How fast in the 1/4 ET/MPH would the 400G block have to lay down to get some respect. 68 or 69 442/cutlass 3500lb with out driver. Pump gas iron heads, slicks.after market intake,rods,headers,pistons etc.

 

It would depend on several things
1) The driver
2) The transmission
3) The rear end ratio
4) Track conditions
so on and so forth

Car Life magazine tested a 1968 442 with a 3.42:1 rear axle ratio and Hydramatic and attained 0–60 times of 7.0 seconds, and a quarter-mile time of 15.13 seconds at 92 mph

But if you change the pistons, intake, rods, headers etc then you've got a completely different animal and only a pass down the 1320 will tell you. Heck the next guy may run faster or slower in the same car so basically there is no sure fire way to tell what it would run even with dyno #'s. But historically back in '68 - '69 I'd say the factory funded "stockers" ran deep into the 12's or better back then.

 

Standard or automatic any gear. I just want to know what people would think is a good et/mph for the 400 g block in a street car. There are a lot of people that do not like the engine for a perfomance build. There is also a lot of negative posts on this engine any time there is a thread on this topic. So what will change opinion's mid 12's low 12's high 11's ???

A low 15.13 et in the 1/4 92mph that is a sad effort buy the car mag
Based on the 92mph car should have run a 14.80 with traction

 

I don't believe on building a car to run what people think it should run, instead the general idea is how much $ are you willing to put into said car (notice I said car and not just the engine) and tweaking and tuning to get it where you want to be. And no 15 sec wasn't a slouch from the factory, but I'd be willing to guess it had an automatic or a very inexperienced driver one My bone stock '72 ran a best of 14.20 @ 92 mph with my Dad driving back in '75 so there may be up to a second gained or lost by certain drivers.

 

Yes I understand your point. We tunned a low comp 350 stock bottom end and pistons with stock w31 heads to a 13.14. I know there was a high 12 in the car as we left et in the carb and suspension and headers.69 cutlass 2dr hardtop full weight.

400g block gets no respect so I thought I would build one and see what it would run. I have been all over the map with choosing a engine to build I started with a 403 and have been asking about a 455,425,350. So I have chosen the 400 G block the ugly duckling of OLDS engine

 

Last chance to reconsider.....

 

^^^Nice!
Thanks for sharing.
I see now Copper!

 

To answer your question honestly, no E.T. will change peoples opinion on the G block 400. It is the weakest version of the Olds big block. Sure, you can spend the time and money and make one run some respectable numbers but why? Any money you spend on one could be spent on a 400 E, 425 or 455 and get better results. The design of a 400 G just doesn't lend itself to making big HP. Other than numbers matching rebuilds I have no idea why people keep wanting to mess with these turds.

 

I will add that I have a 400 G in my '68 442. It is a stock rebuild other than a mild cam. Something similar to a '68 442 4-spd cam. The car is 99% stock. Stock converter, trans, intake and ex. manifolds, carb, 3.08 open rear etc. I made one pass down the strip last summer at the DMR Olds race. I had to pedal it right off the line as it spun badly. I ended up running a 15.2 at 92.6 mph. I feel that with traction it could have run a 14.60-14.70

 

Why not I'm not class racing so if the et is slower than a 455 powered car I'm fine with that. The only thing that will cost more if I go forward with this build will be pistons so it is the same as building a 455. It should come in at the same cost as a 400 or 425 because there piston cost is also higher. There is a post on a 400G block 68 W 30 that has put up good dyno numbers for a Turd block.

 

If you're OK with spending the same if not a little more money to get less in return, just for kicks, then go for it.

 

I look at it as a chalange to see if it can make the same cubic inch hp/tq ratio as a 455/425/400. Not looking to set records just have fun with it.

 

My car was original 400 numbers matching when I got it.. sans Comp 280 cam / Torker / headers 1.75 primary tubes - 4:10 gear / auto 2800 stall / 750 Holley
I have no idea what the cam was degreed in at and suspect possibly advanced too much - ran fine on the street - but never broke into 13's
with it at track - about 1000' it would stop pullin and just hang on.

with right cam and tuning I would guess mid 13's with similar set up .
Course that was 20+ years ago and cam technology has come a long way since then.

pulled top end off and put on 68 455 short block and dropped to 12.80's
with no other changes - Not to say that's an only example but I can personally attest to being factual at least what my junk ran in comparison with 455 vs. 400 G using same heads / intake / exhaust / carb and cammed very similar.

 

If you need Egge Cast Aluminum .40 0ver G block pistons let me know.

 

I'll be honest, I am not sure what you are trying to accomplish. The 400G gets less respect because it is a worse design for building than other Olds big blocks. I have one in my car. It has a stock cam & some bolt ons. It runs fine for what it is and for a street car with a smooth idle it has plenty of low end torque which makes it fun on the street. If I wanted to build something more than that I would start with better building blocks that can rev more.

 

I ran 13.30's with a cobbled up 350 with really good heads and a 280 comp cam . granted my car is lighter then a fully loaded car My front end is fiberglass and my interior is gutted. I ran 13.86 with a milder 350 9 to 1 combo and it was all steel . Its no 400 but it was fun .

 

The 68 Ram Rods ran faster out of the box in "stock" form than the 68 W30's. That should tell you something.

 

much lighter werent the ram rods bare bones f85 models ?

 

Though I quoted your post I was merely making the point that the 400G was a slug and Oldsmobile knew it. There's no way a SBO should have been beating a BBO in stock form. Granted the first run of Ram Rods were "special", but still......

 

fwiw i normally pit with these guys and this is a 400 based combo and trust me under the hood is nothing fancy it's iron headed runs mid 11's

 

My 4 speed 69 442(350hp) in 1970 ran 13.15 - 105ish

1. 4.66 gear , wide ratio 4 speed , 8 inch M&H wrinkle walls
2. W-30 cam , o4B intake with stock Q-jet Mickey Thomson "Super Scavenger" headers

Built a new motor ..
1. Jahns pistons(.060 414 cu) , crane "blueprinted" hyd. cam
2. Balanced , 850 DP (fourshooter) , 50 lbs flywheel , and scatter shield
3. Traction bars (weld on) , changed to close ratio 4 speed
4. Toro pan
Ran 12.56 112 mph at Union Grove , did kick some but street racing
usually, 440 Mopars

Guess I dated myself big time!!

 

I guess we like hearing from "Old Farts" once in a while .

 

Gee .... Thanks Nick !

 

I think seeing any 67-69 400 engine making its way down the track full steam ahead should be respected for what it is...not sure if I would put a number on it

 

Thanks for the reply Milan.

That is a good et/mph for a 400 G block.
What was done to the heads?
How much quicker do you think you could run with a modern cam and intake design?
How well did the car hook?

 

I knew you would like that......

 

My 68 W30 with factory manifolds, full exhaust, factory intake and carb, 390 12 bolt posi and a wide ratio 4 speed ran a best of 13.93 @ 96mph. It was a great engine. Don't believe the myths out there. it had great torque and mid range.

 

Thanks for the post
Good number form a stock set up. Just as quick as some W30 455 cars that were in magazine tests. Was this on street tires?

 

I had some sticky Mcreary road race tires and dumped the clutch at 5k and it hooked. I still remember it could have used a little wheel spin because it bogged down a little and had a 1.9 60 foot time. I think I could have run a 13.85.

 

What about the 1965 and 1966 400s? Also the 1967 400 is a different animal than the 68-69 400s.

 

The early 400 were very strong better bore stroke ratio and made very good power.

 

Your missing my point , but thats my fault for not being inclusive....watching any performance classic olds roaring down a 1/4 mile track regardless of speed has my respect

 

mine too!!!
I've seen enough Camaro's nova's and chevelles running. I like the watching the new stuff too. Challengers and Mustangs etc.

 

Did you ever break any parts running a stick drive shaft,axles,trans,engine?
Did you ever spin a rod bearing?
What was your shift piont?

 

That Olds stayed together just fine. It had 433 gears that floated the valves @ 5300 well before I got to the end so I picked up a 3.90. I did get better valve springs so it would rev close to 6k but I wouls shift arround 5500.

 

I needed a motor for my '66 W30 #16 running in D/S back in '75 and put together a rather odd combination. I ended up building a '68 W30 400 short block, with '65 400 heads, B & B, a 70 W30 stick cam, topped with the W30's tricarb and ramair, headers, 28" tall M&H 9 inch slicks and a 4.66 type O axle with an M21. I said it was odd. The car ran 12.80's at 109 MPH. I couldn't get the car to launch well. I would've done better if I could've cut my 60 foot times. Something about the '65 ports and long stroke made 400 run well and respectful.

 

This is a fact.. 1. 340 to 350 rear wheel horsepower and 3400 to 3500 total pounds and set up properly. 12.80 to 13.00 qters. I had a old combo do this and it was predicted beforehand in simulation.

 

Was this a 400 G block?
What were the specs?
Thanks
Bernhard

 

That is the average power needed for 12.80 to 13.00 qters period. Just get the power buddy,plus the weight or lighter.

 

My friends 69 442 convertible, bone stock as it could be ran a 14.65@94 back in the mid 80's. That was with factory exhaust and 3.42 gears. No mods what so ever.