new purgetory members yay!

[MR.hp]

I like Joel's comments with the "other brand of GM cars. It's good for everyone to like other types of cars and engines. GM was much better then with each division when corporate did not make all the cars look and use the same stuff just to make a buck.

Just so you know Joel in '87 I almost bought a GN.

[MR.hp]

Well you must have an extremely tiny pecker than cuz I never feel a thing..

You just have a giant bunghole:rotfl:

[Z28SSMAN]

Joel makes quite a few good points.

As a kid, I always thought of luxury when I saw a Buick. I did think the 50's Buicks resembled fish but also knew they were powerful old cars. Quite frankly, the old dynaflow Buicks were in my opinion "ugly as sin" and actually comical looking, but I really started liking Buicks in the 60's. They looked modern and had classic lines.

A neighbor who lived about 600-700 feet away had a '61 Electra 225 4 dr in a mauve type color. She passed away and her son inherited her estate. Within days, I looked out the window and couldn't help but notice a brand new '64 Electra 225 convertible, red with black top. It was stunning. When asked why he would get rid of her perfectly good Electra? He said it reminded him too much of her??? I had an opportunity to ride in that '64 and it was incredibly smooth. He ended up totalling it out and blew the entire estate money in no time.

Our family doctor bought a new Buick every year. He used to leave his Buick idling in the winter because he had two offices and wanted to make sure the car was warm as he traveled between the two, which were about 6 miles apart. We honestly thought he was RICH.

In Cairo, Ill, a local owner of a shoe store bought his son a brand new '70 GS 455 Stage1, dark blue with black vinyl top. He only cruised around with it and no matter how much he was challenged, he never raced anyone or even showed anybody what it could do.

The '69 and '70 Electra 225's were great road cars and I think more popular than the '98 Olds and even Cadillac.

Jason Line campaigned a blue 455 GS. It was the '70-'72 body. I thoroughly enjoyed watching that car leave the line at BIR. Of course, I enjoy watching any GM intermediate leave the starting line....a thing of grace.

And of course the GN. What can anyone say? The cars were amazing. The first time I saw one, a couple guys were test driving one. I had heard they were quick, but c'mon...a 6 cyl? Anyway...I watched them lay into the throttle at about a 10mph roll. The car looked like a frickin bat out of hell. After that, I knew they were badass.

I have fond memories of Buicks. They are definitely a big part of GM history. So...let's not pick on Joel, because we all know he's a Buick freak. I can respect that.

[Fast One]

I like Joel's comments with the "other brand of GM cars. It's good for everyone to like other types of cars and engines. GM was much better then with each division when corporate did not make all the cars look and use the same stuff just to make a buck.

Just so you know Joel in '87 I almost bought a GN.

Bob,

I drooled over them, but I was in the rock & roll business back then, and couldn't afford one. I promised myself back then that I would own one someday.

I agree about GM 'back in the day'. I think they were a much better company when each division engineered its own engines & bodies. I understand that they figured that consolidating their resources would save money; however I think it really hurt them in the long run, as the marques have nearly lost their identity. I've heard rumors that things are changing - that Chevy, Buick, and Caddy will move back to making distinctive models again. Hope it's true...

I'm looking forward to the new Regal GS. I watched the test-drive with Boris Said. He was visibly impressed, and noted that it has neutral handling in the twisties. It will likely replace the GTP when the time comes...

Joel

[Fast One]

Joel makes quite a few good points.

As a kid, I always thought of luxury when I saw a Buick. I did think the 50's Buicks resembled fish but also knew they were powerful old cars. Quite frankly, the old dynaflow Buicks were in my opinion "ugly as sin" and actually comical looking, but I really started liking Buicks in the 60's. They looked modern and had classic lines.

A neighbor who lived about 600-700 feet away had a '61 Electra 225 4 dr in a mauve type color. She passed away and her son inherited her estate. Within days, I looked out the window and couldn't help but notice a brand new '64 Electra 225 convertible, red with black top. It was stunning. When asked why he would get rid of her perfectly good Electra? He said it reminded him too much of her??? I had an opportunity to ride in that '64 and it was incredibly smooth. He ended up totalling it out and blew the entire estate money in no time.

Our family doctor bought a new Buick every year. He used to leave his Buick idling in the winter because he had two offices and wanted to make sure the car was warm as he traveled between the two, which were about 6 miles apart. We honestly thought he was RICH.

In Cairo, Ill, a local owner of a shoe store bought his son a brand new '70 GS 455 Stage1, dark blue with black vinyl top. He only cruised around with it and no matter how much he was challenged, he never raced anyone or even showed anybody what it could do.

The '69 and '70 Electra 225's were great road cars and I think more popular than the '98 Olds and even Cadillac.

Jason Line campaigned a blue 455 GS. It was the '70-'72 body. I thoroughly enjoyed watching that car leave the line at BIR. Of course, I enjoy watching any GM intermediate leave the starting line....a thing of grace.

And of course the GN. What can anyone say? The cars were amazing. The first time I saw one, a couple guys were test driving one. I had heard they were quick, but c'mon...a 6 cyl? Anyway...I watched them lay into the throttle at about a 10mph roll. The car looked like a frickin bat out of hell. After that, I knew they were badass.

I have fond memories of Buicks. They are definitely a big part of GM history. So...let's not pick on Joel, because we all know he's a Buick freak. I can respect that.

Glenn,

Yeah - Harley Earl sure went overboard with the styling on some of those 50's Buicks. Despite their ungainly shape, they were damn fast in their day, as those nailheads had a lot of area under the curve. Reminds me of a funny story. When I was in high school, a buddy of mine bought a '57 Special. He wanted me to drive it because he thought the trans was going out. He said it acted like a snomobile - the engine just just of revved up & the car caught up with it. Of course when I drove it, I immediately recognized Buick's signature variable-stall converter, and knew that nothing was wrong with the trans. I told my friend to not worry - the tach & speedometer relationship isn't supposed to make sense until you get up to speed.

Buick freak, eh? Maybe a little. :laughing smile: However, I do like all fast/quick/rare cars - even Fords. Damn, what did I just say?!?!?

Too bad about the guy with the inheritance. Seems like it happens all too often that those who come by it too easily are destined to lose it just as easily.

BTW - my sister still loves her Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8. She & my brother-in-law now drive instead of fly when going on vacation, and they make a point to take the back roads. Only problem so far is that the alarm system seems to false sometimes, and the dealer hasn't been able to duplicate the problem.

Joel

[MR.hp]

Glenn,

Yeah - Harley Earl sure went overboard with the styling on some of those 50's Buicks. Despite their ungainly shape, they were damn fast in their day, as those nailheads had a lot of area under the curve. Reminds me of a funny story. When I was in high school, a buddy of mine bought a '57 Special. He wanted me to drive it because he thought the trans was going out. He said it acted like a snomobile - the engine just just of revved up & the car caught up with it. Of course when I drove it, I immediately recognized Buick's signature variable-stall converter, and knew that nothing was wrong with the trans. I told my friend to not worry - the tach & speedometer relationship isn't supposed to make sense until you get up to speed.

Buick freak, eh? Maybe a little. :laughing smile: However, I do like all fast/quick/rare cars - even Fords. Damn, what did I just say?!?!?

Too bad about the guy with the inheritance. Seems like it happens all too often that those who come by it too easily are destined to lose it just as easily.

BTW - my sister still loves her Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8. She & my brother-in-law now drive instead of fly when going on vacation, and they make a point to take the back roads. Only problem so far is that the alarm system seems to false sometimes, and the dealer hasn't been able to duplicate the problem.

Joel

I drove a V8 Genesis today, goes pretty good.

[Fast One]

I drove a V8 Genesis today, goes pretty good.

I haven't driven the 4.6L sedan, but I've heard that it's pretty quick and that it also handles quite well.

Looks like the coupe will get a 5.0L 'Tau' V8 in 2011-12. It's based on the sedan's 4.6L engine. Supposed to make 429 HP @ 6,500 rpm and 376 lb-ft @ 5,000 rpm. It will be mated to an 8-speed auto. Now, that aught to be interesting. Looking at the peak numbers, it seems to have a rather narrow powerband, though. Need the dyno graph to look at the area under the curve.

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/hy...-v8-21702.html

[Fast One]

i dont see anybody putting buick engines in there hotrods.

See below:

Buick Nationals: http://www.buickperformancegroup.com/bpgnats.htm Check the race stats. Some pretty good numbers being laid down by cars that mostly drove cross-country to the track - with full interiors, climate-control, and power-everything.

GS Nationals: http://www.gsnationals.com/ Check out the 6.84 @ 197 pass.

Buick racing compilation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7I3YX...eature=related

Article confirming what I said about the nailhead & the street-rodding scene:

http://www.streetrodderweb.com/tech/...nes/index.html

Badass Camaro w/twin-turbo 455 Buick. You've not likely heard a Camaro sound quite like this before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJJbp...eature=related

10-sec 455 Buick on dyno:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_99E8osRcgE&feature=related

Peak HP never won a race. All it's good for is selling cars, setting trap-speed records, and bragging on forums. Area under the curve is what counts, and Buick engines have lots of area under the curve. It's a Buick tradition. Also - regarding technological leadership - did you bother to wonder how Buick managed to build such a compact, lightweight engine as the 455, yet made it last longer than the others? High-tech casting & alloy experiments led to Buick's signature high-nickel-content block, which allowed Buick to design the revolutionary thin-wall casting, which made the 455 that weighs just 25 pounds more than a 283 Chev a reality.

Those who have built small or big-block Buicks for their hot-rods rarely go back. They usually become complete converts after their first experience with Buick power, along with the improved handling due to the reduced nose-weight.

Speaking of handing. Ever heard of 'Old Yeller'? No - not the dog - the car. Embarrassed the Europeans in GP racing back in the day. Was powered by a Buick 401 nailhead. Also raced SCCA, and other sports-car events around the world: http://www.oldyeller2.com/index.html

You wonder why, if Buick engines are so good, aren't people tossing their SBCs left & right? It's simple.

1) Availability: SBCs are everywhere. Why? Because they're cheap & they made them by the millions.

2) Cost: Many people will choose lower cost over higher quality/longevity if other things are acceptable to them. It costs more to build a Buick engine.

3) Lack of knowledge: Most people don't know that a 455 Buick with an aluminum intake weighs less than a SBC, or that it will fit wherever the SBC can fit. Most don't know that the 350 Buick is barely 75% of the weight of a SBC, and that it has a much better torque curve. It is also quite capable of producing 500+ HP.

Poor shop familiarity: Few shops know how to properly build or tune a Buick engine. Many shops try to apply SBC/BBC tricks, which don't work well on the Buick engines.

Just because there is a lot of something, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily the best choice. That's a form of group-think, which has been shown to be highly flawed in nearly all situations. Follow the masses, and most likely you will go no further than they will, nor will the journey be one of learning.

Step outside your little box & take your blinders off. There is much more to hot-rodding and going fast than building yet another Chevy or Ford engine. Area under the curve is where it's at, and Buick has a long history of making engines with a lot of area under the curve. So has Caddy. The 500 Cad is a great performance engine. It's the same weight as the Buick 455. It also uses Buick's thin-wall casting & high-nickel-content cast iron technologies. There are aftermarket intake & head combos that will really wake the big Caddy up. It had around 425 HP stock - so 500-550 HP isn't much of a stretch.

Joel

[smooth_358]

ok, this "high nickel content" is still somewhat of a myth that runs between buick olds and poncho motors.. Perhaps the casting technics and knowledge of the process is where the gains were seen? and the "big block" buick isn't any larger size wise to really distinguish it as such, overall displacement yes, but it is just a different crank/piston/head combo on the same block as a "small block". I love all the talking up of the caddy and buick, but there is not a single mention of the olds 455 or even any big block pontiacs, that were pretty on par with all the "below the curve" comments. that and your comment on the first production vehicle with a turbo, I am 99% sure that the 62 olds jetfire was the first production turbo vehicle.. granted you stated that the turbo buick came out the same year, o wait, that makes sense as they have roots in the same design groups. granted, I'm not about arguing, I'm just sick of biased opinions without including all of the groups..

[smooth_358]

now that I think about it, did the jetfire use that same engine you mentioned? that would make sense if you said that buick made the first one?

[Fast One]

ok, this "high nickel content" is still somewhat of a myth that runs between buick olds and poncho motors.. Perhaps the casting technics and knowledge of the process is where the gains were seen? and the "big block" buick isn't any larger size wise to really distinguish it as such, overall displacement yes, but it is just a different crank/piston/head combo on the same block as a "small block". I love all the talking up of the caddy and buick, but there is not a single mention of the olds 455 or even any big block pontiacs, that were pretty on par with all the "below the curve" comments. that and your comment on the first production vehicle with a turbo, I am 99% sure that the 62 olds jetfire was the first production turbo vehicle.. granted you stated that the turbo buick came out the same year, o wait, that makes sense as they have roots in the same design groups. granted, I'm not about arguing, I'm just sick of biased opinions without including all of the groups..

Ah...the Jetfire. Yes, the basic engine was Buick's; however Olds used their own heads - with an extra head bolt per cylinder. It's easier to raise the compression on Buicks' version (piston swap), but requires head-wrok on the Olds. In contrast, the extra head bolt gives the Olds an advantage in head sealing.

Regarding the Olds & Pontiac 455s - I've never owned a Pontiac 455; however I used to own an Olds 455. It was in a Delta 98 coupe, and it hauled that huge car around with authority. It was a strong puller - and as you mentioned - also has a lot of area under the curve. It was also one tough engine! I thoroughly abused that poor car; yet the big Olds never missed beat. My best friend Al (RIP) used to have a '66 Chevelle with a 425 Olds Super Rocket + TH400 switch-pitch in it. We had a lot of fun in that car. It launched so hard, it lifted the rf wheel. The 425 was stock! With road gears, that car was so damn fast, it nearly went airborne on a high-speed run.

My preference for Buick's 455 lies primarily in its light weight and compact dimensions.

Regarding the high-nickel-content blocks - it's not a myth. It is noted in the history of Buick engine design. Many machinists who are familiar with Buick engines comment on how hard the blocks are on their cutting tools. I can't speak for the Olds or Pontiac engines, as I have never built one up.

The Buick small-block & big-block are completely different castings, although they're built on a common architecture that dates back to the 215 aluminum engine they designed back in '51.

The 350 Buick only weighs 450 pounds, while the 455 weighs 600 pounds. The 350 looks large due to the taller deck and resulting wide intake manifold, due to its slightly over-square design. The 455 Buick has the shortest-stroke of all the big-blocks. Pontiac never made a small-block. Their V8s were all big-blocks. The 330 used the same basic block dimensions as the 455. Olds, however made a 'mid-block'. Their 350 is larger than a typical small-block; yet it is smaller than their 'big-block'.

[Fast One]

ok, this "high nickel content" is still somewhat of a myth that runs between buick olds and poncho motors.. Perhaps the casting technics and knowledge of the process is where the gains were seen? and the "big block" buick isn't any larger size wise to really distinguish it as such, overall displacement yes, but it is just a different crank/piston/head combo on the same block as a "small block". I love all the talking up of the caddy and buick, but there is not a single mention of the olds 455 or even any big block pontiacs, that were pretty on par with all the "below the curve" comments. that and your comment on the first production vehicle with a turbo, I am 99% sure that the 62 olds jetfire was the first production turbo vehicle.. granted you stated that the turbo buick came out the same year, o wait, that makes sense as they have roots in the same design groups. granted, I'm not about arguing, I'm just sick of biased opinions without including all of the groups..

Ah...the Jetfire. Yes, the basic engine was Buick's; however Olds used their own heads - with an extra head bolt per cylinder. It's easier to raise the compression on Buicks' version (piston swap), but requires head-work on the Olds. In contrast, the extra head bolt gives the Olds an advantage in head sealing.

Regarding the Olds & Pontiac 455s - I've never owned a Pontiac 455; however I used to own an Olds 455. It was in a Delta 98 coupe, and it hauled that huge car around with authority. It was a strong puller - and as you mentioned - also has a lot of area under the curve. It was also one tough engine! I thoroughly abused that poor car; yet the big Olds never missed beat. My best friend Al (RIP) used to have a '66 Chevelle with a 425 Olds Super Rocket + TH400 switch-pitch in it. We had a lot of fun in that car. It launched so hard, it lifted the rf wheel. The 425 was stock! With road gears, that car was so damn fast, it nearly went airborne on a high-speed run.

My preference for Buick's 455 lies primarily in its light weight and compact dimensions.

Regarding the high-nickel-content blocks - it's not a myth. It is noted in the history of Buick engine design. Many machinists who are familiar with Buick engines comment on how hard the blocks are on their cutting tools. I can't speak for the Olds or Pontiac engines, as I have never built one up.

The Buick small-block & big-block are completely different castings,a nd are not the same size externally. They do share a common architecture that dates back to the 215 aluminum V8 engine that Buick designed back in the late 40s (the one that was in the supercharged, dual-fuel '51 Le Sabre concept car).

The 350 Buick only weighs 450 pounds, while the 455 weighs 600 pounds. The 350 looks large due to the taller deck and resulting wide intake manifold, due to its slightly over-square design. The 455 Buick has the shortest-stroke of all the big-blocks. Pontiac never made a small-block. Their V8s were all big-blocks. The 330 used the same basic block dimensions as the 455. Olds, however made a 'mid-block'. Their 350 is larger than a typical small-block; yet it is smaller than their 'big-block'.

Ah...the Jetfire. Yes, the basic engine was Buick's; however Olds used their own heads - with an extra head bolt per cylinder. It's easier to raise the compression on Buicks' version (piston swap), but requires head-wrok on the Olds. In contrast, the extra head bolt gives the Olds an advantage in head sealing.

Regarding the Olds & Pontiac 455s - I've never owned a Pontiac 455; however I used to own an Olds 455. It was in a Delta 98 coupe, and it hauled that huge car around with authority. It was a strong puller - and as you mentioned - also has a lot of area under the curve. It was also one tough engine! I thoroughly abused that poor car; yet the big Olds never missed beat. My best friend Al (RIP) used to have a '66 Chevelle with a 425 Olds Super Rocket + TH400 switch-pitch in it. We had a lot of fun in that car. It launched so hard, it lifted the rf wheel. The 425 was stock! With road gears, that car was so damn fast, it nearly went airborne on a high-speed run.

My preference for Buick's 455 lies primarily in its light weight and compact dimensions.

Regarding the high-nickel-content blocks - it's not a myth. It is noted in the history of Buick engine design. Many machinists who are familiar with Buick engines comment on how hard the blocks are on their cutting tools. I can't speak for the Olds or Pontiac engines, as I have never built one up.

The Buick small-block & big-block are completely different castings, although they're built on a common architecture that dates back to the 215 aluminum engine they designed back in '51.

The 350 Buick only weighs 450 pounds, while the 455 weighs 600 pounds. The 350 looks large due to the taller deck and resulting wide intake manifold, due to its slightly over-square design. The 455 Buick has the shortest-stroke of all the big-blocks. Pontiac never made a small-block. Their V8s were all big-blocks. The 330 used the same basic block dimensions as the 455. Olds, however made a 'mid-block'. Their 350 is larger than a typical small-block; yet it is smaller than their 'big-block'.

[MR.hp]

Here is one for you Joel
64 Buick Skylark like chevy chevelle - $6500 (mankato)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


340 2 speed recent paint and interior runs drives and looks good 6500.00 OBO call todd 507 340 5849

[MR.hp]

Hey Mr. blown 87gt we still run this place, So if we don't like your post it don't happen and like you said yourself, Your just here to get under out skin anyway.

[blown 87gt]

Hey Mr. blown 87gt we still run this place, So if we don't like your post it don't happen and like you said yourself, Your just here to get under out skin anyway.

Ah i'm here trying to give your site some entertainment, and we were ribbing each other back and forth and it's just in fun, not my fault you guys get butthurt and can't take a joke. Do you see me crying when you make fun of me and the car I don't even have anymore? No, because I actually have a sense of humor and can take some ribbing.