FAQ |
Members List |
Social Groups |
Calendar |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
1968 Catalina 2-door sedan 4-speed
Quote:
__________________
A legend and a out of work bum look a lot alike...Little Enos Burdette |
The Following User Says Thank You to BLACKGP For This Useful Post: | ||
#42
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
My friend was really into the W30 455's in those days and had some trouble keeping the rod bearings from spinning.
__________________
65 Tempest, 400, TH400 86 Fiero SE 2.8 |
#43
|
||||
|
||||
Because no one would care if the boats sank
|
#44
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The olds motor from 1968 to 1976 only had two different combustion chamber sizes, and two different piston dish sizes. They were durable, inexpensive, and did the job. That meant 442s, land barges, jet boats, irrigation pumps, etc. Eight years of production with few changes (besides w-30 specific parts) means that they're quite plentiful, unlike the 455 Pontiac. I'd love to see two cars of similar weight and gear, one with 428 Poncho and one with 425 Olds, and let them go at it. I'd bet theyd be close.
__________________
Clutch Guys Matter _______________________________________ 53 Studebaker, 400P/th400/9" 64 F-85 72 4-4-2 Mondello's VO Twister II 84 Hurst/Olds #2449 87 Cutlass Salon 54 Olds 88 sedan |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
Olds 403 was a decent engine. If your TA came with one they can be built to put a smile on your face.
|
#46
|
||||
|
||||
I have 3 455 powered cars; I love the diesel like torque. The TA is just a low mileage, low compression, unopened (sans timing chain) 1971 455 but the torque is unreal. Even the 75 GV I have with a 200 horse smogger will light up the tires anytime.
__________________
Two 1975 455 Grandvilles & '79 455 Trans Am ‘69 Camaro SS 396/375 (owned since ‘88) ‘22 Toyota Sequoia V8 ‘23 Lexus LS500 awd ‘95 Ford F-super duty 4wd 7.3 p-stroke & countless Jeeps & off road vehicles. |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Olds V8s are pretty durable but had a flimsy weak bottom end if you plan on pushing them unless you use the diesel block or girdled it.
__________________
Two 1975 455 Grandvilles & '79 455 Trans Am ‘69 Camaro SS 396/375 (owned since ‘88) ‘22 Toyota Sequoia V8 ‘23 Lexus LS500 awd ‘95 Ford F-super duty 4wd 7.3 p-stroke & countless Jeeps & off road vehicles. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” Dr. Thomas Sowell |
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to hurryinhoosier62 For This Useful Post: | ||
#49
|
|||
|
|||
A 4" bore and a 3" stroke isn't that over square, Stan. Think about it: the 301 also had an air pump, catalytic converter, altered carburetor jets and ignition timing plus it was designed for unleaded fuel from the get go.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” Dr. Thomas Sowell |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Stan, you are making this too easy. It was already EPA and CARB certified for CA and high altitude areas. The Pontiac 350 and 400 were NOT. Look at the cam specs, carb jetting and ignition timing of the 403s. Then, consider the 403 had an air pump, catalytic convertor and was designed to burn unleaded fuel.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” Dr. Thomas Sowell |
#51
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
Quote:
Given the decades of additional research, not so much. But also consider, Chevy was cutting bore size and increasing stroke by 1965 compared to the engines designed in the '50s. The 409 "W" Chevy had a much shorter stroke than the 396/402 "Mk IV" Chevy; the 348 W" had a much shorter stroke than the 350 sbc. Even the '66 Buick 401 had a shorter stroke than the '67 Buick 400. Quote:
Buick, Olds, Cadillac each built larger engines in the '67--68 time frame, just as the switch-pitch feature was getting deleted from the TH400 and TH425. It was cheaper to enlarge the displacement than to fancy-up the torque converter. Quote:
"Stroke" doesn't increase torque. Increased displacement increases torque. The Buick 455 was a torque-monster; and it had the shortest stroke of all the GM 454-455s. Quote:
Henry Ford: "History is bunk!" 1916 Henry Ford II: "Bunkie is history!" 1969 Quote:
Pontiac "could" have siamesed the cylinders like Olds did with the 403, and had a significantly larger bore (or just gone paper-thin like Ford did with the 427). I wonder if Pontiac management/engineering ever considered that. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ever driven a jet boat? The L-A-S-T thing you need is big bottom-end torque. Low-RPM torque is TOTALLY WASTED. A jet pump is a centrifugal pump. At 2K rpm, they barely move any water. I think a Techumsah lawn-mower engine could spin one at 2000 rpm. It takes ~600 horsepower to spin them 6000 rpm, and probably 400+ horsepower to spin one 5000 rpm. The power absorption of the pump is VERY non-linear. (i.e., it takes much more than double the power to double the RPM.) So lots of Olds/Berkeley power packs ran 4500--4800 for hours on end, 'cause that was WFO and all the engine could do. The torque curve of the engine intersects with the torque absorption of the jet pump; and that's it for RPM unless the boat hits a wave and the pump sucks air. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
'Course, we could see what was happening in '67, when GM killed the switch-pitch TH400 for the '68 model year. They were carving money and utility out of the transmissions even then. The Powerglide was even worse. Had GM spent a little more, a little earlier, they'd have eliminated untold problems in the '73--'90 timeframe; and they'd have pissed-off fewer customers in the process. Last edited by Schurkey; 02-26-2020 at 01:19 AM. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Reading this post we have different conversations going all over the place, from 428 to Olds power boats.
Let's start with emissions. Thank you, California. Yep, that's where it began. 1961 an administrative organization called the Motor Vehicle Pollution Control Board (MVPCB) was created. Later changed to the State of California Air Resources Board in 1967. In 1961 the board required all new motor vehicles sold in California to have crankcase emission control devices (namely to control engine blow-by gases) as factory installed equipment aimed at reducing hydrocarbons down from 1.25 pounds per car per day to 1.0 pounds. This changed in 1966 when unburned hydrocarbons had to be limited to 275 part per million (ppm) and the carbon monoxide to a 1.5% concentration by volume dropping the pollution levels to .046 pounds per day per car. The projected number that California was looking to see by 1970 was 0.20 pounds per vehicle per day. Thus began the introduction of the PCV valve, the closed crankcase system, A.I.R. systems, open chamber heads, thermostats changed from 180 to 200 degrees, reduction of idle port holes/limited idle screw adjustments, retarded timing controls and the double acting vacuum advance can, the catalytic "after burner" (yes, 1968), and the gasoline vapor recovery systems. All thanks to California and mandatory on all cars/engine sold in California and this was all by 1968, and of course more was to come after 1968. In other states, some of these requirements were not required and thus a CA car will have the AIR system while one in New York would not, but still had the AIR heads. The better burning open chamber heads did away with the AIR system......but it did return at a later date along with those charcoal canisters if anyone recalls those. The use of the Oldsmobile 403CI came about because it was the only comparable engine to the Pontiac 400CI that met California emissions standards. So California cars were fitted with the Olds engine in lieu of a Pontiac 400. The 403 was also an optional engine on the Catalina. The Olds may have had smaller valves (2.07/1.62) and even flowed less than a Pontiac head, but the use of a longer duration and higher lift did wonders for the W30 option. The 1970 W30 455 was rated at 370HP @ 5200 RPM and 500TQ @ 3600. The cam had a 328 duration on Int/Ex, Lift was .475, and had an overlap of 108 degrees! So do you want to compare it to the 370HP RA IV or the 360HP 455? Oldsmobile had some hot set-ups to include the W31 350 with its 308 duration cam and .474" lift and 82 degree overlap cam. Same HP as the Pontiac 350HO, but my guess is it'll outrun the 350HO. You can also look to an earlier time when the engine option in 1966 on the 442 could be had with the 400CI, tri power, ram air induction, close ratio 4-speed, and 4.33 gears and would have been the match to Pontiac's 389 XS tri power, ram air option. I have never owned an Olds 442, but I would say they had a few engine options that may have put a hurting on a Pontiac GTO, or a Tempest/Lemans with the 350HO. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
No catalyst before model-year 1975. I think you mean "Thermal Reactors".
Essentially after-burning exhaust manifolds fed with fresh air from the AIR pump or the Pulse Air system. The added oxygen allowed the overly-rich mixture to continue to oxidize. |
#54
|
||||
|
||||
Low power and crappy mileage came about due to the drop in compression that just so happened to come along with the open chamber, but it does not have to be that way!
And you have something way the heck wrong, as closed chamber heads require more timing then open chamber heads to make max power, its just that the open chamber heads can be more prone to ping and knock if compression ratios your looking at are are kept equal. Anyway have we gone off the rails in regards to the OPs original question here, sorry about that!
__________________
Wernher Von Braun warned before his retirement from NASA back in 1972, that the next world war would be against the ETs! And he was not talking about 1/8 or 1/4 mile ETs! 1) 1940s 100% silver 4 cup tea server set. Two dry rotted 14 x 10 Micky Thompson slicks. 1) un-mailed in gift coupon from a 1972 box of corn flakes. Two pairs of brown leather flip flops, never seen more then 2 mph. Education is what your left with once you forget things! |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
I wide ranging thread with all kinds of emission and good info about the Pontiac 428, 455, and even the Oldsmobile V-8's! It's an interesting look back. To the OP's original question, "why was the 428 discontinued?" I think the advertising and marketing group had more to do with it than engineering. Pontiac simply wasn't going to be left in the "displacement dust", by the 4 other GM divisions. Cadillac was moving toward 500 CU IN. Olds, Buick and Chevy were 454,455. Pontiac stuck at 428 would have been a sales disaster in that time period, no matter the HP. Pontiac had to be equal or larger. The move from 428 to 455 was an easy deal. No clearance issues in the bottom plenty of cylinder wall, same engine package, easy change. BTW, I have owned numerous 421's and ran them as 428's, as well as a few stock 428's. I can't fully explain why, but that was a real sweet spot in cylinder head flow, rod ratio, bore and stroke. They just ran beautifully and had superior power to a 455 from 4000-5500 RPM stock. A very nice engine package. 455 was essentially a smog package big engine with the exception of the high compression 70 455. The 71-72 HO had the better top end to help utilize the displacement and of course we know how that was improved more in the SD-455, allowing higher RPM's with a better bottom end and even more improvements up top. Other than that, a stock 455 is just a big smog engine. At my school, years ago a student brought a really nice Grand Ville in for a run on the chassis dyno. Stock engine, about 80K miles, 455. Ran it several times, sounded pretty good too, Q-jet sucking all the air available. When the dust settled, it had made peak power at the wheels of just under 140 HP!!. The owner was ready to cry. This was the reality of cars from that era.
|
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Pontiac 428 is one of the vintage cars I want to add to my collection.
__________________
If you have your own car and some problems came up, you must have a compatible tool to avoid worsening the problem. Service jacks and jack stands https://theeffectiveguide.com/best-f...t-jack-stands/ are just a few types of equipment that of great help for raising and supporting the car as you work on it . |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
"The 409 "W" Chevy had a much shorter stroke than the 396/402 "Mk IV" Chevy" 4.3125 bore X 3.50 stroke. Sam main spacing as a BBC crank just turn down the mains.
__________________
Skip Fix 1978 Trans Am original owner 10.99 @ 124 pump gas 455 E heads, NO Bird ever! 1981 Black SE Trans Am stockish 6X 400ci, turbo 301 on a stand 1965 GTO 4 barrel 3 speed project 2004 GTO Pulse Red stock motor computer tune 13.43@103.4 1964 Impala SS 409/470ci 600 HP stroker project 1979 Camaro IAII Edelbrock head 500" 695 HP 10.33@132 3595lbs |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Robert Cruzen's Cavalier is super competitive. He never did say who he had build his engine, but is ws a shop that primarily built Chevrolet stuff, even they were impressed with his Pontiac mill...
__________________
1977 Black Trans Am 180 HP Auto, essentially base model T/A. I'm the original owner, purchased May 7, 1977. Shut it off Shut it off Buddy, I just shut your Prius down... |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Wanna have some fun? Put a 428 crank in a 455 block with some light pistons and longer rods, good flowing heads and a nice cam and get ready for power out to 7000+ RPM.
__________________
---------------------------- '72 Formula 400 Lucerne Blue, Blue Deluxe interior - My first car! '73 Firebird 350/4-speed Black on Black, mix & match. |
#60
|
||||
|
||||
Bunkie Knudsen left GM to go to Ford. Later, he was fired from Ford.
Henry Ford: "History is bunk!" 1916 Henry Ford II: "Bunkie is history!" 1969 No kidding Knudsen went to Ford and got fired. You miss the point, there would not have been a Boss 429 if he was never there. It took a gear head to get the Boss 429 in the first place as opposed to the non gear heads that were division managers after Delorean . |
Reply |
|
|