When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Location: I moved to pittsburgh so I can be near Primantis
Posts: 405
I was intrgued, but ultimately let down to find out that the only thing 'Olds' about it was a diesel block. to me it would have been better to find out it validated the design of the motor in our cars, rather than showed it up....just sayin
I was intrgued, but ultimately let down to find out that the only thing 'Olds' about it was a diesel block. to me it would have been better to find out it validated the design of the motor in our cars, rather than showed it up....just sayin
I don't really get your point. No Olds (or SBC for that matter) is going to make 750 HP normally aspirated with stock parts. So they used aftermarket. Big deal. The architecture and dimensions and design are still Olds - crappy exhaust port geometry and all.
Yeah, the design of a conventional pushrod American V8 has some inherent limitations which cannot be surmounted without violating the laws of physics, so if you want to really make power, you've got to modify as much as you can.
Ideally, to really make power, you've got to throw out the entire tractor engine and redesign it from the ground up - if you look at a Porsche 911 engine from the same time period, you can see the sorts of things that would have to be done.
Ideally, to really make power, you've got to throw out the entire tractor engine and redesign it from the ground up - if you look at a Porsche 911 engine from the same time period, you can see the sorts of things that would have to be done.
- Eric
I disagree. Look at the LS motors. Well over 500 HP normally aspirated while meeting emissions and mileage requirements with the "tractor motor" pushrod design. The secret sauce is really in cylinder head design. There is little in the bottom end of those motors that is radically new, and what is new is there more for improved mileage (ie, reduced internal friction) than power production.
A while back, Car and Driver asked the then Corvette Chief Engineer why Chevy retained the pushrod architecture. The reply was that it was far more compact for the same HP potential. Here's a comparison of a 302 with the 4.6 DOHC as a comparison:
I like this one even better - Mod Motor vs. 351 vs. FE big block:
Location: I moved to pittsburgh so I can be near Primantis
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by joe_padavano
I don't really get your point. No Olds (or SBC for that matter) is going to make 750 HP normally aspirated with stock parts. So they used aftermarket. Big deal. The architecture and dimensions and design are still Olds - crappy exhaust port geometry and all.
actually, they can and do, every day when it comes to SBC, SBF. blocks, cranks, rods, valve train components. Cam, sure, pistons, probably, heads sure, but in this case we can replace the word stock with 'factory' and it still works. I will bet you sight unseen those rare heads they used share a lot more in common with the MKIV chevy than they do anything-olds.
please note, they didnt even use a SBO block to add insult to injury.
Its just another damn nail in the coffin that irks me as much today as it did 30 plus years ago.
Location: I moved to pittsburgh so I can be near Primantis
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by joe_padavano
I disagree. Look at the LS motors. Well over 500 HP normally aspirated while meeting emissions and mileage requirements with the "tractor motor" pushrod design. The secret sauce is really in cylinder head design. There is little in the bottom end of those motors that is radically new, and what is new is there more for improved mileage (ie, reduced internal friction) than power production.
A while back, Car and Driver asked the then Corvette Chief Engineer why Chevy retained the pushrod architecture. The reply was that it was far more compact for the same HP potential. Here's a comparison of a 302 with the 4.6 DOHC as a comparison:
I like this one even better - Mod Motor vs. 351 vs. FE big block:
which is why I wont buy a modular. the 4.6 is larger than my 385 motor. heck, its larger than the 7.3L D.
Hmmmm... I agree that the requirements of one or two overhead cams increase the package size significantly, but I have always been under the impression that the degree of precision in timing, plus the reduction in valvetrain inertia, that can be obtained from overhead cams, plus the added timing versatility (and the increased driveability) that can be gained by varying intake and exhaust cams separately (as in BMW's VANOS system) can provide far more potential than the cam-and-pushrod design can offer.
Obviously, the LS motors have refined that design to a high degree, but I believe that, given the same displacement, compression, and combustion chamber design, you could get more out of a DOHC engine than out of an LS motor.
Unfortunately, I'm at work, and can't come up with examples right now to make this point, but if need be, I'm sure that I can at another time.
Prolly won't matter anyway after Elon Musk introduces the electro-funkic Krell drive system...
Olds stopped making those engines, and therefore stopped all development on them, around 1990 (they essentially stopped all development a decade earlier).
Chebby may have more advanced heads, etc. from the factory but that's because they've continued development, while the Olds has been frozen in time.
Plus, Olds is out of business, and doesn't even HAVE a factory where they could make factory parts anymore.
Hmmmm... I agree that the requirements of one or two overhead cams increase the package size significantly, but I have always been under the impression that the degree of precision in timing, plus the reduction in valvetrain inertia, that can be obtained from overhead cams, plus the added timing versatility (and the increased driveability) that can be gained by varying intake and exhaust cams separately (as in BMW's VANOS system) can provide far more potential than the cam-and-pushrod design can offer.
The biggest benefits of OHC are eliminating the constraints on port geometry that pushrods impose and reduced valvetrain inertia and deflections that allow higher RPMs. Naturally for a given displacement, higher RPMs means moving more air, which means making more peak HP. That doesn't mean making more average HP or torque. My classic example of that is the 2.0L motor in the original Honda S2000. 240 HP normally aspirated from 2.0L sounds very impressive, until you look at the HP and torque curves. Those engines only made power between 8,000 and 9,000 RPM - they were dead below that. Not my idea of a fun-to-drive motor.
No doubt about, it's a fine piece of engineering, being at once powerful and if the torque and hp curves are good over a wide band, something that would be fun to drive on the highways.
But it comes at a cost.
Designers of automobile engines face four conflicting demands;
#1. It has to be cheap to build.
#2. It has to be powerful and easy to drive.
#3. It has to be reliable for many thousands of miles.
#4. It has to be economical with gas.
North America settled for deleting demand #4 in the days of cheap gas, most of Europe made do deleting demand #3. Of course this is over simplified, but I think not far from the mark.
The OP is showing what can be done by deleting cost as a demand. I'm not trying to say the engine would be a gas miser in a street car, but I'm willing to bet it is fuel efficient for the power it produces. No doubt other contenders in the competition followed the same lines.
None of the above is meant as criticism of the builder or how he went about building such a fine engine.
Designers of automobile engines face four conflicting demands;
#1. It has to be cheap to build.
#2. It has to be powerful and easy to drive.
#3. It has to be reliable for many thousands of miles.
#4. It has to be economical with gas.
You forgot #5. It has to meet emissions requirements.
Also #6. It has to fit within the packaging constraints of the chassis.
The biggest benefits of OHC are eliminating the constraints on port geometry that pushrods impose and reduced valvetrain inertia and deflections that allow higher RPMs. Naturally for a given displacement, higher RPMs means moving more air, which means making more peak HP. That doesn't mean making more average HP or torque. My classic example of that is the 2.0L motor in the original Honda S2000. 240 HP normally aspirated from 2.0L sounds very impressive, until you look at the HP and torque curves. Those engines only made power between 8,000 and 9,000 RPM - they were dead below that. Not my idea of a fun-to-drive motor.
Joe, you're not gonna tell me that the Porsche 911 motor I built when I was a kid, with the power graph that looked like an olympic diving board, wasn't fun to drive.
Hell, it was fun to just listen to.
I do understand the way that increased engine speed will increase power at a given displacement, and that with traditional fixed cam timing, your power curve becomes steeper, with area under the curve decreasing, but I would point out that modern variable cam timing systems can broaden that curve substantially, leading to both good driveability and high peak power, and that the ability to control intake and exhaust valve timing independently, is enhanced with a DOHC layout.
Nonetheless, I am interested in seeing how much performance can be gotten from one of our old-style V8s, and I find these sorts of competitions, and these discussions fascinating.
You forgot #5. It has to meet emissions requirements.
Also #6. It has to fit within the packaging constraints of the chassis.
You're quite right with #5 Joe. Emissions was another wrench thrown into the works.
#6 might not be so cut and dried, was the engine designed to fit the chassis or the chassis designed around the engine?.
When a new car is designed mostly the engineers are told which engines will be required to power it, and new engine designs will need to fit existing chassis.
Occasionally a completely new car design is built with a completely new powerplant. Vauxhall's HA Viva and FD Victor models and the Hillman Imp are three that I can immediately think of as examples from the UK.
Any examples of North American new chassis/new engine models?. I don't mean a revamp of existing products, but a chassis and engine that both shared nothing other than a name with previous models.
actually, they can and do, every day when it comes to SBC, SBF. blocks, cranks, rods, valve train components. Cam, sure, pistons, probably, heads sure, but in this case we can replace the word stock with 'factory' and it still works. I will bet you sight unseen those rare heads they used share a lot more in common with the MKIV chevy than they do anything-olds.
please note, they didnt even use a SBO block to add insult to injury.
Its just another damn nail in the coffin that irks me as much today as it did 30 plus years ago.
I fail to see your point period. This is a well thought out engine that did very well. I doubt you could even come close to building a engine like the one you are putting down.
Location: I moved to pittsburgh so I can be near Primantis
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by wr1970
I fail to see your point period. This is a well thought out engine that did very well. I doubt you could even come close to building a engine like the one you are putting down.
well you would be wrong and you know it if you did half competent homework, but my argument was, and still stands that: that was not a 'SBO'. It used an olds *DIESEL* engine block*[1], and thus ended the involvement of the good doctor, if he will own up to that one.
AS has been pointed out since the birth of the internet, a naturally aspirated 750hp engine is not all that particularly interesting. some of you watched perhaps a few dozen parade around earlier today. IT would not be selected however for someones street rod and I suppose that is where the duffers trip up.
Notes: [1]= I dunno, mebbe you are just messin with me on purpose and really do see the irony (no pun) behind that move.
Last edited by Olds64; October 12th, 2016 at 05:43 AM.
Reason: No cussing please.
well you would be wrong and you know it if you did half competent homework, but my argument was, and still stands that: that was not a 'SBO'. It used an olds *DIESEL* engine block*[1], and thus ended the involvement of the good doctor, if he will own up to that one.
AS has been pointed out since the birth of the internet, a naturally aspirated 750hp engine is not all that particularly interesting. some of you watched perhaps a few dozen parade around earlier today. IT would not be selected however for someones street rod and I suppose that is where the duffers trip up.
Notes: [1]= I dunno, mebbe you are just messin with me on purpose and really do see the irony (no pun) behind that move.
What you are calling a non sbo is off the wall non sense. It doesn't matter if it started out life as a diesel. What does matter that you boast that you could do just as well with the same engine. Quote {You would be wrong} When i stated i doubt you could build a motor as good as this one. All your have to do is enter the engine masters competition next year with a diesel block.Where is your claim to fame in the engine master? I think this engine was very good example of what some can do with a well thought out plan. These Olds engines can compete with other brands with the rules set by the engine masters competition.
Last edited by Olds64; October 12th, 2016 at 05:43 AM.
Reason: House keeping.
well you would be wrong and you know it if you did half competent homework, but my argument was, and still stands that: that was not a 'SBO'. It used an olds *DIESEL* engine block*[1], and thus ended the involvement of the good doctor, if he will own up to that one.
Last time I checked, the DX block was built by Olds, machined on the same assembly lines as any other SBO, available from any dealership as a factory-installed motor, and is dimensionally identical to any other Olds 350. Sorry, but what's your point here?
Without getting into any questions of who can build what, I feel I should confirm that a DX block is definitely considered to be an Olds small block.
Its external dimensions and bore are the same as all of the other smallblocks, and internally it is identical, with the exception of having the larger 3" main bearing journals that are otherwise seen in the big block, and a correspondingly stouter crank (I'm not certain whether any of the webs are any thicker than a "normal" '64-'76 smallblock, but if so, it isn't by much, as there isn't a lot of free space in there).
Therefore, any power modifications should be applicable to either the DX block or the gas block, with the only difference being that the gasoline block would provide a less durable platform.
(I'm not certain whether any of the webs are any thicker than a "normal" '64-'76 smallblock, but if so, it isn't by much, as there isn't a lot of free space in there).
Actually, they are considerably thicker and have enough meat to allow the block to be drilled and tapped for four bolt mains.
Location: I moved to pittsburgh so I can be near Primantis
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by wr1970
What you are calling a non sbo is off the wall non sense. It doesn't matter if it started out life as a diesel. What does matter that you boast that you could do just as well with the same engine. Quote {You would be wrong} When i stated i doubt you could build a motor as good as this one. All your have to do is enter the engine masters competition next year with a diesel block.Where is your claim to fame in the engine master? I think this engine was very good example of what some can do with a well thought out plan. These Olds engines can compete with other brands with the rules set by the engine masters competition.
Here is a novel idea, how about quoting what I actually said (typed) instead of what you would like me to have said (typed)?
My point still remains, and is now amplified, not one single part of the motor has any origin with *any* olds gasoline engine, big or little. Contrary to what was posted after you did, but before this, the block was cast completely differently from completely different cores and would also be machined in a completely different area because that is just how it works. the block is actually closer to the long extinct block cast for nascar racing (such cars did exist) Mebbe people bought into the old wives tale that the DX is simply a gas block because it was so strong. wrong.
If people wanna stick the "#1" foam fingers in the air because some random motor shares a bore spacing with your ride of choice and absolutely nothing else then so be it. But it means absolutely zero about the prowess, power or possibilities of the maker which if you recall was my FIRST choice in my formative years.
The second part of what I wrote is, the 750NA Hp is not that hard to do from other makers with stock and *factory* parts. while they may not be factory obtainable today, they were yesterday. AS I did state previously, blocks, cranks and rods were used in production cars that will take the power. I have both GM (chevy and pontiac) and ford part numbers (still available NOS) that include, cams, heads, valve gear and intakes that *all* meet the requirements for the HP target.
Yes, they can, if anything they were geared towards bigger cubic inches. The need spacers as the SBO uses BBO intakes due to higher ports. So you need that much taller and wider for the BBO. Can you buy a set? Probably not even with money in hand. It has been another $h!+ storm due to shady business dealings.
Last edited by Olds64; October 12th, 2016 at 05:47 AM.
Reason: No cussing please.
Here is a novel idea, how about quoting what I actually said (typed) instead of what you would like me to have said (typed)?
My point still remains, and is now amplified, not one single part of the motor has any origin with *any* olds gasoline engine, big or little. Contrary to what was posted after you did, but before this, the block was cast completely differently from completely different cores and would also be machined in a completely different area because that is just how it works. the block is actually closer to the long extinct block cast for nascar racing (such cars did exist) Mebbe people bought into the old wives tale that the DX is simply a gas block because it was so strong. wrong.
If people wanna stick the "#1" foam fingers in the air because some random motor shares a bore spacing with your ride of choice and absolutely nothing else then so be it. But it means absolutely zero about the prowess, power or possibilities of the maker which if you recall was my FIRST choice in my formative years.
The second part of what I wrote is, the 750NA Hp is not that hard to do from other makers with stock and *factory* parts. while they may not be factory obtainable today, they were yesterday. AS I did state previously, blocks, cranks and rods were used in production cars that will take the power. I have both GM (chevy and pontiac) and ford part numbers (still available NOS) that include, cams, heads, valve gear and intakes that *all* meet the requirements for the HP target.
Hey is this twister as in twisting what you said? You said this wasn't a small block olds engine! Now you are saying it has nothing in common with a gas motor!! We all know it started out life as a diesel! This is a highly modified engine with constraints for a competition in the master challenge. The engine came in second to other brands. Why you feel like it is necessary to complain about a effort to bring a little ink to the olds brand and the hobby is beyond me. Pony up your easy as pie motor non impressive 750 hp diesel converted to gas engine for the masters challenge then maybe you might get a clue how your comments are just uncalled for. The guys who made this effort happen should be congratulated by all. Who else has placed this high with a Oldsmobile motor?
The second part of what I wrote is, the 750NA Hp is not that hard to do from other makers with stock and *factory* parts. while they may not be factory obtainable today, they were yesterday. AS I did state previously, blocks, cranks and rods were used in production cars that will take the power. I have both GM (chevy and pontiac) and ford part numbers (still available NOS) that include, cams, heads, valve gear and intakes that *all* meet the requirements for the HP target.
How about sharing those factory production Pontiac part numbers, and the years and models that a normal mortal (as opposed to say, Mickey Thompson) could order them in. A quick review of this Pontiac engine build thread shows that all the Pontiac motors that actually put out a dyno-proven 750 HP (as opposed to "feels like" claims from someone's butt dyno) used aftermarket blocks, heads, and pretty much everything else. Still impressive builds and obviously still using Poncho engine architecture.
Location: I moved to pittsburgh so I can be near Primantis
Posts: 405
Originally Posted by joe_padavano
How about sharing those factory production Pontiac part numbers, and the years and models that a normal mortal (as opposed to say, Mickey Thompson) could order them in. A quick review of this Pontiac engine build thread shows that all the Pontiac motors that actually put out a dyno-proven 750 HP (as opposed to "feels like" claims from someone's butt dyno) used aftermarket blocks, heads, and pretty much everything else. Still impressive builds and obviously still using Poncho engine architecture.
GM part number 10033867, long discontinued, 62cc chamber for 12:1 rulebook compression. out-ruled in the early 80's IIRC
they may have went around in circles in a car numbered 43? 44? something like that....
the block, pretty much any 4 bolt production block - they are good to about 1200hp until they start splitting in 2
intake, any of the gm nascar approved 15 degree intakes
October 7th, 2016, 08:40 AM
