Best Buick Engines

[Guest]

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The Nailheads<BR><LI>The 455<BR><LI>The 3.8 Litre V6<BR></UL>

[Guest Shaffer]

I agree 100% on the first two, but question the third. Do you mean the later "3800" 3.8 or the older 3.8 V-6, as in the RWD Regals/Century's? If it is the 3800 I agree, if it is the older carburated 3.8 in RWD cars, I disagree. <P>72 Electra 225 Custom <BR>89 Accord DX<p>[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Shaffer ]

[Guest]

I don't think anyone will argue with you. I think that the Aluminum 215 and the 231 odd-fire should be on the list just because they were interesting experimental engines. I hear the odd-fire lived up to its name, it was odd that it fired on all cylinders.

[55PackardGuy]

Found this thread searching for any info on the aluminum 215 engine, which has always been interesting to me. How rare are these? I've heard that a version with Lucas injection was used on Land Rovers! Any confirmation of that? Was it only available as a 215, or were there other displacements? I just think it would be a great engine to "build a car around." Light, powerful, and different.

As far as other "best" Buick engines, I've always leaned toward the 430 rather than the 455, mainly because I had great experience with a '69 Electra that had the 430. Extremely econmomical and good power, too. Any thoughts on advantages to the 455? Was it "stroked" or bored out? If stroked, I would say that is a disadvantage because of higher piston speed and consequent sacrifice in top RPM.

[Guest imported_NikeAjax]

I've heard that the Rover-boys were so impressed with the 215 CID V8 that they bought the rights to produce it themselves, not unlike the US companies buying the rights to produce Rolls Royce turbo fan engines because they hadn't quite figured them out as well as the Brits had, not to mention the USSR stealing or winning in a game of pool, the same design. As I understand, a variant of the 215, is still in production today, HAZZZZAH!

My 322 always makes me glad it's a Buick, it runs when it shouldn't; I've had people tell me after helpng me work on the engine "There's no way in H**l that car sgould be working!" I always replay that's cause it's not a Chevy or a Ford!

Jaybird

[NTX5467]

Might the better question be "Has Buick ever had any bad engine designs that got into production?"

Only significant mechanical difference in the old even or odd-fire 3.8L V-6 is the addition of the balance shaft mechanism that resulted in the 3800. Even fire 3.8s were already fully electronically controlled with the introduction of the new front wheel drive C/H cars in the middle 1980s (quite "high end" for that period of time!) Not to mention the power from the smaller 3.0L and 3.3L V-6s of that time too (check the power/torque specs and you'll see they were really quite "high output" for their cubic inch displacement).

Everyone has their own favorite engine sizes that came in their favorite cars--that's a given, which might explain why some favor the larger 455 over the 430 or a 401 over a 425. As mentioned, sometimes when a "sweet spot" combination in one engine size is put on a larger engine, the "sweet spot" situation might be diminished for some reason or another.

In the case of the 455 vs. the 430, the added displacement was to make up for the loss of compression ratio and addition of tighter emission controls. It might be interesting to see if anyone's made a high compression version of their 455 with the same cam and other specs as the previous 430 had and what their results were.

Buick did sell the 215 V-8 stuff to Rover in the early 1970s. It's still being used today, or was up until the last time I looked, and would have to be fully emissions compliant in all respects. Quite a tribute to a little engine that probably didn't get as much "prime time" as it might have been entitled to when it was in production in the 1960s.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[Guest Roadmaster]

I would like to put my 2 cents in. I think by far the best engine is the newer 3800, power, good gas mileage and it runs forever!! I also like the 455 but I'm partial to the straight 8's, especialy the 320. It was around forever and runs and runs and runs. Thanks for all the opinions.

[ranchero]

I've had five Buicks. The engine I've liked the least is in my Riviera convertible - but that is an Oldsmobile 307. The 455 fours were and are quite reliable but boy do they suck fuel. The 3800 series II supercharged engine was perfect in the final edition Riviera - good power, excellent fuel mileage. 350 in a '70s LeSabre was too small. I wish they could make a modern engine sometime.

[Guest COMPACTBC]

The 215 engines are really great, too bad the "bean counters" at Buick (GM) sold it to British-Leland who have put it into the Land Rover, Rover, TR8, TVR, and now in the Morgan +8. The engine was 30 or 40 years ahead of its time. Look how many engines today are all aluminum.

[decembro]

Well I guess I feel a need to share my opinion too. I loved the 350 2 barrel I had in my 70 Le Sabre. It ran great and actually raced a Z28 and won once! I also like the 225 v6 in my 64 Skylark.

[Guest brh]

I have the 300 high compression with a 4 barrel and posi rear, all factory. This engine is a real performer, waved to a lot of people in the rear view mirror. I had a 455 in a 72, it ate gas, was slow did not like the performance. A buddy of mine had a 430 in in a 64 Wildcat. We made trips to the "bone yard" because he would twist driveshafts off in this car. The performance was guite impressive, too bad he beat the daylights out of it.

[55PackardGuy]

I still have a couple of questions on the 455 vs the 430:

1. Was the 455 bored out or stroked to achieve the extra 25 cid?

2. What compression ratio was base in the 455/was there an optional higher compression with the "Stage" heads?

I thought the 455 was a "compromise" engine to meet the epa standards, but apparently Buick did a better job of this than some manufacturers, since many have high regard the 455.

The 430 seems to me to have an inherently more efficient design, with 10.25:1 compression ratio. (My source on "Carnut" for engine data only goes up to 1969, so I don't have numbers on the 455.) My experience with it in a 1969 Electra was that it delivered excellent economy--over 20 mpg highway mileage.

[imported_48Rdmstr68Skylrk]

Here's my 2 cents worth. I have to break them down into categories. Of coure I am basing all this on my own biased opinion and first hand experiencs.

For shear "Durability" I pick the 320 straight 8, that engine in my 48 runs like a top after 56 years. Those straight 8 were forced into duties unbecoming a luxury car such as being a power plant for lumber saw mills.

For "Spunkiness" I pick the 350 -2 barrel that was in my 72 skylark. The day I traded that car in with 135,000 miles on it, i had it up to 110 mph on the "safe strech of road" and was turning the wheels over from a dead stop - no break stand, just punch and spin.

For "Economy" I pick the 2.5 liter 4 cyclinder iron duke that was in my 86 summerset coupled with the 5 speed manual tranny. I know that wasn't really produced by Buick but it was in a buick. I got 30 mpg in the city and 36 on the highway. Anybody wonder why we can't achieve that with our modern cars? I believe the car makers and oil companies are in cahoots, but that's a whole different discussion thread topic.

For "Creativity" I pick the 215 aluminum V-8. I loved that engine in my 63 special. The only problem was it didn't like my wife. No problems with it when I drove it, but for her it did odd things like vibrate the bolts of the fuel pump loose and spit out a spark plug!!

For "Brute Force" I am torn between the 430 v-8 in the family '66 electra - man that thing would go! A luxury car with the balls of a sports car. But I think I have to go with the turbo charged v-6 in the 87 GNX's. fastest mass production american car of its time says it all.

[55PackardGuy]

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.

[NTX5467]

Don't forget about the Buick engines (straight 6s, 8s and "bent" 8) that were used in GMC light and heavy duty trucks prior to about 1962. I ran across a GMC Truck book the other night and it had a picture of the GMC that Cannonball Baker used to set a "Sea to Shining Sea" speed record with (carrying a tank load of Atlantic Ocean sea water to dump into the Pacific Ocean AND "full rated load" for the truck) had "Powered by Buick" or similar on the side of the tank. From what I suspect, the original GMC 6 cylinder might be pretty similar in many respects to the old Buick inline 6s of back then as it noted that they had to build their own 6 cylinder motors when Buick stopped building inline 6s back then, going exclusively to straight 8s.

So, stationary applications weren't the only places Buick engines were used other than in cars.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[55PackardGuy]

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

[Centurion]

Buick was known as the "pioneer builder of valve-in-head motorcars". This was a unique engineering feature of the Buick from the very beginning, and the performance advantages of the valve-in-head design were part of the Buick reputation that allowed the marque to dominate the medium price field throughout most of the first five decades of automobile manufacture. Here is an early Buick logo, which touts the valve-in-head (OHV) design:

I remember seeing some performance comparisons of the mid-1930's Buicks with all of the comparably priced competitors. Buick horsepower was significantly greater than its eight-cylinder competitors, most of which lacked the OHV design. Nash built some OHV cars during the '30's, which is perhaps no surprise given Charles Nash's early role at Buick.

[Guest John Chapman]

Lest we forget the WWI Buick Liberty engines in Buick Green no less...

And in WWII

Tank Engines:

http://www.prewarbuick.com/id568.htm

Aircraft Engines:

http://www.prewarbuick.com/id471.htm

http://www.prewarbuick.com/id569.htm

http://www.prewarbuick.com/id246.htm

And the dual Nailhead engine-driven USAF J-58 ground power start units for the SR-71 of the early '60s. These engines were built by Micky Thompson (hot rod fans will recognize that name...) Note the Buick Green engine peeking out...

http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/vfe/vfe17.htm

http://www.wvi.com/~lelandh/ag330_sr.htm

http://www.sagemesa.com/Pages/bbrprol.html

And all those Buick-OMC/Volvo Penta V6 and V8 (300/350) engines pushing boats around in the late 60's and '70s

Rover halted production of the 215 Buick-based engine at the end of last year, having produced just under one million of these engines.

Cheers,

JMC

[55PackardGuy]

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.

[Guest John Chapman]

Guy,

Small world that it is...

My office is in the former Liberator fabrication and assembly building in San Diego...

JMC

[55PackardGuy]

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.

[NTX5467]

I happened upon the February, 2004 issue of "Hemmings Muscle Machines" magazine tonight. On page10 is a nice little article on the 215 Aluminum V-8 and how it's been in Rover vehicles for many years, now having grown to 288 cid, but is not at the end of its production run. The article mentions many of the accolades the automotive press heaped upon the motor and its design (plus being all aluminum, which was highly exotic in the early 1960s) and weighing about 315 pounds. The article ends with the sentence, "Nearly one million of these engines are in service today."

There is one problem with the article, though. It mentions that the engine was used in the Pontiac Tempest, when it was shared with Oldsmobile (but with some build and specification variations so they were not exactly the same in all respects). During that time, the Tempest used a 4 cylinder that was 1/2 of Pontiac V-8 plus their "torsion bar" driveshaft and an innovative transmission setup.

That magazine also has some articles on the Buick GN/GNX cars and a few other interesting articles.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Guest COMPACTBC]

Are saying that the "Hemmings Muscle Machine" magazine is wrong when they say that Pontiac Tempest could have a 215 V8 engine. If so, they are correct, it was an option to order a Buick 215 V8 in a 62 Pontiac Tempest and it came equiped with a Buick drive train as well. Very few of this combo were ordered however.

[55PackardGuy]

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.

[Guest John Chapman]

Guy,

Actually, there's a couple of groups in UK and Aus/NZ that have some really interesting performance parts/upgrades for the 215 and the later Rover engines. The UK parts tend to be pretty dear, but the 'down under' crowd is much more resourceful, and while they don't produce as polished a product, do it for a fraction of the cost. There's even a few 300/340 engines running around with the 215 manifolds that were adapted using machined spaces.

Cheers,

John

[NTX5467]

I was not aware of that possibility with the Tempest, Bruce, but they did fail to mention the more prevalent Olds models, which is what I noticed most.

Considering how each division was proud of "their" product, it might be understandable that a Buick powertrained Tempest would be highly rare, but maybe not really desireable to either group (Buick or Pontiac) in all aspects of things. I might suspect the Buick enthusiasts might claim it more than the Pontiac people would, though.

Thanks for that clarification, Bruce. Now it'll be known that, should one of those Buick V-8 Tempests be found out somewhere, that it was most likely factory and not what some hot rodder might have done.

NTX5467

[HurstGN]

Well, I'll add my .02 here. I'd have to pick the Buick Liberty engine as my #1, for the reason that it had a part in allowing me to express this opinion freely. And for the fact that that engine also gave you the privlidge to disagree with me if you so choose. Without that engine, we wouldn't have my #2 pick: the Turbocharged 3.8 liter V6's.

Look at the little V6 and see it's accomplishments.

It's fuel efficient: If you want to drive it easy, you can get 17-25 MPG. With custom programming, they've run a 25 mile road course with an average MPG just below 50 mpg!

Torque and horsepower: Some of these stock blocked cars are running 10's on the 1/4, and still running daily driver duty. Some stage motors are set for well over 1000 hp. I once saw a video of a Turbo T that ran the dyno to over 1000 hp, then, while under full 1000 hp load on the dyno, blipped the throttle and did a burnout on the dyno!

Factory Race Motor: The V6, with some massaging paced a few Indy races where V8's only dared pace before. A twin turbocharged convertible Riviera paced Indy with power to spare. By 1989, the little V6 was used in the Pontiac Trans Am, and it was the first stock (unmodified) production engine to pace Indy. Even the big bad Vette's hadn't done that!

Technology: Distributorless ignition, sensors galore, sequential fuel injection...it has features that some cars are only getting in the last couple years. Although some cars still don't have sequential fuel injection. It was definitely way ahead of it's time.

Durable: If treated properly, it damn near lasts forever.

Yup. I really like the little V6 that could (and does whoop on the bigger V8's) :-) I will admit, I don't know much about the older V8's, so if you want to argue with me, go ahead. The Liberator gives you the privlidge.

[55PackardGuy]

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.

[Guest]

"Bullet proof" would best describe the 3.8L engine! My ex wife has a 1990 Regal GS that's an absolute blast to drive, while I own a 1991 Park Avenue Berline. These are a far cry better than the 307 in my 1988 Electra Estate Wagon that I recently retired!

I would instantly trade them in for my uncle's 1963!? Wildcat!! I still remember the way the whole car lit up when the door was opened.

[decembro]

I had a 64 Skylark with the 225 V6 in it, a green engine. Had to buy a water pump for it and it took the same one as the 231 in the rear wheel drive Skyhawk of the late 70's and 80's which were painted red. Don't know how they increased the cubes if it was bored out or stroked. Maybe someone here knows.

[86 2dr.ltd]

what a great read. I have many questions.

John Chapman - great links as usual. I had no idea who built all the engines used back during the war. Im so happy to hear about Buicks radial engines and their contribution. It was a great discovery but why wasnt I surprised that Buick would have been behind some great machines. Were all the engines in those bombers Buick or did other manufactures have to carry some of the load ? Also was that first engine WWI I believe, a V12 aircraft engine ?

I always heard of the Wildcat, Nailhead, valve in head engines. However last winter I went to see that tour of Buicks locally and saw the older straight engines and they were called Fireball? , correct me if Im wrong I getting all kinds of names confused. Anyhow I was wondering why I never hear the oldtimers use that name for the engines. Buick had great names for engines. Not anymore, just letters and numbers.

The 3.8 or now 3800 speaks for itself. Its the passenger car engine nearly every GM buyer wants and has. I wont say anything about how Pontiac and Chevy dont deserve it , opps it sliped out

I someday want a 67 or 68,69 Riviera with the 430 Wildcat, dont know why but I just like the sound of "430 Wildcat" and I hear so much good about them. Not that I'd mind a 401 or 425 Nailhead.

Finally was the 3800 series II originally designed by Buick or was it GM powertrain by 96/97 ?