1978 Buick Estate Wagon - Vin check

[redhawk45]

Does anyone have viable information, or one of the vintage Buick Lesabre Estate Wagon, with the limited installed OLDs. 403 engine.  When I checked the VIN # 4R35k8x154711 is said to be invalid.

[joe_padavano]

I don't know where you are checking this VIN, but that's a perfectly legitimate 1978 Buick VIN.

 

4 = Buick Division

R = Estate Wagon model line

35 = 4dr wagon body style

K = Oldsmobile 403 engine

8 = 1978 model year

X = Fairfax, KS assembly plant

154711 = sequential build number (these started with 100001)

 

Are you trying to use some Carfax or similar site that only accepts 17-character VINs as used on 1981 and newer cars?

 

[Rusty_OToole]

About that time GM was swapping a lot of "corporate" engines around. I have seen Pontiacs with Chevrolet, Buick and Olds engines. Cadillacs with Chevrolet engines, Chevrolets with Olds and Buick engines. They are not rare.

[rocketraider]

Vast majority of 77-79 Estate Wagons, Electras and Rivieras I've seen have been 403 powered.

 

Buick discontinued their own V8s after 1976, and their V6 wasn't suited to these fullsize heavy cars though they worked reasonably well in lighter LeSabres. They also realized installing the Chevrolet V8 in a fullsize premium car like Buick was likely to go over like the proverbial lead balloon, as Oldsmobile learned to its regret.

[Larry Schramm]

The background drive of engine swapping could be traced to the requirements to meet Federal Emission standards.   By the mid '70's every division had a 350 cubic inch engine which each had to go through their own emission certification. 

 

This was a pure cost decision to end a lot of the different engines and put all engine development under one umbrella.  The creation of GM Powertrain Division of GM. 

 

There was some other duplication in engines but the 350 is a good poster child for government requirements to change product selection by the customer.

 

"I'm from the government and I am here to help you"

Edited July 14, 2022 by Larry Schramm (see edit history)

[ted sweet]

7 hours ago, rocketraider said:

Vast majority of 77-79 Estate Wagons, Electras and Rivieras I've seen have been 403 powered.

 

Buick discontinued their own V8s after 1976, and their V6 wasn't suited to these fullsize heavy cars though they worked reasonably well in lighter LeSabres. They also realized installing the Chevrolet V8 in a fullsize premium car like Buick was likely to go over like the proverbial lead balloon, as Oldsmobile learned to its regret.

incorrect, the buick 350 2bbl was still avaiable in 1977

[Frank DuVal]

Right, 1976 was the last year for the 455.

[rocketraider]

41 minutes ago, ted sweet said:

incorrect, the buick 350 2bbl was still avaiable in 1977

Thank you for the short and sweet correction.🙂

[joe_padavano]

10 hours ago, ted sweet said:

incorrect, the buick 350 2bbl was still avaiable in 1977

To provide complete information, the Buick-sourced 350 was produced through the 1980 model year. It was VIN code "X" for 1978-80 model years (fifth character of the VIN). The Oldsmobile-sourced VIN "R" gasoline 350 was also available through the 1980 model year (the diesel 350 soldiered on through 1985). The Pontiac sourced 301 hung on through the 1981 model year. Only the Olds-produced gasoline 307 made it past that, with production lasting until the 1990 model year (which was also the last GM passenger car engine available with a carburetor).

 

Of course, maybe this post belongs in the Automotive Trivia Questions thread. 😉

Edited July 15, 2022 by joe_padavano (see edit history)

[Pfeil]

18 hours ago, Larry Schramm said:

The background drive of engine swapping could be traced to the requirements to meet Federal Emission standards.   By the mid '70's every division had a 350 cubic inch engine which each had to go through their own emission certification. 

 

This was a pure cost decision to end a lot of the different engines and put all engine development under one umbrella.  The creation of GM Powertrain Division of GM. 

 

There was some other duplication in engines but the 350 is a good poster child for government requirements to change product selection by the customer.

 

"I'm from the government and I am here to help you"

It may have been a cost decision initially to eliminate the different engines but the consequences of losing loyal customers later was greater. Most never came back. As far as certifications go, the engines were already developed and by 1975 most of the exhaust emissions were now done externally (we actually fattened up the engines to give more drivability) with the use of catalyst. Other systems ATC, EGR, Spark timing, Carburetion, etc. were basic to all G.M. products and the only thing left to do was to cater each basic devise to that particular engine and the environment it was to be driven in (like high altitude cars-Ca. cars etc.).

Such a lost opportunity.

[Frank DuVal]

Well they may have been already certified, BUT. Then why were engine and transmission pairing as being available changing monthly?

 

I had a friend buying a small station wagon and wanted the 231[3.8L] with a 5 speed. It was a listed combination at the start of the year, then it wasn’t. He was finally able to order the Monza by late spring. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Frank DuVal (see edit history)

[Jim Skelly]

From a cost perspective, it never made sense for GM to offer different 350, 400 or 454/455 engines for Buick, Olds, Chevy and Pontiac in the late sixties through mid-seventies.  Another example would be the Olds and Buick 425s.  But at that time the powertrain was a marketable feature of the cars.  Once emissions, gas mileage and additional safety regulations became the primary considerations, it no longer made sense to have all of these engines that had to be emissions certified.

[PAV8427]

Case in point. 79 Hurst Olds. 350 R Oldsmobile. Already certified for use in 88/98's. 
They built 2499 of them. If they built 2500 or more, would have to been recertified for that body style. 

[joe_padavano]

20 minutes ago, Jim Skelly said:

From a cost perspective, it never made sense for GM to offer different 350, 400 or 454/455 engines for Buick, Olds, Chevy and Pontiac in the late sixties through mid-seventies.  Another example would be the Olds and Buick 425s.  But at that time the powertrain was a marketable feature of the cars.  Once emissions, gas mileage and additional safety regulations became the primary considerations, it no longer made sense to have all of these engines that had to be emissions certified.

The Buick 425 was a nailhead based on 1950s thickwall casting technologies. The Olds 425 was a 1960s thinwall casting design based on a tall deck version of the 1964 330 motor. The Buick went out of production a year after the Olds was introduced. The displacement similarity was more a function of GM corporate standards (7 liter) than anything else. There's a reason why all GM divisions at that time had 425 - 427 - 428 - 430 cu inch displacements. There's a reason why the GM intermediates all had 396 - 400 - 401 engines. There's a reason why the small blocks were all 326 - 327 - 330 - 340 cu in.

[Jim Skelly]

all true ... and it wouldn't happen today

[joe_padavano]

5 minutes ago, Jim Skelly said:

all true ... and it wouldn't happen today

Thus the reason why GM's market share has dwindled.

 

[Pfeil]

4 hours ago, joe_padavano said:

The Buick 425 was a nailhead based on 1950s thickwall casting technologies. The Olds 425 was a 1960s thinwall casting design based on a tall deck version of the 1964 330 motor. The Buick went out of production a year after the Olds was introduced. The displacement similarity was more a function of GM corporate standards (7 liter) than anything else. There's a reason why all GM divisions at that time had 425 - 427 - 428 - 430 cu inch displacements. There's a reason why the GM intermediates all had 396 - 400 - 401 engines. There's a reason why the small blocks were all 326 - 327 - 330 - 340 cu in.

I agree with most of what you say except with Pontiac. Pontiac V-8 production was supposed go in the 53 Pontiac (53-54 cars are made for it) it was held back by corporate with the biggest complaint from Buick division.

 The Pontiac V-8 was the pioneering division for thin wall casting, and its valve train was designed in 1948, a valve train that was taken from Pontiac to be incorporated into Ed Cole's SBC, circumventing G.M. policy of one year exclusivity for a new invention. 

All Pontiac V-8 engines (except later 265 and 301) use the same rod journal and the same connecting rod and pin at 6.625" and you can use that rod from a 1955 287" in a 455". The bore spacings never changed threw out its life. Dimensionally all Pontiac V-8 are the same. After the 389 came out in 1959 crankshaft main journals remained a 3" until the 421 came out at the end of 1961 at 3 1/4".

Pontiac V-8's are not divided into big block or small block, they are medium size blocks. 

3" main V-8 crankshafts all have 3 3/4 strokes and 3" main cranks go in 336, 326, 350 (really a 354) 389 and 400 engines.

3 1/4" main cranks go in 421, 428 (really a 426) and 455 (really a 456).

D port head and round port heads can interchange, and engines of different displacement can change heads as well. The last 455 I built I used big valve 400" heads so I could use this fuel we have today.

All of those Pontiac engines as well as the Pontiac Tempest 4 cylinder-1/2 of the 389 V-8 were machined and built on the same assy. line and use the same tooling.

This is why for Pontiac it was cheaper to do their own engines, than to throw into the mix another divisions engine.

One basic engine for all those displacements, no basic redesigns, no small blocks, big blocks, no gen 1 with variations, and gen 2 short and tall decks.

George Delaney and his team designed a very memorable engine.

  

[joe_padavano]

56 minutes ago, Pfeil said:

I agree with most of what you say except with Pontiac. Pontiac V-8 production was supposed go in the 53 Pontiac (53-54 cars are made for it) it was held back by corporate with the biggest complaint from Buick division.

 The Pontiac V-8 was the pioneering division for thin wall casting, and its valve train was designed in 1948, a valve train that was taken from Pontiac to be incorporated into Ed Cole's SBC, circumventing G.M. policy of one year exclusivity for a new invention. 

All Pontiac V-8 engines (except later 265 and 301) use the same rod journal and the same connecting rod and pin at 6.625" and you can use that rod from a 1955 287" in a 455". The bore spacings never changed threw out its life. Dimensionally all Pontiac V-8 are the same. After the 389 came out in 1959 crankshaft main journals remained a 3" until the 421 came out at the end of 1961 at 3 1/4".

Pontiac V-8's are not divided into big block or small block, they are medium size blocks. 

3" main V-8 crankshafts all have 3 3/4 strokes and 3" main cranks go in 336, 326, 350 (really a 354) 389 and 400 engines.

3 1/4" main cranks go in 421, 428 (really a 426) and 455 (really a 456).

D port head and round port heads can interchange, and engines of different displacement can change heads as well. The last 455 I built I used big valve 400" heads so I could use this fuel we have today.

All of those Pontiac engines as well as the Pontiac Tempest 4 cylinder-1/2 of the 389 V-8 were machined and built on the same assy. line and use the same tooling.

This is why for Pontiac it was cheaper to do their own engines, than to throw into the mix another divisions engine.

One basic engine for all those displacements, no basic redesigns, no small blocks, big blocks, no gen 1 with variations, and gen 2 short and tall decks.

George Delaney and his team designed a very memorable engine.

  

I don't understand what this has to do with my statement, which was about similar displacements for GM engines in the 1960s. Until the late 60s the limits were ~7 liters in full size cars, ~5.3 liters in midsize, and 400 cu in in the musclecars. How the various divisions got there with bore/stroke and engine commonality wasn't even part of the response.

[Jim Skelly]

If a company wants to reduce setup and machining costs, bore spacing remains the same for larger displacements of the same engine family.  Then you don't have to buy all-new machinery every time you change the engine displacement.  The small-block Chevy V8 is an example of a good design that had multiple bore and stroke configurations and lasted for over three decades before an all-new design.  

[Pfeil]

1 hour ago, joe_padavano said:

I don't understand what this has to do with my statement, which was about similar displacements for GM engines in the 1960s. Until the late 60s the limits were ~7 liters in full size cars, ~5.3 liters in midsize, and 400 cu in in the musclecars. How the various divisions got there with bore/stroke and engine commonality wasn't even part of the response.

I'm sorry Joe, I was actually referring to two responses. It was your response to Jim Skelly and the only reason I included you is that you mentioned the 326 Pontiac engine as a small block, which it isn't. So sorry about that. 

Here is what I was referring to.

 

 hours ago, Jim Skelly said:

From a cost perspective, it never made sense for GM to offer different 350, 400 or 454/455 engines for Buick, Olds, Chevy and Pontiac in the late sixties through mid-seventies.  Another example would be the Olds and Buick 425s.  But at that time the powertrain was a marketable feature of the cars.  Once emissions, gas mileage and additional safety regulations became the primary considerations, it no longer made sense to have all of these engines that had to be emissions certified.

The Buick 425 was a nailhead based on 1950s thickwall casting technologies. The Olds 425 was a 1960s thinwall casting design based on a tall deck version of the 1964 330 motor. The Buick went out of production a year after the Olds was introduced. The displacement similarity was more a function of GM corporate standards (7 liter) than anything else. There's a reason why all GM divisions at that time had 425 - 427 - 428 - 430 cu inch displacements. There's a reason why the GM intermediates all had 396 - 400 - 401 engines. There's a reason why the small blocks were all 326 - 327 - 330 - 340 cu in.

[Pfeil]

20 minutes ago, Jim Skelly said:

If a company wants to reduce setup and machining costs, bore spacing remains the same for larger displacements of the same engine family.  Then you don't have to buy all-new machinery every time you change the engine displacement.  The small-block Chevy V8 is an example of a good design that had multiple bore and stroke configurations and lasted for over three decades before an all-new design.  

If it was so good, then why the "W" engine, Why the Mark 4? The Pontiac engine, just one engine from 287 to 455.

[Jim Skelly]

I'm not disputing that Pontiac covered the whole range (except for the SD-455) with the same basic block.  Since we weren't involved in product planning or budgeting at GM when the decisions were made to develop the Chevy 265 and Pontiac's V8, we don't know what their intent was.  But considering Chevrolet's sales volume was much higher than Pontiac's, it was probably decided that since Chevy had been 6-cylinder-only for decades, and was at the bottom of GM's pecking order, the six, 265 and 283 would be adequate for entry-level buyers.  Once the horsepower war started, the 348 truck engine was put into the '58 Chevy passenger car as an option until approval was received to develop an all-new, large displacement V8 to compete with Ford-Mercury and Dodge-Plymouth.  I don't think you would find many people on this forum who would agree with your suggestion that the small block Chevy was inadequate or a failure.  It suited the purpose for which it was designed for decades.   I used the small block Chevy as an example of an engine family that used the same bore center for decades - just like Pontiac did.  By the way, the smoothest engine my Dad ever had was a Pontiac 265 V8 in his '81 Regal coupe.  The only problem was its anemic 119 net horsepower, but it was a sign of the times.  

[Pfeil]

1 hour ago, Jim Skelly said:

I'm not disputing that Pontiac covered the whole range (except for the SD-455) with the same basic block.  Since we weren't involved in product planning or budgeting at GM when the decisions were made to develop the Chevy 265 and Pontiac's V8, we don't know what their intent was.  But considering Chevrolet's sales volume was much higher than Pontiac's, it was probably decided that since Chevy had been 6-cylinder-only for decades, and was at the bottom of GM's pecking order, the six, 265 and 283 would be adequate for entry-level buyers.  Once the horsepower war started, the 348 truck engine was put into the '58 Chevy passenger car as an option until approval was received to develop an all-new, large displacement V8 to compete with Ford-Mercury and Dodge-Plymouth.  I don't think you would find many people on this forum who would agree with your suggestion that the small block Chevy was inadequate or a failure.  It suited the purpose for which it was designed for decades.   I used the small block Chevy as an example of an engine family that used the same bore center for decades - just like Pontiac did.  By the way, the smoothest engine my Dad ever had was a Pontiac 265 V8 in his '81 Regal coupe.  The only problem was its anemic 119 net horsepower, but it was a sign of the times.  

It's interesting to me that a 265 could be that smooth. I only say that because the 301 and 265 crankshafts and those Siamese intake ports were terrible. Those two engines only had end counterweights, that plus block webbing reduction made them vulnerable. I suppose if it's balanced to the 9's it will be smooth. My dad won many contests of idle smoothness with our 50 Pontiac straight eight. That engine had an idle speed of 450 rpm in drive and that quarter on the head never moved. Back in those days a good engine was determined by its smoothness and quietness. 

Edited July 16, 2022 by Pfeil (see edit history)

[Jim Skelly]

1981 was the year GM introduced Computer Control Command, their carburetor and engine management system. 

 

My Dad had '48 and '51 Pontiac eights.  I recall him mentioning that he had to keep doing valve jobs on the '48.  He got tired of it since he was working full time and going to college at the same time, so he traded it in on a used '51.   

[joe_padavano]

11 hours ago, Pfeil said:

I'm sorry Joe, I was actually referring to two responses. It was your response to Jim Skelly and the only reason I included you is that you mentioned the 326 Pontiac engine as a small block, which it isn't. So sorry about that.

Fair enough. I should have been clearer about the "small block" comment. I'm aware of the common deck height in the Pontiac motors (save the 265-301 blocks)