So the Buick 455 has the biggest bore and shortest stroke. The olds 455 has the smallest bore and longest stroke of engines this size. They were both powering similar sized vehicles. I’ve always heard longer stroke is better for heavy cars. But it seems like the Buick is a better engine. That said, the olds 350 has a very big bore and shorter stroke. Sounds like their 350 may be a better performance engine that the Buick. What do you think? Im thinking of getting a ‘71 cutlass as a daily driver and think the 350 with a 4 speed would make a great little engine.
Olds 455 is a great engine. Gobs of torque. Buick has bigger bore though and bore bigger than stroke is generally thought if as being better for performance.
I think for 99% of driving you won't notice the difference between bore and stroke on an engine with 350+CID. Buy the 4 speed kids and enjoy!
The Olds 350 and it's other variants were among the best engines GM ever built. I am excluding the 350 Oldsmobile-based Diesel for obvious reasons. I ran a '67 Olds 350 323,000 miles without ever having the heads or intake manifold, or oil pan off. I did put a timing chain and steel gears in it at a bit over 200, 000 miles as preventative maintenance.
I've got to agree with John. I've had a few Olds 350s, and I'd say they were the best of the "regular" GM small blocks. I've also had a couple Olds 455s, and they are great engines, too. Lots of guys use them in boats because they're happy low rpm lugs. No doubt a Buick 455 is a better performance engine than the big block Olds, I'd say, but I think as far as the small blocks go, the Olds is tops.
First year for ALL GM 350 engines was 1968. How did you have one in a '67? Are you sure it wasn't a 330? And if anyone gets a hold of one of those Olds diesel conversion engines, they are GREAT blocks to convert back to gas for racing!
Back in 1978 I had a 1964 "OldsmoBuick" Special that I wanted to make "gofaster" but could not find anything "Buick" that I could afford. So, I bought an F-85 for $125. (330/2bbl, 3 sp, 3.08 posi) Pulled and rebuilt the 330, bored .060, 10.25:1 (TRW forged, and sealed power rings) It had a "head job" done and the lady said it ran for about 6 months before it started burning oil so bad it would not run, so she parked it and put it up for sale. I found it had W-30 "F" heads, (the original heads were replaced with the "F" heads and the valve guides had been knurled), so I got lucky. Had the heads compltly rebuilt and new guides, a "three angle" valve job, (a really good machine shop) and had a friend that ported the heads. W-30 profile cam (.475/328/108) Saginaw 4 speed from a Vega and 3.08 posi. And Q-jet and 4bbl intake from a 1970 Cutlass. (and then the giant front discs, cause the car had sever "no stop" after putting the 330 in). Ran it hard for 5 years, pulled to 7 grand (because it did not blow up when I did it repeatedly) It was one of the fastest small blocks I ever saw and it surprised a whole bunch of folks. "What's in that thing?!!!" I would say more was attributed to "luck" than "designing" a solid build. I built it based on a bunch of articles I read in Hot Rod, Car Craft what my uncles taught me and research at the library. But I was young... I wish I would have taken it to the track, but I was just having fun driving it back then. And, yes, I miss that car.
Olds 455s are great engines. They are limited in very high performance applications by the relatively low flow capability of the heads. 350s are fantastic engines. IIRC W31s had lower 1/4" mile times than BBO 442s.
You know what i don't get? Its the olds 403. So many mixed reviews. Some say they are weak and slow and its not the engine to put money into.
I gotta agree about the olds 350, great engines. Not sure how accurate this info is, but I was told that olds was re-calibrating their engine building equipment much more often than the other divisions, resulting in many more of the engines being closer to "perfect". I had a few pre'72 olds 350's that surprised the crap out of me in stock form. They would literally sing at high rpm.
The big exception is the Gutless Cutlass 307. I had one in a 1986 Regal. It was pitifully slow. The 2.41 rear did not help of course, but 4 cylinder cars could take me off the line, embarrassing.
The 260 was even worse. The 403 is a fantastic engine when built right, it was just a product of late 70s emissions compliance.....It is a bigger bored 350 Olds that we are all waxing poetically about after all.
From what I hear, it is a great engine that can make very decent power and torque. The windowed mains fail at power levels well past what the average enthusiast will reach. I would love to know how many people have actually had failures from those windowed mains. I always suspected that these failures fall in the same category as the leaky Quadrajet plugs.
Only downside of the Olds big blocks was their large crank journal size and crappy oiling system (sound familiar?)...They did not survive well above 5000 rpm. I blew one starting it when my throttle linkage stuck wide open, 57K mile 425, turned two bearings and scored two more. They also need some valvetrain work but are cheaper/easier to upgrade than BBB. Edelbrock had a pretty decent Performer RPM package for the 350 Olds that made 397 rwhp, if I recall properly...I always wanted to do an Omega build, but like the Apollo & Ventura they're hard to come by.
If you pump up the power on the 403 olds, it tries to spit the crank on the ground!; https://www.bing.com/images/search?...967A907C375F2CB952A8C73DA587C722C&FORM=IQFRBA That is what the ''windowed" main webs are good for! It is rumored that if you can find a 403 from a station wagon, the block is supposedly beefier than the blocks used for a regular car. Don't know how true that is though?
If I remember correctly, the first 350 ci chevy engine was exclusive to the 1967 SS Camaro. Hp was 295 & not 300 because of the weird design of the exhaust manifold on the driver's side of the engine.
I drove an '73 Olds 88 455 for twenty-eight years. It was the most dependable car I ever drove. My best friend had a '73 Riviera 455 , it regularly blew the doors off of my Olds.
Had a number of older Oldsmobiles; the 394 was a brute of an engine but a nice runner. The original 303 was a pleasant surprise; very snappy all things considered. Once I get my recently acquired 53 Olds back into running mode, I'd like to see what it would do against a comparable Buick. Before the car died, we didn't time it but it passed a quarter mile doing 75, and that was while running on 6 wheezy, smoky cylinders. I like Olds as an alternative to a Buick.
