Well, kinda.
I'm in the process of debunking the myth about nickle/high nickel Olds engine blocks. It is about time to officially put that to bed. I will later explain how nickel does *not* make iron stronger. But this is a myth that can be disproved not just by knowledgeable metallurgy, but by actual testing of actual blocks to prove it.
Therefore, I'm looking for samples of 400, 425, and 455 blocks from different years. Anyone with junk blocks? I need a piece that can be ground flat for about a 1" diameter relatively flat area. That's all.
The block doesn't *have* to be cut up, as I can and have NDT tested blocks. But obviously sending me a block is, well......
I'm most interested in early 455 F blocks (that are claimed to be relatively "high nickel") and later FA blocks (that are claimed to be "low nickel").
Anyone with money to lose can bet against this being a myth.
If you can contribute or have leads or more info, please contact me:
wmachine@shubes.net

 

Interesting subject if into metallurgy.
Are you looking for the composition percentages, grain & crystal structure?
Curious. I'm not a metallurgy specialist by any means but I do understand a little because of my welding experience in the power plant industry. I feequently work with a plant QC/QA manager that has a $50,000 machine that tells him exactly what the composition of the metal is. Chrome, nickel, carbon, etc.
Good luck with your test!
Sorry I don't have anything you're looking for but if I come across something I'll definitely let you know.

 

Yes, Mike it is composition. By %. The same measurements you are referring to.

 

ttt

 

I am sure there are some guys out there with blown engines piled loosely into 5-gallon buckets who can sacrifice a piece in the name of science...

This sounds like a good research study!

 

I've sent a couple bad ones to the scrap yard... now I'd wish I'd kept them. I should have one 455 boat motor with a cracked block out there, it had low hours on it so I'm saving it for the internals. He forgot to drain it in the winter and it froze. So will a sawzall cut through the block? What's the best corner or piece to clip off? John

 

I might be able to send you a hunk of a 1965 330, they are supposed to be high nickle. Send me a message with address.

 

Let's go way back, what about a piece of metal from a '46 flat head six block?

 

Never tried a sawsall on an engine. A hammer may bust off a piece. I don't know where would be best, maybe the intake manifold lip. Or the bottom where the oil pan bolts up?

 

If you've got it, I'll test it.

 

That is a cool idea. Wouldn't the composition of the metal vary from point to point in the block?

 

Not appreciably. Chemistry-wise, it should be pretty homogeneous.

 

Hmmm, I saw two Olds "blow up" last Sunday at the Miller meet. Must have been the "low" nickle blocks! Good luck, Ken

 

I had a bad diesel block about 2 years ago. No caps, reeeely rusty.
Tried to break off a piece with a dead blow hammer, and could NOT do it.
Hardest block I ever saw.
Scrapped it with a cracked 330 block.
Have a DX that I took to my machinist for bore, and deck work, and when I got it back he was genuinely pissed at me. Hardest block he ever bored, and he does not want to see it ever again.
If I get another bad one (or any other), I will let you know.
Jim

 

Bump. Still looking for donations!

 

I got some blocks around. I have a 69 350, a few 65 425s, 64 330, and i think 72 455. How big a pcs do you need?

 

I forgot about this thread! DUH.....

Specify to me again what I need to do to send you a sample of the '46 engine because it is still in the garage and going to go away forever soon. Nobody wants it.

 

And 350s or any other engine for that matter.

Email me and I'll give you my address. wmachine@shubes.net

Thanks!

 

i was always told the reason GM chose the Olds block for their 'Gas-to-Diesel conversion' atrocity was BECAUSE of their High Nickel content making them more structurally sound for the strains of diesel operation. I guess that may have contributed to the myth.

 

The diesel blocks were brand new castings with brand new molds. What had been done previously would have been irrelevant anyway.

 

More like one myth contributing to another!

 

wmachine

I'm not sure how the myth started or if it's a myth or not, but testing nickel vs. non/low nickel blocks now after use and possible wear, strain, and stresses may not "prove" anything. The same goes for testing a "dead blow hammered" chunk as it has been work hardened by being busted off. It could skew results.

Secondly, being a mechanical engineer and having to take 3 different metallurgy courses, if I learned one thing it's that no mixture is completely homogeneous, there is always variation, ALWAYS. No ifs, ands, or buts. Chemistry and Physics tells us this according to laws of molecular structure and elements respectively. However, this can probably be negated in my opinion.

On another note, one has to determine what type of "strong (strength)" you are referring to. Strength is often used much too loosely and needs to be specified. Tensile load, shear strength, bi-axial loading, torsion, impact strength, hardness, ect....????? There are many types of "strengths" to measure for and all are very different from one another. It's possible that Olds was shooting for one specific type of strength, while sacrificing another due to undue amounts of stress/strain in a given area of a particular block. If you choose to have all of these multiple tests done in all of these areas to investigate "overall strength" then I guess it's in the eye of the beholder. Which in this case, the beholder being Olds engineers of the past. What I'm trying to say is you have to find out what type of strength they were referring to. Nickel itself is used in many application alloys to increase hardness and reduce corrosive properties. Rockwell or Brinell hardness tests are more applicaple of the tests I would think. They are two different measurement methods, but operate on the same plane, so to speak. Nickel also provides a more malleable iron, which is easier to work with in terms of machining, polishing, molding, ect...., which is probably why engineers liked a higher concentrate of it because it reduces the amount of wear on tools and time it took between pieces.

Crystallinity and grain structure will also effect test results and just becuase your mixture is the same in both doesn't mean every block from those types of mixtures will exhibit the same effects as production methods vary as well in operations of dissimilar molds and forging. They will differ in formation at any given spot in a block. So, in summary, I don't believe you will find much data that is definitively conclusive, but then again I am only speaking in theory. Just some food for thought and hope that helps some.

 

double post, sorry

 

WMachine Kurt....CO's Experimental division...

 

Your metallurgy courses have brought you up *way* short. "Wear, strain, and stresses" will do absolutely nothing to alter the *chemistry*.
And regarding "homogeneous", there will not be enough variation to alter the results of a spectrometer. This is how chemistry results are obtained. And material certifications are based on this testing method. This isn't me, this is industry standards.
Yes, these results certain *will* be quite accurate and *valid*. Absolutely.

 

You'll have to show me where nickel is added for hardness. It is *not* added for hardness. Nickel is soft, as a matter of fact.
Regardless, any hardness test will tell you nothing about nickel content, which is the subject of this venture.

I've been in engineering in the casting business for 36 years now, with the last 15 in nickel based alloys. I'm not guessing here.

 

It was my understanding that you wished to determine the strength of one versus the other and how it relates to nickel content. Not the chemistry alone. Are these not your words in your original post=>

"I will later explain how nickel does *not* make iron stronger. But this is a myth that can be disproved not just by knowledgeable metallurgy, but by actual testing of actual blocks to prove it."

You are correct in your statemtent that wear, strain, or stress has no bearing on chemistry content/formulation, and might I add I never stated that anywhere in my post concerning wear, strain, and stresses has anything to do with altering the chemistry. That's ridiculous and I personally would never say that knowing it isn't true to begin with. I simply stated that it can and will affect the "strength" measurements taken, not the chemistry my friend. If you did not interpret it that way then I think you should read my post more clearly. Which strength can mean a variety of things depending on what is being measured.

I also stated that the homogeneousity of the substance can be neglected in my opinion, see my post, did you not read it accurately? I don't think your listening. To make it perfectly clear I think I believe I have the capability of understanding "industry standards" quite fully, I work with them every day, so I would like to think I at least have some kind of know how. How can you be sure the variation isn't large enough anyway? By whose standards? yours or oldsmobiles? In any case, we both agree it can be neglected, so this is a moot point.

It would behoove you to probably realize they used a higher nickel content for other purposes rather than strength, hardness, or whatever. After all, they were probably looking at reducing cost more and are in the business to make money, not increase a non-value added part that the customer would never even notice and couldn't attribute to failure without lab testing. Again, this is not an attack on your testing itself, just a statement of realization. I think you've taken offense and that is not the intention here. Re-read my post and I think you'll come to realize that. Finally, in your statement that you can prove that more nickel does not make the ferrous alloy stronger, you should clarify more, because if you speak of "hardness" then you are dead wrong. Since hardness can technically fall under interpretations of 'strength' in some circles this would be constitute a change/increase in strength. If and only if hardness is what the original engineers wished to accomplish.

 

Maybe not, but I thought I was very clear that my testing venture is strictly to determine nickel content, which to someone supposedly more knowledgeable like you would mean a chemical analysis.
I'm behooved enough to know that *any* nickel content is an increased cost; was back then and is still now. So there is absolutely no way *any* nickel content is a cost savings measure.
I'm a lot farther down the pike with this than you think I am.

 

Again you are misinterpreting my thoughts and what I've clearly stated that nickel itself, as I also know, is an expensive alloy. However, being that it is used in applications that allow castings to be machined in a more timely fashion effectively without undue amounts of wear to tooling, the cost savings come from efficiency, tooling replacement, and less incurred downtime. Not the nickel price vs. iron/steel. Picture thousands of cars being produced and a tool being worn every 100 blocks instead of every 25 blocks, not to mention the increase in throughput on the assembly line. The savings quickly add up offsetting and often surpassing the "added" cost of adding a scosh more of nickel in a recipe at significant volumes. I'm not saying your not knowledgeable about the subject, but there is most certainly hidden savings here that every production manager knows and your not taking into account. Not to mention this whole thing probably was a quadruple plus for the engineers as it added to rust prevention, malleability, hardness, and most importantly to every operating company real tangible cost savings that can be accurately tracked. Then again, what would I know, I only worked in three different foundries, forging and machining companies/operations and pretty much came accross every metalloid alloy around when it comes to castings. I hope your testing is conclusive in determing nickel content. It sounds like a great project and I'm equally curious on the outcomes. I'm simply just saying be careful with general statements about strength of materials and the testing thereof, that's all.

 

No problem, and no offense Dom. But you're still preaching to the choir here. I know for sure that you have no idea what I know and what I'm taking into account or not. Now please explain where these hidden savings are, and how the nickel add accomplishes this and how every production manager knows it, yet the whole auto industry didn't.

Are you familiar with the lubricity of cast iron and how that is due to the flake graphite micro structure? And how nickle *decreases* the machinablility of cast iron? Yeah, that will make it harder for your production managers to find the savings, I would think.

I made no general statements about strengths. All I said about strength was
"I will later explain how nickel does *not* make iron stronger.". I'm quite aware of the complexities of strength, and purposely and quite intentionally did not go down that road.

 

So what ever happened to this? Did the blocks get tested?

 

I still need samples to complete the tests. Looking for 1970 455 in particular.

So far the testing covering mid '60s 330s, 400s, and 425s yield no nickel and no surprises.

 

I am interested to hear the results.

If my 1966 425 engine block made of 50% Nickel / 50% Unobtainium ever lets go I will ship you some pieces.

 

https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums...-engine-2.html

Information update. See post #42

 

I have seen cast parts that are labeled as "nodular" iron and making it sound like it is a stronger than regular cast iron. Is that true or just a marketing gimmick?

Also, thank you for the interesting reading on here. I really enjoy reading more technical info about all things automotive.

 

No gimmick there. Nodular iron was developed in the late '50s. In the foundry industry it is more commonly known as Ductile Iron. For a short while it was also called semi-steel. Understand that "strength" is a general term and there is more to what is needed in engine materials than strength. In the case of a crankshaft, ductility and elongation are measurable characteristics needed. Iron can be plenty "strong" enough as measured in tensile strength. But it lacks ductility. Researchers discovered and way to inoculate gray iron and turn the flake graphite microstructure into rounded or nodular graphite. This suddenly made the iron appreciably ductile. So with other minor alloying element then produced an alloy that was as suitable (less expensive than forged steel) cast alternative for components like crankshafts and cams. Not quite as "good" as forged steel, it certainly became a form of iron with "new" uses. Call it a hopped up iron.
Generally all cast cranks are Nodular Iron. The would be no "cast iron" cranks. Conceivably, there could be cast steel cranks, but if they are going to be steel, they may as well be forged. By nature, Ductile Iron can not be forged.
Hope that's enough, I don't know where to start or stop.


if you like technical info about all things automotive, go sign at Wild About Cars and dig in!
A great source for accurate answers is Wild about Cars.
Wild About Cars. http://wildaboutcars.com. An information supersource, especially Oldsmobile. More Olds content than anywhere else on the internet and continuing to grow.
You'll find Chassis Service Manuals, Product Information Manuals (AKA Assembly Manuals), Inspector's Manuals, and other documents that will contain this and much much more.
Dealer Brochures, magazine ads and articles, and a home page for you online. You can even have your very own club there and a personal forum.
Free to join, free to learn.

 

Great site , but it is a good thing Greg B. doesn't moderate/administrate this site

I've heard this "myth" all of my life and I've even read about "nickle" content in Olds blocks somewhere, but I cannot for the life of me put my finger on it as to where I've read it.

 

Wmachine,

Thank you very much for the answer and info!. Very interesting stuff and I will be all over that wild about cars web site!