Toocool

I am a Chevy guy, always have been, I own 5 now and have owned around 100 of them in the past. Now I have this Vista Cruiser, my 2nd Olds ever. My car has the original 330 4barrel engine, I know this is a small block and a 455 is a big block. What about the 400? Where do the others fall in line and which are interchangeable? Do 350 parts fit the 330? Intake and exhaust? Brackets and pulleys?
Thanks.

svnt442

260, 307, 330, 350, 403 are small blocks,
400, 425, 455 are big blocks.
The 350 will drop right in where the 330 is with no changes needed.
You could drop in a big block with minor mods in most cases.
With brackets and pulleys, make sure you use the same length water pump for your pulley setup and everything will be fine.

Toocool

Thanks. This 330 is really sluggish, I have tried to tune it for a little more power with carb and timing, maybe Im just used to more power. I know this is a pretty heavy car, im just looking at things right now trying to decide if I can live with it or if I need to make some changes. I have only put about 500 miles on it since I bought it. Whatever I do I want it to look pretty much original to the average person so no headers or aluminum intakes.

VC455

The big and small blocks look very much the same, the big blocks have more deck height therefore the intake manifold looks wider and the engine looks taller. I've heard people refer to the big block as a tall block.

The heads and valve covers are mostly interchangeable; accessories interchange as long as you respect the length of the water pump as svnt442 said.

The average person would be unlikely to tell the difference between a big block and small block especially if you painted it the same color as your 330.

redoldsman

Worth mentioning is the fact the 400 from 65 to 67 is different than the 400 from 68 & 69. Although they appear the same externally the 65 - 57 has a larger bore and shorter stroke and is a more desirable engine.

Koda

Those engines were not sluggish by a normal definition. You may want to make sure it is running right before ditching it. On the other hand, it's a Vista Cruiser with a non-performance engine. What are you expecting out of it? It's not going to perform like your 496 SS Chevelle, nor should it. Not every 60s/70s car should be a muscle car.



If you want to stay reasonable, a good tuneup, a better flowing exhaust, and maybe electronic ignition would work. The biggest, easiest thing for hooligan power off the line is changing the rear end ratio. I would bet you are rocking the 2.56 open back there, and changing that would help, and be hidden.



Now, if you want the Stealth Bomber, then get a 455, the fake headers coated black, an aluminum intake that you paint, big old cam, drag racer rear, do that overdrive trans like you have in your Chevelle, good C heads with a valve job and you've got power then enough to twist the body and break all the Vista glass.

joe_padavano

The definition of "big block" and "small block" as far as Oldsmobiles are concerned relates to the deck height. All second gen Olds V8s share the same architecture (geometry, bore spacing, bolt patterns, etc), the only external difference is the 9.33" deck height of the small block vs. the 10.625" deck height of the big block. BBOs use larger diameter main and rod bearings than do SBOs (though the 350 diesel used the BBO sized mains).



All SBOs use the same 3.385" stroke, only bore is varied. Your 330 has a forged crank. 1968-later motors used a cast nodular crank. The one think I find hilarious is that people always say that the Olds is a "torque motor", yet the Olds 350 has a larger bore and shorter stroke than a Chevy 350.

rustyroger

How do the torque curves compare on the various GM engines?, let's take a regular engine for a regular grocery getter, and a 350 V8. How did they compare to offerings from Ford and Mopar as well?.
I think the torque curves give a much better idea of driveability than peak bhp.

Roger.

joe_padavano

Torque curve depends more on cam profile and intake/exhaust tuning than bore and stroke for a particular displacement. As an example, a J-head 455 probably has more torque below 2000 RPM than a W-30.

cutlassefi

I get a kick out of that as well. I don't see any real difference in avg tq numbers between those two either. The only advantage the Olds may have is the longer rod which can make for a smoother running engine.

olds 307 and 403

Doesn't Olds flatter valve angle and longer intake runner add to slightly more torque production and a flatter torque curve? Also smallish factory intake ports and decent fuel economy even with an ancient combustion chamber. Olds seems to be more finicky for pulling out hp, probably because most are too cheap to spring for aluminum heads but torque production never seems to be an issue. What transmission do you have in your 67? If it is a 2 speed and 2 something gearing, a 2004R and 3.42 gearing will feel like you doubled your power.

joe_padavano

So a combustion chamber designed in the early 1960s is "ancient", but an SBC chamber designed a decade earlier than that is state of the art???


We're not talking about aftermarket heads or LS motors, here, we're talking about a stock Olds 350 and traditional Chevy 350.

oldcutlass

The 330HC was not a slouch of an engine comparably. If I remember right your already running a T350, so probably your rear end gearing may be your issue.

olds 307 and 403

Never said the 70's sbc had a good chamber or anything else for that matter. Also the mighty LS is rev happy but a turd down low.

cutlassefi

Two different styles of chambers, although designed around the same time.
The SBC was and is a true "wedge" style chamber, the Olds is regarded as a "bathtub" style, not to mention the vast difference in valve angle. The Chevy had a 23* angle, the Olds only 6*, that poses other challenges as well.

Rocketman!442

Rocketman!442

I remember seeing a Vista Cruiser running in Stock Eliminator. it had a 455 in it and pulled the wheels really well, It was in Brainerd in the late '70's and was named the 'Vanishing Vista'. I think it was Q/SA due to the sheer weight of that brute??? A well tuned 330 should not be lazy at all??
Wayne

rustyroger

For grins and giggles I checked out (from Krause Publications Standard Catalog) the given bhp and torque figures from Chevy, Buick, Oldsmobile and Pontiac 350 4bbl engines in their various 1977 full size models. they all made around 170 bhp at around 3800 rpm, and roughly 270 lb.ft. of torque, the Oldsmobile at 2000 rpm, the Chevy at 2400 rpm. the Buick and Pontiac at 1800 rpm, so perhaps Buick and Pontiac engines could be the real torque monsters of this group.
Of course they are all pretty aenemic compared to previous generations of pre smog motors.
Maybe the reputations are from aftermarket hopped up engines?, the Chevy design making it easy to turn it into a high revving screamer, perhaps the other designs leaning to low speed grunt to get the behemoths of the 1960's and 1970's rolling.
This is speculation on my part, most contemporary 4 cylinder European engines were making the maximum torque where American V8 iron was producing maximum power, and maximum power at speeds where owners of standard production American V8 engines would be shovelling what was left of them into a bucket.

Roger.

2blu442

I agree with the comments about rear end gear, that would be my first step. If you go lower than a 3.42 and still want to do highway trips consider the overdrive transmission. If that doesn't do enough then I'd change to a big block engine. Over the years I've had several 1970-72 Vista Cruisers with factory 455's. They had 2.56 and 2.78 rear end gears but would still launch well off the line in my opinion.

joe_padavano

That's just physics. HP is all about airflow. At 2000 RPM, a 350 cu in motor moves about 200 CFM of air. A 2.0 liter engine needs to spin at nearly 5800 RPM to move the same amount of air and thus make about the same HP. The large displacement, low RPM vs. small displacement, high RPM discussion has been going on for decades. Of course, this is for normally aspirated motors. Once you add boost, all bets are off.

rustyroger

The point I wanted to put across was the reciprocating mass of the big ol' V8 American iron limited the maximum safe engine speeds of them unless expensive special hardware was used in their construction.
Basically the smaller and lighter a piston is the greater the speed it can travel at before the big end bolts fail. I know it's far more complicated than that in reality, but the principle holds true.

Roger.

midnightleadfoot

OK fine.
olds 350 to a vortec headed gen 1 small block 350 chamber.
one is ANCIENT.
And it isn't the '96-2000 (2002 in vans) chevy chamber head.

joe_padavano

You are missing the point. A larger displacement engine doesn't need to spin to high RPMs to make HP. This means that the parts can be made less expensively since the stresses are lower. Lower production costs, longer operating life due to lower stresses. Naturally, the downside is higher weight and larger packaging size. As I noted, this tradeoff has been going on for decades.



The poster child for the small displacement, high RPM motors is the original Honda S2000. 2.0 liters, 240 HP, normally aspirated. Unfortunately, the result is a motor that only makes HP between 8,000 and 9,000 - below 8K it falls flat on it's face.



Apparently that's an acquired taste. I don't want my car to sound like a model airplane. Interestingly, in later years, Honda increased the displacement and moved the power band a lot lower to make the car more driveable.

OLDSter Ralph

I love my big ol American V-8 OLDSMOBILES. If I wanted to read about "euro cars", Chebbies, Vortec's and assorted BS, I could "Google" it.

midnightleadfoot

I'll tell ya, and I'll bet I'm not alone here.
That if a quality head caster ,cast an alum head for the olds small block 350 with the vortec chamber design , and ports sized for a 350 cid.
I'd buy a set , better power, less timing lead, better burn, more mpg.
and again more power.
I know I know , a bolt on that adds power lots of power, isn't cool . what was I thinking.
You'll note that almost every aftermarket head copied the vortec head chamber. but it must do nothing for better burn, more power and use less fuel. stick with the smog heads of the past. they make great power. so much so, that everyone hunts for the pre 71 heads.
YMMV

Seff

The disadvantage of large displacement engines is mileage/efficiency.

Let's say driving down the highway, maintaining speed, requires 30 Nm. That torque requires the same amount of fuel - the 1 liter engine will require a larger throttle opening to produce the same power, relative to the 6 liter engine. The 1 liter will have less manifold vacuum, whereas the 6 liter will create tons of vacuum. Pulling those air molecules apart, creating that vacuum, requires energy. So even if the same energy is required to maintain speed, the larger engine requires more fuel - ironically because it's hard work producing so little power.

joe_padavano

Mileage was not the criteria being discussed here, but if you care about that, I submit that the REAL criteria is total cost of ownership. That's purchase cost, maintenance costs, and operating costs (and residual value when you get rid of it). It isn't clear that a small, high tech, highly stressed engine is the optimum for lowest total cost of ownership. Automakers build cars that way because of CAFE laws, emissions requirements, and maximizing profits. Lowest total cost of ownership is not a consideration for them.

Seff

Of course total cost of ownership isn't regarded as a parameter - it's not nearly as easy to advertise as mileage is. And repairs are a possible (albeit statistically likely) expense, whereas fuel costs are a given the second you decide to drive.
Plus, some nations tax car owners based on the emissions of their vehicles.

I will say that most cars over here die between 300 and 400 thousand kilometers, and a minority of them are doomed because their engines gave up. Even the tiny 1,2 liter turbo direct injection gasoline engines.

But I can't deny that I love my V8.