Esp when he branches out to other engines. I wanna see the "almost big block" engine comparison. 383 mopar vs 390 fe Ford vs 396! You know the almost 400 cubers
I'd love to see that too. I've always been interested in the 'smaller big blocks'. Seems to me they make for a better package for a lot of street cars that are after a little less weight and more revs than you'd get in the full capacity motors. I wonder if it isn't more cost effective to work up a mildly modded small big block than to go the stroker route on a small block as well.
Now you have opened a can of worms, you'll have to find a 455 Oldsmobile and a 455 Pontiac. I think the 500 Caddy will be the king of them all, but it does have a displacement advantage. Thanks again for your hard work and great videos.
In my opinion the Buick combustion chamber holds a lot of answers. Whether by good design or simple luck, Buick with the '67 and newer engines had a nice, efficient combustion chamber. (Trickle down from the Olds 215 Jetaway? Charles Kettering was pretty sharp afterall.) With the Buicks, you have to build compression out, rather than try and build it in, the chambers are that small. Compared to the other Big Blocks, the Buick simply has a more efficient combustion chamber design. Second; The intake ports for the day were really good. Not necessarily in terms of total volume of flow, but quality of flow. The intake ports aim the flow well into the chambers/cylinders, leading to good swirl & turbulence on the compression stroke. Generally, back-to-back tests of "stock" big blocks, the Buicks always had the edge in low rpm torque production. The 472 and 500 Cadillac motors, those are a whole 'nother story and level of torque production. Love the channel, you are living my dream for me. Keep it up.
The original designers knew the problem with the nail head was the small valves due to the pent roof combustion chambers. The new for 67 400/430 engines didn't suffer for flow with the standard valve ,but it took the bigger bore of the 455 to really take advantage of the heads especially the stage heads with 2.13 intakes
I agree that it's definitely in the heads. The intakes are typical dual planes with a standard length runner. Buick heads are always designed (at least, factory heads) for high velocity.
Richard ... you are correct the 460 Ford 73,74,75, year range had retarded cam timing. It was accomplished by offsetting the key slot in the crank gear. You can replace the crank gear with an early production one or use the one listed for the police interceptor version of the 460. I had a 75 Lincoln town car and applied this modification to the engine and boy what a difference.....
there retarded 4-6 degrees. & have bowl pistons. decent cam, flat tops.. all you need. im sure in the pre 70.s they had 450 hp,ish..plus, they rev higher than a chev.. i have a 351c, with 302c heads, in an 82 bronco, on lpg, it hoots..std cam. the 302c is ausie. there a dog..but, should go,,they dont.. same bore, shorter stroke, probably a flat lobe cam..there gutless. 385 series,,truck engines.. last forever..
454 gen 6 engines are great places to start even in stock form. Good heads, 9.0 to 1 compression, roller cams ( albeit mild) etc. If you think about it, that ol Buick only had 7.8 to 1 compression, the 440 was 8.2 at best, and the Ford was around 8 to 1 as well. Speaking of that 460, they had lousy stock intakes 72-86ish and badly retarded cams. 72-74 they were rated at 202-212 hp. Things went south from there.. So as tested, yours might be about average for the vintage.
Don't forget the 455 Oldsmobile engine. The longest factory stroke of all of the GM 454 455 family....4.25 inches. I'm building one for my wagon. Eddy heads/intake....Holley efi.... Lunati roller cam ......1400 to 5400 rpm. Should be a real tire punisher! Great information as always.....thank you!
Thanks Richard, loved the LS stuff, sincerely do, but great to see a 'the other guy' videos. Note: hopefully at some point you'll get the opportunity to apply similar comparisons to the Pontiac and Olds 455s. Cheers P.S. add me to the T-shirt buy in list
Thanks for posting this, we actually are working a very similar video project comparing Mopar, Pontiac, and Chevy all similarly built motors for muscle toys we are working on 451, 455, and 454 respectively. We DO have Stage 1 455 in our '65 GS here as well... maybe that's worth pulling out and dyno'ing to give you some extra data points!
Viper V10, Ford V10, AMC 401, Caddilac, Rover/Buick SOHC, Rolls Royce, Crossfire GM, Packard, Ford Y Block, Chrysler poly head, Gen 1 Hemi, Gen 2 Hemi, SOHC Ford
@@erandy0240 I've seen Richard get his hands on some newer and vintage high end engines, that are not in the junkyard, and Dyno them. But yes the 427 sohc would be next to impossible to get. Lol.
I love these comparisons. Next time if there is a cam question, just use one of those digital cam tools to confirm. It's a normal practice in the Chevron engine lab to make sure our stock engines are stock (among many, many quality control tests to make sure we are stock for our Techron vs the world tests).
The other question that comes to mind is how much weight? Assuming you can get similar aluminum intakes (?), how much does the total package weigh. My guess is that the Buick might be slightly lighter than some others ... They were exploring thin walled castings earlier than most MFG's.
I’m no knowledgeable person about motors and all. But I was watching a video here on YT of super stock drags featuring cars of 60’s early 70’s. Those 455 Buicks were cleaning up. Fact is I was pretty astonished how dominate Buick after Buick was. I think it was a 68-69 GS Stage 1 that ran a 11.37 @ 114 mph.
I had on Olds that would roast the tires threw all 3 gears getting sideways . It was a 69 delta 98. We painted that car flat hi heat black . I even painted the back glass and windows flat black . LOL we called it the BEAST ! This was one of my first cars. We also put mud grips on the back and went riding out down by the river drinking in it. LOL
I'm sure others will want you to build them all to the best 1970 factory specs available and run the test again, like you did with the legendary small blocks... While that would be cool, it would also be super expensive. For me, I enjoy seeing the comparisons of the ones you have tested, would be neat to see a stock Caddy 500 tossed in the mix too. Gen 6 454 is really a great engine, add some cam timing and boost and it's even better. Cheers Richard!!! Watching from Japan btw...
I owned a 70 grand sport stage 1 convertible 4 speed..had every option avaliable for that car. It won me more money against every one I raced. Best 900 bucks I ever spent. This was in 76.
Kind of wouldn't mind seeing how a 350 Buick does on a dyno. I was always impressed with my mom's 71 Buick Skylark growing up. Ran it hot dozens of times (radiator leaked), towed a uhaul trailer with it like a champ, did an honest 14mpg or so. Eventually the windshield got busted and it sat in the yard until the transmission went out, and the fuel pump went bad. Now it sits in a barn waiting for a potential restoration which will never occur.
Just run flat tops with the 429 dove heads and a late 60's timing gear set. The later timing chain sets had built in retarded cam timing for smog reasons. That's all one needs to roast tires
@@larrynorsworthy8582 if you hold up a late 60's crank sprocket to an early 70's one you'll see the keyway don't line up. The early 70's had 8 degrees retarded cam timing built into the timing set for smog
I had a 1964 Skylark in which I dropped a stock 1970 Buick 350 (the 315 hp version). My brother had a 1965 Skylark in which he dropped a 1 971 Buick 455 (the 315 version) I had 410 ft/lbs of torque, he has 475 ft/lbs. Both cars had stock 2:78 gears. And we both swapped out the Super Turbine 300 trans out for Turbo 350s. So almost identical cars in every way except engines. Each time we raced we were in a dead heat. It was mere inches of difference at the end of each run. (each car came with a Wildcat 355- 300 CID 4bbl engine. The 64 came stock with aluminum heads and intake (carry over from the 215 aluminum engine) and the 65 had the all iron heads and intake.
Need to add that because I was racing Buicks I built a low compression Buick 455 as a truck motor for my Suburban. I ran it for many years but removed it when I could no longer buy leaded regular gas. In hindsight I should have left it in until the valve seats failed. Wow, I still have that motor stored too.
@@Chuffin_ell Do you think the cam grinders have lobes designed especially for various engines? They grind the cams with the same specs as other engines, on blanks that fit those engines. So you go get a 224/228@.050 cam with a 114LSA and put that in everything you will get the same lobes and event timing that fits another engine. It would give you a good idea of how well the engine works with a mild cam like that. 224/228 is kinda rowdy on a 300 inch engine, but mild daily driver on a 455. Now if we put a cam with the same specs as the LT1 350 or DZ 302 in the 455s, the bigger engines would become dogs, because 254@.050 is too freakin much duration and it would kill the bottom end where the big engines make their power. 224 intake duration is real close to a Pontiac 744 RA III cam. So you're kinda not wrong, as it really depends which cam you pick to run in everything. The 351C and 460 Fords would benefit greatly from more cam timing, because Ford went with huge ports and tiny cams, they wanted power with smoothness to limit NVH (noise vibration harshness). The 73 and later GM engines also had tiny cams, until the advent of port EFI, so most of them would pick up a lot too, and a 455 doesn't really care if it has 7:1 to 9:1 compression, its going to grunt like crazy and the cam timing makes more of a difference. Go over 10:1 and the 455 becomes something entirely different, and at 13:1 they are very surprising to the unsuspecting.. and E85 makes that a street compression ratio.. trust me, its fun running 13:1 with heavily ported heads on a 455, and daily driving it.
I love the Buick 455 and they're the best out of the three imo. They're a light casting and have the biggest bore of the three so you have a valvetrain advantage right off the bat.
Nice video I really enjoy watching your videos every day! It’s like a ritual with my dinner!you cover good basics for Drivability down low end torque, torque rules!
Those are pretty typical numbers for a mid-80s Ford 460. the problem with the 460 is the stock camshaft which is retarded from factory and very small. Fun fact with the 460, they love big cams and or boost. Just be sure to include a block girdle and ARP hardware if you plan to go past 700 horsepower.
Love your “Other Guys” work! I seem to remember reading an article years ago that said an early 455GS was the only production engine at that time making 500 ftlbs of torque. Keep up the great work!
Caddys did make 510, but it came in almost 1,000 RPM's later than the Buick, and when you consider they were larger motors, it makes the Buick that much more impressive. Too bad they only made a high compression Buick 455 for one year. ☹
68-70 472 was rated 525 TQ @ 3,000 rpm. Stage 1 Buick 455 was 510 @ 2,800. I assure you the 472 was making more torque at 2,800 than the Buick. The 500 was rated at 550 ft/lbs at 3,000 rpm. Both the 472 and the 500 even the low compression variants will handily spank a Buick 455 in torque production.
Looking at the bore and strokes of the 460 (4.36" x 3.85") and 455 Buick (4.3125" x 3.900") they are pretty close to the same. BBC (4.25" x 4.0") slightly longer stroke and smaller bore. It would be nice to see the 455 pontiac (4.152" x 4.21") and Olds 455 (4.126" x 4.25") in the mix. Pontiac and olds being the "long strokes". Why would the buick be the torque monster compared to the pont or olds with longer strokes? Head flow? if all the engine had heads with the same air flow number then what would happen?
The smogger era 460s had retarded cams from the factory to beat emissions. If you advance cam timing dot to dot, it instantly comes alive. The 460 also suffers from the thermactor humps which constrict the ports. A 68-71 460 is a great contender.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
Richard deserves a lot of credit for digging up, literally in some cases, these engines and doing these tests. It's somewhat anecdotal information since there are so many variables like compression, cam timing, intake manifold design, etc. However, it's good information and I appreciate all the effort. Can you imagine what fun he would have if his budget included rebuilding all these engines to say 1970, high compression specs? He could add the 455 Pontiac, 455 Olds, a 500 Caddy, and many more. The possible combinations are endless. From the torque vs horsepower and rpm question, there are multiple truck motors which he'll never find or maybe have a hoist big enough to put them on the dyno like the 534 Ford, and International 549. At some point, Westech would have to come up with a weight limit for the dyno. And Richard would have to add the variable of rotating assembly inertia vs torque production. No doubt, Richard does a great job, thanks, Richard.
We are actually posting very similar to this soon, 455 Pontiac VS 454 Chevy VS 451 Mopar all very similarly built and all on the same engine dyno. Pretty interesting comparisons, just need to finish editing all the video :)
@@LucoreAuto You now have a new subscriber.
@@mrmiscast thanks! We love new subscribers, hope you find something you like! :)
Subscribed. Cant wait to see the video
Or 472 Cadillac.
You need to add the Olds and the Pontiac 455 Torque numbers into your data ;-)
Yes please Richard!!
i wish the same
Truth!
have not run those yet
@@richardholdener1727 YET 👍
The shootout I want to see is a 455 Buick vs 455 Pontiac vs 455 Olds!
Olds will kill it on the low end.
Olds will just run away off the line. There's no comparison for the GM blocks. It's Olds 455 or stroked 460.
Might want to check out our recent videos, we actually did just that ;)
The Buick has the biggest bore of the three, pontiac has the most square bore to stroke and Oldsmobile has the smallest bore of the three.
Buick was the lightest.
I love the fact that you not only give results, but also legitimate reasons for the results and also possible ways for improvement . At 71 , my arthritis is literally a pain everywhere , but still a shade tree mechanic at heart .
Again, Richard is answering a lot of questions that I wanted the answers to. Thanks.
He’s the best honestly. I’m hooked on his videos and he’s always so positive
Belushi Speed Ball, he also makes you feel like, “Hey, I can do that.” Awesome.
Where does a Poncho 455 fit in that mix?---- And I still want to see the Caddy
I imagine the Caddy is at the machine shop.... and if the machine shops in Cali are like the ones in Ohio, we may see it in 2021! Lol
Which one? The #64 headed 70 455, the HO from 71/72, the 71-74 D port low compression engines, the 75/76 big car 455 with 7:1 and a tiny cam, or the SD from 73/74?
Buick 455 Stage 1, Top of the Heap 455,s Then between the Pontiac 455 and the Olds 455 i don't have much experience with those. Buick Stage 1
"The Hemi Killer" The Only 455 with that name.
@@SweatyFatGuy The SD of course! (If he can find one) The standard block was prone to cracking. My favorite T/A - 1973 white w/ blue stripes and 455 SD on the shaker.
@@jimmy_olds Probably true!. Just want to see the numbers it lays down. We had a 70 Caddy coupe de Ville convertible with a 472 that could roast the tires (yes 12 bolt posi) through 2nd till almost 90. Ask me how I know
Buick guys... remember when the 430 heads on a 455 were the secret sauce? 430 big port high compression 455! (big thanks to Richard for his hardcore testing!)
@Jeff Kopis 20yrs ago I got a low mile Regal to swap a 455 in. Picked up a set of these 430 heads, really did have larger intake port. Got a wrecked 455 Lesabre and pulled the engine. Then got T boned in the Regal. Tried to get another and sold the parts instead. I wonder if anyone has a set to send to Westech :)
@Jeff Kopis Can't agree more!
A nail head on a later 455????
@@douglorimer5985 No, not in this case. Check out the BBB section of the wiki en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buick_V8_engine
@@wtdonovan Wikipedia is not a reliable source as anyone can edit description.
The 72-87 460's run a 8° advanced timing chain running a 68-71 running chain makes a huge difference
72-87's are 4 degrees retarded at the camshaft 8 degrees at the crank. Yep the 68-71 timing chain / gear ⚙️ improves torque dramatically
Finally!! you finally did it for us Buick guys!
78 regal, 455 buick,stage 1 cam with 400 turbo. I had a ball tearing the gears out of the stock rear end. could not keep the tires planted when the four barrel opened up. good times in the late 80s
What else did you have going on with the engine? I picked up a '75 Riviera this summer and am eager to get more power out of it once the snow goes away. Did you do anything else to yours other than the stage 1 cam?
Enjoying the 292 and 455 journey! Not that there’s much left you haven’t dynoed, but playing with motors you haven’t dealt with before sure is fun to see 👍
Viper V10, Rover/Buick SOHC, Bently/Rolls Royce V8, Ford V10, the New Ford Godzilla,
All them motors suck
@@dvjracing5947 The Bentley 6.75 litter Turbo engine damn sure doesn't suck. 813 ftlb of torque at 1800 rpm with over 500 horses at 5000 makes it the monster torque engine ever put in a car. You should see the block and heads, stupid strong with 20 head bolts per head.
I wish I had one in my truck.
new (old) is fun
How about a 401 nailhead.
Thank you for an intelligent discussion and comparison!!!
Buick 455 won the hp big block shoot out about 12 years ago in car craft mag. Ta cylinder heads. Also they are the lightest big block.
Scott Brown - Those were ALL modded motors, too. Used to work on a GSX for a friend and it was really quite interesting what did and didn't work with the big Buick. He always used to brag about the factory torque ratings - 510 ft-lb! Quite a bit of torque there. And the Cadillac 500 produced 550ft-lb! Couldn't talk him into swapping a 500 Caddy into his Buick... Never could figure out why!
Yes the 455 Buick Block is light, thin wall casting. But can it take alot of Power ? I'm a big FORD Guy, ran Clevelands for years, about 10 Years Ago swapped a 521 Stroked 460 into my 86 Mustang, Wow insane Low End Torque ! I Love the Clevelands but the Torque of a 429-460 Ford is hard to beat, along with a Very Strong Bottom End, didn't even have to clearance anything for my 4.30" Stroke Scat Crank. 460 Fords have been known to make well over 1000 hp N/A with the Stock Block. Good Heads, Nice Solid Roller, and a Good Forged Rotating Assy. Love my Fords, but the Buick 455 Engines are my Favorite GM Engine. Incredible Torque Monsters. Just wish they had a Beefier Block.
@@alanhardman2447 because he didn't want to ruin his Buick
@@badass6.0powerstroke10 they aren't bad if you take your time to assemble them right
@S Gray there are several guys running 800 to 900 hundred hp 455s,still using factory cast iron blocks, takes work and thinking, but it is being done. Check out a past time episodewith a white Buick Skylark ,had plenty power to run high 8s with a cast iron block. Takes a bit of thinking , but can be done
Back in 1980 I was driving a used 1974 Riviera with the 455. I spun a bearing while trying to get out of a snowbank. A friend with a 454 vet gave me $600 just for the block so he could work it and swap it into his vet. He said the Buick block was 170lbs lighter but was much stronger and could handle 750 lbs of torque and over 600 horsepower. I was happy because I only paid $900 for the Riv because the original owner was tired of putting gas in it during the gas crunch. Scrapping the other 4,600? lbs of metal got me $105. I know all this doesn't really apply to your test, but it brought back memories of that wonderful cruiser.
Add the Caddy 472/500 in the mix
I will
@@richardholdener1727 Buick 455 is my favorite. I've had 4.
The big block Cadillac did great in its high compression heyday but they seemed to suffer the most from the low compression era. I’m a firm believer that Pontiac engineers did the best job of making low compression smog era power. Those SD and HO 455s were very impressive considering the constraints.
The only BBC I ever owned was a Gen 6 and it was great. Funny thing. When I bought the 34 foot RV it came in I drove it 120 miles home with no issues. The throttle response was weak but I just assumed that it had stale fuel from sitting for 3 years. The next time I drove it the poor thing stalled a few times and I was lucky to make it back to the storage lot. I checked the fuel pressure and it was zero. After cycling the key about five times it creeped up to 5 pounds. I ordered a new Delco pump for about $40 and the pressure shot up to 54 psi. The old pump still worked (very loudly) but the plastic hose was cracked nearly in two. According to the manuals that thing isn’t supposed to even idle with less than 30 pounds of pressure and mine somehow made 120 miles with 5 psi.
Hi, Rich....
That 2nd Ford 460 is a dog!
Having owned a 74 era mill it was a retarded cam factory boat anchor.
A buddy, Bill Ptak is our local Ford nut.
His street mill runs 9.5 squuze, 70 429 CJ heads, hydraulic roller bumpstik and very unique O'Brien truckers pipes.
HE SAYS about 525 horse pressure & around 600 twist.
The cam is a comp dual energy.
To make horse and/or twist IS not cheap.
In his mho, the Ford needs different work than EITHER the GM'S or Mopar.
It does, however, reward an astute builder with way over the crowd power.
God bless.
BRIAN.
Thank you for posting vids that people actually wanna see
So true :)
Also, in regards to your musings on the 440 cam:
Some truck engines have a relatively hot cam installed from the factory.
I worked on school buses for a while. The Chevrolet buses had 350s with an Allison behind them.
Although all the other brands had more displacement, and were physically larger, the Chevrolets were significantly faster. The little engines would give you the impression that they wanted to tear their selves out of the frame, and just leave the bus behind.
My brother slung a rod in his 350 72 MC, and all we had on hand to replace it was an old 283.
I did a quickie rebuild on the 283, and put a used cam and lifters out of one of those school bus engines in it.
It was really peppy, and he loved it. Said it felt significantly stronger than the old 350.
@Jeff Kopis Not really. It's called frugality.
That wasn't the first or last time I've swapped cams around. If you are buying a new cam every time you build an engine, no wonder you're poor...
@Jeff Kopis I still have one of those bus engines here. It blew the head gasket between a couple of cylinders, and the driver kept driving it long enough to cut a gouge in the surface of the block, so they sold it to me for the core price.
If I ever get around to pulling it down, I'm going to take the number from that cam, and see if I can find the specifications in a GM parts catalog.
They are excellent street cams, if you aren't looking for anything very radical.
This so reminds me of the infamous Round 1 "shootout" of the 1970 GS Stage 1 vs. 1970 Hemi GTX done by Muscle Car Review magazine back in Dec. 1984. The magazine editor Donald Farr put this match-up together with two guys (Lasseter and Badie) who had written letters to the magazine's Editor's Column. Lasseter simply thanked the magazine for giving the Buick its just due in a "50 Fastest" muscle car chart that the magazine had printed from all the old road tests of the day in their Nov. 1984 issue while "Mr. Mopar" Roy Badie was pretty pissed off and thus challenged a Buick GS 455 Stage 1 to a drag race saying that GS's ran "like they were tied to a tree". Farr then contacted both guys for a "run what ya brung" duel at the Gainesville, FL drag strip to see who was right. Neither car was set up only to run the other car. Both cars were basically stock street machines of the day and merely exhibited parity with each other.
The 3.42 geared GS blew doors against the 4.10 geared Hemi, and that race has become legend. Mainly because it was just two average guys involved. Lasseter drove the 130 miles to the track from Georgia while Roy Badie trailered 130 miles from Largo, FL. So, speaking of torque, that right there says a lot about Buick torque! Drive it to the track with those 3.42's and still run 12.30's against the Hemi's 13-teens. .
I absolutely LOVED that test!!! I think I still have that magazine. "The sacred cows die the most gruesome deaths!" 🤣👍
So true! It was a CLASSIC for sure. @@glengabruch4664
I remember the article. The Buick was the heavier car, short 65 horsepower, and only had 20 more ft lbs of torque. Oh, and highway gears. And it won. I've seen many Stage 1s run in the 13s and 14s. The car was clearly prepped, and the hemi ran lousy that day.
One feature Buick 455 has is that it's a light weight big block. In fact it only weighs 50lbs more that a iron 350SBC and is something like 125lbs lighter than an iron 454. I very successfully raced 455 Skylarks & Regals is circle track hobby stock, factory stock, enduro, and figure-8 classes. Very few big block engines were used in these classes because most were just too front heavy to turn well. Never under any circumstances did anyone ever match the brute power of my Buicks. I still have one of those engines on a rack in my garage today. Aftermarket aluminum intakes are made by T.A. Performance and Edelbrock. I'm not sure what performance improvements they offer but they do save a lot of weight because the Buick intake valley is really huge. In fact a 455 with aluminum intake is probably only 20lbs heavier than a comparable iron head & aluminum intake 350SBC. Also you are correct when you say the stock exhaust manifolds flow well and I think they are usable up to near 500hp.
They are not 50 heavier than a small block Chevy but rather only 25 lb heavier. And you can get 525 horsepower out of them with Steelheads and once you get up to 600 hp you have to use the engine girdle for the bottom end
This video is perfect for me, I have a gen 6 454 in my C10 project and a 1975 Buick 455 for a '64 Skylark project, thanks!
The Buick was also relativily light, only a few pound heavier than a smallblock Chevy
Halldór Ragnarsson right around 25lbs. Big block power. Small block weight
I thought that was the oldsmobile but I could be wrong. Memory is a bit rusty.
Aluminum heads and intake make it lighter than a sbc. It is my understanding that the Buick 455 is what the modern LS was based off of. Not sure if that is true or not.
It was light but it was a weak block. It did not have strong mains and the lifter bores do not stand up to the side loads of aggressive roller cams. It was also plagued with a weak oiling system. It was fine when stock but if you want to go max effort Buick you will want an aftermarket block.
Geoff Moore yeah, ok negative Nancy,
The only 460 experience I have had was in my late teens I got a ride in a jet boat running a 460. It was not stock by a long ways, but it was NA. It had a big lumpy cam and a very high rise intake and short headers so common on jet boats. It ran about 90MPH on a very small lake. It clearly had a lot more in it, though it needed more shoe on the pump intake (sucking air at speed). He was using a MSD ignition with soft rev limiting to keep the engine in one piece. My brother and I were actually serving as movable ballast for testing. LoL
I’ve always felt like the Buick and Pontiac 455 are twin brothers not identical twins but twins
excellent video! I can appreciate all your hard work that goes into these videos.
Have a great weekend!
fresh upload... Sleep will have to take a break. 🤣
I had a 460 in an old Ford pickup. It was rated at 230hp 390tq. I think it was actually 200hp 400+tq. Slow, but strong.
It’s interesting to me that the torquiest (rated) GM big block is the one with the shortest stroke (I think the Olds 455 is the longest stroke). Everyone talks about stroker engines making torque, but I would argue that it’s not the stroke, it’s just the cubic inches. In terms of bore/stroke ratio, up to a point I think favoring bore over stroke (oversquare) improves peak dynamic torque. Very loosely speaking, torque is proportional to cylinder pressure x piston surface area x crank lever arm. The catch is that piston surface area is proportional to the square of bore, but crank lever arm is only linearly proportional to stroke. Yes, there are factors of 1/2 floating around in there, plus it’s all very dynamic since cylinder pressure changes over the course of the piston stroke, as does the effective crank lever arm. But there’s a reason so many highly respected “muscle” era v8s tended to be slightly to greatly oversquare- the Chevy 283, 327, 396, 454, Ford 289/302, 427, 429/460, Mopar early Hemis, 273, 340, 383, 426 (Hemi and wedge), 440, Olds 350 (Olds 455 is an exception though), many Pontiacs, and of course the Buick 455. Bore has other nice side effects, like allowing bigger valves without shrouding. The downside is big bores tend to have poor emissions numbers, so a lot of engines have gone back toward square or under square in the last 30 years.
Anyway, super interesting comparison even if there’s no way to make it perfectly “fair.” It’s fair enough!
Most torque gm engine is a Cadillac 500 which also has the longest stroke almost 4.5inch
Shaun Barlow I should have specifically said “muscle car engine.” If you open it up to land yachts and trucks, then the TwinSix wins at almost 600 ft.-lb. The 500 is an interesting one, but it has a LESS stroke-biased configuration than the Olds 455. It’s almost perfectly “square” at 4.3 bore by 4.306 stroke, compared to 4.126 bore x 4.25 stroke for the Olds 455. It’ll be nice when Richard gets his 500 on the dyno.
@@stevelacker358 anybody have a "muscle car" motor doing 415 mph at Bonneville on gasoline? Cad company holds the gasoline powered land speed record with the 500s little brother 472. That motor came in a lot of two door cars with big engines aka "muscle car" also without over inflated specs on engine power which was so common among GMs other nameplate's even to this day Chevy crate engines almost never make claimed HP and tq numbers on the dyno
We had a 1970 Buick wagon with a 455 when I was a kid. It was like a freight train. It probably had highway gears in it....if you had a long straight road...LOOK OUT! My older sister routinely ran that thing up to about 110 mph or so.
My parents 1973 455 Pontiac Safari station wagon with clam shell back tail gate. I routinely ran it up to 100. Dad would float the valves for fun. I gaped a lot of kids back in 1980, until the "oil light cam on". Dad replaced the 455 locked up block with a 400. Never the same.
I was out looking for some street Race Action...35 or 40 years ago....i get caught at a light with an Olds Vista Cruiser Wagon...1970 Vintage....Well this wagon just cleaned My Clock...i couldn't stay with him...more than once he busted my Ass...i never forgot that Ass woopen i got that night..Back when power was a Luxury...😆
My parents had a '72 deuce & a quarter. I buried the speedo @120 for 10 miles when I was 15. That was 2 years before the legal driving age here. Thank god I did not kill or hurt anyone. My friends thought it was cool, today I'm still afraid to tell my folks about it. That land barge was large and in charge when the air cleaner lid was flipped.
@@frankieford7668 Olds 455's could be monsters as well.
@@stevecoxiscool ...That was a Beautiful Car..Medium Metalic blue with wood grain...glass panels in the Roof....Fast as Heck...lol I would love to own one today...
The Ford 460 may come from the smog era of cam timing
When I was in mechanics class about 45 years ago we had a Ford 429 engine (I believe it was a 1969) that had the factory label on the valve cover and it was stamped 460 hp. The engine was for a police interceptor but the only way Ford would donate the engine was if they agreed to never put the engine in a car. We had it on a engine stand and setup so we could start it periodically.
I would've loved to have seen that engine in a 67 - 68 Mustang GT.
@@duaneadkins1261 Makes me sick to think what happened to that when the school dropped shop class....or if they actually still have shop class swapped it for a fuel injected 4 cly. OBDII Toyota 1800cc rice grinder.
Several years ago you did a magazine article on building a peanut-port 454 for high torque, and I'm following that pretty closely on my 454 build... thank you for all that you do...!
Been loving these videos. Other guys forever! 👍👍
I found your overall study of this particular comparison very interesting and enlightening. Through all of the engine Master programs they're always focusing on higher RPM horsepower. But you focus on the low RPM torque aspect that I've been wondering about, and getting a little results until now. I mean after all, from a realistic streetable application, this is the information that actually applies to good "Saturday night" Highway Cruisers. Your perspective in this video seems overlooked by the other Dyno guys. Thank you for discussing this. Although there were many variables as you indicated, the time that would be needed to make those engines exactly comparable is unrealistic. I feel your comparison approach is very realistic and fairly well on target. GOOD stuff right here.
Dr. Richard- the "outlaw enginemaster"
Buick is definitely the torque monster of its day! Great stuff. Looking forward to turbo, and heads-cam-intake upgrades. Can you get the cam specs for all the stock contenders? It might be very illuminating. Richard Holdener rocks!
Richard, from my own experience:
I worked at a tune-up center for a couple of years. It had rudimentary floor dynos that were meant to simulate driving situations.
They would provide us with a direct torque number. Although it probably wasn't that accurate overall, it was very effective at measuring the relative difference between vehicles.
So what I'm getting around to saying, is that the only cars (out of thousands) that I tested that would literally overpower the dyno, were 460 Ford, and 455 Oldsmobile station wagons...
472/500 Cadillacs, 455 Pontiacs and Buicks were the next closest. 454 Chevrolets weren't even in the ballpark.
Absolutely
The 455 Olds makes nearly 525-550 torque, and depending on compression, nearly 430 hp. I have a .030 over 455 Olds in my 79 Trans Am (C heads, bracket master 2 cam, Edelbrock intake and carb).....it’s nasty. I can literally go up the steepest hills without punching the gas.
@@bigitaly4554 I had a healthy one in a Vega, lol... Wild ride.
Hell Yeah 460 FORD Over Powering the Dyno, i like that.
And 454 Chevy, Not even in the Ballpark. How True it is.
@@badass6.0powerstroke10 Well to be honest, it hurt my feelings a little, because I'm a dyed in the wool' Chevrolet guy.
But facts are facts...
Man, the stock Buick curve is mated to the application really well. Shifting at 4800 RPM on a TH400, it goes to 2900 RPM. 3200 RPM on a 2-3 shift. Sweet deal.
I'd test three cams in that Buick engine.. A 204/210-117, a 228/240-112, and maybe... a 248/254-114. Lift would be around .580", likely less, stopping the pulls at 5200. The 204 cam is an interesting one. I firmly believe that GM pushed the LS into being atkinson cycle at 1400 rpm, and a big block can also do it with an appropriately sized cylinder head.
What would make the LS an atkinson cycle? do they hold the intake valve open too long, letting air revert back into intake manifold?
I Wouldve Liked To See Included Also, The 472 And 500 Cadillac, 426 Hemi Mopar, And Ford 534 V8s.
what car did they ever put a 534 Ford into?
Richard , here’s a virtual 🍺 from Canada for being a Gearhead’s Gearhead . Thanks again .
Good episode. Since I'm an old guy and was fooling around on the street when this stuff was new, I can say that you did not call out a Buick in light(er) body combo. Big 4-door sedan sure, they were tanks and the weight held them back. But in a Skylark, nope. On the street you'd get your butt handed to you.
Given tire limitations and unknown traction the Buick could moderate the throttle easily and pull for all it was worth. All the other stuff was screaming, and with RPM comes moderation issues. So the "cool" Buick guy would just run away and hide. And the frenetic smaller V8 guy would be frustrated and disappointed.
On a prep'd track with concentration - it's a different thing ... 😁
In regards to the 460's output, I think that's pretty spot on. Our 96 F250's EFI 460 is supposedly 245HP/450TQ. If you factor in headers & no front accessories that seems about right. We use it exclusively for hauling hay, animals & ranch supplies. My opinion is that thing is a turd bucket even with the factory 4:11's.
I bought a 68 Javelin several yrs. ago and one of the owners installed a 1972 Buick 455 in it. It had a Kenny Bell stage 2 cam ,headers and the stock intake manifold that was gasket matched to the stock heads and he was running a Quadrijunk carb and was able to run times at the drag strip of around the 12.50's mark. He tried a Edelbrock intake with a Holly carb and he said it slowed the car down. The car was running a 3.23 geared rear he tried running a lower gear and again it slowed the car down.The guy I bought the car off of tubbed and back halfed the car and installed Nitrious but never used it which was a good thing because the bottom ends in these motors in stock form will turn into a hand grenade.
I know where I can get my hands on a 1970 Buick 455 with a SF code out of a Riviera it has me thinking. I know it was a hoot when I used to pull up to the high test pump in my low compression Javelin and take on gas while my two Nephews were over at the Cam 2 pump taking on high priced race gas with their high compression mopar and Chebby BB powered cars.
I remember my 455 engine having a lot of torque. I also remember 6 mpg.
The ones I had got 8-12.
A 1995 Ford 460 in a pickup is rated for 370 lbs of torque. Gale Banks run a Ford pick up on a chassis dyno and at the rear wheels I think it was 330 lbs of torque. Which means on your dyno it would produce similar results as the one you ran. Now with that said this is a modified truck only motor. After they quit putting them in cars they extended the cylinder liners added an external weight to balance the motor and added a longer skirt on the pistons for better piston stability under load then mix that with a lazy cam. With that done now you can put them in 5 ton trucks and they last. Ford added an egr bump in the exhaust port and according to the people that ground those out that was worth about 50 hp.
Everybody was saying that the pistons on the 440 mopar were set down further in the block. If those pistons were moved up so that they had proper quench it would be interesting to see what it would make. For those that don't understand quench it squeezes fuel which atomises fuel better. The ideal clearance is .050. This is were fuel economy (burn all the fuel) improves and emissions drop.
I’d love to see a carburetor comparison like you mentioned. Not because it will make a difference on a 300hp engine but it would shut up all the people who think it will. I’d also love to see you spend more time on the 460. But I’m a ford guy. Love the channel, love your posts on Facebook, keep being awesome!
Richard, we are all here because of your loyalty to us viewers. You try to make the playing field as level and honest as possible which sometimes can be impossible to obtain, especially as times marches on and OEM parts become rare. I'd say the 440 Mopar definitely has some kind of camshaft in it and your first 460 Ford dyno test of the '68 motor turned out torque and horsepower numbers I'd expect from a fresh 8.5:1 460 and a mild RV cam. The Ford marine camshaft standard package was good for 320 horsepower-330 Hp. That was with standard wet exhaust log manifolds and a camshaft of about 216 degrees of duration for the intake @.050 lift . 436 lift and 224 degrees exhaust duration with .481 lift. The stock passenger car '68 cam was 186 degrees duration @.050 intake advertised 256 , exhaust 200 degrees @.050 lift 270 advertised
Intake lift .436
Exhaust lift .487.
Remember the '68 had the straight up timing chain and not the retarded 4 degrees at the camshaft and 8 degrees at the crankshaft smogger.
As I found out , to determine lift @.050 for a Ford camshaft, simply subtract 70 degrees from the advertised factory duration and you'll be spot on .
This only applies to Ford manufactured camshafts. Ford was still selling the Cobra Jet 429 hydraulic cam, the hydraulic police grind which when matched with the SCJ manifold and a 780 Holley put out 365 horsepower with the marine wet log exhaust manifolds. Throw on some 2 inch over the top headers and you're at 400 horsepower with 8.5:1 compression.
A 430 or 462 Mel would be interesting to see. Great video.
those were for sure torque animals
I think this is some of the best TH-cam engine content out there right now. Esp when he branches out to other engines. I wanna see the "almost big block" engine comparison. 383 mopar vs 390 fe Ford vs 396! You know the almost 400 cubers
I'd love to see that too. I've always been interested in the 'smaller big blocks'. Seems to me they make for a better package for a lot of street cars that are after a little less weight and more revs than you'd get in the full capacity motors.
I wonder if it isn't more cost effective to work up a mildly modded small big block than to go the stroker route on a small block as well.
I find it interesting that the 455 and 460 curves were so similar in shape/rpm
Now you have opened a can of worms, you'll have to find a 455 Oldsmobile and a 455 Pontiac. I think the 500 Caddy will be the king of them all, but it does have a displacement advantage. Thanks again for your hard work and great videos.
In my opinion the Buick combustion chamber holds a lot of answers. Whether by good design or simple luck, Buick with the '67 and newer engines had a nice, efficient combustion chamber. (Trickle down from the Olds 215 Jetaway? Charles Kettering was pretty sharp afterall.) With the Buicks, you have to build compression out, rather than try and build it in, the chambers are that small. Compared to the other Big Blocks, the Buick simply has a more efficient combustion chamber design. Second; The intake ports for the day were really good. Not necessarily in terms of total volume of flow, but quality of flow. The intake ports aim the flow well into the chambers/cylinders, leading to good swirl & turbulence on the compression stroke. Generally, back-to-back tests of "stock" big blocks, the Buicks always had the edge in low rpm torque production. The 472 and 500 Cadillac motors, those are a whole 'nother story and level of torque production. Love the channel, you are living my dream for me. Keep it up.
The original designers knew the problem with the nail head was the small valves due to the pent roof combustion chambers. The new for 67 400/430 engines didn't suffer for flow with the standard valve ,but it took the bigger bore of the 455 to really take advantage of the heads especially the stage heads with 2.13 intakes
I agree that it's definitely in the heads. The intakes are typical dual planes with a standard length runner. Buick heads are always designed (at least, factory heads) for high velocity.
Great minds think alike I went through your older videos looking at this exact same thing.
You put a big cam and 11:1 pistons into the Buick and you have a real animal. Mine ran consistent 10.90s through a full exhaust.
Richard never sleeps!
Apparently
Richard ... you are correct the 460 Ford 73,74,75, year range had retarded cam timing. It was accomplished by offsetting the key slot in the crank gear. You can replace the crank gear with an early production one or use the one listed for the police interceptor version of the 460. I had a 75 Lincoln town car and applied this modification to the engine and boy what a difference.....
there retarded 4-6 degrees. & have bowl pistons. decent cam, flat tops.. all you need. im sure in the pre 70.s they had 450 hp,ish..plus, they rev higher than a chev.. i have a 351c, with 302c heads, in an 82 bronco, on lpg, it hoots..std cam. the 302c is ausie. there a dog..but, should go,,they dont.. same bore, shorter stroke, probably a flat lobe cam..there gutless. 385 series,,truck engines.. last forever..
4 degrees retarded at the cam, 8 degrees at the crankshaft. Significant loss of power.
Drove a 1970 lesabere 455 until it rusted in half in 2006. 453000 miles!
454 gen 6 engines are great places to start even in stock form. Good heads, 9.0 to 1 compression, roller cams ( albeit mild) etc. If you think about it, that ol Buick only had 7.8 to 1 compression, the 440 was 8.2 at best, and the Ford was around 8 to 1 as well. Speaking of that 460, they had lousy stock intakes 72-86ish and badly retarded cams. 72-74 they were rated at 202-212 hp. Things went south from there.. So as tested, yours might be about average for the vintage.
Don't forget the 455 Oldsmobile engine. The longest factory stroke of all of the GM 454 455 family....4.25 inches. I'm building one for my wagon. Eddy heads/intake....Holley efi.... Lunati roller cam ......1400 to 5400 rpm. Should be a real tire punisher! Great information as always.....thank you!
Thanks Richard, loved the LS stuff, sincerely do, but great to see a 'the other guy' videos.
Note: hopefully at some point you'll get the opportunity to apply similar comparisons to the Pontiac and Olds 455s. Cheers
P.S. add me to the T-shirt buy in list
olds makes torque even lower than the buick not much on the hp
You deserve way more subs/views for the amount of work you're putting in...
Thanks Richard!
that will come (or not), but I'm having fun!
Fantastic videos man! Would love to see the Ford 390FE in the other guys series.
Noted!
Interesting and cool is getting out of the shop and taking a Stage 1 out for a ride, on a wide open stretch of road.
I know I appreciate your testing and insights and it would be interesting to see why this Buick was such a "bulldozer"
Thanks for posting this, we actually are working a very similar video project comparing Mopar, Pontiac, and Chevy all similarly built motors for muscle toys we are working on 451, 455, and 454 respectively. We DO have Stage 1 455 in our '65 GS here as well... maybe that's worth pulling out and dyno'ing to give you some extra data points!
That 440 has about 7.4.1 compression.
Ford 460, in my opinion, is a good platform to rev. When I build mine, I’m keeping stock stroke, boring out as far as it’ll take, solid roller.
Now you have to do a Pontiac and Olds 455 to get the full picture.
I am literally looking for a new block to build & your videos are answering all my questions by the week!! Awesome thanks!
Viper V10, Ford V10, AMC 401, Caddilac, Rover/Buick SOHC, Rolls Royce, Crossfire GM, Packard, Ford Y Block, Chrysler poly head, Gen 1 Hemi, Gen 2 Hemi, SOHC Ford
quite a list
Id like to see the 427 sohc Dyno run.
@@joshperry4538 cause those are laying around most junkyards?? I saw one sell at an auction for 50k and it wasn't even complete
@@erandy0240 I've seen Richard get his hands on some newer and vintage high end engines, that are not in the junkyard, and Dyno them. But yes the 427 sohc would be next to impossible to get. Lol.
I love these comparisons. Next time if there is a cam question, just use one of those digital cam tools to confirm. It's a normal practice in the Chevron engine lab to make sure our stock engines are stock (among many, many quality control tests to make sure we are stock for our Techron vs the world tests).
The other question that comes to mind is how much weight? Assuming you can get similar aluminum intakes (?), how much does the total package weigh. My guess is that the Buick might be slightly lighter than some others ... They were exploring thin walled castings earlier than most MFG's.
I’m no knowledgeable person about motors and all. But I was watching a video here on YT of super stock drags featuring cars of 60’s early 70’s. Those 455 Buicks were cleaning up. Fact is I was pretty astonished how dominate Buick after Buick was. I think it was a 68-69 GS Stage 1 that ran a 11.37 @ 114 mph.
Richard, wed also love to see a 455 Olds and Pontiac in the low speed torque mix!
That would be cool! I have not run stock versions of those yet
I had on Olds that would roast the tires threw all 3 gears getting sideways . It was a 69 delta 98. We painted that car flat hi heat black . I even painted the back glass and windows flat black . LOL we called it the BEAST ! This was one of my first cars. We also put mud grips on the back and went riding out down by the river drinking in it. LOL
I'm sure others will want you to build them all to the best 1970 factory specs available and run the test again, like you did with the legendary small blocks... While that would be cool, it would also be super expensive. For me, I enjoy seeing the comparisons of the ones you have tested, would be neat to see a stock Caddy 500 tossed in the mix too. Gen 6 454 is really a great engine, add some cam timing and boost and it's even better. Cheers Richard!!! Watching from Japan btw...
How about the 8100 while we're at it?
I owned a 70 grand sport stage 1 convertible 4 speed..had every option avaliable for that car. It won me more money against every one I raced. Best 900 bucks I ever spent. This was in 76.
There's also the over-square/under-square conversation.
Kind of wouldn't mind seeing how a 350 Buick does on a dyno. I was always impressed with my mom's 71 Buick Skylark growing up. Ran it hot dozens of times (radiator leaked), towed a uhaul trailer with it like a champ, did an honest 14mpg or so. Eventually the windshield got busted and it sat in the yard until the transmission went out, and the fuel pump went bad. Now it sits in a barn waiting for a potential restoration which will never occur.
Looking forward to seeing how the 500 Caddy holds up to these
The other thing that needs to be put in comparison with the Buick is the weight of it. Its lighter than the others. Awesome video.
Early high comp 460s are the set up to find.
Just run flat tops with the 429 dove heads and a late 60's timing gear set. The later timing chain sets had built in retarded cam timing for smog reasons. That's all one needs to roast tires
@@Kmecha84 I've heard that about timing sets.
@@larrynorsworthy8582 if you hold up a late 60's crank sprocket to an early 70's one you'll see the keyway don't line up. The early 70's had 8 degrees retarded cam timing built into the timing set for smog
@@Kmecha84 8 degrees? 😲
@@larrynorsworthy8582 that's correct. An older timing set from a 69 429-460 wakes these motors up
I had a 1964 Skylark in which I dropped a stock 1970 Buick 350 (the 315 hp version). My brother had a 1965 Skylark in which he dropped a 1 971 Buick 455 (the 315 version) I had 410 ft/lbs of torque, he has 475 ft/lbs. Both cars had stock 2:78 gears. And we both swapped out the Super Turbine 300 trans out for Turbo 350s. So almost identical cars in every way except engines. Each time we raced we were in a dead heat. It was mere inches of difference at the end of each run. (each car came with a Wildcat 355- 300 CID 4bbl engine. The 64 came stock with aluminum heads and intake (carry over from the 215 aluminum engine) and the 65 had the all iron heads and intake.
When you are done with this series would it be feasible to rebuild the 455 And re run the tests?
Need to add that because I was racing Buicks I built a low compression Buick 455 as a truck motor for my Suburban. I ran it for many years but removed it when I could no longer buy leaded regular gas. In hindsight I should have left it in until the valve seats failed. Wow, I still have that motor stored too.
The era ya got of the 460 is a snogged up motor, the later model made more power
Great video sir. I love all the comparisons. Let’s see BOOST!!
What would be cool is to use the same cam events in them all. Maybe get a factory 454 cam and get the specs ground on to a 455 cam lol.
How’d you like to wear your wife’s shoes to work all day? Maybe that sounds stupid but there’s a fair analogy there...
@@Chuffin_ell Do you think the cam grinders have lobes designed especially for various engines? They grind the cams with the same specs as other engines, on blanks that fit those engines. So you go get a 224/228@.050 cam with a 114LSA and put that in everything you will get the same lobes and event timing that fits another engine. It would give you a good idea of how well the engine works with a mild cam like that. 224/228 is kinda rowdy on a 300 inch engine, but mild daily driver on a 455. Now if we put a cam with the same specs as the LT1 350 or DZ 302 in the 455s, the bigger engines would become dogs, because 254@.050 is too freakin much duration and it would kill the bottom end where the big engines make their power. 224 intake duration is real close to a Pontiac 744 RA III cam.
So you're kinda not wrong, as it really depends which cam you pick to run in everything. The 351C and 460 Fords would benefit greatly from more cam timing, because Ford went with huge ports and tiny cams, they wanted power with smoothness to limit NVH (noise vibration harshness). The 73 and later GM engines also had tiny cams, until the advent of port EFI, so most of them would pick up a lot too, and a 455 doesn't really care if it has 7:1 to 9:1 compression, its going to grunt like crazy and the cam timing makes more of a difference. Go over 10:1 and the 455 becomes something entirely different, and at 13:1 they are very surprising to the unsuspecting.. and E85 makes that a street compression ratio.. trust me, its fun running 13:1 with heavily ported heads on a 455, and daily driving it.
Thump Er point well taken. So, you can wear heels in your size?
@@Chuffin_ell never tried, never wanted to.. but I understand cams and manufacturing. Kinda helps I was a machinist for years.
Thump Er I wish I knew about half of what you’ve forgotten...
I agree with you, Richard, about the Brawler carb being “more than enough”. A 625 4bbl carb is enough for a 360 FE.
Hey Richard, quick question is there a big power difference from the 460s when it comes to fuel injected vs carbureted models?
I love the Buick 455 and they're the best out of the three imo. They're a light casting and have the biggest bore of the three so you have a valvetrain advantage right off the bat.
A 70 Lincoln 460. See what it does.
Nice video I really enjoy watching your videos every day! It’s like a ritual with my dinner!you cover good basics for Drivability down low end torque, torque rules!
Those are pretty typical numbers for a mid-80s Ford 460. the problem with the 460 is the stock camshaft which is retarded from factory and very small. Fun fact with the 460, they love big cams and or boost. Just be sure to include a block girdle and ARP hardware if you plan to go past 700 horsepower.
Love your “Other Guys” work! I seem to remember reading an article years ago that said an early 455GS was the only production engine at that time making 500 ftlbs of torque. Keep up the great work!
Caddys did make 510, but it came in almost 1,000 RPM's later than the Buick, and when you consider they were larger motors, it makes the Buick that much more impressive. Too bad they only made a high compression Buick 455 for one year. ☹
68-70 460 ford was 500lbs rating
68-70 472 was rated 525 TQ @ 3,000 rpm. Stage 1 Buick 455 was 510 @ 2,800. I assure you the 472 was making more torque at 2,800 than the Buick. The 500 was rated at 550 ft/lbs at 3,000 rpm. Both the 472 and the 500 even the low compression variants will handily spank a Buick 455 in torque production.
@@chrisreynolds6520 basically shows that for brute twisting force there's no replacement for displacement
What about the Chevy 502 ???
Great Video, but I missed the Olds 455 and Pontiac 455
have not run those in stock form
@@richardholdener1727 Thanks for the answer. Have a great Weekend.
Most Buick Qjet carbs for 455's were rated at 800 cfm.
Buick 455, it did beat the rest!
The nailhead rocker, and pushrods had a very odd angle to them. But I've heard Tony Defeo say angular engines make more torque. Great video.
Looking at the bore and strokes of the 460 (4.36" x 3.85") and 455 Buick (4.3125" x 3.900") they are pretty close to the same. BBC (4.25" x 4.0") slightly longer stroke and smaller bore. It would be nice to see the 455 pontiac (4.152" x 4.21") and Olds 455 (4.126" x 4.25") in the mix. Pontiac and olds being the "long strokes". Why would the buick be the torque monster compared to the pont or olds with longer strokes? Head flow? if all the engine had heads with the same air flow number then what would happen?
the power output or torque has less to do with bore and stroke and more to do with cam, heads and intake
This is pretty good for me.
I just picked up a '72 buick 455-4 for my A body buick special. Should be a great street warrior
The smogger era 460s had retarded cams from the factory to beat emissions. If you advance cam timing dot to dot, it instantly comes alive. The 460 also suffers from the thermactor humps which constrict the ports. A 68-71 460 is a great contender.
those humps, are for torque, not revs.. any,,460,,decent cam,,flat tops..job done..
Those are really good torque numbers on the 455. I have a 496 in my 2002 silverado and it makes 340hp and 450 lbs of torque.