215 Buick/Olds V8 & '64 Buick 300 Heads Combo Thoughts?

It's not always about maximizing power, either, especially in my particular case. I have no use for 300+ HP in this vehicle, so other factors rank higher. I realize that line of thinking goes completely against what many have been taught and continue to believe, so I understand if a few of you are rolling your eyes right about now.

Yes, originally my intent was to reach 200 HP or so (a little more would be fine) and do it reliably, but that was before I found a 215. I am a but fluid with this process, and I'm learning some things on the fly, so I understand I don't have a specific combination of parts which I am locked into using at this point. That probably leads to some ambiguity, and that's fair, so if I bounce around a bit, bear with me, please.

One of my concerns with running a CR of 10:1 or higher is detonation under regular driving conditions-- something I wanted to avoid-- hence my conservative 9:1 CR thought early on. Quench and how it is affected by combustion cylinder shape, contour, size, etc. is something I am just now learning about in detail. Knowing what I now know, I feel more comfortable venturing closer to the higher CR range. Using premium fuel is not an issue if that's what is required to stave off detonation. I am all about finding a way to make it work, even when I get in over my head a little, so I will learn what I need to, make changes, and tweak things as needed to ensure the final combination works well.

I think I mentioned this earlier, but the appeal of the 215 is strong for me. Unique and different will always the more appealing option for me, even if that means increased difficulty and cost. That's just how it has to be for me. A '52 Nash Rambler is unique in and of itself, so powered by an Olds/Buick aluminum 215 is even better. I don't anticipate needing to lay out $2400 for a set of one-off custom pistons for example, and while I understand this is not SBC (or SBB for this forum) territory (i.e, cheap parts), I'm happy to be patient to find the right parts. I already have two 300s I could refresh and have one reliable 250HP engine ready to go in...but I don't want that, and this vehicle is my chance to do what I want, and what I feel I'll be happy with in the end.

Years ago I owned a '77 Dodge Aspen wagon, which went through a 360/4-speed swap, then back to the Slant Six again. One day I removed the front bumper assembly (full chrome bumper with the energy absorbing "shock absorber" things which were standard for the era) and drove the car around for a bit. The difference in handling, balance, and road manners was startling, all for the better. I think the bumper assembly weighed 80lbs or so, and while it was at the extreme forward end of the car, the seat-of-the-pants difference left a mark on me. The stock '52 Nash I6 weighed 600 lbs or so, so I'm already down 300 pounds with a 215, and maybe closer to 3200lbs total as a rough weight.

I do appreciate all of the comments, thank you.

 

Dynamic compression calculation between 7.5 and 8.5 is more important than static compression. Usually for static compression, I shoot for 9.5 for cast iron heads or 10.5 for aluminum heads. Under 7.5 no power, over 8.5 detonation for Dynamic compression. That is for Premium pump gas. Cam choice will make a big difference. Retarded cam timing will lower Dynamic compression, advanced timing will raise it. Distibutor advance all in at 3500RPM instead of 2500RPM .

Wallace Racing: Dynamic Compression Ratio Calculator

 

Thanks. I just tried this calculator, but not sure on what to enter for the "Boost Pressure in PSI"? Zero since It's N/A, not boosted in any way, or 14.7 for standard atmospheric psi?

I used the Crower specs for the Inlet Valve Closes ABDC, 29 for the Crower 50230 cam in this case:

INTAKE Opens: -7.0 ATDC
Closes: 29.0 ABDC

Using zero for the Boost number, and 9:1 for the CR number, 600 elevation (I'm in Milwaukee) I get:

Static compression ratio of 9:1.
Effective stroke is 2.67 inches.
Your dynamic compression ratio is 8.63:1 .
Your dynamic cranking pressure is 177.27 PSI.
Your effective boost compression ratio, reflecting static c.r., cam timing, altitude, and boost of 0 PSI is 8.51 :1.
V/P (Volume to Pressure Index) is 109

 

I suppose if going for unique that's fine, it should be fairly comparable to the six that was there before so if you were happy with that you should be OK but I wouldn't expect any improvement, or not much of one. A lot of those old inline sixes were pretty stout and generally made pretty good torque. The 215 was around 200 ft/lbs so not bad but nothing to get too excited about. It'll be a struggle to get over 200 hp and maybe even to hit that number so at a guess it's likely any improvement in performance will come from what little you will get from weight reduction. Dropping 300 lbs should be the equivalent of about 25-30 hp and you should definitely feel that if the power is the same unless you pick up weight somewhere else. But I don't know that I'd worry overly much about swapping in heads and pistons in order to try to increase the power if that's your goal. With the big chamber heads it will be hard to find an off the shelf piston that will work and is at a reasonable price, and feature creep when building an engine is always a concern. Real easy to start out with a $500 engine and end up spending $5000 on it. And without other enhancements I'm just not sure the heads will be any real benefit. Will you be winding it up at all? Aside from which you have no basis to compare it to so even if it does help how would you know? It's possible to build that engine to put out around 240 hp but you might not like that and the forged pistons would sort of be needed.

So, again making comparisons if you did use the 300 it'd be 220 lbs off the front end instead of 300. I ceramic coated my last block and most everyone who looks will think it's a 215 anyway unless I tell them. And it will easily put out 350 ft/lbs of torque so there's that. No premium gas is nice. Bellhousing is several hundred less. Starter is a hundred or two less. Flywheel can be less. More reliable and just a better engine overall. But hey, build what you want. It's what I did. And boy do I wish someone had explained things to me way back when. I'd have saved SOoo much time, money, and work.

Jim

 

OORRR build a nice high compression 231 even fire V6, bigger, more power and lighter than the 215 V8!
Plus parts are readily available

 

I can appreciate unique. That's why I have a Buick (or two) in the first place.

I've only seen 215 engines a few times and didn't even know what they really were, but they looked cool. You are a rare case that doesn't want more out of everything. I'm having an easier time resisting scope creep as I age. I managed to build a stock 71 350 for my 4-speed GS without going nuts. Mild cam, balanced, aluminum intake and headers. It's fun to drive and will live a long time since it will never win any races against a better prepped car.

So, good luck with your build and never look at your old receipts.

 

On the Crower 50230, it has 4 degrees advance built in so you set it straight up, which is retarding it 4 degrees on the timing set. Now intake closes at 33 ABDC. It will put the Dynamic compression perfect at 8.51. The boost space is for turbo applications.

 

Engine temperature affects octane requirements too. 180 degrees is more resistant to ping than 200 degrees. Also don't try to run too lean, most engines like to idle between 13 and 14 AFR. Cruise at around 15 and full throttle around 12 AFR.

 

Mark, I had both in Jeeps with similar builds and they were pretty close. Exhaust note was different.

 

Yeah the V6 exhaust at full song isn’t very flattering to say the least

 

I don't know what the torque rating was on the original flathead six, but 82 hp is...not great. The car was non-running when I acquired it, so I have no previous experience to compare to, which, is fine.

Again, I don't plan anything highly exotic for the 215, and @Jim Nichols has laid out a formula here and elsewhere on the web that I feel is a good path to follow for the most part. I understand the compromises I'm making/choosing by going with the 215 instead of something with more cubic inches/power/torque right out of the box, and again, I'm fine with that.

Did @Jim Blackwood bribe you to say that?!!! I actually was considering a GM 3.4L DOHC V6 early on, but wanted to keep things more traditional and not use fuel injection, so that was ruled out.

This^. I tend to not go too crazy myself, and while some things may change once I get this thing driving, I don't have anything to prove, so a reliable cruiser works for me. Those receipts got tossed, or better yet, burned. LOL.

Thank you. I wasn't sure about that 4* built in advance and how it factored in. I will play around with that calculator a bit more and see how the final dynamic number changes.

 

Mark was referring to the 3.8L V6 or 231 that was the base motor in a lot of g-body's in the late 70s through the mid to late 80s. Put a 4bbl intake from the 4.1L Buick V6 or an Edelbrock 4bbl on there, and you'll be moving right along. Great little motor, was the basis for the Grand National.

 

So, the 215's weak points are mostly related to thread strength in the block and heads. Be extra careful when pulling torque and if it feels like it might be giving, stop. You will be lucky to get 55 ft/lbs on the mains and head bolts but, with good composition head gaskets that should hopefully hold up OK if you don't get crazy with your compression ratio. If you could get a good Rover 4.0 or 4.6L block (with the pink dot in the lifter valley) the threads are much stronger but liner slip is still a concern. There is a method of pinning the liners that can help. The heads on those engines are very nearly as good as the 300 heads so it might be worth looking for one but be alert for any signs of liner slip.

The GM heads are soft so be especially certain that the washers you use on all the head bolts are both extra thick and hardened. Otherwise the bosses can mushroom, causing the head bolts to get loose.

Blowby seems to be a larger concern with these engines, we still don't know why. Extra provisions for crankcase ventilation is likely to be required. You also may need a larger radiator than you expect to. The short stroke would lead you to think it might make a nice high rpm engine but the cast pistons won't hold up if you try winding it up towards 7 grand, which is what's required to get into the 240 hp range.

It's a fun little engine and you might be perfectly happy with it, I hope so. I feel like it's a little small for a 2500 lb car and would be better suited for something around 1500 lbs, I just feel like the heavier car stresses the engine too much and it isn't really built to take it. But then I don't have the restraint to refrain from using full throttle. I know some people do but that isn't me.

Jim

 

I understood, Buick forum and all. My daily is a '98 4.3L V6 GMC, so while I do like the 3.8L Buick and appreciate a 90-degree V6, it's not the right choice for me.

 

On the 215, studs are a good idea. Main caps and heads. ARP had wrong torque specs and many were stripped. With studs I'd use 60ftlbs on heads and 70ftlbs on mains. Also steel thread inserts on rocker shaft hold down holes. The Edelbrock Performer intake should have 1/4" holes drilled both sides behind thermostat to even flow and prevent hot spots. 1/2" plastic open spacer or 3/8" multi layer insulator gasket. You can get .001 rod and main bearings from Egge. Do the oil mods mentioned on this site.

 

The Rover composite head gaskets, intake valley and exhaust gaskets are good. The stock pressure plate pattern is for long style. The Ford 65-72 10" diaphram style bolts right up. 80's Camaro clutch disk has 26 splines to match the T5.

 

For bellhousings. The 61 198 V6 and 215 V8 were 3 speed only. 62-63 were dual pattern 3 and 4 speed. D&D has an adapter for the 3 speed bellhousing. The 4 speed Saginaw/Muncie pattern is the same as the GM T5 until 92 when they went to Ford pattern. If all you can find is the 3 speed bellhousing, I had a drawing for the 3 speed pattern if you want to make your own adapter out of 3/8" steel plate. Make a tracing of the T86 3 speed pattern and center hole. Use a piece of plywood to make a jig. Put the T5 on the jig straight down and mark the T5 holes and around the mounting flange. Transfer to 3/8" steel plate. Counter sink allen bolts for 3 speed pattern. Bolts and Nylock nuts for T5 pattern. May have to clearance the bell a little for bolt clearance. EDIT: T90 same pattern at Jeep transfer case not at bellhousing.

 

For the distributor, I like the small cap HEI MSD clone. TA has them in red or black cap for a good price at $189. All over EBay too, even with blue cap. You can run the 350 HEI if you replace the forward intake bolt with a pan head allen bolt and grind a little clearance on the front of the intake.

Ready-to-Run | TAPerformance.com

SB BUICK 300 340 350 small cap HEI Distributor BLUE + 60K Coil + 8MM USA WIRES | eBay

Buick Small Block HEI Distributor 215-350 Engines 65,000 Volt Coil W/ Vacuum | eBay

 

Sanderson has shorty headers for the 300, TSI has block hugger and fenderwell exit headers and some Range Rover had these stainless tri y headers.

 

We are enablers you see... You probably should not associate with us.