# 400 vs 455



## mrvandermey (Jun 15, 2011)

Hey all. Could one of your knowledgeable experts help me to understand the differences and pros/cons of a Pontiac 400 versus a Pontiac 455? 

Which engine has the better reputation? 
Which one makes more power? 
Which one can be built to make more power? 
Why would I consider one over the other? 
I am in need of a new engine and am trying to understand why I may be interested in one over the other.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Howdy!
One of my favorite topics...

Making power with these engines, naturally aspirated, is about cubic inches and rpm. Raise either one, or both, and power goes up - it really is that simple.

Torque, which is what you feel smack you in the behind when you jump on the loud pedal, is mostly about inches.

On the street and for "most" driving situations, raw torque is going to matter more than peak horsepower and the higher the average torque production is over a wide rpm range, the more versatile the motor's going to be. It doesn't help much if a motor has a really high "peak" number if the output "falls off a cliff" on either side of the peak.

So "box stock" a 455 appears to be a better choice for all-around use. But it ain't quite that simple once you open the door for modifications because once you do that you open the door to building either engine in pretty much any displacement you choose. Pontiac blocks, being the same dimensionally, have the same overall length, width, crank length, and bore spacing so in terms of bore and stroke they all have the same limits. The significant difference internally between the 400 and the 455, as you probably know, is the diameter of the main bearing journal on the crank - the 400 being 3.000" and the 455 being 3.250". This translates into the 400 having stronger main webs in the blocks than the 455 just because there's more "meat" in them simply because the "holes" for the crank are .250" smaller than they are in the 455. So, at equal displacements and especially these days with several choices available in aftermarket cranks for both 3.000 and 3.250 main blocks (in the same stroke), the only difference between a 455/461/462, etc built starting with a 455 block and a 455/461/462, etc built starting with a 400 block is going to be the size of the main journal --- and the one based on the 400 is going to be stronger. 

In very high horsepower racing applications, when an engine built on a 455 block "fails" it usually cracks right up the middle through the main webs. A 400 is going to last longer because it's stronger. There are other subtle differences caused by the difference in main journal size, such as the "surface velocity" the motor sees at the main journal - the larger journal moves "faster", thus more rotational friction, etc. - but concerns like that aren't all that significant, especially for the street. Even the block strength issue isn't all that significant until you get "pretty serious" about power production. Then too there are many different flavors of 400's (different block casting numbers) - some of which are thinner in the main webs (thickness of the metal, front to back) than others and that too affects strength so you can't really say that "any" 400 block is stronger than "any" 455 block.

So, unless you're building a maximum-effort race motor and trying to milk every last ounce of power out of it, "reaching for the stars" rpm-wise, honestly - either one is going to be fine. Meticulous examination, preparation, and the building will trump any inherent differences that exist in the blocks themselves. It often comes down to what you have available to you in terms of blocks and parts -- and also "how far" you plan to take the motor (including of course the depth of your bank account).

When I was in the planning stages for my GTO, I had two blocks on-hand: the numbers-matching original 400, and a real 4-bolt 455 HO. I already knew I was going to try "really hard" to run my #722 Ram Air IV heads on whichever block wound up in the car. Ultimately I chose to build the 400 into a 461 for all the reasons I mentioned above. A 461 built out of the 455 would have made just as much power, it just might not have been quite as strong (however at my power level that wouldn't have mattered). The deciding factor for me was the possibility of being able to pass my car off as a 'numbers-matching factory original' to the casual and even semi-casual observer...

...at least until I fire it 

Bear


----------



## JustAl (Mar 20, 2010)

*He's right !!*

A very good explaination, I couldn't agree more. Cost wise a 400 is probably cheaper, only because 455's are harder to find and bring bigger bucks when you do. They made tons of 400's so finding them is a lot easier. The rebuild and parts cost are the same. Like he said, at street power levels, both engines will give you all the power you need and will hold up well. Just make sure a good machine shop is involved in the process.


----------



## mrvandermey (Jun 15, 2011)

Very good explanation indeed. As it happens to be, I usually find used 400's, some rebuilt and other in need of rebuilding, going from around $700-$2,000, with many running around $1,500. However, I stumbled upon a guy who has several 455 short blocks and he is selling them for around $750 each. 

I still think I would rather have a 400 for similar reason to BearGFR. Although my car will never be "numbers matching", the idea of making it at least "year correct" is mildly appealing to me, you know, for the casual observer... 

I do not planning on racing much, for I am truly a boulevard cruiser type. In all honesty, I would like something like 440-480 HP. Now, if I recall correctly, the 1968 model never came with a 455 correct? If my memory serves me correctly, I think just the 400 in Ram Air and Ram II were available....is that correct?


----------



## 68greengoat (Sep 15, 2005)

Correct. 455's didn't come out until '70.


----------



## old66tiger (Nov 2, 2011)

400's with a stroker kit is the bomb. blocks are more plentiful and the smaller journal will result in less bearing speed and lower oil temps.


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Agreed. The 'Big Journal' 421-428-455 blocks used to be _THE_ way to make big torque and power, but all of that has changed with the advent of the new stroker kits. A stroked 'small journal' (still huge at 3 inches) block is stronger and has better oiling than a big journal block, especially if any kind of rpm is run. Bear's explanation of the whole thing is so good, IMO, it ought to be 'stickied' or posted somewhere permanently for the record.


----------



## mrvandermey (Jun 15, 2011)

Although I have owned a few classic muscle cars in the past, my experience lies mostly with Chevy engines (and an occasional Ford), so Pontiac engines are new to me. As such, I think I understand that physical dimensions of a 400 and a 455 are vitrually the same. Difference appears to be internal (bore, stroke, etc). So does that mean if I have a Pontiac 400 block (regardless of whether it is a short or long block) that parts form a 455 would fit a 400 (i.e. valve covers, headers, carbs, oil pan, timing covering, water pump, etc)?

Now assuming that a Pontiac 400 and a Pontiac 455 have the same exterior dimensions, thus the bolt on parts would be innerchangeable, where does the Pontiac 350 fit in all this (not that I want one in my car, just thinking of parts)? Will the bolt on parts of a Pontiac 350 alos fit a Pontiac 400 (and thus a 455).

The reason I am asking, I have a chance to pick up a '68 Pontiac 400 (YS code) that is essentially just the block (I presume the internals are there too) and the heads. So when I start looking for parts, I would like to know if I am limited to just Pontiac 400 motors or if I can use parts from any Pontiac engine (350/400/455). Any advice would be helpful.

P.S., regardless of the answer, I am still going to get this '68 400 YS code block if the deal is solid.


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

mrvandermey, no worries. All of the externals will swap between engine sizes: valve covers, timing covers, pulleys, brackets, etc. Much different than Ford, etc. Have fun. Good choice on the 400, BTW.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

:agree GeeTee nailed it. Generally, everything external will interchange from the 326 up through and including the 455. I seem to recall that -maybe- there were some differences in the intake manifold and heads if you go back far enough, like 64 or so and try to swapo these with later model blocks, but I've never had a reason to research this so I don't know it off the top of my head. Another difference was on the front timing cover and water pump: "earlier" varieties used 7 bolts to secure the water pump, later models used 11. Also, for the early part of model year 69, GTO used water pumps with snouts that were 1/2" shorter than all the others. This also required different crank pulleys, accessory mounts, etc. Later in the model year everything reverted back to the 'standard' length. I ran into this on my 69 when "nothing" lined up correctly, and I found out that I had one of the early model year cars and was trying to use an aftermarket high flow water pump, which was (of course) only available in the standard snout length.

Check the block casting number on that 400 (passenger side rear, next to where the transmission/bell housing bolts up) - to ID what that block really is.
Some of them will be already drilled and tapped for 4-bolt mains even though they may only have 2-bolt main caps installed.

Bear


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Good point with the pre'65 stuff. They have different heads and intakes but the blocks are the same thru '64. Pre '64 blocks have a belhousing mounted starter, and an adapter is needed. The '79-'81 Ponitac 301 and 265 will not interchange with anything. Boat anchor motors. The earlier ('68 back) water pumps were 8 bolt units, and do differ from the later 11 bolt units. They are specific to their timing covers, but either cover/pump assembly will bolt right on to a 326, 389, 400, 421, 428, or 455 depending on which one you have and what you want to use. The consensus is that the later 11 bolt assembly is superior, but I wouldn't know...all my goats have been '67 or earlier. Pulleys can be mixed and matched, and the one to use on the water pump is the smaller diameter "A/C" spec pulley for better cooling. Early 400 blocks ('67 through '72) are the strongest ones with the highest nickel content. Excellent, strong units. They can be built to amazing levels of power, and do it reliably. Have fun!!


----------



## mrvandermey (Jun 15, 2011)

Well, I managed to close the deal on the '68 400 YS code engine. The good news is that it is more complete than I had orignally had athought. However, the bad news is it does need rebuilding and needs to go to machine shop for a once over and to repair a water leak near the pump area. Also the engine is missing the cam, and the rockers for the heads. The engine and the heads are matching numbers. 

Now as it happens to be, I also have a 1968 Pontiac 350 as well as a parts engine. I am glad to hear the bolt ons are interchangeable.


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

I know this is an old thread but I have a few related questions.

Which of these 2 engines would be cheaper and easier to get 400ish hp/tq out of? w/out breaking the bank?

After watching Barrett Jackson and being able to tweet and talk to the people at Speed channel about these cars has gotten me wanting to stick with a pontiac engine. Probably going to restore it close to original minus a few things, lol.

Thoughts?


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Hot_Rod said:


> I know this is an old thread but I have a few related questions.
> 
> Which of these 2 engines would be cheaper and easier to get 400ish hp/tq out of? w/out breaking the bank?
> 
> ...


It depends on what you're starting with. More's always better when it comes to cubic inches. If you have a 455 core that has a good crank, then you'll save a little money by starting there and re-using the crank. For strength and logevity I always recommend replacing rods and pistons since the factory Pontiac rods are the weak link, and on a used engine you'll probably need an overbore to clean up the cylinders anyway (so that means you'll be buying pistons).

So, the difference in cash outlay between a 455 and a stroker 400 is going to be the cost of the crank.

If the 455 doesn't have a sound crank, then I'd give the nod to a stroker 400 (461 or more). Your parts cost will be the same in either case, but with the 400 you get the benefit of a stronger block due to the smaller main bore.

So that's why I said, it depends on what raw material you're starting with.

Make sense?

Bear


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

Do they make a stroker crank for the 455?


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Yessir, but you don't get as dramatic a change. Stock stroke on a 455 is 4.210. Going to 4.250 with standard bore (4.150) makes a 460, boring .030 over and 4.250 makes a 466, .060 over makes a 473 but that's about as far as you can take an iron 455 and when you wear that one out, you're done - or you have to sleeve it. Bumping up the stroke to 4.50 is a huge jump in terms of stress on parts, and you usually have to grind the block in several places for clearance. You can get 4.50 stroke cranks for both 455's and 400's. A plus .060 455 with a 4.500 stroke works out to 501 inches.

A 400 bored +0.035 with a 4.250 stroke gets you to 461 and you've still got some meat left for additional boring when you wear it out, plus it's stronger due to having more metal in the main webs than the 455.

If you want to get really crazy, a +060 400 with a 4.500 stroke works out to be 494, and it'll be significantly stronger and have better oiling characteristics than that 501 made out of a 455.

Personally, I wouldn't consider attempting a 4.500 stroke motor with anything other than a good forged crank, and maybe not even then.

Getting up into that territory, to my way of thinking, means you're talking an aftermarket block like the IA-II.

Bear


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

Honestly I'm trying to avoid hi dollar aftermarket parts. I'm thinking along the lines of being able to piece a rebuilt engine together and hope to get close to 400 hp/tq.

Not really trying to go real big. Just wanting a mild and fun street build.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

I understand - but don't skimp on the rods. You can buy a set of quality forged rods for almost what it would cost you to have a set of factory rods recondiitoned for use. Think of it this way: Yeah, you could save a few bucks, for awhile, but when one of those factory rods lets go and takes out -everything-, block included, then where will you be? It's true that you'll find people out there who have been running, even racing, with factory rods "for years" and have never had a problem. But, for every one of those you find, you'll find 50 more who've had one let go and destroy everything. Like Dirty Harry says, "Do you feel lucky?"

Bear


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

What's that expression?
Cry once when you buy it, or cry every time you use it.


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

And take note, that a bone stock '68 GTO 400 makes over 400 foot pounds of torque...something like 439 or so. These are strong engines, easily made a lot stronger with just a few choice parts that are now readily available. You can have your cake and eat it, too.


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

I understand about the rods. No big deal. Just trying to avoid having to use rare components to make power. Or hi dollar parts like aluminum heads or have to have those rare heads.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is which engine would be easiest to piece together and make good power w/out having to pay big money for the parts.


----------



## NorwalkNugget (Aug 5, 2011)

All I can add to this is there are plenty of 350's around and pretty much they are good for having on hand as a backup engine in case your 400 or 455 goes down. They for the most part depending on year produce just enough power to be reasonable as a boulevard cruiser imo.

To me its the perfect compromise for those who share their car with their wife like I do 

Like I said b4, it's not a terrible engine and it can be built up but your better off starting with a 400 or 455.

You can get a functioning/rebuilt/used 350 starting as low as $300-$1200


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Hot_Rod said:


> I understand about the rods. No big deal. Just trying to avoid having to use rare components to make power. Or hi dollar parts like aluminum heads or have to have those rare heads.
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to ask is which engine would be easiest to piece together and make good power w/out having to pay big money for the parts.


Gotcha - truth is they're both so close that you can't really say one is always a better starting place than the other. A balanced rotating assembly with good rods and pistons for either one, including a cast crank, is going to run you approximately $1500.00 add approximately $500 for a forged crank (which you don't need for the power level you're talking about). 

I made three assumptions on the above:
1) The original crank isn't reusable, so you'll need to buy a crank
2) The block needs to be bored to clean up the cylinders, so you'll need to pay for the machining plus the cost of a set of pistons.
3) You're going with good forged rods no matter what.

A cast crank by itself is about $275, a forged crank is about $650. So if the original crank is reusable, you can save about $275 off the figures above. However, resuing the crank means you'll be sticking very close to the original engine displacement, so if you're reusing the crank I'd have to give the nod to the 455 because more inches = more power. If you're not reusing the crank, then the clear advantage goes to the 400 because it's a stronger block and you'll wind up with about the same cubic inches (same power) for the same cost.

Cut it a different way - say a miracle happens and the block you get is still standard bore size and doesn't need boring, but the crank isn't reusable. A 4.250 stroke with a 400 bore size (4.120) gives you a 453, a 4.250 stroke with a 455 bore size (4.150) gives you a 460 --- a difference of only 7 cubic inches. In this case you'd think you could save the cost of the pistons, but probably not because the resulting compression ratio would likely be too high for pump gas so you'll be replacing them with dished pistons anyway - depending on which heads are on the motor.

Hopefully the above makes the point --- neither the 400 nor the 455 has a clear advantage over the other in all cases. It just depends on the condition of the engine you're starting with. So, my recommendation is to keep an open mind and be looking for both. Whenever you find a good one that's in your price range, nab it. Then on tear down you'll evaluate it's condition and what you're starting with, then you'll be able to make a plan for the build out. The things that potentially can make a significant difference are whether you'll need to replace the crank, and whether you can reuse the heads (determined by the compression ratio you'd end up with).

When evaluating one you should consider:
1) What's the block casting number? (some are stronger than others)
2) Which heads are on it? (to know if there's a chance you can reuse them)
3) What's the condition of the crank? (will you need to buy one?)

Bear


----------



## OrbitOrange (Jul 5, 2010)

Been keeping up with this because I have my original 400 I want to build and stroke but not sure which direction to take it. First I have to make sure the block is buildable and if the crank needs turned or if it can live with a polishing. Been looking at different options like buying an engine kit that comes with pistons then reuse crank then just buy rods seperate. Or should I buy stroker kit, and buy a gasket kit and the other engine parts like oil pump etc, etc. seperate. I guess first of all I need to take block to the machine shop and have it cleaned and and magnafluxed.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

OO, that's what I did with the Beast. I built the numbers matching 400 into a 461 using a kit consisting of an Eagle crank and H-beam forged rods with KB/ICON forged pistons. It took an overbore from stock of +0.035 for the pistons I used, and of course the 4.250 stroke on the crank. I had to grind the block a little on one side of the pan rail near the front to get clearance for the crank, but that only took a few minutes. So far, I'm really happy with the motor. 

Bear


----------



## OrbitOrange (Jul 5, 2010)

Seems though I can find an engine kit that has gaskets, oil pump, complete bearing kit, pistons, freeze plugs etc.. for like $500 or so then buy rods for approx $500 then stroker crank for $275 Which is everything minus machine work and head work for $1275, thats like 300-400 less than just a stroker kit. But the kits usually have sealed power pistons.

Any thoughts Bear? Because personally I value your input like most folks here do.


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

What did you spend on your engine build? Bear? If you don't mind.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

I don't mind --- but honestly I don't know. I've never added up all the tickets (not sure I want to know myself ) I know I spent quite a bit on the valve train, being a solid roller cam, titanium retainers, 1.65 roller rockers, stud girdles, custom length pushrods, 11 degree super locks, springs, clean up/valve job and flow/pressure testing on the heads, etc. It also has a RobbMc mini-starter, mechanical fuel pump, regulator... Milodon windage tray and pan, Melling SD pump, Viton rear main seal, KRE timing cover (I broke my original trying to press out the frozen coolant tubes), Milodon water pump, SFI-rated balancer, SFI-rated flex plate, Nitemare performance oil pump drive shaft, oil pump end plate, and cam plate, Ansen valve cover spacers (so I can run the factory valve covers and try to pass it off as stock even with the stud girdles ) - Doug's D567 headers plus Jet Hot coating. I also had to replace the oil filter housing after I over-tightened the oil pressure sending unit and cracked the original... Ummm... lets see.. ProForm HEI, Comp 9-way billet double roller timing set, lifter bore oil restrictors, gaskets, miscellanous lubes, sealants, tools I didn't already have...

I spent quite a bit at the machine shop too - boring/honing, align honing, cam bearings, etc. In fact I probably paid for boring twice because I first had it taken out to 4.150 (standard 455) then decided to go the stroker route and discovered for the pistons I was going to use it needed to be 4.155 doh! Then there was the dyno time...

All totaled, and this is just a guess, I've probably got around $10k to $12k or so in the motor.

Bear


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

OrbitOrange said:


> Seems though I can find an engine kit that has gaskets, oil pump, complete bearing kit, pistons, freeze plugs etc.. for like $500 or so then buy rods for approx $500 then stroker crank for $275 Which is everything minus machine work and head work for $1275, thats like 300-400 less than just a stroker kit. But the kits usually have sealed power pistons.
> 
> Any thoughts Bear? Because personally I value your input like most folks here do.


I sure thought I wrote a sage and lengthy reply, but dang if I see it now :confused Getting old I guess 

The unknown is your pistons. Sealed Power has a good reputation but they're also on the heavy side. Definitely recommend good forged (not Hyper) pistons. I'm running KB/Icon, but I hear good things about Mahle and Ross too. Also others. There's a lot that goes into piston choice. Some depends on your heads and chamber volumes, leading to how much if any dish you need to place the compression ratio in the safe zone for the fuel and head type (iron or aluminum) you're using. Another part comes from whatever compression height you need (distance from pin centerline to piston top). A "long rod" stroker that uses the BBC 6.800" rods will need pistons with a shorter compression height than one that uses the Pontiac 6.625" rod length. The stock rod / long rod question is another topic where you'll find very passionate but not necessarily always logical opinions on both sides. Honestly, it probably doesn't make half a hill o' beans difference on a street motor, but I built my 461 as a long rod version - mostly because of what I read in one of HO's books years ago that made sense to me. In any case, you'll wind up juggling a lot of issues on piston choice - cost and availability in the dimensions you need among them. Generally, you want strong, you want light, and you want small. The less mass swinging around on that long stroke the better, and less skirt area means less friction.

For cam and valve train, it's another area for juggling. Go too crazy on the cam and you'll have street drivability issues and also problems making enough vacuum to operate things like power brakes. You can get more aggressive with a roller and still keep some street manners/vacuum than you can with a flat tappet, but rollers are way expensive compared to flats. Also more aggressive cams need more spring pressure to keep things from getting tossed off the lobes, and higher lift cams need taller springs (and corresponding machine work on the spring seats in the heads) to avoid going into coil bind. On a solid cam it's a good idea to run lifter bore oil restricters to keep from wasting oil on the lifers that could be better used on the mains and rods. Generally speaking though, the larger the engine, the "bigger" the cam it can tolerate and still keep some manners. The solid roller in my 461 would be really nasty, probably too nasty for the street, in a 350.

Start off by deciding on some goals in terms of the performance level you want, how you're going to use the car (street vs. strip vs. highway), and how much you want to spend to get there. There's a zillion ways to do it.

Bear


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

Anything else? Lol 

Long list. A little more than I'm wanting to spend though. I couldn't afford it, lolz.


----------



## OrbitOrange (Jul 5, 2010)

Well Im mainly gonna be driving mine around town on the weekends and to local car shows. But if say a mustang or chevelle wants to tie up on the street leaving the car show I wanta be able to spank their ass! And this stock 350 with 7.5:1 compression aint gonna do that. Maybe something that will run some high 12s in the quartermile?


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

High 12's is going to cost you some money!!


----------



## OrbitOrange (Jul 5, 2010)

Really? Because high 12s is SLOOOOOW


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

It's about a full second faster then the `06 GTO, and faster then my stock (except 0.060"over) 10.75-1 CR 389 on race fuel.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

OrbitOrange said:


> Well Im mainly gonna be driving mine around town on the weekends and to local car shows. But if say a mustang or chevelle wants to tie up on the street leaving the car show I wanta be able to spank their ass! And this stock 350 with 7.5:1 compression aint gonna do that. Maybe something that will run some high 12s in the quartermile?


That's good info. It says you'll be able to tolerate a rear gear ratio that's optimized for street/strip, not necessarily for extending highway driving. 

Next questions: 
Transmission type?
Power brakes?
A/C?

High 12's are possible without going too crazy, but it's going to take a well set-up package including drive train and suspension, not just an engine.

Bear


----------



## OrbitOrange (Jul 5, 2010)

Th400 with shift kit and 4l80 drum and 32 tooth sprag
Power brakes yes
A/C (car is equipped with factory ac but its not on it right now but will go back on it one day.

Ok lets say 13s then

Im basing my 12s experience off some fox body mustangs Ive owned and you can make them run mid 13s to high 12s with suspension, pulleys, headers and stock heads .


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

Rukee said:


> High 12's is going to cost you some money!!


Oh hell... Dont say that. If these pontiac engines cant get at least 12's/13's easy I may not wanna spend the $ for a stockish 400hp/tq engine.


OrbitOrange said:


> Really? Because high 12s is SLOOOOOW


At the track for sure... Most ls1's/small blocks run 12's with very minor mods.


Rukee said:


> It's about a full second faster then the `06 GTO, and faster then my stock (except 0.060"over) 10.75-1 CR 389 on race fuel.


Damn...


BearGFR said:


> That's good info. It says you'll be able to tolerate a rear gear ratio that's optimized for street/strip, not necessarily for extending highway driving.
> 
> Next questions:
> Transmission type?
> ...


Is it something about these cars that make them slower than most? Is it the weight? They only weigh 3650 dont they? Thats not too crazy compared to cars nowadays.


OrbitOrange said:


> Th400 with shift kit and 4l80 drum and 32 tooth sprag
> Power brakes yes
> A/C (car is equipped with factory ac but its not on it right now but will go back on it one day.
> 
> ...


If its gonna take a ton of $$ just for 12's/13's then idk what I'm gonna do, lol.

I seen a small block 327 powered '69 chevelle run a 10.80 in the 1/4th n/a.. If a 327 yes a 327, not a 427 can run a 10.80(with a woman behind the wheel mind you) can run a hi 10 with a 327... I'll be tempted to go with a small block. Theyre cheaper to make go fast, lol.


----------



## OrbitOrange (Jul 5, 2010)

^^^^^^^^^^^ pretty much what i was thinking.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

> I seen a small block 327 powered '69 chevelle run a 10.80 in the 1/4th n/a.. If a 327 yes a 327, not a 427 can run a 10.80(with a woman behind the wheel mind you) can run a hi 10 with a 327...


Maybe, but that would have been a full on race motor in a lightened race car - a VERY far cry from anything streetable at all. I can show you Pontiac engined cars that run 7's, but they aren't streetable either and you can bet your socks that you couldn't even BEGIN to come close to building one of those engines for less than $20k. Building a fast race car is child's play compared to building a really fast car that's also streetable and street-legal.

If there's an advantage the bowtie boys have over Pontiacs, it's in the vast assortment of parts that are available and are also cheap, plus there's been so dang many of them built ad-nauseum that it doesn't take any particual skill or thought to build one. The basic design of the engines isn't any better, in fact in several areas it's quite inferior to the Pontiac.

Don't beleive all the magazine hype yoiu read or the bench racing you hear. It takes a pretty serious car to run 12's or better in street trim. 

Here's a link to a Motor Trend comparison test between a 426 Hemi Cuda, a ZL-1 427 Vette, and a 428 Shelby Mustang. Arguably the baddest of the bad in their day. Check out the quarter mile times.

1970 Plymouth Hemi 'cuda Vs. 1969 Chevrolet Camaro ZL-1 Vs. 1968 Shelby "Green Hornet" Prototype - Muscle Car Comparison - Motor Trend Classic

Bear


----------



## OrbitOrange (Jul 5, 2010)

I guess what Im saying is apparently muscle cars are slow in comparison to todays cars! 

Now days, some headers, pulleys, a tune and a cam you can run 12s with stock heads all day long with late model EFI cars.


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

Surprisingly this chevelle didn't look as fast as it was. Other than big tires on the back, maybe suspension, the car was a street car. Full interior.


----------



## OrbitOrange (Jul 5, 2010)

From what I found reading wikipedia Looks like the 70 GTO which is what I have ran around low 15s. Ive never even rode in a 400 car. Im gonna see if this other local GTO guy will give me a ride in his 69 400/4speed.


----------



## NorwalkNugget (Aug 5, 2011)

See that's what my 2010 muscle car is for... speed..

My Lemans... I'm just happy it even turns over on cold days. As long as she can roll, I'm good. 350 v8 works for me.


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

Yeah but when you're out in that lemans and can't show the car runs as good as it looks them it's not so American and not so much muscle if you can't even beat a damn v6 Monte Carlo like in my case... (don't ask) lol :0


----------



## OrbitOrange (Jul 5, 2010)

Hot_Rod said:


> Yeah but when you're out in that lemans and can't show the car runs as good as it looks them it's not so American and not so much muscle if you can't even beat a damn v6 Monte Carlo like in my case... (don't ask) lol :0


This all has me rethinking my 400 build. Looking into carbed LSX conversion now. Found a place that sells the engine with the conversion minus the carb for $1200-1300 for 4.8/5.3 and $1700-2k for 6.0


----------



## jetstang (Nov 5, 2008)

Back in the days the cars had 7" wide tread on hard compounds, hardly a fair comparison to our new sticky compound tires. For fast, I love Mustang 5.0s, they were damn quick and can keep up with the best now easilly, and cheap to build. I had 6 of them over the years, just don't build an automatic, they are slower, 9.55 best for mine in the 1/8th with all the bolt ons but NA.. But the 5.0 was the fast car of the day and the start of the new musclecar era for America, thats why I like them, whooped up on my 70's Vettes.
Now is a different era for muscle, new cars are damn fast and it takes a bunch of old muscle to keep up.
Few years ago my sisters POS Buick V-6 beat my auto 5.0 mustang, embarrassing..
LS motors are far superior to older engines. Pontiac torque, well that's all cubic inches, stroke the LS the same and it will kill the old poncho. Yes, the 350 LS will lose compared to the 455, but that's just CI, not build.


----------



## OrbitOrange (Jul 5, 2010)

jetstang said:


> Back in the days the cars had 7" wide tread on hard compounds, hardly a fair comparison to our new sticky compound tires. For fast, I love Mustang 5.0s, they were damn quick and can keep up with the best now easilly, and cheap to build. I had 6 of them over the years, just don't build an automatic, they are slower, 9.55 best for mine in the 1/8th with all the bolt ons but NA.. But the 5.0 was the fast car of the day and the start of the new musclecar era for America, thats why I like them, whooped up on my 70's Vettes.
> Now is a different era for muscle, new cars are damn fast and it takes a bunch of old muscle to keep up.
> Few years ago my sisters POS Buick V-6 beat my auto 5.0 mustang, embarrassing..
> LS motors are far superior to older engines. Pontiac torque, well that's all cubic inches, stroke the LS the same and it will kill the old poncho. Yes, the 350 LS will lose compared to the 455, but that's just CI, not build.


Ive owned a bunch of 5.0 mustangs all 5 speeds. LOVE EM! But the 70 GTO was my dream car. So now Im torn. Do I keep it poncho, which is what I prefer. Or LSX it cause Im a speed junkie? Im trying to keep it stock as possible. I have an 88 Ranger I plan to stuff a 5.0 in next year.


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

Mustangs were not muscle cars, they were pony cars. Put a stock mid `60s mustang against a mid `60s stock GTO and it was no match at all.
Just sayin......


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Rukee said:


> Mustangs were not muscle cars, they were pony cars. Put a stock mid `60s mustang against a mid `60s stock GTO and it was no match at all.


:agree Unless it was a 428 CobraJet or a Boss 429 

Bear


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Yep. And today's muscle cars ARE faster and quicker than the old timers. 40 years of technology will do that. They have overdrive transmissions, variable cam timing, EFI, and on and on. Heck, they're even comfortable and get decent mileage! I read a test of a new 427 'Vette against a '67 427 'Vette, and the new 'Vette cleaned the old ones clock in every area, easily. 1/4 mile, top speed, fuel economy, ride and handling. But the '67 put a much bigger grin on the driver's face. These old cars have a soul, and animal like quality. Driving them is a visceral experience, not just a mental one. Back in the day, the guys in the 5.0 Mustangs couldn't believe it when my old GTO's pulled as hard in 4th gear as their cars did in 2nd gear. They were quick, but never a match for any GTO I was piloting!!! 12 second street cars are fast, and rare. Try building a street car on the cheap that runs 10's.....I've never seen one. 14 second cars take tuning, 13 second cars take tuning and $$$, 12 second cars take twice the $$$ and 11 second and faster take many times the $$$ to do. I know a guy with a '65 GTO that he drives on the street that does the 1/4 in 10.04 @138mph. I've seen the car. I've seen it run. It's magic. It flies. It even looks stock. But its got an unblown IAII block and is making about 750HP to the rear wheels. Cheap? Not very.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

> These old cars have a soul, and animal like quality. Driving them is a visceral experience, not just a mental one.


:agree In spades, with gusto, high-5, and you nailed it. :cheers

I feel the same way about airplanes. New jets are faster, arguably "better" in every way than their prop driven ancestors. But when it comes to raw, unadulterated S*E*X... nothing can touch a P-51, or the rumble of a big Pratt & Whitney double-row radial... arty:

Bear


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Well put, Bear. I saw a P-47 at a recent airshow, and the thing gave me goosebumps when it fired up and took off. All WW2 piston engine warbirds have the same effect on me. Something about the raw, unrefined power of a big piston engine.....Folks that have to have it explained to them just don't "get" it. You either feel it or you don't. It's also why many prefer the rough, unrefined rumble of an old Harley or Indian to the smooth hum of a far superior and more modern Honda or Yamaha.....The old stuff is ALIVE.


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

Which is exactly why alot of us have both a Classic Muscle Car and a Harley.


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

Rukee said:


> Mustangs were not muscle cars, they were pony cars. Put a stock mid `60s mustang against a mid `60s stock GTO and it was no match at all.
> Just sayin......


Pontiac advertised the Trans Am as a muscle car... *shrug*

So you guys are saying even if ponchos aren't as fast as the common small block powered hot rod, you'd rather have the Pontiac? Despite paying nearly double for the drivetrain? And still not fast enough to beat a much cheaper small block or lsx/efi cars? 

I love pontiacs but I'd hate to spend so much money and still get beat by cheap builds/cars. 10k$ is alot to spend on an engine to only hope for an 11/12 second 1/4 mile time. Just sayin'

I guess I'm just biased to the modern pontiacs with small blocks, lol.


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Ummmm..lessee....I have two GTO's...a '65 4 speed tripower hardtop with gauges which cost all of $1200, and a '67 GTO convertible with automatic trans, which set me back $1800. I have rebuilt the engines and transmissions in both cars, and have repainted both cars. I have installed a new interior and top on the convertible over the years. Both cars are non-restored, and have been driven by me for the past 30 years or so. Total cost for both cars, plus paint, engines, transmissions, etc is under ten grand. So, I guess it's subjective: Buy a new car for 30-40k, enjoy it, and watch it become a $2500 car in ten years, or buy a used original back in the day for peanuts, and watch it become a 30-40k car!!! That's what I did. Back in the '70's, when I got into GTO's, there were NO decent new cars that would run even close. 301 Trans Ams, 305 Z-28's, and Mustang II Cobras with 165HP 302's. Yech. If I were 20 years younger, I would probably be lusting after the newer stuff, too. Thing is, I remember the '60's, and it was a whole different vibe back then. Us old timers like to revisit that vibe from time to time. Easy to do with a classic GTO!! Also, A lot of us aren't focused on 1/4 mile times. I drive my ragtop all over the western US: Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Route 66, you name it, and enjoy tearing through the countryside in a fast, good looking, good running, comfortable classic car. I don't care if it won't cut a 12 second quarter mile. I do care that it delivers 20mph at 75 mph and will cruise over 90mph all day long at 3000 rpm. Just my perspective on it....


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Hot_Rod said:


> So you guys are saying even if ponchos aren't as fast as the common small block powered hot rod, you'd rather have the Pontiac?


Wow... first of all, I completely disagree with your assertion that we're "not as fast as common small block". There MAY be a few small blocks in 3600+ pound cars out there that will run with the Beast and also have comparable street and highway manners, but there aren't a lot of them.

Second, there is no common ground at all between the chevy "small block" and the modern LS motors - zero, none, zilch. The LS is a completely new and different animal.

But even with that - yeah. chevies are boring. There's nothing being done with them that hasn't been done and done and done ad nauseum by thousands of others. They're the chinese menu of engine building. Take a set of heads from column A, a cam from column B, intake from column C.... bolt together. Drive.

99% of the people who have them don't want to understand anything about them, they just want someone to spoon-feed them which parts to go buy (or to get daddy to go buy) so they can bolt them together and not have to think about it. They don't want to understand volumetric efficiency and how it's affected by various cam shaft profiles, they don't want to think about balancing port cross sectional area with flow velocities... none of it. Either that or they want a lifetime subscription to the "trick of the month club" so they can delude themselves into thinking they know secrets that no one else knows... crazy folklore stuff that they'll hang onto forever instead of actually putting out the effort to learn the hard science and physics of what's really happening in their engines, like believing that running higher octane fuel than what their eingines need will make more power.

\End of rant...  

No, I don't like them much. Probably largely because I believe that most of the people going fast with them didn't earn the right through hard work, creativity, and actual THINKING. They just copied what someone else did and had the benefit of a bank account.

Bear


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

You're my hero, Bear!!! There is NO WAY I could have summed up an entire, boring-as-vanilla sub- culture so succinctly. You said it all. I have to add, that waaay back when, when I was a young grasshopper, my Pontiac Christening was much like yours: I had ridden in Chevys and Fords that were "fast", but that dark night when I went for my first blast off in a roached out, 4 speed '66 GTO I was transformed. I simply could not _believe_ the amount of power and torque that car had. It was NOTHING like the 350's and 327's and 390's I'd driven. I've been hooked ever since. Those who haven't been there simply don't understand. And it really can't be explained.......It has to be EXPERIENCED!!!!


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

And furthermore.... I put a lot of effort into making the graphic below. I found a chart that shows the Torque and Horsepower curves for the LS3, the LS7 (z06 engine), and the LS9 (ZR-1 engine). I captured the dyno curve from the Beast, rescaled it to the same scale, and superimposed it on the same graphic. You can see from the chart that it flat destroys the LS3 "everywhere", murders even the LS7 on torque up until about 5500 rpm, and makes about the same HP as the LS7 and makes it lower in the rpm range. Only the supercharged LS9 makes more torque than my old Pontiac, by about 50-70 lb ft over the same rpm range. The real story is the torque curve. I'm over 500 lb ft at about 3200 rpm while the "mighty" Z06 is only making 410, 420 there. Yeah, it makes the same or even a tad more HP than I do, so on the drag strip with vehicle weight and traction being equal, it'd be a close call. But stop-light to stop-light? I'd eat it alive and spit out the bones.

Of course, we race cars - not dynos - so vehicle weight and suspension/traction factor into it a great deal, as does driver ability. The point is like I said in an earlier post: don't believe everything you read in the papers.


Bear


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

Whoa wait a minute, lol. I didn't say the lsx's and SBC's had anything in common other than being a small block.  

Second I'm just going by what I've seen on tin
Indians website and what goes on at the drag races. Tin Indian claims their engine packages(starting at 10k$, yikes) will make a 3700ib car run so and so. Mostly what i saw was 11s/12's. 

I know you don't like SBC's but from what I've seen you can make 400ish hp/tq for a lot less than 10k$. Local engine shops around here sell 383 short blocks for 800$, throw on decent heads and cam, top end and you'll make at least 400hp within 2k$ at the most.

My only beef is if I spent double on a Pontiac and get beat by a cheap chevy I'd be mad. Now I know I don't know it all, correct me if I'm wrong. I'm still learning.

I do know that my lemans 326 is slower than a mid 90 Monte Carlo and it makes me sick, lol. My 350 sbc tpi firebird would run away from it. Totally different engine but it's no fun not being able to outrun anything with it.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Basic physics, Hot Rod, F=ma --- Force = mass times acceleration. Rearrange that and you get A = F/m Acceleration = Force divided by mass. If you want to produce a certain amount of acceleration, it takes more force for a heavier mass than for a lighter one. Take that same 326 that's in your car and put it into a motorcycle chassis (ala Boss Hoss) and it's going to be terrifyingly fast. Why? Less mass it has to accelerate.

Be careful comparing race cars to street cars. Race engines are set up to be very efficient at a very narrow rpm range,usually a very high rpm range - at the expense of being less efficient everywhere else, especially down low. 

Again, there's a universe of difference between a car that just runs 10's or 11's, and a car that runs 10's or 11's *AND* is dociile enough for everyday driving.

Bear


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

In other words less weight, the faster you go. I'm well aware. 

But anyways. I guess I'll do some more research and see what happens. If I can get a 400hp/400+tq poncho and at least be capable of a 13 or less at the track I wanna stay Pontiac. 

I just know sbc's are cheaper and easier to make power and being I've had cars with them, it's just tempting. I love all gm engines and brands.


----------



## OrbitOrange (Jul 5, 2010)

So 2 cars for the sake of argument lets say:

2 - 1969 gtos. 1 with a 6.0 LSX conversion, the other with a poncho 400 both engines are bone stock no mods have been done. 1/4 mile race (just for number not because either one is a race car because were not talking about race cars) who you think is going to win? Remember cars are exactly the same only difference is the engine.


----------



## Roger that (Feb 6, 2010)

My lamborghini Countach and my 65 GTO are about the same in performance up to the 1/4 mile. There is about 20 years difference as well. That should show you how incredible these GTO were when thy first came out. So I'm afraid to say the modern minivan might be able to outrun both cars, but those cars are legendary. Everyone stops to look and give you thumbs up. Not always the case with the modern I can blow anyone's doors off cars of today. Pontiacs are legendary piece of history worth owning. If you want to "spank" someone cheaply buy a crotch rocket motorcycle.


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Hot Rod, why are you even screwing around with an old Pontiac? Get something newer and faster,and you'll be happy. Classic cars with original powertrains are not for everybody....They are like a fine vintage wine, not flavored vodka. They need to be appreciated for their subtleties, their details, their personality...they need to be nurtured and appreciated. Much easier to just have a double shot of flavored vodka: it's cheaper, and you'll get buzzed quicker.


----------



## OrbitOrange (Jul 5, 2010)

I think the point here he and I were making is why does a 400 that makes 325-350 hp and tons of torque not blow away a late model engine making the same hp with less torque?


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

Cause I like muscle cars. Some new and old. That simple.

I'll be honest, I didn't realize how different old pontiacs were till I got this car.
I wanted an ole school muscle car and I'm a pontiac man(at least the modern pontiacs but I always liked the looks of the old ones) and I just happened to found this car and got a very good deal on it.

The car I traded for my lemans was a 96 v6 firebird that had over 250k miles on the body, rebuilt drivetrain and a decent daily driver. I was getting tired of it since I owned it for nearly 6 years. Those cars are fastly becoming worthless and the guy was desperate for a daily driver that got good mpgs.

He originally wanted 5500 for the car but he traded me for roughly 3k$ or less car.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of modern cars.(other than Pontiac/t/a's) I think theyre too complicated to work on and a pita to fix anything on them. I'm the type that'd rather have an older, cheaper and easier car to work on and potentially be worth something, someday.

Other than modern firebirds/trans ams, they're isn't many newer cars I'd want to own.

I can understand what you mean by appreciating the classic and it's traits. I'm just torn between performance and originality without breaking the bank.

I guess I should just make my daily driver the fast car since it's original drivetrain is what I'm more a customed to.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

OrbitOrange said:


> I think the point here he and I were making is why does a 400 that makes 325-350 hp and tons of torque not blow away a late model engine making the same hp with less torque?


Well, the short answer is that it will, all other variables like vehicle weight and suspension/traction, parasitic losses, driver technique, etc. being the same - assuming both are optmized to keep the motor at or near it's best rpm band. Remember that since HP is calculated from torque and rpm, in order for an engine to make "the same hp with less torque" it has to make that "less torque" at a higher rpm than the other engine does.

In terms of average net horsepower, it takes 342 HP to go 13.0, 435 HP to go 12.0, 564 to go 11.0, and 751 to go 10.0 -- all in a 3800 lb car. It doesn't matter if the power is being made in a Pontiac, chevy, or an Allis Chalmers tractor engine --- that's the power output required in order to run those numbers as 3800 pounds.

Do realize that's average net, not peak, horsepower. Say you've got two engines - both with 400 horspower (peak) at 5000 rpm. Engine 1 makes 200 horsepower at 3000, 300 horsepower at 4000, 400 at 5000, 300 at 6000.
Engine 2 however makes 100 at 3000, 250 at 4000, 400 at 5000, and 250 at 6000. In other words, though both of them make the same at peak, engine 2's power ouput falls off more sharply the farther away from 5000 it gets. In a typical drag race scenario wtih rpm's climbing then falling at shift points, over the course of a race engine 2 is making less AVERAGE power. Everything else being equal, it's going to lose despite being equal in peak horsepower to engine 1. The only way it could avoid that would be to do something to prevent rpm from falling off as much on either side of 5000 during the run, such as switching to a different transmission type with more gears and less "spread" between ratios.

Bear


----------



## OrbitOrange (Jul 5, 2010)

BearGFR said:


> Well, the short answer is that it will, all other variables like vehicle weight and suspension/traction, parasitic losses, driver technique, etc. being the same - assuming both are optmized to keep the motor at or near it's best rpm band. Remember that since HP is calculated from torque and rpm, in order for an engine to make "the same hp with less torque" it has to make that "less torque" at a higher rpm than the other engine does.
> 
> In terms of average net horsepower, it takes 342 HP to go 13.0, 435 HP to go 12.0, 564 to go 11.0, and 751 to go 10.0 -- all in a 3800 lb car. It doesn't matter if the power is being made in a Pontiac, chevy, or an Allis Chalmers tractor engine --- that's the power output required in order to run those numbers.
> 
> ...


I love it when you talk dirty like that! arty:


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

.......I think we all do!!!


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

Short answer.. I'd hate to try to read the LONG answer! Lol..


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Hot_Rod said:


> Short answer.. I'd hate to try to read the LONG answer! Lol..


:rofl: Guilty as charged, your honor... :lol: :cheers

Bear


----------



## jetstang (Nov 5, 2008)

A mustang 5.0 didn't turn on till 2000 rpms, thus making the stock auto car a dog, but a 5 speed that you could flash through the dog stage was a quick car and didn't fall on it's face out of the hole. Pontiacs never had this problem. Now, you have cars like indy cars that have tons of power in a small power band. With a 7 speed auto trans the car can live in it's power band and be computer controlled to optimize everything. New cars are damn fast and only getting better, 400 rear wheel HP and 20+ MPG, hard to compete. I don't really drive my car, 10 mpg and not really fast, nice cruiser though.


----------



## jetstang (Nov 5, 2008)

OrbitOrange said:


> Ive owned a bunch of 5.0 mustangs all 5 speeds. LOVE EM! But the 70 GTO was my dream car. So now Im torn. Do I keep it poncho, which is what I prefer. Or LSX it cause Im a speed junkie? Im trying to keep it stock as possible. I have an 88 Ranger I plan to stuff a 5.0 in next year.


5.0 is a pony car, but it and the Camaro started the new "muscle car" era, fast cars, 74-86ish were pretty pathetic. 
I try to get people to keep the poncho, but as a daily driver the LS motored cars are far more civilized, great gas mileage, great power and are reliable. Add a 6 speed to the combo, and some disc brakes and you got a sweet car, pro touring. 10 years from now all the cars are going to be repowered and having an original motor is going to be an oddity, and not worth more as the recent auctions have proven.
Disclaimer: The 461s are awesome motors, strong and huge power.
It's just hard to fight turbo/supercharger cars that sip gas unless under boost.


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

If I ever get bored with the Beast and decide I want "MORE POWER!!" (uhhh uhh uhhh...) and am willing to give up stock appearance, mebbe I'll go with some of these...
 Dave Wilcox's magic

...and a little of this...
 ...mounting

... with one of these here doodads...
...tire pump 

...could be fun.... 

Bear


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

What it all amounts to is... We need more bloody money! Lol if you're rich or like some shops who build a car with unlimited funds the ideas are endless!

I'd have an all out, top of the line, tin Indian engine in my car. If only I were rich. Hmm, wonder if car sponsors could help me out?? Lol


----------



## OrbitOrange (Jul 5, 2010)

They need to come on off the price of aluminum heads for the ponchos, $1800+ is stupid!!


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

Aluminum heads in general. They're all over 1200$ for a set.


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Jet, none of mine are going to be "repowered" as long as I'm the owner. Agreed, they were popular then and are now, just like the '32 Ford or '40 Ford. Stock '32 and '40 Fords are SO rare, they are extremely valuable.....if you can find one. I sure hope all of the classic GTO's won't be gentrified in this way.....It would be nice to think that 60 years from now, someone digs an old tripower 389 '65 GTO out of a garage and takes it out for a hell run!!


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

Well think of it this way. My car is 40 some years old and there's still people with the want for original drivetrains and to keep it original.

I'm positive these old engines will always be around in the near future. The cars with original drivetrains/numbers matching still go for a lot of money.

There's a lot of people that refuse to go with efi more complicated engines and as long as there's people like that, there will always be a market for old carbed engines.


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

You know, what I'd like to see is an efi top end swap setup for Pontiac engines.
That would be pretty sweet if they could do that. Similar to the sbc holly setup. 

It would still be a Pontiac engine with possibly more and efficient power and better mpg.


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

I love the new stuff, fuel injection, etc. I work on it all the time and it's great. But I also understand carburetors, points ignition, and magnetos. I like to stick withe the "era" that the car is from. My '15 Ford is a hand crank start and runs on magneto...it's one coil per spark plug, just like new cars. It's stock. My GTO's run points and carbs because that's what they came with and because I know how to tune them easily. My newer stuff with injection (4Runner) is great....doesn't load up on steep off road hills and runs great at all altitudes. Fuel Injection is superior than carburetion for easy starts, less cold run wear, and efficiency, but the MPG on the highway between a port injected and carbureted engine would surprise you....pretty much no difference. It's during ALL driving conditions that FI shines.....no cold blooded operation like a carb. I guess it's what you're comfortable with....I like both, but for my old GTO's, it's carburetion.


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

Oh I love the concept of efi. But trying to diagnose what sensor is going bad or working on the very congested and very minimal space under the hood is what I hate, lol.

I liked my 3.8 v6. It made good power and still got 30 hwy. Hated working on it and trying to figure out what's ailing it though.


----------



## jetstang (Nov 5, 2008)

I did FI for years, but the cost of parts is rediculous. Carb parts are way cheaper, so I went back and have been building them for the last 5 years or so, it's more fun for me. I'm not converting either of my cars, just saying, LS power is pretty appealing. I do hate the 10 mpg of my 350, maybe I need to put the 2 barrel back on, lol..


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

Yeah, I only get 11mpg!! 
If I could find a Triple throttle bodied fuel injection unit, it might be tempting.


----------



## OrbitOrange (Jul 5, 2010)

no clue what gas milage mine gets. Havent got to drive it enough to tell. But it wont be good I bet with a lead foot.


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

Well boys.. I think I'm convinced to stay poncho even if it doesnt net me 11's/12's. 

I got on youtube and listened to everyone's 400's/455's and man do they sound good. And 400hp/500tq sounds nice too. 

Question though, I noticed olds and buicks also had 455's, what are the differences? Arent they about the same?


----------



## Instg8ter (Sep 28, 2010)

After hearing mine out in the garage all year my wife can now tell a Pontiac motor from a block away....no sound like it. may not go the 1/4 as fast as some but light to light there ain't many better. Get over and let Bear take you for a spin, i am bettin thats a 12 second or better Pontiac. Good choice HotRod....:cheers


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

I need to! I bet his car would convince me for sure, lol.


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Bear's car is 11 second material all the way. Back in the day, a good friend had a '66 GTO with a mild 455 and a TH400 with 3.55 gears out back. Single 4bble, homebuilt, cast pistons, nothing fancy. I saw that car run 12.00 in the quarter at Baylands. It was impressive, but probably had 150 less HP than Bear's rig. Me, I've never had a 12 second GTO. Mid 13's. But that's okay with me!


----------



## jetstang (Nov 5, 2008)

Olds, pontiac and buick all had 455s, but they are all different motors. These were the days before coorporate motors, ie. Chevy. At the time there were 4 divisions of GM, 3 with 455s, 1 with 454, all different. But, the BOP bellhousing on the transmission, Buick Olds Pontiac, the tranny was the same, but different for Chevy. Pontiac was the performance division and the only one with a factory "airgap" intake, isolated from the temp from the valley.
Bears car is bad, and with right gearing it will run low 12's, but the combo and tires have to be right and tuned..


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

Hmm I sure would like too see the details in the 3 455's. The pics I seen of a Buick looked identical to the Pontiac. Only thing I could see was it was red, lol.

All I do know is on YouTube I seen some bad ass 455s, both bop's and they all seem like real ground pounders!


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

jetstang said:


> Olds, pontiac and buick all had 455s, but they are all different motors. These were the days before coorporate motors, ie. Chevy. At the time there were 4 divisions of GM, 3 with 455s, 1 with 454, all different. But, the BOP bellhousing on the transmission, Buick Olds Pontiac, the tranny was the same, but different for Chevy. Pontiac was the performance division and the only one with a factory "airgap" intake, isolated from the temp from the valley.
> Bears car is bad, and with right gearing it will run low 12's, but the combo and tires have to be right and tuned..


I run in the low 13's stock, I would hope he does better then 12's.


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

Aren't 65s lighter tho? They look a lot smaller and lighter.


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

'65's are indeed lighter. One of the reasons they're so COOL. The Buick 455 has the distributor up front, like an FE block Ford. The olds has an oil filler tube up front off the intake area, and really long thin valve covers....If you see enough of them, they are all quite different looking. And, I'd be willing to bet that Bear's "Beast" is in the elevens.....if he gets it hooked up. It has close to 500 hp, and mountains of torque. It is not a mere "mid 12 second car" in my opinion.....


----------



## BearGFR (Aug 25, 2008)

Hi Guys,

Thanks for the confidence  Hopefully this summer I'll be closer to knowing what it will run. I'm not kidding myself about how easy it's going to be to get the car optmized for best e.t.'s. I know I've got a long way to go. I'm looking forward to working through it and learning about how to do it almost as much as I am the end result. Just a couple nights ago I *think* I might have solved the belt throwing problem, but even that's just theory at this point until it's tested. Before any serious track testing can happen it still needs a fuel mixture/curve that's right and optmiized for throttle response, and it needs sticky tires. 

I used the Performance Trends Engine Analyzer program to model the motor, and its prediction turned out to be within 10 hp of what it actually ran on the dyno. They also have a Drag Race modeling tool. I assumed some things not yet measured (like vehicle weight and frontal area) and ran it. The things that were known, like gear ratio and engine torque/power curves, went into the simulation too. It predicted mid 11's. That's also assuming a "dead hook" situation with little or no wheel spin though, and that's going to be difficult to achieve. It also assumes a "perfect driver" that nails every shift point --- not sure this old man can actually pull that off either  Who knows if that will ever happen, but it does give me a goal to work towards.

Bear


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

Shifting is the easy part, it's coming out of the hole without lighting up the tires thats the hard part.


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

Yeah, bear, I wanna ride!! Lol


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

My friend's '66 GTO that ran 12.00 with a mild 455 and a TH400 had the suspension really dialed in. The car was no power monster, but he had it set up loose in front (90-10 shocks, loose A Arm bushing nuts, no sway bar) and he had ladder bars in the back adjusted for maximum plant and to optimize the torque. When the car launched, the front end came waaaay up, and the rear planted and he just left. Almost no wheel spin. Very anti-climactic. It didn't _look_ that fast....but it was, and it was consistant. He was pushing maybe 425hp....maybe. The key was in the way his suspension and chassis worked, and he was an experienced driver, too, cutting a fast light.


----------



## jetstang (Nov 5, 2008)

I love Bears build, it's badass. But the combo has to be right to run 11's, ie. gears. A 4.88 will get into the 11's a lot quicker than a 3.55, don't know what he's got. I'm from Missouri, show me. Love to see him turn an 11, but don't think it's happening on the first time out. 11's are fast, damn fast, not just that car feels quick fast.


----------



## bullet20cc (Apr 4, 2009)

*455*

I have 3 455's and three 67 GTO's. I use 4 bolt mains,alum race ported heads,comp roller cams .550 to .625.Scorpion roller rockers,Eagle forged cranks and rods,Mahale pistons all bored .30 over.Victor intakes and 850 cfm Quickfuel carbs and Doug's headers with 3 inch pipes and Super 44 mufflers. There all pushing 550 to 700 HP. I have to set the timing to about 22 degrees at idle to run 93 octane fuel. 12 bolt with 3:73 gears and 200r4 trans. Richmond gears and Moser axles.The 700 horse has a custom built Moser 12 bolt with 9" Ford housings and 33 spline axles. Custom drive shafts. I run 4 core downflow radiators with electric water pumps. No thermostats just a washer with a 1" hole. They all run cool and they all run fast. Mike


----------



## Hot_Rod (Feb 10, 2011)

That's all fine and dandy but you didn't tell us what they run in the 1/4!! :lol:


----------



## bullet20cc (Apr 4, 2009)

*Gold Car*

My gold car was nastalaga super stock world champion in 02,03 running a 455
Jeff Puckett from NC was the owner. It was set up for 11.00 sec but he broke out a few times in the 10's. He ran six years and won 2 years. When I got it it had line lock and a 4500 rpm stall converter 4:56 spool and it would pull the wheels.


----------



## geeteeohguy (Feb 2, 2008)

Jet, Bear is running 3.50 gears in his 9". Plenty of gear for a 461.....perhaps too much. There have been many Pontiacs built at the level his is that actually do better with a 3.23 gear, due to excessive torque. Pontiacs are not Chevys. They don't need nearly as much gear. Apples and oranges.


----------



## OrbitOrange (Jul 5, 2010)

Hot_Rod said:


> That's all fine and dandy but you didn't tell us what they run in the 1/4!! :lol:


:agree:agree:agree:agree:agree:agree:agree:agree


----------

