GoldOlds

While considering/researching my options in the quest for more hp than what is offered by my stock '69 350, I started wondering why there is so little discussion about the 400 BBO. Is it because you can get an engine of the same weight with 55 more cubic inches (455) or 25 more cubic inches and a steel crank (425)? It it because the 400 BBO is too rare? Did it have any common flaws that make the Olds crowd want to avoid it?
Just wondering.

- GoldOlds

Redog

I had a chance to buy one from a 442 for $300 with an OG tranny. It needed the valve covers and intake manifold. I beleive it was a 67 motor, but I didn't because the weight issue.

I was very careful about the weight, since they don't make heavy duty springs for the 85 Delta, and when you're looking at a 400 BBO, people say go with the 455 anyway

Oldsguy

I would guess simply upon numbers that it is because of the rarity of the engine.

64Rocket

The '68-69 400" was a dog on its own. Small bore, long stroke. The crank and rod are the same as a 455. I don't think you can bore that block out to 455 size. I believe it would make the cyl. to thin.
The early 400 ('65-67) is a very good choice. Alot can be done to it, it is the same physical size as a 425 or 455.

Geno

joe_padavano

As others have noted, there were more 455s (and probably even 425s) built than 400s. As also noted, the 68-69 G-block 400 would not be your first choice for a performance motor since it was handicapped with a tiny bore to keep displacement under 400 cu in while using the 455 crank. Personally, if I'm going to carry the weigh of a BBO, I'll take the most displacement I can get.

jdorour

All the guys are right on the money.
The 65-67 400 was a very good motor but they are scarce. The 68-69 400 was a dog (when compaired to the Chevy 396/402 and the Pontiac 400) but it did make good torque. The 455 is a better choice. Olds built a billion of them and they all have the 39 degree cam. The 425 was (IMO) the best BBO. Short stroke/big bore lots of power for it's size. Just for kicks look at the factory specs of a 66 Pontiac 421HO and the 66 Starfire. Pontiac had to install tripower, special heads, a high lift cam and special exhaust manifolds to get the same rated HP that Olds got from the Stirfire.

88 coupe

Did Pontiac continue using the Tri-Power name after '59?

HP numbers, rated or not, are of questionable use when applied to real world applications.


Regarding your sig: Is your engine a Pontiac with Tri-Power, or an Olds with three 2 bbl carbs?

Norm

jdorour

Agreed RATED HP is subjective.

It is an Oldsmobile 425 (NS Code) with 3 2bbl Carbs.
Pontiac used the term Tri-Power (I have also seen Tripower) until 1966 (last year for it at Pontiac). Olds used the Name J-2 in '57 and '58 and "Triple Two Barrel" (L-69 and W-30) for the 442 in 1966.

88 coupe

Doesn't your incorrect use of the term, do a disservice to those who come here for accurate information?



Looks like one word would be incorrect.

That would be the one of the "generic" terms, dating back to flatheads of the the '40s.

L69 was called "Tri Carb". Not sure about the spelling, as I've never seen it in print.

Norm

jdorour

Norm (88 Coupe),
I Admit it. I have sinned. I used a Pontiac term in reference to my Oldsmobile. I have further sinned - I own a Pontiac and a Chevy. I actually keep the keys to all three cars on the same key ring (sacrilege).

I never claimed to be an expert or a know it all. You asked me a question and I imparted my experience. By the way - Its my signature line and my car - I was only using typical descriptive. The terms Tripower and Tri-Power have been used for decades generically. I did not see the error of my ways. We are all so lucky that we have people like you to keep us on the path and to let us know when we have strayed.

John

88 coupe

Exactly why I brought the subject up.

Norm

jdorour

Oh...
I am glad you cleard this up. I thought you where just trying pick nits or start a fight. I did not think that you where trying to make a point at my expense. Where I come from that is considered rude.

Could you be any more **** retentive? Does Six-Pack, Trip’s, triple-duce, Tri-Power, Tripower, or Tri-Carb really make a hill of beans of difference to anyone other than you in this context? In the end people know what we (I) am talking about. EVERYONE has used the phrasing generically for decades. And, by the way it’s my signature line and my car. I can call it 3 buckets of dung if I like. Climb down off your high horse and join the rest of us sinners who would just like to enjoy the hobby.

If you want to make a point – just make it. Don’t be demeaning about it. I’ve been working on cars, trucks, boat and planes a long time I know when to be specific and when it’s just a conversation. You could have simply stated that the correct nomenclature for the Oldsmobile Triple Two Barrel Carburetor (L-69 and W-30) for 1966 was Tri-Carb and not Tri-Power. You did not have to try to make an a## of me. I am not a child that needs to be thought a lesson – I suspect that I a damn sight older than you.

That said…
I will be happy to change my signature to read “Tri-Carb” because I agree with you and I should like to use the correct nomenclature.

Cheers

88 coupe

I asked two simple questions, and made one comment. I think you were reading something I did not write.

I'm sure everyone already knew that.

This is based on the incorrect assumption that I knew the engine was an Olds, not a Pontiac with Tri-Power?

I have found it more productive to ask questions, than to make assumptions. Works very well, until someone responds to something that is not there.

And I have no doubt that you are right.

Norm

jdorour

Norm,
I do not think I have made any assumptions. If you review this thread you will see that comments like "Doesn't your incorrect use of the term, do a disservice to those who come here for accurate information?" and “Looks like one word would be incorrect.” also “That would be the one of the "generic" terms, dating back to flatheads of the '40s as well as "L69 was called "Tri Carb". Not sure about the spelling, as I've never seen it in print.” would indicate you had already formed an opinion. I took the content, style and timing of your comments into account before I replied. If I did indeed misinterpret the tone and intent of your comments - I am sorry. Knowing it takes two to create a misunderstanding - Maybe you could review your style and try to be a little less confrontational. Like I said if you have a point to make - make it, if you have a question – ask it.

By the way…
Someone with your “demonstrated” knowledge should know that a 425 is an Olds not a Pontiac. In 1966 the GM 7 Liter engines where Pontiac 421, Buick 425, Olds 425, Chevy 427 and Cadillac 429. So – your suggestion that you where simply asking a question is suspect – you where trying to be a smart a$$.

Additionally, I am not the only one who made the “assumption” that your conduct in this specific discussion (and in the past as been rude). I’ve dealt with people like you – haughty, arrogant, and self important - You think you may behave in an uncivil manner because you think you know everything and have taken it upon yourself to make sure everyone conforms to your standard of correctness and when someone calls you on it you claim a misunderstanding. It will not wash with me.

I’ve said my peace. I like this MB and will continue to participate – I hope to have long productive discussions with you in the future. I think you have a lot to contribute and look forward to learning something from everyone on this site (and maybe helping when and where I can). As far as I am concerned this is over. I recognize that you will feel the need to have the last word - so have at it. I would be truly impressed if it is a simple – sorry. But... I doubt it will be.

There is an old saying…
Arguing with some people is like a wrestling a pig in the mud. Eventually you realize the pig likes it.

88 coupe

Your entire argument is based one assumption, and your defense is based on it being fact. That assumption is, that the motive behind my original post was to make you out to be an a$$, and you have been doing a fine job of making your case.


Problem is: Your argument is nothing but a “red herring”.

Its only purpose was to draw attention away from your own blunder, while making me, the “bad guy”.

I'm finished.

Norm