My grandmother used to have a 1970 Buick Gran Sport Stage 1 back in the 1970's. My brother and I used to stand up on the behind the front seats and she would goose it to toss us into the rear seat. We'd all giggle each time. Grandma got a laugh out of it, so it became customary each time we rode with her.
I used to tell my mom, "faster momma, faster momma!!!!," behind her standing on the rear seat when I was 4 years old as she would stand up on the 1970 impala's excelerator pedal in the bay area in San Francisco, Ca. Most treasured time of my life.....
No it wasn't. Compression ratios back then were "advertised." Measure and calculate actual combustion chamber volumes and you'll see this engine's was on the order or a true 9.6:1 from the factory.
Excellent video. Horsepower came in about where I expected. I was looking for about 515 Torque. Do believe that the roller cam gave a slight power advantage.
Getting 400 hp with a bone stock 455 stage one with exhaust manifolds is impressive. There is another 455 stage one dyno you tube that gets 402 HP, but that one has headers.
Gross, with no engine accessories, factory air cleaner or factory exhaust system in place. Actual net "as installed" peak torque output was in the 400 ft-lb range. That's called "SAE Net" torque, which along with SAE Net horsepower has been the standard per Federal law since the 1972 model year. Also, there's zero correlation between peak engine torque figures and vehicle performance. HORSEPOWER AND GEARING is what produces drive wheel torque AT THE WHEELS at any and every vehicle speed. Dividing that torque by loaded tire radius yield the tractive force that accelerates the car.
You'd still need to divide by 1 foot in order to get the necessary pound (force) unit that accelerates the vehicle. Still, your comment made me smile. :-)
everyone knows the Buick big block was a monster by now. we always had the information even back in the 70's. dad used to say. "don't mess with the Buicks".
I've had my share of Buick luxury: 1965 Riv GS Wildcat465, a 1966 LeSabre 400 convert w/HiComp 340, a 1972 LeSabre GS 350 Stage1 (love them full size 2 door lines) and a 1971 Centurion 455 Stage1 convert. The '72 ran a 14.5 1/4 @95 mph and the '71 ran a 13.8 @ 101. Now I did have a set of Headman headers, Dual 2 1/2" Cherry's and a Holley 750 DP center squirter with the horns cut off. That was back in '85 and had NO idea that removing that horn helped. I did it because I dropped the body and cracked it and wanted it to look new so I cut it off. Didn't know there was quite a bit of added performance gains from doing that. I put most anything I raced to shame, well those who didn't know me but after 2 months doing that, it was hard to find a sucker to race. Just loved the ride, ALL the power options and having an ice cold AC system was awesome. Everyone else removed theirs and were sweating their balls off. I was racing them with the AC ON and still beating them.It was a TRUE gentleman's racer.
Did the '71 run a 13.8 @ 101 MPH in 100% factory stock state? You do realize that 5 year old, bone stock V6 (that's right, V6) manual transmission Mustang has a higher trap speed, right? CAR AND DRIVER has the evidence on their website. And that Mustang is now just an old used car that's not even considered fast in today's world. I always liked the first generation Rivieras. My dad's '64 Wildcat had the same engine. Buick rated it at 340 Gross HP. The reality was 230 or so Net HP at the crank, with all engine accessories, factory air cleaner and full factory exhaust system in place. That's pathetic for a 425 cubic inch (the "465" represented peak engine torque rather than displacement) that required 100 plus octane (RON) premium to run. The majority of today's 2.0 liter turbo fours (122 or so cubic inches) typically exceed that figure on 89 octane (R+M/2) mid grade.
Umm you do realize this is a 40+ year old car?? My dad has a 1970 Buick GSX w/ the stage 1 engine.. it responds well even to the smallest of upgrades. Also the tires from the factory are like hockey pucks compared to today's tires, not to mention they used bias ply, not radial tires; but yet could run low 13 sec 1/4mi.
PRODUCTION LINE STOCK 1970 Stage 1s didn't run low 13s. The MOTOR TREND test cars got close, but it's established fact that those were stripped to the bone factory ringers. The "bias ply" excuse is just that. Buick was offering 8.25" wide Polyglass rubber (G60-15) by the 1970 model year. Where's you evidence that modern rubber is any better in straight line acceleration? Also, the rubber argument is moot in terms of 60 - 100 MPH times. The old "muscle cars" weren't very fast by that measure, either, which last generation bone stock V6 Accords typically being substantially quicker. Furthermore, the 1970 model year was 48 years ago. That's more accurate than "40" year old." Look elsewhere in this thread and you'll see I posted a host of information regarding weaknesses in the Buick's block. It's a weak block (2 bolt mains), the lifter valleys are fragile, the aluminum oil pump housing is subject to premature and extreme wear and the oil galleys themselves are undersized. Summarily, the Buick 455 was never designed to be a high performance engine. Rather, it was designed to be a low revving, relatively tame luxe car engine. The addition of Stage 1 parts (mostly the cam and heads) warmed things up, but the long term reliability under demanding conditions simply isn't there. "Ummm, you do realize that you've been owned?"
Dennis Manner was the lead power plant engineer for the Stage 1. He said that the Stage 1 option was developed on the dyno with full accessories, air filter and production exhaust system. It produced 376 horsepower. Any tweak that did not produce a usable horsepower increase in this trim was not incorporated into the design. A hotter cam like the ones used in Pontiac’s Ram Air and Olds’ W-30 were not used because it showed no gain through the stock manifolds and mufflers. By comparison the 428 CJ developed 335-340 horsepower under the same conditions per Ford engineer Bill Barr.
I think that was Dennis who confirmed a few years ago that the HP ratings were indeed correct...@ the RPM stated, but made more power a little further up the RPM band.
There's no way this engine produced "376 HP" in its as installed (SAE Net) state, as you've suggested. It it did we'd have documented information of verified production line stock examples producing something on the order of 315 HP on a modern chassis dyno. In reality, 250 HP was more like it. The 376 figure might be believable in the SAE Gross configuration (no air filter, engine accessories, air filer or exhaust system in place for a blueprinted "prototype" engine . Indeed, it may have been good for that figure with open exhaust manifolds (rather than aftermarket headers which was typical back then). Documented production line stock 426 street Hemis produce approximately 315 HP at the drive wheels on modern inertia dynos such as the Dynojets, assuming the examples are equipped with the more aggressive 1968-1/2+ cam. Example: www.hotrod.com/articles/mopp-9912-hemi-vs-viper-roadtest/#p97215_image_large Despite being significantly heavier cars than the '70 Buick GS Stage 1, those Hemis were both quicker and faster. The Buick 455 "legend" is primarily based on a single MOTOR TREND "road test", wherein they tested two stripped to the bone examples that were subsequently revealed to be specially modified factory "ringers" (common practice back then.) POPULAR HOT RODDING revealed that truth in an article sometime in the earlier 1980s. Notably, none of the other original magazine road test could touch MOTOR TREND's results. You claims regarding the 428 CJ are way off as well. Approximately 275 SAE Net HP (as installed, with all engine accessories, factory air filter and factory exhaust in place) was about it. Let me swho you what 376 SAE Net HP from a production engine looked like in 1969: www.camaros.org/copo.shtml The ZL1 was literally a racing engine; big heads and cam, an advertised CR of 12:1 and a sticker on the cars center console instructing the driver than 103 Octane or better octane (RON) was required. As such, it made solid power up to 6,800 RPM! Keep in mind that Sunoco 260 was the higher octane street gas back then, with a rating of 102 RON. The ZL1 was so crazy that it would barely idle in traffic without overheating and or fouling plugs. Indeed, Chevrolet itself sent letter to GM dealerships instructing them to NOT sell that engine for steel use. (I have copies of the original letters). The '70 Buick Stage 1 and the 428 CJ were far more tame and substantially less powerful.
250hp?? Ya right... this video proves you WRONG roller cam or not... It's not like you can expect huge gains with just that. As in for the 1/4mi times, think of the "hockey puck size" bias ply tires. This car can easily get in the 12s with good tires/slicks. I would know my dad has a 1970 Buick GSX. Saturn yellow with black interior, factory air and obviously being a GSX had the 455 Stage 1.
+harddrivin1le - 1970 GS Stage 1 455 Buicks weighed close to 4000lbs, ran 13.30s on stock tires brand new. 105-107mph. It made more than advertised. They were underrated. They could outrun a LS-6 454 Chevelle advertised at 450hp.
Had a 72 olds 455 and slapped on an aftermarket intake, carb and converted to hei without headers or a cam and i got plenty of power. It seemed like the front of the car wanted to go airborne. So i know the 70 buickk 455 is a beast. I soon will own another big block.
A poorly set-up suspension shouldn't be confused with power. Your engine would have produced perhaps 300 SAE Net HP on a really good day, assuming it equalled the factory W30 which used superior heads and came (doubtful that it did.) That's a joke for a 455 cubic inch engine today.
I guess it's not bad, considering the compression was dropped by two whole points, going from 10.5:1 down to 8.5:1...I'm not sure I agree with doing that, given that there are many other options these days, like E85, methanol injection, EFI retrofit, etc. Would have benefited from some good headers or at least porting the stock manifolds. Good idea on the roller cam conversion though. I guess if you want to drive it a lot, it makes more sense, but losing that much compression kills power.
The advertised compression ratios back then were hyped, particularly in GMs and Ford's cases. Much was written on this back in the day. As they rolled off the showroom floor, a 70 Buick 455 Stage 1 was in the 9.7:1 range. The modern roller cam (and other undisclosed mods) are adding far more power than what's being lost in a solely on paper drop in compression.
at the last break to get a tad more horse, is that when they took half a quart of oil out of the pan?lol that's always good for a smidgen more. lol Thanks guys, I always love seeing stock real #s compared to manufacturers sandbag get past the insurance bean counters ones.
Late to the party here but what were the actual cam specs??? The stock Stage 1 cam was around 207*I/226*E .406I/.440"E. If this was a rollarized version of the factory cam I could see where it would add around 20 numbers. Maybe some extra HP if the cam was a little bigger than stock type specs. The peak power rpm indicates it wasn't much bigger than stock sized. That means it would hit right around where the factory was rating them back in the day wtih a flat tappet. With a 455 on a chassis dyno with a bigger cam going from flat tappet hydraulic to roller hydraulic thats been my experience. I'm talking about a near exact apples to apples cam conversion, not a stock flat to a bigger roller, or nice sized flat to an even bigger roller. Maybe I missed it where did he actually say the compression? Others have stated it and I agree the actual measured compression of a stock Stage 1 was noticably under 10:1 so unless they installed larger dish low compression pistons('71 and up style) then the compression was probably "stock" and not lowered.
so i guess when my Chevy buddies start talking about how the 454 ls6 was the ultimate for its time i can show them this. exhaust, porting, this motors on par and lighter.
Mark Boice If you built a all out 454 Chevy & 455 Buick Oldsmobile & Pontiac. All three will beat the chevy. Look at the 454 LS6 it had 450 up & 510 lbs of torque With 11to 1 compression aluminum intake, solid cam , holley carb. At a much higher RPM. On the other hand the Buick , Oldsmobile, & Pontiac 455s Had only 370 Hp with 510 lbs of torque. But they only had 10 to 1 compression, factory Rochester & steel intake with a hydraulic cam. At 5500 RPMs . Also all if these motors were a lot lighter than the big block chevy. Torque is what moves the car down the track ! BOP is the way to go!!! 😎
This motor is also far more fragile than the 454 LS6. The Buick 430 and 455 suffered from two bolt mains, insufficient lubrication and a week lifter valley. That engine was designed as a passenger car engine, and very modestly tweaked for "performance" use. The LS6, as is the case with all solid lifter Chevy big blocks (396/427/454) had none of those issues because it was specifically designed as a high performance, high RPM motor.
Nice run with stg1 cam! Why roller lifters? what year 455 is it? Is it 10.25 - 1 comp ratio (1970) or is it 8.5 - 1 ? were intake/exhaust gaskets/ports matched? Anyway thanks for the awseome vid!
+Jasper Lit (babycakes) The engine is a 1970 Buick 455 with factory stage 1 heads. We lowered the compression to 8.5 so we could run pump gas. Flat tappet camshafts are a thing of the past. We converted so we could run a better valve spring and get rid of the possible flat camshaft start up problems. New oils do have the zinc required to maintain the proper protection flat tappet camshafts require so roller was our best option. Nothing was done to port match. All we did from stock was to install a better oiling system. Thank You for your comment. Mark
Love the 455 70-71, had one in my chevelle 64 - the car was banking almost 45deg (felt like it) when I floored it. What timing did you finally use? Can you say anything about how the A/F ratio changed during the pulls? I bet the 8.5:1 in a Buick 455 will trap more pressure than a ditto 8.5:1 BBC due to the longer rods. What were the cam specs? Great move with the roller cam definitely.
It has a roller cam, which allows for a much more aggressive ramp angle without running the valve train. The net result is a larger average lift for more power.
If you cc'd the original heads/chambers, measured original deck height and the compressed height of the original head gasket, you'd see that this engines actual factory compression was on the order of 9.7:1. Both GM and Ford greatly exaggerated their "advertised" compression ratio in those days. That's since become established fact. You need to reveal the specific roller cam you installed in this engine, along with the rocker ratio. I strongly suspect the cam is far more aggressive than the factory grind. Also, roller cams permit a faster pushrod acceleration rate, which effectively increases average cam lift. The end result is more power, even if the cam itself were identical to the original in terms of duration, overlap, LSA and lift. So exactly which roller cam is in this car and what rocker ratio are you using? Also, what's this engine's actual displacement, given that it was almost certainly over-bored at some point in time.
Mark Boice The reason I think that the Riviera had more HP & torque because the fuel pump was in the fuel tank that what I think that made it have more power . The mechanical pump makes it lose about ten horsepower to my knowledge.
The pre-1972 "Gross" Horsepower ratings were literally no more than works of fiction, meaning comparing the published ratings form that back is useless. The locations of the fuel pumps is entirely irrelevant.
Figure 250 HP at the wheels on a truly 100% production line stock example on a modern DynoJet inertia dyno. These engines simply aren't powerful by today's production car standards. Examples: www.v8buick.com/index.php?threads/buick-455-dyno-rwhp.233969/
GM and Buick built in the torque factory stock. Some got lost here. Cam specs? Should be easy over 500 lb-ft long plateau with a fast ramp roller. Chasing a peak number where you never run it is silly guys. Braggin rights I guess. I had a 70 Electra 225 convertible with a 455. soggy truck- like motor. I appreciated my inferior, but personality-laden '65 Nailhead 401. p.s: I Don't appreciate the shouting - too many beers? I'm Gone.
wow 396hp and 460TQ buick 350. oh wait its a stage i 455 that sounds pretty good with stock stuff. What oiling system mods because im putting a buick 350 in my Camaro. And what roller cam please?
WE used the Buick Performance Products front timing chain cover which has an updated oiling system built in at the oil filter. We also opened up the main cap oil groves in the crank. Comp cams has a roller setup that includes the springs. You will have to custom make the push rods to work with your heads. Hope this helps.
How many other modern aftermarket parts did you include in this build? I suspect the engine was bored somewhere along the way as well. What was this engine's actual bore and total displacement when this test was conducted? Also, please provide the actual cam specs. A modern roller cam with an aggressive grind could easily add 50 HP to this engine's peak output.
A Buick 350, in a Camaro?A Chevy 350 is much cheaper to build. Half the cost or less. I've never heard of someone doing that. 350 Buick is expensive, just trying to get 350HP.
You need to research your claim because you're seriously off. Dropping from 10.5:1 to 8.5: equates to a loss of approximately 3%, or about 12 HP in this case. Thing is, the "advertised" compression ratios back then weren't real to begin with. Much has been written about that throughout the years. As they left the factory in late 1969-1970, the 455 Stage 1 came in at about 9.7:1. Chrysler Corp's advertised compression ratios tended to me much closer to the truth than either GM's or Fords. I've seen several cases of "12.5":1 L88 427 Chevys coming in at 10.6 - 10.8:1. It's easily calculated by knowing measured deck health, chamber volume, head gasket thickness, etc. Several online calculators now make it easier, assuming actual measurements are known. The modern roller cam is going to more than compensate for the 2% or so power loss from the actual original CR to the stated 8.5::1
You do know your stuff but a 2 point drop is a bit more than 12 HP when you factor in the stage1 cam used. True on the advertised ratio, and am curious to Pontiac's claims of 10.75 on the GTO's??
Perhaps "a bit more than 12 HP," but certainly nothing close to the claimed "50 - 65 HP" figure I relied to. Wallace Racing has an accurate compression ratio/HP calculator on their website. Check this post out. I can similar calculations years ago and got the same results: www.gtoforum.com/f178/400-v8-compression-72cc-heads-37599/
Educate yourself: www.wallaceracing.com/hp-cr-chg.php Also, any competent person who's ever cc'd their stock chambers and performed the proper calculation knows that ACTUAL (not to be confused with advertised) 1970 Stage 1 compression was about 9.7:1. I recommend that you educate yourself on that as well, realizing that said practice was commonplace back then. The bottom line is that engine's ACTUAL compression dropped from about 9.7:1 to 8.5:1, with output consequently falling by perhaps 8 HP. But this engine was fitted with a roller cam of unknown spec. It was also likely over-bored, meaning displacement is greater than 455 cubic inches. Also, this engine has no engine fan, alternator, power steering pump, air filter or mufflers in place. Consequently, the result we're seeing here are substantially greater than what we'd see with the same engine in its "as installed" (SAE Net) state.
You would have had to calculate your precise before and after mechanical compressions ratios in order to make an accurate claim. That would include cc'ing your total chamber volume for each cylinder, along with measuring precise deck heights, the compressed thickness of your head gaskets (before and after) and so on. All other variables (no other changes of any sort) the same dyno, the same dyno facility exhaust plumbing, the same atmospheric correction standards) would have to be identical. A change in rings and piston shape alone can yield a quantifiable change in engine output, with the result erroneously being attributed solely to the change in compression ratio. Also, engineering IS REAL WORLD. I'm a senior mechanical design engineer with more than 30 years of experience. The relationship between compression ratio and engine output has been established fact for approximately a full century, with the best engineers in the world designing engines around that information. A host of professional papers as well as articles from popular public domain sources are available on this subject. As demonstrated by the math and the charts, the relationship between compression ratio and output isn't linear, with the percentage increase equating to where you're at on the chart. Your suggestion that a generic "one point drop" equates to any fixed percentage reveals that you've no real understanding of this phenomenon. HARD FACT: As they left the showroom floor in 1970, Buick Stage 1s would have been hard pressed to run with a bone stock, 2013 6 speed V6 Honda Accord - tire for tire. I use the Accord as an example because it's not even "a fast car" by today's standards.
@@camclarke9952 and vice-versa which proves nothing as many factors can determin winners or losers at any given time.everyone who is anyone knows however that in the right hands..... the hemi is,and always has been,king of the american v8s;and i dont mean in factory stock trim.
So it’s a stock engine with a custom ground camshaft upgrade I wouldn’t call that stock These days we call that cammed since that’s what’s been done to it. If the engine is already on the dyno why didn’t you just do long tube headers in the first place? That engine is going to need and benefit so much from nice long tubes and a x pipe.
So with mods this thing just barely tipped the 400 mark. 428 CJ is a little over 400 without touching it. Ad that to a mustang that was lighter and you know who won that showdown in 70. Im just saying.
Please. Stop with you BS about a damn CJ 428. I never saw a 428 ford beat anybody on the street. A BB Chevy 350 horse would run off and leave and Street Ford. I my day it was Chevy on top and Mo/Power like the 440 that was king. Pontiac and Olds were next. Ford was always last. A 327 Chevy 350 horse could beat a 428 CJ You Ford people make me laugh. You think because you put a name on it like Cobra Jet on a engine that means something. Don't come back telling me all this crap about a Cobra Jet. I was there racing in the 60's and 70's On the drag strip and about every night on the street.
@@kennethrobinson11231 is right, in my experience. My uncle had both a '70 Mach I 428CJ and BOSS 302 in his collection not long ago, and let me drive them...I was sorely disappointed. I think I was slightly more impressed by the BOSS. He has an '07 Shelby with an exhaust, CAI and a pulley, and that think is a monster in comparison (575rwHP). I've driven and ridden in several big-block Chevelles, granted they were modified (cam, intake & exhaust), but they were easily capable of spanking the 428CJ. I'm not saying that they FE engine doesn't have potential if modified, but I think equivalent mods to the BBC will outperform it...BBC heads can flow some serious air.
Not really apples to oranges. Look at the 426 hemi produced back in the 1960s and early 70s. Its max torque is around 4000 rpm. You also need to consider the 455 is over 100 cubic inches bigger. Buick engines are a thing of the past but Pontiac and BB chevy engines are big in aftermarket. Butler performance.
Which 350? None of the 350s from that same era could come close to 400 HP with factory exhaust manifolds in place. Modified ones will, but that's not stock.
Of course this engine is a thing from the past. Furthermore, it suffered from a weak bottom end, a fragile lifter valley and poor lubrication. The stage 1 was essentially a station wagon engine that was fitted with a few upgraded parts. The 455 was never designed with high performance applications in mind, as was the case with the solid lifter Chevy 427s, 426 Hemis, etc.
And this 455 could produce 500 HP once it was fitted with a host of modern aftermarket parts and fed a steady diet of racing fuel (e.g., Sunoco 260 GTPlus 104 Octane R+M/2) to permit proper operation with the necessary 12+:1 actual mechanical compression ratio.
My grandmother used to have a 1970 Buick Gran Sport Stage 1 back in the 1970's. My brother and I used to stand up on the behind the front seats and she would goose it to toss us into the rear seat. We'd all giggle each time. Grandma got a laugh out of it, so it became customary each time we rode with her.
I used to tell my mom, "faster momma, faster momma!!!!," behind her standing on the rear seat when I was 4 years old as she would stand up on the 1970 impala's excelerator pedal in the bay area in San Francisco, Ca. Most treasured time of my life.....
Good times!
Roller cam is NOT bone stock.
The compression was dropped a significant amount, so I say it even's it out..
No it wasn't. Compression ratios back then were "advertised." Measure and calculate actual combustion chamber volumes and you'll see this engine's was on the order or a true 9.6:1 from the factory.
@@petereconomakis149 dynamic compression has increased even though static compression has decreased.
@@AtariFTW By just the cam change?
The addition of a roller cam, brought the power to 400HP. Of course that's a 1,000. I would have gone flat Tappet. Much cheaper, similar performance.
I, as a former owner of a '70 Buick GS 455 STAGE 1,4spd, NEVER HAD A DOUBT. GREAT VIDEO & WORK. Njoy.
Excellent video. Horsepower came in about where I expected. I was looking for about 515 Torque. Do believe that the roller cam gave a slight power advantage.
Getting 400 hp with a bone stock 455 stage one with exhaust manifolds is impressive. There is another 455 stage one dyno you tube that gets 402 HP, but that one has headers.
Kee-ripes! 506 ft/lbs of torque is amazing.
Very Amazing! Thank You
Stock rating was 510 lb.-ft...
Gross, with no engine accessories, factory air cleaner or factory exhaust system in place.
Actual net "as installed" peak torque output was in the 400 ft-lb range. That's called "SAE Net" torque, which along with SAE Net horsepower has been the standard per Federal law since the 1972 model year.
Also, there's zero correlation between peak engine torque figures and vehicle performance. HORSEPOWER AND GEARING is what produces drive wheel torque AT THE WHEELS at any and every vehicle speed. Dividing that torque by loaded tire radius yield the tractive force that accelerates the car.
Use 24" tall tires to avoid having to divide by tire radius... LOL!
You'd still need to divide by 1 foot in order to get the necessary pound (force) unit that accelerates the vehicle.
Still, your comment made me smile. :-)
Holly crap. Just finished buying one of these and had no idea
everyone knows the Buick big block was a monster by now. we always had the information even back in the 70's. dad used to say. "don't mess with the Buicks".
Your Dad is Correct! Don't mess with the best!
I've had my share of Buick luxury: 1965 Riv GS Wildcat465, a 1966 LeSabre 400 convert w/HiComp 340, a 1972 LeSabre GS 350 Stage1 (love them full size 2 door lines) and a 1971 Centurion 455 Stage1 convert. The '72 ran a 14.5 1/4 @95 mph and the '71 ran a 13.8 @ 101. Now I did have a set of Headman headers, Dual 2 1/2" Cherry's and a Holley 750 DP center squirter with the horns cut off. That was back in '85 and had NO idea that removing that horn helped. I did it because I dropped the body and cracked it and wanted it to look new so I cut it off. Didn't know there was quite a bit of added performance gains from doing that. I put most anything I raced to shame, well those who didn't know me but after 2 months doing that, it was hard to find a sucker to race. Just loved the ride, ALL the power options and having an ice cold AC system was awesome. Everyone else removed theirs and were sweating their balls off. I was racing them with the AC ON and still beating them.It was a TRUE gentleman's racer.
Did the '71 run a 13.8 @ 101 MPH in 100% factory stock state? You do realize that 5 year old, bone stock V6 (that's right, V6) manual transmission Mustang has a higher trap speed, right? CAR AND DRIVER has the evidence on their website. And that Mustang is now just an old used car that's not even considered fast in today's world.
I always liked the first generation Rivieras. My dad's '64 Wildcat had the same engine. Buick rated it at 340 Gross HP. The reality was 230 or so Net HP at the crank, with all engine accessories, factory air cleaner and full factory exhaust system in place. That's pathetic for a 425 cubic inch (the "465" represented peak engine torque rather than displacement) that required 100 plus octane (RON) premium to run. The majority of today's 2.0 liter turbo fours (122 or so cubic inches) typically exceed that figure on 89 octane (R+M/2) mid grade.
Umm you do realize this is a 40+ year old car?? My dad has a 1970 Buick GSX w/ the stage 1 engine.. it responds well even to the smallest of upgrades. Also the tires from the factory are like hockey pucks compared to today's tires, not to mention they used bias ply, not radial tires; but yet could run low 13 sec 1/4mi.
PRODUCTION LINE STOCK 1970 Stage 1s didn't run low 13s. The MOTOR TREND test cars got close, but it's established fact that those were stripped to the bone factory ringers. The "bias ply" excuse is just that. Buick was offering 8.25" wide Polyglass rubber (G60-15) by the 1970 model year. Where's you evidence that modern rubber is any better in straight line acceleration? Also, the rubber argument is moot in terms of 60 - 100 MPH times. The old "muscle cars" weren't very fast by that measure, either, which last generation bone stock V6 Accords typically being substantially quicker. Furthermore, the 1970 model year was 48 years ago. That's more accurate than "40" year old."
Look elsewhere in this thread and you'll see I posted a host of information regarding weaknesses in the Buick's block. It's a weak block (2 bolt mains), the lifter valleys are fragile, the aluminum oil pump housing is subject to premature and extreme wear and the oil galleys themselves are undersized.
Summarily, the Buick 455 was never designed to be a high performance engine. Rather, it was designed to be a low revving, relatively tame luxe car engine. The addition of Stage 1 parts (mostly the cam and heads) warmed things up, but the long term reliability under demanding conditions simply isn't there.
"Ummm, you do realize that you've been owned?"
Dennis Manner was the lead power plant engineer for the Stage 1. He said that the Stage 1 option was developed on the dyno with full accessories, air filter and production exhaust system. It produced 376 horsepower.
Any tweak that did not produce a usable horsepower increase in this trim was not incorporated into the design. A hotter cam like the ones used in Pontiac’s Ram Air and Olds’ W-30 were not used because it showed no gain through the stock manifolds and mufflers.
By comparison the 428 CJ developed 335-340 horsepower under the same conditions per Ford engineer Bill Barr.
Great Information! Thank You
I think that was Dennis who confirmed a few years ago that the HP ratings were indeed correct...@ the RPM stated, but made more power a little further up the RPM band.
There's no way this engine produced "376 HP" in its as installed (SAE Net) state, as you've suggested. It it did we'd have documented information of verified production line stock examples producing something on the order of 315 HP on a modern chassis dyno. In reality, 250 HP was more like it.
The 376 figure might be believable in the SAE Gross configuration (no air filter, engine accessories, air filer or exhaust system in place for a blueprinted "prototype" engine . Indeed, it may have been good for that figure with open exhaust manifolds (rather than aftermarket headers which was typical back then).
Documented production line stock 426 street Hemis produce approximately 315 HP at the drive wheels on modern inertia dynos such as the Dynojets, assuming the examples are equipped with the more aggressive 1968-1/2+ cam.
Example:
www.hotrod.com/articles/mopp-9912-hemi-vs-viper-roadtest/#p97215_image_large
Despite being significantly heavier cars than the '70 Buick GS Stage 1, those Hemis were both quicker and faster.
The Buick 455 "legend" is primarily based on a single MOTOR TREND "road test", wherein they tested two stripped to the bone examples that were subsequently revealed to be specially modified factory "ringers" (common practice back then.) POPULAR HOT RODDING revealed that truth in an article sometime in the earlier 1980s.
Notably, none of the other original magazine road test could touch MOTOR TREND's results.
You claims regarding the 428 CJ are way off as well. Approximately 275 SAE Net HP (as installed, with all engine accessories, factory air filter and factory exhaust in place) was about it.
Let me swho you what 376 SAE Net HP from a production engine looked like in 1969:
www.camaros.org/copo.shtml
The ZL1 was literally a racing engine; big heads and cam, an advertised CR of 12:1 and a sticker on the cars center console instructing the driver than 103 Octane or better octane (RON) was required. As such, it made solid power up to 6,800 RPM!
Keep in mind that Sunoco 260 was the higher octane street gas back then, with a rating of 102 RON.
The ZL1 was so crazy that it would barely idle in traffic without overheating and or fouling plugs. Indeed, Chevrolet itself sent letter to GM dealerships instructing them to NOT sell that engine for steel use. (I have copies of the original letters).
The '70 Buick Stage 1 and the 428 CJ were far more tame and substantially less powerful.
250hp?? Ya right... this video proves you WRONG roller cam or not... It's not like you can expect huge gains with just that. As in for the 1/4mi times, think of the "hockey puck size" bias ply tires. This car can easily get in the 12s with good tires/slicks. I would know my dad has a 1970 Buick GSX. Saturn yellow with black interior, factory air and obviously being a GSX had the 455 Stage 1.
+harddrivin1le - 1970 GS Stage 1 455 Buicks weighed close to 4000lbs, ran 13.30s on stock tires brand new. 105-107mph. It made more than advertised. They were underrated. They could outrun a LS-6 454 Chevelle advertised at 450hp.
Had a 72 olds 455 and slapped on an aftermarket intake, carb and converted to hei without headers or a cam and i got plenty of power. It seemed like the front of the car wanted to go airborne. So i know the 70 buickk 455 is a beast. I soon will own another big block.
Big Beast 455. With some aftermarket items I am sure it is a thrill!
A poorly set-up suspension shouldn't be confused with power. Your engine would have produced perhaps 300 SAE Net HP on a really good day, assuming it equalled the factory W30 which used superior heads and came (doubtful that it did.) That's a joke for a 455 cubic inch engine today.
I guess it's not bad, considering the compression was dropped by two whole points, going from 10.5:1 down to 8.5:1...I'm not sure I agree with doing that, given that there are many other options these days, like E85, methanol injection, EFI retrofit, etc. Would have benefited from some good headers or at least porting the stock manifolds. Good idea on the roller cam conversion though. I guess if you want to drive it a lot, it makes more sense, but losing that much compression kills power.
California, 91 octane is the best you get from normal pump gas there.
Yes, and if you read what I posted, you'll see that isn't an excuse anymore.
The advertised compression ratios back then were hyped, particularly in GMs and Ford's cases. Much was written on this back in the day. As they rolled off the showroom floor, a 70 Buick 455 Stage 1 was in the 9.7:1 range. The modern roller cam (and other undisclosed mods) are adding far more power than what's being lost in a solely on paper drop in compression.
It's not "Bone Stock" if it has roller lifters!
at the last break to get a tad more horse, is that when they took half a quart of oil out of the pan?lol that's always good for a smidgen more. lol Thanks guys, I always love seeing stock real #s compared to manufacturers sandbag get past the insurance bean counters ones.
If you do not run the water pump, that is good for another 20hp. Lots of tricks to up the numbers.
Late to the party here but what were the actual cam specs??? The stock Stage 1 cam was around 207*I/226*E .406I/.440"E. If this was a rollarized version of the factory cam I could see where it would add around 20 numbers. Maybe some extra HP if the cam was a little bigger than stock type specs. The peak power rpm indicates it wasn't much bigger than stock sized. That means it would hit right around where the factory was rating them back in the day wtih a flat tappet. With a 455 on a chassis dyno with a bigger cam going from flat tappet hydraulic to roller hydraulic thats been my experience. I'm talking about a near exact apples to apples cam conversion, not a stock flat to a bigger roller, or nice sized flat to an even bigger roller.
Maybe I missed it where did he actually say the compression? Others have stated it and I agree the actual measured compression of a stock Stage 1 was noticably under 10:1 so unless they installed larger dish low compression pistons('71 and up style) then the compression was probably "stock" and not lowered.
Somebody had something special before the shoot.......special coffee?
so i guess when my Chevy buddies start talking about how the 454 ls6 was the ultimate for its time i can show them this. exhaust, porting, this motors on par and lighter.
Nothing better than a Chevrolet! Greatest engines ever built.
redbuick the 454 was the highest rated and is still a beast in her own way
Mark Boice If you built a all out 454 Chevy & 455 Buick Oldsmobile & Pontiac. All three will beat the chevy. Look at the 454 LS6 it had 450 up & 510 lbs of torque With 11to 1 compression aluminum intake, solid cam , holley carb. At a much higher RPM. On the other hand the Buick , Oldsmobile, & Pontiac 455s Had only 370 Hp with 510 lbs of torque. But they only had 10 to 1 compression, factory Rochester & steel intake with a hydraulic cam. At 5500 RPMs . Also all if these motors were a lot lighter than the big block chevy. Torque is what moves the car down the track ! BOP is the way to go!!! 😎
The LS6 used a much stronger block (4 bolt mains, robust lifter valley, etc.) And at higher RPMS, the LS6 heads slowed substantially better.
This motor is also far more fragile than the 454 LS6. The Buick 430 and 455 suffered from two bolt mains, insufficient lubrication and a week lifter valley. That engine was designed as a passenger car engine, and very modestly tweaked for "performance" use. The LS6, as is the case with all solid lifter Chevy big blocks (396/427/454) had none of those issues because it was specifically designed as a high performance, high RPM motor.
What are the cam specs? Where did it come from?
Nice run with stg1 cam! Why roller lifters? what year 455 is it? Is it 10.25 - 1 comp ratio (1970) or is it 8.5 - 1 ?
were intake/exhaust gaskets/ports matched?
Anyway thanks for the awseome vid!
+Jasper Lit (babycakes) The engine is a 1970 Buick 455 with factory stage 1 heads. We lowered the compression to 8.5 so we could run pump gas. Flat tappet camshafts are a thing of the past. We converted so we could run a better valve spring and get rid of the possible flat camshaft start up problems. New oils do have the zinc required to maintain the proper protection flat tappet camshafts require so roller was our best option. Nothing was done to port match. All we did from stock was to install a better oiling system. Thank You for your comment. Mark
+Mark Boice I concur with the roller cam vs flat cam statement.
Love the 455 70-71, had one in my chevelle 64 - the car was banking almost 45deg (felt like it) when I floored it. What timing did you finally use? Can you say anything about how the A/F ratio changed during the pulls? I bet the 8.5:1 in a Buick 455 will trap more pressure than a ditto 8.5:1 BBC due to the longer rods. What were the cam specs? Great move with the roller cam definitely.
It has a roller cam, which allows for a much more aggressive ramp angle without running the valve train. The net result is a larger average lift for more power.
If you cc'd the original heads/chambers, measured original deck height and the compressed height of the original head gasket, you'd see that this engines actual factory compression was on the order of 9.7:1. Both GM and Ford greatly exaggerated their "advertised" compression ratio in those days. That's since become established fact.
You need to reveal the specific roller cam you installed in this engine, along with the rocker ratio. I strongly suspect the cam is far more aggressive than the factory grind. Also, roller cams permit a faster pushrod acceleration rate, which effectively increases average cam lift. The end result is more power, even if the cam itself were identical to the original in terms of duration, overlap, LSA and lift.
So exactly which roller cam is in this car and what rocker ratio are you using? Also, what's this engine's actual displacement, given that it was almost certainly over-bored at some point in time.
Factory 1970 455 had 510 lbs of torque .Horsepower is up but , What happen to the torque? Was it less on the G.S. ? The Riviera had it.
Less on the GS The Riviera had more HP and torque for some reason.
Mark Boice The reason I think that the Riviera had more HP & torque because the fuel pump was in the fuel tank that what I think that made it have more power . The mechanical pump makes it lose about ten horsepower to my knowledge.
Might be compression ratio also.
The pre-1972 "Gross" Horsepower ratings were literally no more than works of fiction, meaning comparing the published ratings form that back is useless. The locations of the fuel pumps is entirely irrelevant.
@@crazyhorsepower5947 They pump was not in the tank. It was no the engine where they all were in the 70's
Just curious what this motor would put down at the wheels. maybe a little less then 300hp
I think right at 300 with the current gear ratio. Thank You
Figure 250 HP at the wheels on a truly 100% production line stock example on a modern DynoJet inertia dyno. These engines simply aren't powerful by today's production car standards.
Examples: www.v8buick.com/index.php?threads/buick-455-dyno-rwhp.233969/
GM and Buick built in the torque factory stock. Some got lost here. Cam specs? Should be easy over 500 lb-ft long plateau with a fast ramp roller. Chasing a peak number where you never run it is silly guys. Braggin rights I guess. I had a 70 Electra 225 convertible with a 455. soggy truck- like motor. I appreciated my inferior, but personality-laden '65 Nailhead 401. p.s: I Don't appreciate the shouting - too many beers? I'm Gone.
Bone stock, w/roller cam? what else was not bone stock?
wow 396hp and 460TQ buick 350. oh wait its a stage i 455 that sounds pretty good with stock stuff. What oiling system mods because im putting a buick 350 in my Camaro. And what roller cam please?
WE used the Buick Performance Products front timing chain cover which has an updated oiling system built in at the oil filter. We also opened up the main cap oil groves in the crank. Comp cams has a roller setup that includes the springs. You will have to custom make the push rods to work with your heads. Hope this helps.
oh wow thanx you are rare , let me tell you Mark Boice. thank you 4ur help u are aweshome.
How many other modern aftermarket parts did you include in this build?
I suspect the engine was bored somewhere along the way as well. What was this engine's actual bore and total displacement when this test was conducted?
Also, please provide the actual cam specs. A modern roller cam with an aggressive grind could easily add 50 HP to this engine's peak output.
A Buick 350, in a Camaro?A Chevy 350 is much cheaper to build. Half the cost or less. I've never heard of someone doing that. 350 Buick is expensive, just trying to get 350HP.
The next question is why?
Nice job
Let's hear it ROOOOCK.......
Hi I am Roberto. I am looking to purchase a Buick 455. Can you help?
Skylarkberto I have a Buick stage 1 whole complete car if you want it
Buick 455's and 430's are still cheap in the Midwest. Expect to pay around $200 to $400 dollars for a good rebuildable engine.
I have a 1970s buick electra with a 455-4 for me it feels kind of lazy tho.
By dropping it 2 points that's about 50-65 HP loss but that being said, 8.5 compression and still got 400 HP is very respectable
You need to research your claim because you're seriously off. Dropping from 10.5:1 to 8.5: equates to a loss of approximately 3%, or about 12 HP in this case. Thing is, the "advertised" compression ratios back then weren't real to begin with. Much has been written about that throughout the years. As they left the factory in late 1969-1970, the 455 Stage 1 came in at about 9.7:1. Chrysler Corp's advertised compression ratios tended to me much closer to the truth than either GM's or Fords. I've seen several cases of "12.5":1 L88 427 Chevys coming in at 10.6 - 10.8:1. It's easily calculated by knowing measured deck health, chamber volume, head gasket thickness, etc. Several online calculators now make it easier, assuming actual measurements are known. The modern roller cam is going to more than compensate for the 2% or so power loss from the actual original CR to the stated 8.5::1
You do know your stuff but a 2 point drop is a bit more than 12 HP when you factor in the stage1 cam used.
True on the advertised ratio, and am curious to Pontiac's claims of 10.75 on the GTO's??
Perhaps "a bit more than 12 HP," but certainly nothing close to the claimed "50 - 65 HP" figure I relied to. Wallace Racing has an accurate compression ratio/HP calculator on their website. Check this post out. I can similar calculations years ago and got the same results:
www.gtoforum.com/f178/400-v8-compression-72cc-heads-37599/
Educate yourself: www.wallaceracing.com/hp-cr-chg.php
Also, any competent person who's ever cc'd their stock chambers and performed the proper calculation knows that ACTUAL (not to be confused with advertised) 1970 Stage 1 compression was about 9.7:1.
I recommend that you educate yourself on that as well, realizing that said practice was commonplace back then.
The bottom line is that engine's ACTUAL compression dropped from about 9.7:1 to 8.5:1, with output consequently falling by perhaps 8 HP.
But this engine was fitted with a roller cam of unknown spec. It was also likely over-bored, meaning displacement is greater than 455 cubic inches. Also, this engine has no engine fan, alternator, power steering pump, air filter or mufflers in place. Consequently, the result we're seeing here are substantially greater than what we'd see with the same engine in its "as installed" (SAE Net) state.
You would have had to calculate your precise before and after mechanical compressions ratios in order to make an accurate claim. That would include cc'ing your total chamber volume for each cylinder, along with measuring precise deck heights, the compressed thickness of your head gaskets (before and after) and so on.
All other variables (no other changes of any sort) the same dyno, the same dyno facility exhaust plumbing, the same atmospheric correction standards) would have to be identical. A change in rings and piston shape alone can yield a quantifiable change in engine output, with the result erroneously being attributed solely to the change in compression ratio.
Also, engineering IS REAL WORLD. I'm a senior mechanical design engineer with more than 30 years of experience. The relationship between compression ratio and engine output has been established fact for approximately a full century, with the best engineers in the world designing engines around that information. A host of professional papers as well as articles from popular public domain sources are available on this subject.
As demonstrated by the math and the charts, the relationship between compression ratio and output isn't linear, with the percentage increase equating to where you're at on the chart. Your suggestion that a generic "one point drop" equates to any fixed percentage reveals that you've no real understanding of this phenomenon.
HARD FACT: As they left the showroom floor in 1970, Buick Stage 1s would have been hard pressed to run with a bone stock, 2013 6 speed V6 Honda Accord - tire for tire. I use the Accord as an example because it's not even "a fast car" by today's standards.
A roller can AIN'T BONE STOCK
I'll take a 440 Mopar or a 426 hemi over the Buick. 455 ci & 400 hp with a roller cam???? Really disappointing.
But then you’d have to carry a purse.
Eat Shit ..... 😂😂😂
@@kurtpoblenz2741 Just being a dick,I like Mopars too😉
Lol funny the stage 1 has beaten the hemi and 440 on multiple occasions..
@@camclarke9952 and vice-versa which proves nothing as many factors can determin winners or losers at any given time.everyone who is anyone knows however that in the right hands..... the hemi is,and always has been,king of the american v8s;and i dont mean in factory stock trim.
Made it to 16 seconds... bailed.
Sweet 16!
I had to come back and look at the numbers.
So it’s a stock engine with a custom ground camshaft upgrade
I wouldn’t call that stock
These days we call that cammed since that’s what’s been done to it. If the engine is already on the dyno why didn’t you just do long tube headers in the first place? That engine is going to need and benefit so much from nice long tubes and a x pipe.
Nice job making less torque than stock.
So with mods this thing just barely tipped the 400 mark. 428 CJ is a little over 400 without touching it. Ad that to a mustang that was lighter and you know who won that showdown in 70.
Im just saying.
I'd like to see that race. The Buick 455 made 510 lb.ft of torque compared to 445 for the Ford 428CJ. Torque usually wins in the quarter mile.
Seriously? That 455 in a Skylark, will eat that Ford up. Bad.
Please. Stop with you BS about a damn CJ 428. I never saw a 428 ford beat anybody on the street. A BB Chevy 350 horse would run off and leave and Street Ford. I my day it was Chevy on top and Mo/Power like the 440 that was king. Pontiac and Olds were next. Ford was always last. A 327 Chevy 350 horse could beat a 428 CJ You Ford people make me laugh. You think because you put a name on it like Cobra Jet on a engine that means something. Don't come back telling me all this crap about a Cobra Jet. I was there racing in the 60's and 70's On the drag strip and about every night on the street.
@@kennethrobinson11231 is right, in my experience. My uncle had both a '70 Mach I 428CJ and BOSS 302 in his collection not long ago, and let me drive them...I was sorely disappointed. I think I was slightly more impressed by the BOSS. He has an '07 Shelby with an exhaust, CAI and a pulley, and that think is a monster in comparison (575rwHP). I've driven and ridden in several big-block Chevelles, granted they were modified (cam, intake & exhaust), but they were easily capable of spanking the 428CJ. I'm not saying that they FE engine doesn't have potential if modified, but I think equivalent mods to the BBC will outperform it...BBC heads can flow some serious air.
Nothing to brag about there
Just give me a REAL bone stock 455 Stage I, not this.
A real Stage 1 455 from 1970 should have more then 400 hp I'm assuming this is a 71 or later engine.
that's not enough. I seen a 350 on the dyno that did 400 hp
I was disappointed in torque. It drops like a rock at high rpm. I have seen LS1 motors pull more torque then this does at 4000 rpm.
Not really apples to oranges. Look at the 426 hemi produced back in the 1960s and early 70s. Its max torque is around 4000 rpm. You also need to consider the 455 is over 100 cubic inches bigger. Buick engines are a thing of the past but Pontiac and BB chevy engines are big in aftermarket. Butler performance.
Which 350? None of the 350s from that same era could come close to 400 HP with factory exhaust manifolds in place. Modified ones will, but that's not stock.
kevin122759 Buick is not a thing of the past, TAPERFORMANCE.COM
Of course this engine is a thing from the past. Furthermore, it suffered from a weak bottom end, a fragile lifter valley and poor lubrication. The stage 1 was essentially a station wagon engine that was fitted with a few upgraded parts. The 455 was never designed with high performance applications in mind, as was the case with the solid lifter Chevy 427s, 426 Hemis, etc.
a 455 should be 500 HP or more
And this 455 could produce 500 HP once it was fitted with a host of modern aftermarket parts and fed a steady diet of racing fuel (e.g., Sunoco 260 GTPlus 104 Octane R+M/2) to permit proper operation with the necessary 12+:1 actual mechanical compression ratio.
whatever.