fingers-hack

I have a 400 cubic inch block for sale. This block is in great shape and as you know is some what rare and hard to find. Im asking $300 for it. If you are interested drop me a line here or my email is hackt65@yahoo.com.

svnt442

Unfortunately it's not all that desirable due to the small bore unless you find someone looking for a date coded block for a resto. And even then it wouldn't be a "numbers matching block" so IMHO $400 is a bit steep for a bare block.
This will probably be the consensus around here so please don't be offended.

wmachine

I understand your point, but I am very much in agreement with his "somewhat rare" statement.
First of all, *any* '68-up block will only be "numbers matching" to one, and only one car.
Second, that block is correct for any '68-'69 442.
Third, because it was not one of the best Olds engines, many have been grenaded, lost, and/or replaced with 455s over the years. So there just are not a lot of them left.

Jamesbo

Kurt/ Randy,

I understand the 68-9 400 bore situation, but does this really have any affect their durability?

wmachine

Its the long stoke that hurt them. The cannot take the revs that the square bore design takes. It did not work well for Olds at all.

Jamesbo

Thanks Kurt,

My 69 442 drop top is the most durable car I've ever seen. 300 + k miles with nothing but a water pump Driven through high school by 6 [repeat 6] boys.

I'll keep my fingers crossed. Perhaps the 3.08 kept the revs down

wmachine

It's not about your fingers, it is about your foot
The durability issues are not a factor in street use at all. It is only at repeated high RPM use that it comes into play. It just doesn't hold up to continual flogging, as in a drag racing environment. You don't really need to baby it on the street.

svnt442

Kurt I hear you on the rarity of them and I think all of the points made are valid.

wmachine

I think it is very interesting in this case that the the same thing that made them "less valuable" in earlier years made them "more valuable" in recent years.

svnt442

I guess it all depends on what you want out of the car. Originality or speed.

Jamesbo

With absolutely no documentation, I'd say it's safe to say at leaset one of those 6 high school kids did.

wmachine

Of course! And maybe they all did.
And even under severe usage the the 400Gs didn't *all* break. But we're talking relative percentages here. Both on the strip and on the street. Look into Oldsmobile's '68-'69 drag racing season. Relatively speaking, they took it on the chin with the 400s then.
Interestingly, circa 1971 (loooong before I knew her), my wife threw a rod in her original '69 4-speed 442 street racing it. And I'd be remiss if I didn't tell you she had just knocked out a GTO when it happened.

MN71W30

I'm with Jamesbo. My 68 400 long stroke was one of the best motors I ever had. It ran 13.93 at the track with full exhaust. JMO, I think it is a myth and they were no worse than a 455.
$400 seems fair for a hard to find engine.

Jamesbo

Interesting discussion Kurt -Thanks

I have only seen one 69 W-30 here in the metro Atlanta area. My Olds bud says when he bought it it had slicks on it. I believe it has a 4.33 rear which obvioulsy would produce high RPM's. It has a hair line crack in the A pillar from launches.

So, my long awaited point is, The 400's design flaws makes the 69 W-30 even more rare as many were taken to the strip [ with numericallly high rear ends that produced high RPMs] where they didn't holdup.

Nice to know you and the Mrs. have so much in common. Give her Doc's "V" for dusting the Goat.

aliensatemybuick

There was another thread about this recently (someone who had a G block motor but had flywheel fitment issues and suspected it had an earlier crank in it). Anyway, I think you can use a 400 G block, an "early" (65-67) big block crank and rods, and a set of 330 high-comp pistons and mildly overboring the block to get pretty close to the specs and performance of an early 400 engine (suffering only a few CI). All stock parts and a mild overbore would mean not too exotic a build, either.

The again, I may misremember.

MN71W30

It was me who started that discussion. We haven't pulled the pan yet.

aliensatemybuick

I am definatley still curious about that one. But regardless of what you find, I am intrigued by the possibility of such a build. I wonder if some other "covert" things could be done to make up for the few missing CIs to make such a motor perform as well as or even better than an early 442 in stock form.

MN71W30

I'll be sure to post the findings.
If you want it to perform as well as an early 400 then leave it alone. Do you think their was some huge performance difference between the two? We took a bone stock 69 442 convertible with 3.42 gears to the track in the early 80's and it ran a 14.65@94. We beat alot of cars with that 69 street racing too. The car hooked really good. What do you think a 67 442 convertible automatic would run bone stock? Probably about the same. We lost to a stock 71 442. 0-30 he would get us by a car length and maintain the lead. I've seen more short stroke 400's and 425's blown than the newer 455-400 motors. But thats just my opinion of what I've seen first hand, not what I've heard. I'm not saying there isn't some truth to Kurts position, I just haven't seen it, maybe he has. I certainly wouldn't build a D block for the same reasons I wouldn't stick alot of money into a 396 BBC. Why give away over 50 CI.?
Maybe we had extra good ones.

Higgins

I really don't know a lot about the Olds 400 ci. because I bought a 1969 442 convertible in 1981 and it already had a worn out 455 in it. So I got another rebuilt 455ci. bored 60 over. So there might be an issue of reliabilty of the 400. Never to it to the drag strip but it moved right along on the street and never had any issues with the 455ci.

Jamesbo

Kurt,

Upon further reflection, I would guess it would be much easier to
"over rev" a 400 m/t than a/t like your Mrs. did when she dusted the Goat.

Four Four Tony

I believe it was the stick shift 68-69 400's that had the highest attrition rate.

aliensatemybuick

I don't doubt your experiences, which are more varied than mine, for sure. I must admit, the only car I ever owned that the motor blew in was an early 400 equipped '66 442 4 speeder. Specifically, it wiped a rod bearing. This was a month AFTER I sold the car, though that didn't stop the guy who bought it from going around telling everyone I sold him a bill of goods. To this day, an a-hole on this site (not just any a-hole, but the premier a-hole) likes to bring it up in an attempt to razz me. From my way of thinking, I'll take a wiped rod bearing AFTER I sold a car for $33K over a wiped bearing BEFORE I sold it any day of the week.

But I digress. Anyway, I just like the idea of that early crank G block build to be different. And to counter the inevitable remark about them motors not being any good (see an earlier post to this thread). Of course, no need to actually do it...you can just SAY you did to counter the naysayers!

aliensatemybuick

I don't doubt your experiences, which are more varied than mine, for sure. I must admit, the only car I ever owned that the motor blew in was an early 400 equipped '66 442 4 speeder. Specifically, it wiped a rod bearing. This was a month AFTER I sold the car, though that didn't stop the guy who bought it from going around telling everyone I sold him a bill of goods. To this day, an a-hole on this site (not just any a-hole, but the premier a-hole) likes to bring it up in an attempt to razz me. From my way of thinking, I'll take a wiped rod bearing AFTER I sold a car for $33K over a wiped bearing BEFORE I sold it any day of the week.

But I digress. Anyway, I just like the idea of that early crank G block build to be different. And to counter the inevitable remark about them motors not being any good. Of course, there's no need to actually do it...you can just SAY you did to counter the naysayers!

wmachine

In '68 and '68, the 400 sticks were rated at 350 hp, and the 400 autos were rated at 325 hp. This was not an arbitrary decided difference, with an appreciable difference in at least the cam and carb, the auto was definitely slower in stock trim.

svnt442

Check your stated numbers. I think you got them backwards.

wmachine

Yes, I've seen and read and listened over the years to quite a bit about this. You should talk not only to the Mondellos and the Millers, but other experienced Olds engine builders.
Bob Gerometta, an Olds engine expert wrote about Olds engines back in '80s and still writes about them. As recently as the March 2010 issue of W-MACHINES magazine, he wrote the following in writing about the 1969 W32:

And they (Olds) faced another, more serious issue, In the previous year, the W-30 cars
had received the bad reputation of being more likely to blow up than to blow
the doors off of anything. The only models kicking butt and taking names
were the 455 engined Hurst/Olds and the 350 W-31. As a result, though
1969 was the second highest selling year for 442 after 1968, W-Car sales in
the "G" block fell to almost 2/3rds of the previous year.

Trust me, there was a reason for that. It is not a myth.
I'm glad your held up. I think JB's and mine will too!

wmachine

Thanks, of course I *had* them backwards! Just swapped them so it will now read correct......

MN71W30

I raced a guy that had a 69 W-32 that he bought new. I remember it being a very good race for my 68 W-30. He was running around 14.3 with stock tires and beat me in the final class race because with his automatic he was able to hook the car much better than my 4 speed would allow with my street tires in the pure stock class. He had me by 2 cars until I hit third gear and I made up alot of ground but he nipped me at the lights. This was back in 89 at a Muscle car race that still had stock cars racing. We did very well and were probably in the top 20% of the cars there. I think the G blocks were within 10% of their actual rated hp. Sometimes I feel like folks thought and think they are better boat anchors than engines, I dissagree with that perception. Thats what I'm whining about.
I don't think I would agree with the thought that the W30 cars fell in sales in 69 as a direct result of the 400 engine. I would guess that it was a combinataion of a few factors. Firstly it wasn't a big bang for the hp buck, and with the gear ratios in the upper 3's and 4's the cars weren't to highway friendly, my 68 had 433 gears, Secondly, The W cars were probably marketed as a drag cars by the salesman selling them and after a test drive in a W30 with 433 gears and a 70 mph speed limit on the highway, that would certainly have helped cause the sales to drop. The 70-72 cars with the hoods and stripes probably enticed more buyers to check the W30 box and the 3.42 gears made things even better.

svnt442

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying the G block is a boat anchor, I'm just saying that unless you're looking for a stock type build for a "correct" engine it's just not worth the money IMHO. Now we all know about opinions so nuff said about that.

I just think $400 for any bare block is too much. Especially one that is kinda "nitchy".

wmachine

Oh, absolutely there were other factors that contributed, and what you site was all part of the mix. That is why '69 was such a pivotal year. The introduction of the W32 was all about. Olds was trying to bridge the gap between street and strip.
Unfortunately, '69 was also the year that "engineering" for the most part lost their grip on sale and "marketing" started to take more control. This wasn't a sudden thing, but it appears '69 was a pivotal year. Of course after '70, the changes we all know about overshadowed all of this anyway.

Dr.w30

Have a '68 W30 package For Sale.I have a True W30 '68 442 that is currently off the frame..I have decided to sell All the W30 parts that include: "D" Heads,Dual Snorkel AirCleaner,Under Bumper Scoops,Correct Electronic Dist,6000 Redline Tach,Original like brandnew Exhaust Manifolds,Red Inner Fenders.I will not break up this package for any reason.Not Cheap,Not Unrealistic..If you're interested give me a call at (336)344-4422

maxxer442

My 69 442 had 220k miles on the untouched motor before it spun every rod bearing and cracked the crank from front to back during a 140mph run in 1999. The block was still good and it still resides in my post coupe to this day. Its a 3 speed man., but with 3.08 gears. So maybe thats why it lasted. Other than lacking the high end punch of the 455, I have no complaints of the 400G block. A very torquey engine I must say. It runs 14.0 @103 so its got a few tenths left on the table in gears and tranny. Hard to beat cruisin though!

therobski

I traded my 65 442 for a 69 442, I actually still have a picture of it sitting in my driveway in Wisconsin) 400 M-21, don't remember the rear end but I can tell you back then that ride could not win a street drag, but I never knew why back then, could have a had 3:08 rear; not good for street racing for starters. But I clearly remember blowing off some of those same cars I ran with the 65-had a M-22 whine whine whine I can still hear it....