TheBigBlueBoat

I think I know the answer to this one, but I figure I'd throw it out there anyway.


I'm picking up a 68 Cutlass wagon, and it comes with a 68 455, and Edelbrock Torker intake. I'd like to swap it over. I can use the smallblock mounts (frame and engine), but that would cause it to sit too high to close the stock hood, right? To get the necessary clearance I'd have to run the appropriate big block mounts, engine and frame side.


Just wanted a confirmation before I go out buying parts.

joe_padavano

Sorry, apparently you don't know the answer...


Nope. SEARCH is your friend.

https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums...tion-list.html

TheBigBlueBoat

That would be a pleasant surprise, however this was based on my previous searching and information found here: http://www.442.com/oldsfaq/ofswp.htm


From that site:
Small Block to Big Block




This entails swapping an Olds 400, 425 or 455 big block in place of the existing Olds 260, 307, 330, 350 or 403 small block.
Un-bolt the 350, remove the 350 motor mounts, install 455 motor mounts, and then in-bolt the 455. Everything fits, and when you're done, if you keep the 350 decals, no one short of an Olds expert will notice the difference.
If you have a 350 and want to change to a 400, 425 or 455 you can use the 350 motor mounts, only drawback is the engine will set at least 1 inch higher than normal. The other option is to use 400, 425 or 455 frame mounts with the matching motor mounts and the engine will set normal. You will not need to drill holes for the BB frame mounts. They are direct bolt in. The 350 mounts only pose a problem with hood to aircleaner clearance. If you run a stock intake, no problem. If you use a Torqer or Performer than you may have trouble
455s fit nicely into Cutlass' designed for small blocks. The clearance problems are minor. One note: you won't be able to bolt on headers to a big block in that chassis without cutting through the wheel wells and affecting turn radius. Headers on small blocks don't have this problem. The other modification you should consider is a bigger radiator. Get one as large as you can find, with as many rows as you can find. Order the largest 4-row core you can get out of an 88 or 98 with all the options. You will need to modify the top and bottom brackets on the core support to accept the wider tanks on this unit.

joe_padavano

Yet another example of incorrect info at 442.com.

Once again for those who haven't heard it before:

The Oldsmobile FAQ was created in the late 1980s/early 1990s based on threads from the old Chubecto Oldsmobile listserver. A gentleman named David Brown extracted information from threads and complied it in the FAQ. This is why if you read the footnotes in those FAQs, you'll find credits to people like Chris Witt and myself.

Now, here's the important part: THERE WAS NO INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF THAT INFORMATION. David was not the ultimate Olds expert, he just did a cut and paste. Some of us would email him with corrections, and sometimes those corrections got incorporated. Sometimes they didn't. The current FAQ is hosted by a site owned by a commercial entity and unlike Wikipedia, there is no way to correct bad info in it.

Now, the quote you posted above is COMPLETELY WRONG.

Let me say that again: IT IS WRONG.

You don't have to believe me, simply pull out your factory parts book. You will find the 1965-68 (yes, 1968) A-body cars only used ONE part number of frame mounts and ONE part number of motor mounts for both BBO and SBO motors. There are no separate BBO/SBO mounts for those cars. The crank centerline is in EXACTLY the same place in all cases. The carb sits one inch higher because the motor is one inch taller top to bottom. You CANNOT "lower" the BBO because the oil pan is already almost sitting on the crossmember.

The reason for the different "BBO" mounts for the 1969-72 cars is because GM had a major recall of broken motor mounts in the mid-1960s. The design of the mounts was changed in 1969 to incorporate a "failsafe" interlock feature. This required a different frame mount to accommodate it. The design was used first by Olds on the higher-torque BBO, thus the different part numbers. If you change the frame mounts and matching motor mounts, the crank centerline will STILL be in exactly the same place.

Sorry, but this topic has been covered about a million times over the last decade, which is why I wrote the thread that you apparently couldn't be bothered to read.

Octania

Well put Joe, if a little coarse.

Let me add this- some of that FAQ info, which REALLY should be wiki'd by now.... was entered by cut-n-paste, due to convenience, then, you know, lunch comes or whatnot, and the pasted part never gets corrected. Next thing you know it is published and oh hell no better than other misinformation.

EVEN THE FACTORY CSM HAS TYPO'S.

I had an incident just this summer of an illustration giving me BS info, took weeks to figure out. Not Olds related, but the same concept.

As for the OP...

The 455 fits fine, it's just like a 442 or H/O...

Feel free to PM or call if you need clarification.

joe_padavano

Yeah, but after writing the same thing for a decade....

As for CSM typos, the late-90s GM CSMs are awful. The very expensive, SIX-volume set for my 1999 Chevy truck is riddled with errors, despite the fact that the old-body-style trucks had been out for ten years by the time that set had been published. At least the books are poorly written with illustrations done in crayon...

oldsfromyell

Joe, you are a great wealth of Factual information. I can understand your annoyance especially with the great engine mount debacle. Keep correcting me for sure if you see anything I post that is inaccurate. Constructive criticisms should be viewed as just what they are nothing more.

joe_padavano

Thanks for having a very positive attitude. One of the things you find on the web is that there are many people who work hard at looking for things to offend them. Your attitude is both refreshing and appreciated. Thanks for the follow-up.

oldsfromyell

Thanks for the response Joe. I do not even try to begin to understand the constant infatuation people have with being offended by everything. I try to take comments at face value and not read anything in to it.

BlueBeast

Yes, yes and yes, go with new engine frame mounts. The 455 is 1 inch taller and the frame mounts are different from other V8 engines, plus you will be replacing engine mounts regularly, LOL.
I recently had a 350 swapped out for a rebuilt 455 (bored .60 over) and had an edelbrock rpm performer intake manifold installed. I would recommend the rpm performer over the torker BTW simply because it has better fuel distribution between the cylinders. That is if its gonna be a daily driver. Unles s you want a track car.
I would be happy to discuss my recent engine build with you and what works better (some I have to change), what products to avoid and what ones to buy that are worth the $$$$.
Stick with the MSD 5097 Starter, trust me. There are a ton of things i learned from research and experience on my recent build. I would suggest you do your research into your whole build, you will need to up your suspension game too, the 455 weighs in 100 lbs heavier than other V8 engines. The 68 block is definitely worth rebuilding as it has a higher nickel content in it.
I have put $6500.00 into my build front to back (engine, transmission, driveshaft), reusing parts off my original 350, rebulit & installed a TH400 transmission with a 2400 stall and a mild shift kit. I used Ford parts, Chevy parts, Caddy parts and learned a ton about rebuilding not only the engine but the nuances as well.

joe_padavano

Sorry, but you are incorrect. Yet again, the crank centerline is in EXACTLY the same place for both SBO and BBO. The 1968 model year used EXACTLY the same motor and frame mounts on both BBO and SBO.

While the 1969 factory mounts incorporated the "interlock" safety feature, the currently available 2261 mounts also have this feature. Strength-wise there is no difference between the 2261 and 2328 mounts.

You can spend a bunch of time and money changing to non-original frame and motor mounts on this 1968, and the result will be that the 455 will be in EXACTLY the same place either way.

Actually, YOU need to do more research. The difference between a 455 block and a windowed 403 block is only 30 lbs. Difference to a solid web 350 would be even less. The 455 weight is no more than 50 lbs greater than that of a 1968 350.

Also, the nickel content is a myth that won't die. There is no difference in the 455 casting quality.

oldsfromyell

Old myths never die unless they are proven to be correct. What fun would this world be without all these internet experts spouting truck loads of incorrect and useless information. Let me see if I can add to this great conversation. Yes if you are using the high nickel content solid main web 403 big block in a Cutlass Supreme with headers you will have to use a big block mount on the right side and and a small block mount on the left to correct the factory one inch offset to overcome the extra 100 lbs of weight added to the left side of the car from the big steaming pile of bullshit. If you people will relax your fingers and learn to read there is certain individual on this site who is and has been trying to get all of you to understand the correct information. Jeez listen to the man as he knows way more CORRECT technical data than all of the chatter heads that spew crap on these forums combined. If my post offends you, get over it. Happy New Year.

Octania

To summarize:

"Yes if you are using the high nickel content solid main web 403 big block in a Cutlass Supreme with headers you will have to use a big block mount on the right side and and a small block mount on the left to correct the factory one inch offset to overcome the extra 100 lbs of weight added to the left side of the car..."

Oh that was good. Please tuck away an idea or two for 01APR2016...
Did you leave out anything? The only 7028253 carb in existence? I mean, in captivity...



"There is certain individual on this site who is and has been trying to get all of you to understand the correct information. Jeez listen to the man as he knows way more CORRECT technical data than all of the chatter head....."

Oh, please, you're making me blush.
Hey wait, are you referring to Cap'n Padavano?
:-)

oldsfromyell

More like Admiral Padavano.

marxjunk

Joe's ok...he comes off a little brash..sometimes he forgets, new people are just as important as the old people..and the new generation keeps the Olds forum alive and healthy...

hes just trying to be thorough and not pass any incorrect info that plagues this hobby..once you realize that..its all cake..

Octania

Adm. P. is nothing if not thorough!
Fighting Truth Decay since [redacted info].

I did catch Joe being incorrect once.

Once.

:0

oldsfromyell

Well how about that Joe was incorrect once out of roughly 17 million comments. Sounds like one hell of a track record to me. Some may find Joe a little brash. Well put your big girl panties on and deal with it. This whole damn country is overrun with overly sensitive jack wagons. I find his posts thorough and to the point. I am greatful for the knowledge he and other people share on this site. I do believe many would be able to find answers to their questions by using the search feature. It does not always provide exactly what I am looking for but it serves well. Thanks for your time and keep the Oldsmobile's rolling. Now back to your regularly scheduled program still in progress.

jerseyjoe

Too funny! Joe is awesome, says it like it is and knows his pooh! More time reading and less time guessing leads to the correct results. A 77 Cutlass with an odd fire 231 did not like dropping in a 74 Olds 350 though. Springs were not happy