580 HP NA Buick 350 that raced the circle track

Here are the cams that were designed and manufactured based on this real world testing:

http://www.iskycams.com/pdfcatalog/2004-05/page70.pdf

 

Impressive!


...maybe I'm on to something then with my ideas. It's amazing what tuning will do! lol
that and extra care taken in machine work and balancing the engine, both with resonance and with numbers for each cylinder.
Getting the compression matched to the camshaft, proper fuel delivery, spark; cam degreeing and ignition advance...when you can make it all come together it's magic. (well, it's science, but it feels like magic!)


You're an incredible asset to the Buick community, Sean.

 

Thanks Gary,

We appreciate your help as well!

Many people do not understand why I am going to all this trouble with a odd ball engine but I love being the underdog!

 

I am still tracking down pics of Bud Ketterer's Buick's 68 and 71 Skylarks. But here are pictures of the track:

 

Holy scheiballs Batman!

Good story Sean, thanks.

Those single plane intakes are giving me an idea.

I'm pretty handy with a welder (old school bodyman here) and I do restorations.

It's truly amazing what the Buick 350 will do. I always knew it was a beast, but DAMN!

Breathe some air into it and it wakes up, stretches, and bristles its fur against big blocks...N/A even.

Notice his cams were relatively low lift, but with gangster duration.

---------- Post added at 08:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:05 PM ----------

Sean, you got a top and bottom view of that first single plane intake?

---------- Post added at 08:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 PM ----------

And that hollowed out Poston S-Divider intake...looks like that could work.

---------- Post added at 08:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 PM ----------

I just have to quote this for emphasis...

This deserves a few !!!'s and two :TU::TU:, along with a big fat :eek2:, and then finally, a :Brow:

---------- Post added at 09:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:43 PM ----------

I learned a lot of my engine tricks from a guy in Atlanta back in the late 80's-early 90's who was nothing short of a genius. He shared some magic with me and I was forever changed.

He was a Chevy guy, though with some alterations, much of his wisdom could be applied to Buicks. His first impression wasn't too good of Buicks, though he really didn't know much about them. I educated him somewhat, but die-hard gearheads will tend to stick to their own methods and preferences.

I know more than I care to admit about Chevy engines. Maybe this is why I prefer Buick.

Here's a salute to the wizard. :TU:

He wouldn't believe these numbers either, and yes they're pretty outrageous.

I have no reason to disbelieve Sean though. There's plenty of evidence out there that shows it.


Point is, much can be achieved with massaging and tweaking. Balance is the key. Most don't know about Buicks (especially the small blocks) because they were spending their time and money elsewhere. At least back in the late 80's and 90's they didn't. I lost count of how many times I got laughed at for talking about Buicks to the Chevy gurus. But I hung in there and learned more and more.

Know that in order to turn a Chevy on, you have to rev the everloving hell out of it. Below a certain RPM they're garbage. It's the head design (and therefore the cam designs that follow), which the Buick 350 isn't a part of.

Who'd have thought tall and narrow ports would be better than short wide ones... (it's not a 'design flaw,' and I've always said this)

This is with all due respect to you, sir. I understand you've spent a lot of time with Buicks.

 

Yeah Gary,if you make an intake,it doesn't nessesarily need to be made out of aluminum,a steal sheet metal intake will still be lighter than the boat ancor factory cast iron one. Being a body guy,welding 1/8" sheet metal should be a breeze,with the flange that bolts to the head around 3/8"-1/2" thick,with a 3/8" carb mounting pad. Should be very sturdy,and much lighter than stock,and flow like a somofagun.:eek2:

Start a thread on that when you do it(if),hell some guys might even want one it it turns out good,sell enough of them you'll be able to buy a roller cam.:TU:

Unless I get one done first.:Brow:


Derek

 

haha on the roller cam jab.

My interest is for the advancement of the Buicks and the community, so maybe we can put our heads together (all of us) and come up with something.

The first single plane intake looks like it's the best of the 3 (or 4 if you count the hollowed out Poston S-Divider) mainly because of the runner design. Curved runners will be better than ones that have abrupt turns.

I have a couple ideas floating around in this old cranium...


oh, and metal fabrication is a piece of cake for me. I just recently fabricated a rocker panel for an old '72 Chevy truck that was rotted out with rust out of an old quarter panel cut off a '65 Mustang. lol

...and if I do it, it WILL turn out good. I don't do **** work.
Notice on the second single plane how the height on the runners starts off a little taller closer to the plenum, then narrows up to meet the heads. Enlarging the runners in this way will help blend them into the plenum and create a harder draw on the carb.

Like with women, curves are your friend. No abrupt turns or sharp edges.

 

I believe marks first single plane intake was sheet metal .if you start an intake thread I'm sure Sean will post a pic.

 

The first version was steel like Alec says and there are pics of it on the first page of this thread.. I feel the later alum intakes were better, but yes steel is fine to build a nice intake. If I remember correctly it was about 15 pounds.

 

Heck that's 1 lb. lighter than TA's Stage1 350 aluminum intake.

 

Remember though,an intake is 3d fabricating,not 2d like a rocker panel,or quarter panel,or any other type of one sided panel that you're used to doing. I'm sure you could eventually do it though,just try not to over think it,its only a single plane intake after all. Just try to make the runners close to the same lenght,and position the carb so all the cylinders get fed.

Having your background,it should turn out sweet,and being steal,there would be a lot of different finishes that could be applied to it. Jet-hot coating in and out,or powder coated,chrome,even custom painted,or just rattle can engine paint.

Wasn't trying to jab you on the roller cam,was just saying if you could do these on the side,and make some extra $$ from it,you might be able to upgrade to one. Besides,I would rather see more roller cam research for a Buick anyway,all those flat tappit cams are outdated,they leave way to much power potenial and efficiency on the table than a roller grind would.

And theres nothing wrong with knowing about sbc engines,all the basic principals apply to all 4 stroke internal combustion engines,and they all have there place.(just not in a Buick car,LOL) I build a lot of different engine "brands" for people that can't,or don't have the time to build it themselves,and those other engines can be pretty cool too. Plus most other brands are SO easy to build compared to a Buick,because of the after market support,it makes them a no brainer.(almost anyway,LOL) The biggest reason I like Buick so much,is the challenge to make them compete,without the aftermarket support,plus I love the body style of my 64 Skylarks.

A BBF 460 for example,you order a balanced rotating stroker assembly have the block machined,and its ready to assemble.No fuss no muss,no clearancing the rods,no clearancing the block,no oiling mods,no need for a small base circle cam.Just throw the 4.600" stroke crank(one of the many stroke cranks available from the aftermarket for a BBF) in torque it down and so on til its done.(A little more involved than that,but hey typing sucks) ,and you have one hell of a over 500 CID truck engine when its done. So what if its not a Buick,its still a cool engine,as long as no one puts it in a any GM car,its awesome for a Ford vehicle.

Right now I'm waiting for a sbc 400 block to get the machine work done so I can make it a 434 sbc for a friend that wants to upgrade the 350 modified Ford engine he put in his chevy S-10 a few years ago that runs like sh_t. I told him not to waste his time on that boat ancor design of an engine back then.:rant:Unless he at least got the 400M crank for it,or an aftermarket stroker crank for it,and run it with some Cleveland heads on it to make it run,live and learn I guess.

Anyway,that 434 sbc will be WAY cooler than a Ford engine in a chevy truck.This build isn't a typical spin to win sbc either,most of the budget is being spent on the low end to make it "bulletproof" for now,he may upgrade it later. I installed 4 bolt splayed main caps,and a halo girdle,and it will be block filled to the water pump holes,Eagle H-Beam rods(cam clearanced for a 4.00" stroke) with ARP-2000 rod bolts,with JE light weight FSR 4032 alloy forged inverted dome pistons,with a TCI Rattler harmonic damper,and an degreeable gear drive timing set.On top will have sbc rebuilt Vortec heads,a cheap imitation RPM air gap intake,with a slightly used flat tappit cam,.501 in .501 ex. 244 in 244 ex @ .050(a Comp Magnum cam). With the cubes of this,and the flow of the Vortec heads,this engine should run similar to a BBB 430. The difference being the way lighter rotating assembly,and the slightly better exaust flow from the Vortec heads,the intake flow is very similar to stock BBB heads. Even with the 244 @ .050",the cubes will make the duration seem like a lot less,and should run out of air around 5,800 RPM with the around 230 cfm of a Vortec,even though this cam is suppose to have a 2,500-6,500 power range. Anyway,this should run great and be fun to drive with stump puller low end like a Buick,and the best part,its not going in a Buick car.(that makes it cool) Sorry for going on and on,I guess I got carried away.LOL


Derek

 

It's cool, Derek. I appreciate your concern and thoughts. I think I can handle the 3 dimensional aspects of it.

Contouring frame rails are 3d and there's a lot more to contouring body panels than one might think. It has to fit with everything else around it, be bent and curved to form the original contours (in the particular instance I referred to, I made it out of a flat piece of sheet metal that I had to make a template for and cut out) and in some cases metal has to be sandwiched in-between other panels, such as the case with inner rockers, outer rockers, floor pans; inner and outer wheelhouses underneath quarter panels, etc etc etc.

I prefer working on European cars because I like how they're built (many guys hate them because they're more complicated, but I like a challenge). Once you get the hang of it it's not so bad. So I'm no stranger to quality or working on high dollar equipment.

I operate computerized frame machines with laser guaging systems so there's a lot more to it than smearing some bondo on a metal panel. I have to be many things as a bodyman, from engineer to sculptor to welder to electrician to being familliar with chemicals and safety, the list goes on and on. One has to be talented at looking at something and figuring it out.

I can appreciate someone going on and on about something because I tend to do the same thing myself.

I'm a Buick freak, and that's ok. I respect your ability to work on many different makes and still you find room to appreciate the Buick.
In my mind, that's a 'feather in the cap' for Buick.

I can work on any make or model of car or truck or boat or tractor or whatever. It's not the same as being a mechanic, even though I am required to do some minor mechanical work from time to time, like when a deer runs out in front of a car that has a plastic intake manifold and busts it all up after caving in the front end of the car. lol

I also have the lives of people in my hands. Doing structural repairs carries with it a lot of responsibility to get it done properly and to ensure the structural integrity of the vehicle meets or exceeds the original manufacturing process. Same thing with suspension items I replace. You get the idea.

Buick's me passion though.

I've also been shuffling some numbers around for camshafts too, and roller cams are definitely the future (heck, they're the present). They're superior to flat tappet in every way but the pricetag, but once that's overcome, you're set. :TU:

 

Another nice testament to the durability and power advantages of the ST300.

 

It would be a great trans for the street with a gear vendors unit with a 4.56:1 rear end gear,and the torque of a Buick.

Would drop the final drive ratio down to a 3.42(if I'm remembering correctly that the GV unit has a .75 overdrive,and the ST 300 has a 1.76:1 1st gear?) This would give a more reasonable 8.0256 1st gear multiplication ratio,while not totally killing the fuel mileage. A 5.13:1 rear gear ratio would be much closer to the optimal street/strip 1st gear multiplication ratio(of 9.5:1) though,and would bump the final drive ratio up to 3.8475:1,hurting fuel economy substanially.

To bad GV doesn't make a unit with 2 speeds,one to make 1st gear steeper,and overdrive. That would make a 2 speed a 6 speed trans(3 gears for every 1 gear).A 1.5:1 first gear and there .75:1 overdrive gear,this would give the ST 300 a 9.0288 1st gear muliplication ratio with a 3.42 rear gear,and a 2.565 final drive ratio. Would be even better if the GV unit had a quick change 1st gear,changeable from 1.25 to 1.75 to 1 for different track conditions,or to accomodate the different transmission first gear ratios.:Brow:No more rear gear changing and overdrive trans swaps with such a device,GV could probably put a lot of companies out of business with something like that.:eek2:


Other wise using a ST 300 for street driving with a more common gear,the car would be a dog off the line,even though more HP makes it to the wheels.(unless the engine has 500 ft lbs @ 1,000 RPM,the car WILL be a dog off the line with a 3.73 or higher,a numerically lower number.) But if the driver of such a car didn't care about off the line performance,this trans would perform very well as a highway cruiser. A 2.56:1 rear gear with a ST 300,and a light car with a sbb 350 with around 350HP(at the crank) could probably go 160 MPH. That would be great on the salt flats,but not very many oppertunities to do that on the street.(unless you're running moonshine):Brow:

I'm sure the race car had a steep 1st gear to run so good on the small track with that trans.A big balancing act,its sounds like if that car was on a bigger track it wouldn't have a competitive top speed to compete with the BB cars because of the steep gear that was used the engine would run out of RPM to compensate for the anemic 1st gear.

But hey,if anyone likes that trans,don't let me talk them out of using it.It would be a great drag race trans set up similar to how people set up a powerglide to drag race with though.(powerglides suck for a street car also)

This IS NOT a personal attack on you Gary,its just my opinion(backed with some facts) on the ST 300 trans. If you like this trans,to each his own.:TU:


Derek

 

I've owned 2 ST300's before, and I've rebuilt them too, so I'm fairly familiar with their pros and cons. I dont' take it as an attack. I know what its strong points and weak points are.

For a circle track scenario, it would be a good trans because there's no 'doggy' take off to worry about so much once you're rolling.

The trans puts more power to the wheels, so if you're not too worried about it being a drag car, for street use it's a great trans. :TU:

Oh and I believe the OD was .78:1, but you were close.

The '68 LeSabre I had came with the ST300 and a 2.93:1 rear. 1st gear lasted til around 80 mph or so. Up to about 30 mph it didn't have quite the take off that a 3 speed tranny did, but it wasn't terrible. It rev'ed up and stayed there until it reached the gear speed and then RPM climbed.

I had a couple of 455's in that same car, same trans and rear, and they overcame the steep 1st gear pretty easily. That trans responds well to a wide power range with plenty of torque, for sure.

I like different trans for different reasons, and I believe the ST300 has a place where it shines, and break-neck hole shots aren't it.

Interestingly, if the engine has its torque down low and has a nice wide band from say 1,500-4,000 that trans is a very good choice. I had a Buick 350 2v in front of one (with a 2.73:1 rear) and you'd be surprised how well it took off. Faster than a 4v engine, for obvious reasons (torque is much higher RPM on a 4v engine).

I'd say a 3.64:1 or a 3.42:1 rear wouldn't do too bad with an ST300 for street use. I often toyed with the idea of getting a variable pitch setup for one using Jim's 1800/3200 converter (they use the same converter, if I'm not mistaken).

The LeSabre had crazy top end, and would stay neck and neck with my brother's Mopar 383 big block and 727 trans from 30 MPH up. It would cruise effortlessly at 100 MPH, and speeds over that were very easily attainable without even using the secondaries on the Qjet.

I enjoyed that trans.

 

What do you think about a lower rear gear with a GV unit on one? Best of both worlds,you just wouldn't be able to go 80 mph in 1st gear,but maybe 1st gear with the overdrive turned on.:Brow:

And yeah,a great high speed trans,you must of ran a lot of shine in your day with all those 100+ mph highway runs.:laugh:

It is a cool trans,it would of been cooler if they made a ST 350, with 350 gearing and a switch pitch,I have one of each,maybe some day I'll see if it can be done. Not much of a trans guy though,I'll need to do some research first.

A Turbo 350 Hydromatic uses just slightly more HP(if any more at all) to run than a ST 300,plus the gearing is better,but no SP.o No:


Derek

 

This is why I prefer the 2004R, or 700R4 for street/strip use. They can use a nice loose converter at about a 3200 stall and have 100% lockup with the flick of a switch. Once you drive a muscle car with 100% lockup on the highway it is game over.... Tough to go back to a non lockup trans....

I would have used a 2004R in my car expect for durability reasons the 4L80E was a better option for me.

 

Lower gear with one of those units would be sweet. Those things are rather pricey though.

No shine runs, just loved going fast when I was young. That car was so smooth and handled so well, high speeds felt like lower speeds. No strain on the engine and it cornered much better than you'd think a B body car would. It wasn't sluggish anywhere but from 0-20 MPH or so, and even then I wouldn't have considered it a dog. It could still squeel tires and if I went around a corner, it would burn rubber (open axle). I think the weight distribution was pretty good. That changed once the big blocks went into it though.

You'd think the TH350 would be pretty close, but actually, it's closer to the TH400 than it is the ST300. It has more clutches and more stuff to turn than the ST300, and really doesn't shave off much less power than the TH400.

Do you honestly think if the TH350 used the same power as the ST300 that there would ever be any single reason whatsoever to use an ST300 ever again? lol

Here's a list of the parasitic power loss for each trans:

ST300 18 HP
TH350 36 HP
TH400 44 HP

As you can see, the TH350 sucks twice the power. 18 HP might not seem like much, but for an engine that had around 315 HP, it's quite noticable--and for a 2v lower compression version that had ~250 HP, it's even more noticable.

I went from an ST300 to a TH375 in my Skylark with the 350 2v and the only thing I gained a little bit of was holeshot. Once it would wind out in 1st and hit second, I could feel a substantial power loss compared to the ST300, and when I hit 3rd, it felt like I was going uphill with a 50 MPH headwind by comparison.

ST300 has 2 forward gears as you know: low and high. It has one forward clutch pack and a band that wraps around it. That's it. Band tightens up around the clutch casing to activate some planetary gears, then releases while simultaneously engaging the clutch pack. That's the 1-2 shift. Shifts aren't firm. The trans 'slides' into second gear (hence the nickname 'slide-glide' for the Chevy version).

You can firm them up a bit, but to do so would require closer transition from 1-2 creating excessive wear because low band and high clutches would then be engaged at the same time for a small amount of time, and may actually slow you down.

Reverse uses its own set of clutches. That's all it has. Super simple and surprisingly durable. You'd think this setup would be weaksauce durability wise, but that 10:1 455 operated it at full throttle most of the time, even through the 80 MPH 1-2 shifts. Never had an issue.

And now, I'm seeing a 580 HP/500+ ft. lbs. Buick 350 screamed in front of one just fine as well, so that was the reason for my bringing this whole ST300 topic up. So we know for a fact they can handle at least 510 ft. lbs. :TU:

If people ever drove an ST300 for any length of time, they would understand. It just feels better. I wouldn't go on and on about it if it was garbage.

Its ONLY drawback is holeshot for drag racing, and even that can be overcome. I just used it for a cruising trans and some pretty spectacular tire-burning shows with the 10:1 455. :Brow:

---------- Post added at 11:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 AM ----------

I love the idea of a lockup and overdrive trans. Every transmission has its pros and cons.

---------- Post added at 12:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:48 AM ----------

Oh there is just one more thing:

Reverse for the ST300 is the same ratio as low forward gear (1.765:1).

Not that it matters much, but if you were ever outrunning the cops and had to hit reverse, you could go 80 MPH (with a 2.93:1 rear) lol...

Don't ask me how I know this.

Most other trans have same ratio for reverse: 2.07:1.

 

Hey Gary,thanks for HP loss numbers,I was going by my CRS memory. And yes,on a low HP engine the Hp loss would be noticeable. When I took my 65 Impala to the track when it had the original drivetrain in it(a sbc 283 2bbl and a powerglide,with a 3.36 rear gear) and I took the powersteering belt off,I picked up about .5 in the QM. Powerstering robs 15-40 HP without even making a turn,and on a sbc 283 2bbl,thats a lot of power!!:eek2:

But after I put in the sbc 383 stroker and tried that trick,there was a zero gain.o No: So I don't even bother doing it now. And when I went from the powerglide to the 700R4,it was quicker in the QM by 1.5 seconds,and 5 mph faster.(with the power steering connected,LOL)

Both tests were with the original 2bbl,I made an adapter plate to run it on the 4bbl intake. When I put a 4bbl carb on the sbc 383 with the powerglide in it,I blew up 1st gear(absolutly no reverse) at Lapeer Dragway,but still managed to drive it home.:Brow: LOL

Yeah,those GV units are pricey,but if it had 2 gears,it would be a less expensive alternative(if not less $$,less work) to changing the rear gear and the trans,even less if the car already has posi.

"Not that it matters much, but if you were ever outrunning the cops and had to hit reverse, you could go 80 MPH (with a 2.93:1 rear) lol..."

And I thought you said you didn't run shine.LOL


When are you going to build a car and start doing some real world testing(playing)? With your body work skills,you shouldn't have to pay much if you start with a fixer upper. And after you're done,and get bored of it,you could always sell it to have funds to do something different. I seen an original 1972 GS stage 1 455 project car in the cars for sale section,that is in pieces already that looks like it would be reasonally priced. Some one with your skills should be able to get it together pretty quick and end up with a sweet car. With you doing the work,it could be worth more than double of what you would have into it when its done.:TU:


Derek

 

I agree with Gary on the ST300. I had one in a 66 F85 330 2 bll (jetaway drive in olds speak) and Dad had one in a 67 Special 300 2bll. They were no hell out of the hole, but better than a Power Glide. Anything lost off the line was usually more than made up for when a 3sp auto shifted into second and you blew by him. I could beat 327 4bll with TH350 with my F85 back in the day.