Also, I am NOT talking about Nick, I'm talking about a know-it-all in the comment section of the Buick video. Well yes Larry, I totally agree about the conventional formulas. But this skid mark is talking like he knows more than the guys who have tested it for 20+ years. He even claims he’s an engine builder with 20 years experience. Yeah did you play with Legos for 20 years in your mom’s basement?
Doesn't like the sound?!?! Sounds like a truck engine?!?? He needs a scholarship to BG or Cecil or the Buick Bash...
Wow.. you guys are something else.. someone puts up a video with a Buick on the Dyno and rip it to shreds. Everyone is an expert. In the end, what matters? Your opinion or the owner of the engine?
Julian I think you misunderstand. There was a person commenting on the video itself, NOT NICK (who I think is awesome) or the owner Alex, that repeatedly was putting people and their knowledge about carb CFM and other intricacies of carburetors down, while saying that Buicks don't need more than 670 cfm of airflow. Misunderstanding, because I'm only irked by this one user "Paul Dana" who was doing this to regular Youtube commenters and spreading bad information.
Here is another one of the great You Tube video comments by another Buick "Expert": "455 is a great engine but the 1970 350 Stage II was one of the most powerful engines ever . Now he needs to build one of those to add to his collection"
More of the stupid comments: S. Z.6 days ago Stock 455 carb had more cfm than this 750. On such a modified BBB you should try a 4150 950cfm or 1000cfm hp carb. 7 8 View 10 replies Hide replies Paul Dana3 days ago As a 455" can only consume around 670 cfm at 6000 rpm a larger carburetor will only reduce power. 1 David Callahan3 days ago 455 likes a big carb ! 850 would be nice to see. 1 2 Paul Dana3 days ago @David Callahan As a 455" STREET engine can only consume around 670 cfm @ 6000 rpm how would an 850 help it? 1 David Callahan3 days ago Paul Dana factory Q Jet was 800 cfm on the factory Buick 455 2 3 Paul Dana3 days ago @David Callahan So what? The 455's only consume around 670 cfm @ 6000 rpm even though the QuadraJet was able to flow 800 cfm at much higher revs. 1 Sandy Shoremann1 day ago @Paul Dana Carb "advertised" flow rating and actual are two different things. I would look at the dyno sheet and see how many inches of vacuum it was pulling above 4500. Me I'd put 2 big rochester TBI on a 2 x 4V manifold.. This is almost 2020. No Need for carburetors. I'm a buick guy but I don't like the sound of the 455. Nice truck engine though - if Buick had made a truck - Sandy 1 Peter Economakis23 hours ago @Paul Dana Your so wrong. Even the poor flowing Nailheads love big carbs. BBB respond well to big carbs.. So your telling me everyone out of 1000 members on the Buick forums that drive and mod Buicks are wrong?? 1 Paul Dana21 hours ago @Peter Economakis Yep, they're wrong. Street engines can only consume about 85% of their volume EVERY OTHER revolution at 6000 rpm which means a 455" can only swallow about 670 cfm at 6000 rpm and 556 cfm at 5000 rpm. I suggest you visit Holley's website and read what they recommend for STREET engines. And by the way, double pumpers are only suitable for NASCAR type engines that never drop below 5000 rpm. 1 Paul Dana21 hours ago @Peter Economakis It's painfully obvious you know nothing about sizing carburetors for street use. 1 Paul Dana19 hours ago @Peter Economakis Hey Peter, do you know what the term "Volumetric Efficiency" means? At the most STREET engines can only achieve an 85% volumetric efficiency which means they can only consume about 85% of their volume under full power. That means a 455" engine can only consume about 670 cfm at 6000 rpm and a lot less at 5000 rpm. Installing a carburetor larger than 700 cfm is a waste of time and money because it won't produce any more power and will actually reduce power of it's grossly oversize. The formula for sizing carburetors for STREET engines is displacement X max rpm divided by 3456 X 85%.
The WIZARD should show him his time slips he has a really good Q-jet for the street and puts on 1000 hp at the track and goes almost 2 tenths faster
Yup this dude.. and Peter Economakis is me!! This whole forum knows nothing about Buicks There was a mopar guy who said AL heads on a 440 would do way over 500hp.. No other specs just the heads!
Why waste your times worrying about these peons stupid comments dont stoop to their low level. This is a nice performing motor that most of as well as nick knows it would like a little more air......but so sometimes carb for max hp and carb for good clean idle, and good around the town street manors are different. It can be hard to get good manors and mpg with a 1000 cfm carb even though it might make more hp with it Dont tell this pool aul guy my 464 loves its 1050 and I think I could gain more with a 1150........loldont burst his bubble, who knows who might roll out of his mouth.......lol
Well this guy should read about when they did the shootout on the dino between all the big co's.They all had a 750.carb and Buick came out with the most HP.Mopar was second,then Chevy,Ford,Olds and Pontiac.So they tested them with a 850 double pumper and of all six only Buick gained about 30 HP.all the others lost HP.These are facts not the bull these guy's are giving us.Bruno.By the way,with steel S-1 heads over 20 years ago.with the North East club in Englishtown ,with the TA 308 solid cam my car went 9.70 don't remember the MPH,I would have to look in the old newsletter to find it,and I was not alone.And this with a 462 block,11.50 compression.The same car,about 18 years ago I put the S-2 TE heads,roller cam,and a 8 inch converter ,off the shelf by Jegs,as we were in BG racing,the same car,little lighter,went 9.12 and 146 mph,at Cecil and with a 10.50 dominator,same one that's in the car right now.And at Bowling Green last October the same car went 9.04 and 147.1/2 mph.I guess rebuilding the short block helped a lot,It should go in the 8.90's with a little better short time.But now the car is a 494.Bruno.
Topcat, Gessler did a max-effort set of irons for me around 1991. Just curious what your flow numbers were. I'll have to check mine, but I think at .500" they were maybe 285/185. Best, Ranger Aiken, SC
