[PONTIAC DUDE]

Originally Posted by Badbird69

J&S Machine did post on here about making girdles for Pontiacs. I think HE lost interest due to the typical Pontiac enthusiast's requests for 18 different models - instead of just one.

DF

X2

Bwahahahahahahahaha.

[Wareagle]

Roadrage back in the day a friend up here in Canada tried to order a 79 10th Anni. T/A with a 400 4 spd but they were all spoken for so he settled for the 403 option - very dissapointed in its performance compared to his 77 SE T/A with the 400 Pontiac .

[Lee]

I challange ANY body to provide a pic of a non-windowed 403 block!

I've rebuilt a few T/A 403 motors, ALL were windowed. Best and most likely rumor was that some of the GMC motor homes with 403's had solid mains, but I've still never seen proof.

In the early/mid 80's, when there were over 100,000 400/403 Trans Ams roaming the road, I personally witnessed (and participated) in MANY "contests of speed". Sometimes I was in a 403, others a 400. I helped MANY friends with both.

When gear, cam, weight, etc. were all relatively equal, the 403 typically won.

Lee

[BOPcollector]

Originally Posted by Wareagle

Roadrage back in the day a friend up here in Canada tried to order a 79 10th Anni. T/A with a 400 4 spd but they were all spoken for so he settled for the 403 option - very dissapointed in its performance compared to his 77 SE T/A with the 400 Pontiac .

That's because the standard axle ratio in a 403 powered T/A was a 2.41. They were decent on gas,though.

[Pontirag]

you wont find many solid mains 403's they only made about 5000 of them and then went to the windowed blocks. Dawg with fleas.

igh nickle content blocks are used with soft cast iron piston rings. longer engine life. found alot in truck and caddy applications

[Charlie Brengun]

I wonder what the answer to the original question would be if posted on an olds forum..

[poncho in a can]

the "answer" would be the same. On the olds forum that I looked at. no one has ever came up with a picture of a windowed 403 block. And there is a guy on the site who is offering good money if someone can even show him a pic of one. You can make an olds run, seems the 455 from a 69 Toronado is the one to find. Not much love for the 403, not even on the olds forum. 350 olds seem to have more potential.
The olds are OK. At least is is not a 455 buick.

[mechanic17]

This controversy has again surfaced in a funny article in Muscle Machines (April 2011 issue). They "test drove" two stock 1979 TAs owned by the same guy, one w/ Pontiac 400/3.23/4-speed and the other with Olds 403/2.73/TH350. So, apples-to-apples--kinda-sorta.

They report that the cars feel the same (the owner did not want them raced in the 1/4 mile, apparently). No wonder--the funny part is, the Poncho was only running on 5 cylinders!

However, with both cars tuned up, "the Pontiac sounded nastier. . .[but] the Oldsmobile still felt every bit as stout as the Pontiac did." The kind of talk that this thread has generated was dismissed as "propaganda," even as coupled with admissions that in the higher rpms the Pontiac dominated.

This article surprised me, even though clearly a product of the mass media. I'm sure the Old guys will be very pleased by it. They subversively suggest at least twice that "divisional pride" kept the Olds-powered TA to a 16-hp deficit--in other words, Pontiac was never going to let a corporate powerplant outshine its own. But I'm reminded of James Taylor's lines in Two-Lane Blacktop to Warren Oates' character GTO (who drove a RA4 judge): "I've seen alot of cars like yours. They all get to look the same. They perform about the same." It was a criticism of homogenized, corporate car building as practiced by the big 3 and General Motors in particular, which only worsened as the decade progressed.

So I can believe to an extent, absent any real scientific data, the writer's claim that, as hobbled as they are by emissions equipment and general underengineering, the two powerplants were virtually indistinguishable. Now, give those two cars both to a Royal-Bobcat-type shop along with a $1000 budget, and I imagine the Poncho would run circles around the Olds. In fact, the article concludes by reaffirming the WS6/W72 combo as the "pinnacle" and "best all-around performance" combo of the late 70s. The owner states in a sidebar that his wife can drive the Olds, and strongly implies the Poncho is more of a man's car: "simply fun to drive."

[Dragncar]

I believe non windowed 403s exist, if for no other reason than Whittmore told me so.
Cool last post, as I bought a 42,000 mile one owner WS6/W72 79 TA, 400, 4 speed car last year.
I think if I put on a set of 13s I have which would bring the CR up to 9.5 and a RAIII stick cam it would run real nice.

[wrenchmen]

I picked up a 403 from a Trans Am recently. was hoping it was a solid main block.

It was not, anyhow with the right choice of parts I believe it will be an excellant street engine....gonna go in my sons 75 Olds Omega which currently has a stump pulling 260 in it.

A slight overbore and Kieth Black pistons will bring the compression up with the 4A heads, also was thinking this would be a great Turbo motor with stock compression.

Gonna do some basic port clean-up, block prep, etc. and find true dual exhaust manifolds. Edelbrock performer intake and cam and looking into an adjustable valve train.

Have it all torn down now and my son just started cleaning up all the parts.

[mechanic17]

As for the 403 block issue, according to Bill Trovato's new Oldsmobile book (page 10) there is a "NASCAR" small-block which can be bored to 4.350 (403 size) and carries p/n 22527735. This might account for the non-windowed rumor: "the rarest, strongest, and most desirable of these high performance castings."

[GTOLou]

Originally Posted by BOPcollector

That's because the standard axle ratio in a 403 powered T/A was a 2.41. They were decent on gas,though.

I think there were options. That was standard ratio. You could order a steeper gear with the olds. The poncho 400/4speed mandated a 3.23 gear.

[GTOLou]

Originally Posted by mechanic17

This controversy has again surfaced in a funny article in Muscle Machines (April 2011 issue). They "test drove" two stock 1979 TAs owned by the same guy, one w/ Pontiac 400/3.23/4-speed and the other with Olds 403/2.73/TH350. So, apples-to-apples--kinda-sorta.

They report that the cars feel the same (the owner did not want them raced in the 1/4 mile, apparently). No wonder--the funny part is, the Poncho was only running on 5 cylinders!

However, with both cars tuned up, "the Pontiac sounded nastier. . .[but] the Oldsmobile still felt every bit as stout as the Pontiac did." The kind of talk that this thread has generated was dismissed as "propaganda," even as coupled with admissions that in the higher rpms the Pontiac dominated.

This article surprised me, even though clearly a product of the mass media. I'm sure the Old guys will be very pleased by it. They subversively suggest at least twice that "divisional pride" kept the Olds-powered TA to a 16-hp deficit--in other words, Pontiac was never going to let a corporate powerplant outshine its own. But I'm reminded of James Taylor's lines in Two-Lane Blacktop to Warren Oates' character GTO (who drove a RA4 judge): "I've seen alot of cars like yours. They all get to look the same. They perform about the same." It was a criticism of homogenized, corporate car building as practiced by the big 3 and General Motors in particular, which only worsened as the decade progressed.

So I can believe to an extent, absent any real scientific data, the writer's claim that, as hobbled as they are by emissions equipment and general underengineering, the two powerplants were virtually indistinguishable. Now, give those two cars both to a Royal-Bobcat-type shop along with a $1000 budget, and I imagine the Poncho would run circles around the Olds. In fact, the article concludes by reaffirming the WS6/W72 combo as the "pinnacle" and "best all-around performance" combo of the late 70s. The owner states in a sidebar that his wife can drive the Olds, and strongly implies the Poncho is more of a man's car: "simply fun to drive."

That is an interesting article. The writers were "surprised" that the poncho and olds were similar in power - they then called a tuner in and found three cylinders as well as multiple other issues w/ the poncho.


Once tuned, both cars were equal off the line to about "30mph or 2500rpm". After that, it was ALL poncho.

[screamingchief]

Originally Posted by mechanic17

This controversy has again surfaced in a funny article in Muscle Machines (April 2011 issue). They "test drove" two stock 1979 TAs owned by the same guy, one w/ Pontiac 400/3.23/4-speed and the other with Olds 403/2.73/TH350. So, apples-to-apples--kinda-sorta.

They report that the cars feel the same (the owner did not want them raced in the 1/4 mile, apparently). No wonder--the funny part is, the Poncho was only running on 5 cylinders!

However, with both cars tuned up, "the Pontiac sounded nastier. . .[but] the Oldsmobile still felt every bit as stout as the Pontiac did." The kind of talk that this thread has generated was dismissed as "propaganda," even as coupled with admissions that in the higher rpms the Pontiac dominated.

This article surprised me, even though clearly a product of the mass media. I'm sure the Old guys will be very pleased by it. They subversively suggest at least twice that "divisional pride" kept the Olds-powered TA to a 16-hp deficit--in other words, Pontiac was never going to let a corporate powerplant outshine its own. But I'm reminded of James Taylor's lines in Two-Lane Blacktop to Warren Oates' character GTO (who drove a RA4 judge): "I've seen alot of cars like yours. They all get to look the same. They perform about the same." It was a criticism of homogenized, corporate car building as practiced by the big 3 and General Motors in particular, which only worsened as the decade progressed.

So I can believe to an extent, absent any real scientific data, the writer's claim that, as hobbled as they are by emissions equipment and general underengineering, the two powerplants were virtually indistinguishable. Now, give those two cars both to a Royal-Bobcat-type shop along with a $1000 budget, and I imagine the Poncho would run circles around the Olds. In fact, the article concludes by reaffirming the WS6/W72 combo as the "pinnacle" and "best all-around performance" combo of the late 70s. The owner states in a sidebar that his wife can drive the Olds, and strongly implies the Poncho is more of a man's car: "simply fun to drive."

Well,that's kinda amusing sure,but mostly irrelevant to what the OP asked to be perfectly honest.

The question posed by the OP was'nt which was the better "stone stock" T/A smog engine...

The question he asked was which engine had the greater potential and higher quality than the other,and that was asked with absolutely zero stipulations being made to try and even the playing field or anything like that.

IE: which engine has the greater ultimate potential.

And hands down the pontiac 400 engine wins that contest.

See post #5.

Even if one did'nt use an aftermarket block there is still the HD factory stuff like the 4 bolt main RA blocks or even the RA V blocks and forged cranks and such that one could use for this sorta comparison.

The 403 olds was born & bred as a smog engine,plain & simple,it was never intended for serious high performance use.

At least the pontiac 400 has a true high performance heritage to fall back on.

FWIW

Bret P.

[screamingchief]

Originally Posted by mechanic17

As for the 403 block issue, according to Bill Trovato's new Oldsmobile book (page 10) there is a "NASCAR" small-block which can be bored to 4.350 (403 size) and carries p/n 22527735. This might account for the non-windowed rumor: "the rarest, strongest, and most desirable of these high performance castings."

Looking at that part no. & knowing the GMPP based offerings pretty well,and based on your description,my money is on that being one of the GM corporate "rocket" racing blocks,which is pretty much just a beefy SBC block,and not a true oldsmobile V-8 block.

But I could be wrong.

Bret P.

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

I believe non windowed 403s exist, if for no other reason than Whittmore told me so.
Cool last post, as I bought a 42,000 mile one owner WS6/W72 79 TA, 400, 4 speed car last year.
I think if I put on a set of 13s I have which would bring the CR up to 9.5 and a RAIII stick cam it would run real nice.

Oh, well...that changes everything...if Whitmore said it then it must be true.

Of the thousands of 403 blocks that were cast, there has still been none to surface that weren't windowed mains. I'd bet good money Whitmore has never seen one or touched one, he's just passing on hearsay.

As for that Muscle Machines article? Pure Bravo Sierra. Bill Boyle used to autocross his 79 T/A 400/4-speed back in the early 80's (he purchased the car new) and he gave te Corvette guys such a fit with it that they were constantly complaining which got him a lot of extra scrutiny by the tech inspectors to make sure he wasn't breaking any rules. Let me see someone do the same in that class with a 403 powered T/A...it ain't happening.

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by mechanic17

As for the 403 block issue, according to Bill Trovato's new Oldsmobile book (page 10) there is a "NASCAR" small-block which can be bored to 4.350 (403 size) and carries p/n 22527735. This might account for the non-windowed rumor: "the rarest, strongest, and most desirable of these high performance castings."

This sounds the most plausible of all explanations.

[Brian Baker]

Originally Posted by screamingchief

Looking at that part no. & knowing the GMPP based offerings pretty well,and based on your description,my money is on that being one of the GM corporate "rocket" racing blocks,which is pretty much just a beefy SBC block,and not a true oldsmobile V-8 block.

But I could be wrong.

Bret P.

Hmmmmmm, not saying you're wrong, but just saying my parents bought a brand new '85 Cutlass Supreme that had an Olds 307 in it...a real Olds, not a Chevy. My father and I were both surprised, given GM's move to corporate power starting in '82. Could Oldsmobile have produced an over the counter block directed at NASCAR use in the late 70's? Maybe.

[screamingchief]

Originally Posted by Brian Baker

Hmmmmmm, not saying you're wrong, but just saying my parents bought a brand new '85 Cutlass Supreme that had an Olds 307 in it...a real Olds, not a Chevy. My father and I were both surprised, given GM's move to corporate power starting in '82. Could Oldsmobile have produced an over the counter block directed at NASCAR use in the late 70's? Maybe.

Well,I know they made part no.s 22551657 (std. deck w/dry sump) ~ 22551659 (tall deck w/dry sump) ~ 22551788 (std. deck w/wet sump) ~ 22551790 (tall deck w/wet sump) rocket blocks,but all those were 4.190" bore maximum blocks.

So yeah,that 22527735 number seems to "pre-date" the numbers I have,but there could be any number of reasons for that.

Also no. 22521056 was the first version of the olds headed BBC racing block,which later went on to become the DRCE drag motors,so this part no. pre dates the 22527735 casting.

So that 22527735 number falls smack dab in the middle of all that corporate engine stuff,so I dunno if I can see GM throwing a true Olds racing block into the middle of all that.

I know this,that specific 22527735 part no. is not in any of the GMPP catalogs I have,so I have a hard time trying to say exactly what that block could be with any certainty.

So I'd wanna see a picture & some documnetation first before I believe it's a true olds block.



Bret P.

[slowbird]

What is the bore spacing on an Olds?