55PackardGuy

Buick Racer, I couldn't get that article to open, all I got was a green square that said "New Page 2 . One reason for my great interest is the name of the car "Das Boat" which is close to that of my boat, named for the great movie of the same title: "Das Boot." It's a '61 Trojan runabout with an inboard 292 Ford "Interceptor" Y block. The name came from my concern over whether it would stay "sufaced" after I rebuilt it (it did, and cruised 900 miles down the Mississippi from St. Paul to Hickman, KY in '88). It would be great to exchange some photos and/or recollections of "Das Boot" for "Das Boat." Also, the boat is still operating and used every Summer.

Your dad is alright in my book. Cars are for FUN! If they break once in a while, that's OK. Nice to hear you found out some "history" and can kinda exonerate your 425. One reason some very tough engines get reputations for breaking is that people can't resist pushing their limits. I used to love driving my '65 around town in first gear. But I was a teenager. I'm glad your father hung on to his youthful exuberance longer than I did. Although there was that street racing incident in my Camaro last summer...

Wow! For some people that might be "too much information" but for me it was fascinating. That lower-rear higher-front inflation scenario makes so much common sense, especially for vehicles that are much lighter in back, like pickups! Is Coker the only place manufacturing red-stripe or wide oval tires? (I guess I should stop asking so many questions and start doing some research on my own.) It's particularly good to read information that comes from EXPERIENCE. Just about everything you listed comes from personal testing as well as theory. The "tire world" is so fickle and it seems like if you go into stores, they just want to sell you the latest fad. When I bought a set of Firestone Firehawks for my '95 T-Bird, I had to talk the guy into selling them to me. I confess I bought them mostly on looks, but also because they'd been around awhile (he claimed they were an "old design.') Well, guess what? They worked GREAT. Car handled better, rode fine, sat a little lower and they looked great. (I put 'em on with the "boy racer" raised letters showing. ) I hope others are getting ideas from this thread about putting the right rubber on their own vehicles. There are a lot of options, and sometimes it takes trial and error, but it's nice to read about what people have tried and how it worked. Sort of narrows things down and allows you to make a better "judgment call."

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Bias ply and bias-belted were very predictable and exploitable in their "at the edge" characteristics.</div></div> NTX, This statement perfectly captures what I was trying to say about my preferences for the handling of the old bias ply tires. There was an "exploitable" notch that just felt really comfortable for the yahoo way I drove. I had a '65 Electra and my dad always made sure our cars had decent tires, usually slightly "oversized" 4-ply Hood brand. (Are those around any more?) I usually ran from 30 to 35 psi all the way around. It didn't make it into a sports car, but that big Buick was surprisingly agile. I drove a lot of dirt roads and could do some very fancy "power slides" and trailing throttle stuff without ever spinning out or losing control. My dad, a mechanic, was never a friend of belted tires. As I recall, the basic structure of these was 2 ply, with one or two belts to put extra plies under the tread. He considered the side walls too flimsy. Your comments on the advantages of these are interesting. I kinda thought, as you said, that police departments were looking to get by a little cheaper, as well as avoiding high-speed blowouts (or just losing hubcaps ). It might've been a false economy though, because of greater longevity with the radials. I imagine they researched it and decided that the radials didn't justify themselves for cost and/or safety reasons. SO, does anyone still make bias tires other than to match collector car OEM specs? Like I said, I wouldn't mind a set that would fit my 15" truck wheels which now have 235 75R Goodyears. Also, I love the old "red stripes," "wide ovals" and other performance tires of the '70s. They'd be Something Different for my Camaro. Finally, one thing we haven't mentioned much is Braking. Are bias tires at a serious disadvantage for panic stops, wet-surface braking, etc?

Hey, Guy, If you're truly "old," you must have driven in the years when radials were being introduced in the '70s, and could make some "side by side" comparisons like I did. For my money, I always preferred the bias ply tires in those days for HANDLING. The radials gave most cars a "wallowing" feeling. Remember the "radial tuned suspensions" that came out to compensate for this? That seemed to help some. But I had a '73 Opel Manta that came with bias ply tires. When I "upgraded" to a good set of radials, I was disappointed that they gave the same "mushy" feeling, even though the car supposedly should have benefitted greatly from them. I might have been able to corner a little faster, but the car didn't seem to respond as quickly to steering input. Also, do you recall all the problems they had with high-speed failure of the radials? I remember that police cars did not adopt them for many years, and I think that was the reason. They've improved them--at least they don't fly apart like the old ones sometimes did--but they still are careful to "speed rate" them to discourage high speed use. No such warnings that I know of on bias tires. Some of the belted bias tires were junk, as they only had two-ply sidewalls and the belts sometimes slipped. But if I could find some good ol' 4 or 6 ply bias tires for my Dakota, I think I'd like to try them.

BTW this all happened 47 years ago TODAY.

When I was born in '57 we had two cars: a 1955 Packard Clipper Custom and a 1951 Frazer Vagabond (hey, Dad didn't like driving a car that anyone else had). Since the hospital was about two blocks from the house, he could've grabbed either car, but I bet Dad picked Mom and me up in the Frazer, because he probably came to the hospital from work, and that was his work car. Neither of them are around to tell me about it now. MOST of the time when I was growing up I saw the world from the back seat of the blue-on-blue two-tone Clipper, which was one sweet ride: 352 V8, Torsion Level suspension, Twin Ultramatic transmission... we still had the car in the family 'til well after I graduated from college. I never drove it much though. I was more interested in getting seat time in my Dad's '65 Electra or later his '69. I "inherited" the '65 and it was my daily driver from age 18 to 23. The Clipper will always have a special place in my heart, though. Dad bought it new in the fall of '55 and kept it over 30 years! It was the first--and one of only two (the other a '79 New Yorker)--brand new cars he ever bought. It wasn't junked, either, but sold to someone who planned to restore it. Hope he did. THIS IS A GREAT THREAD. THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR SHARING YOUR MEMORIES AND READING MINE!

Your description of how the engine looked at teardown brought back memories of how I destroyed the original 401 in my '65 Electra when I was 19. The car had about 120,000 on it, ran great and used no oil. I was so proud of how it started right up in sub-zero weather, and so sure it was indestructible, that I raced the engine cold and BANG! My dad towed it back to his shop and, as he always insisted, if I broke it I had to fix it. I knew little about mechanical work but had the horse sense to first check the dipstick, which showed a LOT of "oil" was in the pan. Hm. So I pulled the drain plug and got a couple of quarts of anti-freeze out before any oil drained. There was little hope, but I decided to pull the heads and see how bad it was. Again, by some miracle, I had the sense to first start pulling spark plugs in case they would give a clue which head to pull. #1 plug had a bent electrode. Question answered. Pulled that head and staring up at me from the #1 cylinder was the end of the rod with a couple of shards of piston still attached. Time to go to the boneyard, where I was lucky to find a nice "tight" unit in a junker. Drove the car four more years after the "transplant"--and drove it hard, too (under load) with no more problem. The upshot is, I think that what you most likely experienced was a broken piston, not a "slung" rod. The piston breaks and the rod flails around inside the cylinder and breaks through the wall. One theory for this happening is that a wide piston with a short skirt (even wider in a 425 than a 401) is susceptible to "rocking" from side to side in the cylinder bore, especially if it has been damaged by over-revving, particularly in a no-load condition. This can break a piston right away as it did to mine, or the piston can be damaged this way and eventually break under normal operation. Your 425 (and many others that "slung rods") may have been subjected to such misuse on one or more occasions and then "mysteriously" failed. There are a lot of teenagers out there. In theory, the wider the bore and the shorter the piston skirt (which is related to the stroke, as long-stroke engines need a short skirt to clear the crankshaft at BDC) the better chance an engine will break a piston. Something like a 454 BBC is an extreme example of this configuration, and I've heard speculation that they are particularly susceptible to this fate. Consider, too, that longer stroke engines also have higher piston speeds, which compounds the problem. Sorry for going on and on, but this particular aspect of engine designs is kind of a favorite of mine. Feel free to correct me if you spot any technical errors!

Looks like the Wildcat II might have some Corvette roots... anyone know? For my two cents worth, I like the Wildcat I better. It really keeps the Buick look of the time, but flashier and more aggressive.

'75 LeSabre, Sounds pretty sweet. I don't know beans about what'll fit in an '86 Regal, though, so you might want some input from the real Buick experts. How 'bout it folks?

Please copy me on the e-mail. Since I stirred the pot on this one, I'm interested, too. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I don't know if I agree with the "letter" of this post but I do agree with the "spirit." I think it all began to go to hell when manufacturers started selling "platforms" instead of cars. If I wanted a platform, I'd go to the lumber yard.

Here's a little more on the Buick V6 that went to Indy: <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Incidently, the 3.8 liter Buick V6 has its roots all the way back to the early 1960's, when introduced as the "economy engine" for the compact Buick Special. After three model years, it was withdrawn by Buick, the tooling and all rights then sold to Kaiser Jeep, who offered it in the Jeep CJ-5. AMC, after buying Jeep in 1969, produced the engine for a few years, until Buick stepped up with considerable money, and bought the tooling and rights back (!) in 1974, reintroducing the engine, in both normally aspirated and turbocharged form in the Buick Regal beginning in 1976.</div></div> Compliments of Art over on the Packard site. I had no idea that the modern 3800 had roots that far back. The "other" Buick Indy engine was the aluminum V8 (also first used in the Special stock form in the Special, I believe) raced by Dan Gurney in 1962. Buick was obviously really busy inovating in the early sixties with engine designs that were used over many years in many applications. So, if racing is a standard of excellence the two "best" (and only?) Indy raced Buick engines were the 215 aluminum V8 and the 3800 V6.

Thanks Art and Craig. If I might ask one more question about "reversed headers" (other than any perf advantage) were they attached to the head in the same position with outlet changed to top or were the heads actually different? Thanks alot for the 3800 Buick info. I'm going to "cross-pollinate" some of that to the Buick forum thread on engines. Never knew about the shared tooling from the early '60's. It's funny how things change. The engine was not highly regarded back then, but is now very popular and shared by most GM divisions on many "platforms" as they call them.

This is an interesting thread, and I hope to learn something. Gotta ask questions sometimes to learn, right? Can someone explain the difference between the various types of fuel injection? I think I understand the basic throttle-body and port injection ideas. But what's the difference between the subtypes mentioned here and elsewhere? Multiport FI vs Sequential Multiport FI Then there are two subtypes of these, right? And are there still viable mechanical FI systems? Any advantages there? Finally, what the heck are "reversed headers?" Are the exhaust outlets in the front or what? What advantage does this setup have? Thanks for the interesting Buick racing info, too. I reckon the Aluminum V8 Indy engine referred to was the 215, race prepped. Also, more recently, Buick raced the 3800 "stock block" V6. Were there other Buick V6's at Indy? Packard's Indy history ends way back, but was there ever a factory sponsored stock car effort? OK, so I tried to split this between intake manifold questions and racing questions, is that "fair and balanced?" <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

IMHO the 430 is a DARN good engine. 10.25:1 compression ratio right out of the box, and a Quadrajet that'll give good mileage if you can keep your foot out of the secondaries. 475 ft/lbs of tourque at 3200 rpm ain't nothin to sneeze at either. 360 hp at 5000 rpm. It's a fairly short-stroke mill, so it can turn some serious rpm. You'll need a good drive train to handle it all. That is, IF the Wildcat has a decent example in it. Bare minimum you should do a thorough compression check before even considering it. But you probly knew that already.

That Pontiac 301 V8 might have been your savior with the Century. A very tough little engine. They even turbocharged it for the Trans Am and it held together. I don't know much about the Century, but the '78 Gran Prix my brother had with the 301 took an almighty beating, suffered awful neglect, and was still running fine when he got rid of the car (his in-laws had neglected it). He was mightily impressed. The car had full gauges and even a vacuum "mileage" gauge that you could use to monitor how heavy you were on the gas pedal. Worst Buick? I never had experience with a bad one. My '65 Electra was a little hard on gas (had the 401) but my dad's '69 Electra with the 430 even got good mileage. Ran forever and looked good doing it. The early V6's from the mid-60's had a bad reputation. The late '70s "economy" V6's were built very light (Buick even advertised this) and in our cold climate had a reputation of breaking many a crankshaft.

Craig, That color sounds so cool! Maybe some contrasting valve cover treatment? Or chrome? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> Thanks for verifying some of my technical questions. Sometimes I think I know more than I do, and need to check things out. I still don't "know" anything in a practical sense... just theory. You're FI conversion is actually pretty "purist" as Brian pointed out. Packard's fuel injection plans for the V8 are pictured in the Kimes book. Looks pretty "prototype." Thanks for pointing out that it was actually road-tested, Brian. Any more details on that? You MUST have photo-shopped that picture! But it sure is cool. Yeah, to stuff those huge V12's in a '55 or '56 would take some real engineering. I think about 1/3 of the engine would be under the dash and in the front seat. And the hood line would need to be altered too. (Maybe like the Request.) Not to mention handling the extra weight. That picture would probably be more accurate if the front end squatted down right to the tops of the tires. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Craig et. al., A couple of things I think were left out on the short-stroke/long-stroke scenario. One is piston speed. A longer stroke requires the piston and rod assembly to move faster to get from TDC to BDC at a given RPM. That's why oversquare engines can give such a nice flat torque curve at higher RPMs, and generally out-rev longer stroke designs. The strokers have the advantage in low RPM "grunt" but a well-designed oversquare engine is hard to beat. Look at the 445 ft/lb of torque at 2800 rpm from a Buick 401 "nail-head." This engine was very "oversquare" with a 4.1875 x 3.64 design. The 425 had a 4.3125 bore with the same stroke and pumped out 465 ft/lb of torque at 2800 rpm. Another is that there is a definite difference between compression ratio and combustion chamber PRESSURE based on how efficiently the design "breathes" on intake. You can always raise compression ratio by increasing the swept volume of the cylinder relative to the size of the combustion chamber, but if you can't fill the cylinder you won't increase the pressure. You might even decrease it. Also, a comment/question on the "deck height" engineering aspect. I have heard that the shortened PISTON SKIRTS were a main ingredient to the "engineering coup" of lower deck height. I believe the '49 Cadillac introduced this concept and was able to produce more power from a downsized "small block" design than they could from the big blocks with full-skirt "coffee-can" pistons. The thing is, the shorter "notched" piston skirts fit around the crankshaft counterweights at BDC. Thus, the block could be "shorter" (lower) and still allow sufficient stroke. This also reduced reciprocating weight because all the rods could be shorter. Am I kinda sort of correct here? P.S. Craig, if you put a Pontiac in the Panther I will be sooooo disappointed. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> Not that I dislike Pontiacs on principle, just that the Panther's gotta have a Packard engine. Even if it's a straight eight like the original. I lean toward a Packard aircraft "Merlin" or marine V12. You know where any old P51 Mustangs or PT Boats are? <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Was that Tempest the one with the "transaxle" rear end? Those were some weird birds, but I imagine it helped weight distribution to have the engine in front/transmission in back. It's nice to know there are all those aluminum engines out there in case someone ever wants to "build a car around one" as I said. However, I've heard the Land Rovers had Lucas fuel injection. Finding a "proper" intake manifold set-up might be a problem. I assume they were aluminum as well.

The Kime book states that the engine planned for 1957, apparently based on the same block as the 320/352/374, was to be "bored out futher, to 440 cubic inches according to Graves..." (From "Packard, a History of the Motor Car and the Company," Beverly Rae Kimes, Ed., 1978, Automobile Quarterly, Inc.) William H Graves was VP of Engineering, but exactly what they had in mind is not clear. I suspect they would've needed a custom casting and "siamesed" bores to make it that big without stroking it. Randy, would the 4.75" bores have room for water jackets between the cylinders?

John, That would be the Consolidated San Diego plant, one of FIVE plants that built those beasts, also including Consolidated Fort Worth, Douglas (Tulsa), Ford (Willow Run) and North American (Dallas). They formed what was known as the "Liberator Production Pool" begun in 1941. It was a vast and complicated undertaking to produce a total of more than 18,000 airframes. Love 'em or hate 'em, the operational losses for B-24 bombers were actually lower than for the much beloved B-17; 13.3% versus 15.2%. maybe it was those Buick engines... Great to know you have more than a passing connection with these planes as well.

Never knew Buick powered the Liberators, which my dad flew on in California when he ran a maintenance hangar at the Victorville base. In all the B-24 stories I heard from him, I don't think he ever mentioned the Buick connection. Maybe that's why he bought two Electras--a '65 and a '69.

Didn't Buick once have the slogan: "Overhead valve automobiles" or something like that? How early did they have an OHV engine?

Straigh 8's and sawmills seem to have been a natural combination. The combination of smoothness, durability and ease of protecting them against the elements might have had something to do with it. Ours was a Chrysler "industrial" straight eight. Ran like an electric motor.