I'm not against anything. I'm trying to figure out what shjt he's spewing. I put 2 examples in bold above: first, it's all production parts, then the valvetrain is aftermarket. It's going to go 10s, and his Burick "only has" 315HP. The weight and mph are conveniently missing. Might be able to figure it off the 60, but I don't care THAT much.
10.01@3600lbs takes 637rwhp and 10.99@3600lbs takes 481rwhp. Those numbers are 708 and 535 at the flywheel according to the Wallace calculations. So this 425 with "all production parts" (except for all the aftermarket parts) needs to make somewhere between 535 and 708hp to get the unknown 3600lb chassis into "10s".
If I had to guess, it'll be on race gas and ride a trailer, but that's just speculation.

 

Details are important, first my car is a F/SA not a F/S. The F/SA index is 11.85, that means its 1.44 under. Now consider I've only spent about two seasons seriously trying to make this car fast, unlike a lifetime of a certain C/SA (11.40 index) car we know is your hero. I do have good components on the car.

 

This low HP Buick 455 engine is rated at 315 NHRA HP
Marks GS works well but it does not have a big dollar fuel and ignition system nor big dollar shocks. I think he is running a Turbo 350 trans not the 200 metric so again not a big dollar transmission..

 

Bernhard wrote:
I don't have Hero's !!
I'm a fan of class racing and like all the drivers and there cars! If I was to pick one driver it would be Oldsmobile backed Pete Kost , he does more with less and has had an amazing career.
The Kosts build there own engines and carburetors so they are hands on, and have set many records over the years.
Your car is a good example of doing more with less. I never said you did not run good components what I said was they are not state of the art big dollar components.
Are you running a metric transmission? Ceramic bearings and coatings?

 

Like I said I'm a fan of the sport and he is a nice guy in real life.

 

Because Mark/Dale/Mark have had valuable input in this thread. I do value there inputs and welcome them. ALL have have done is come in here and FLAME away on someone you have a personal grudge with. I like there ideas of doing more with less. I'm here to find out info and enjoy this car, the way I would like it. Do I feel I could take my car, add only and aftermarket intake, cam and related hardware, and aftermarket piston, and run 10's NA in my convert, NO DOUBT about that. But to do it with a milder build, on pump gas and still be docile enough for daily driver for my wife. DON'T KNOW AND DON'T REALLY CARE! I have enough high end big power fast stuff, this car isn't ment for that.

So when Dale explained to me in a text message about Speedmaster advantage over keeping the OEM irons, it made sense, and DOLLARS and cents! So this will be a lower buck build then my current Chevy builds, but my goal is a lot me reasonable too. I'm not trying to make 1.7Hp/inch pumpgas or 2.55Hp/inch on race gas like my current other stuff. 1.3 is where we should be, but like stated before, it's more ET goal then some BS dyno number.

So please, if you want to keep posting, please be constructive not destructive.

 

Just looking for answers and facts, not trying to be destructive at all.
Now, which engine are you talking about? Seems like it could all be straightforward with threads dedicated to your engine and VP's 425. But, I'll butt out and let y'all swing on his nutz.

 

Thanks for butting out. Outta here with you and your attitude.

 

It's not about swinging on someone's nuts! it's about learning how to do more with less. You said you like to learn hear is your chance. You have been down on guys that have posted about how Mark helped them out and now on this build. What's up?
No one is perfect we all have our bad days. Mark is mellow compared to Billy Mays brother.

 

Talk about a attitude ! Yes you are a nut swinger! You got nothing that has gone anywhere with a Oldsmobile and a Oldsmobile engine do you blow fly.

 

My Buick has always had ceramic bearings, lightweight spool, titanium wheel studs, lightened gears. Trans now is a SM 200.

 

I haven't looked lately but a few years ago the over half of the stock Nat'l records the automatic cars were quicker than the stick cars. Torque convertors are wonderful things.

 

1. NHRA rates my 1971 455 Buick GS @ 315 HP
2. The HP you listed above is pure delusion
3. 122 MPH @ 3800 pounds(?) is 531 crank shaft HP, and in your case probably in a 30.0 + barometer in Maryland

 

Who are you talking about?

 

John

Pay no attention to this guy, his whole racing operation was a disaster until he found a shop that could get him out of the 13s and to their credit he's now is stuck in the 11.7s in some of the best racing conditions in the country. BTW when I ran the peanut port drag test I shut it off @ the 660 and coasted through to high 11s LOL.

 

I didn't make anything up. I took your numbers ("10s") and ran the low (10.01) and the high (10.99) with the weight you mentioned (3600lbs), then ran them through the Wallace Racing online calculator.
http://www.wallaceracing.com/et-hp-mph.php
I have made no claims about my hp level. Yes, it has been 122. I may have even posted the slip.

I don't know what is so offensive about asking for clarification. There are 2 or 3 builds going on across 2 different threads, and I'm not in the PM/text loop. It's very hard to follow from the outside. I'll see myself out (again)

 

[QUOTE=olds 307 and 403;1448544]Who are you talking about?[/QUOTE

Bernhard wrote:
fleming442
Just looking for answers and facts, not trying to be destructive at all.
Now, which engine are you talking about? Seems like it could all be straightforward with threads dedicated to your engine and VP's 425. But, I'll butt out and let y'all swing on his nutz.

 

Bernhard wrote:
I stand corrected Marks car has more of the components you would find on the quick cars, defiantly not cheap route to follow.

 

Yes it could be confusing to swift through all this LOL I get worked up when people start talking RWHP. Here's one of my dyno tests from the 315/455 Buick.

 

HOPEFULLY Flemming stays out or quite. Mark too bad we can't find Wiess's old HP formula online, the WIDOWMAKER. Crank Hp RWHP it's all about the equipment it's tested on and doesn't always results in what really matters, PERFORMANCE. Who care if Marks car has what is needed to be done, even without all that stuff, one should still get close. Dyno gives you a # to plug into a formula to get an idea or goal of where you can be. Most of the time you don't get there, but sometimes you surpass it.

ANYWAY, BACK TO OUR NORMALLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM.....

Going to get the heads checked out, check out the 2.125 valves, and get the porting of heads and intake started today. Will get some pictures of heads as they are now, and once were done the porting.

Flemming442 #2 on my ignore list now.....

 

I think knowing the test car is important. If Mark uses another car it will be equality important to understand how the car is set up. Mark's car is very efficient so obviously if the engine were put in a well sorted street strip car it would be slower. I think having the engine tested in an efficient car would be good, as it would highlight how important it is to look at every detail when increased performance is your goal .

I look forward to seeing your build progress thanks for sharing.

 

Back to the topic at hand.
Had a conversation with my guy at Speedmaster last week. I bought a set of their SBC heads for an airboat build I’m helping with.
Seems they use the same spring on virtually everything, Chevy, Ford, Olds, doesn’t matter.
In addition it's the same spring no matter if it’s for a flat tappet or Hyd roller. So I asked him, “what do you different for the two?”. His response? “We shim them an extra .025 for a roller”. I can tell you, I shimmed them .100 just see and still couldn’t get near what you need for a roller. At .525 lift they still had over .200 before bind. That’ll make it real unstable. No wonder it broke.
Hope this helps.

 

Bernhard your a very nice person, that needs to be said every so often. You might or might not know I have several cars and even a truck that would work just fine for testing a Oldsmobile engine. I think Flemming mentioned how important the car is and I agree, but when you look at my 79 1/2 ton truck, it has a factory two piece drive shaft, factory heavy duty brakes, not a good racer, but it has run 11.90s @ 2000 DA, 1.63 60, NA 327 with 447 HP. Looking for 11.20s with the new 350.

 

Nice person I don't know about that.

 

Here is the build thread for this BUILD and Speedmaster heads/info

https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums...2/#post1448731

 

WERE Canadians, it's in our DNA to be NICE at the start when we meet people! After that, we decide to either STAY CANADIAN NICE or switch to AMERICAN???? LOL just a joke to our AMERICAN friends!!!!

I believe Bernard is like me, respects till proven NOT to respect!

 

So my heads came with 7/16's stud!! YIPPY, buddy showed up with a set of NEW PRW stainless 1.7 rockers BUT says there SBf WINDSOR rockers? NEW in box as he went with 1.65 PONTIAC rocker on his. He said these PRW fit and work on SBf, OLDS and Pontiacs????? box had part # 0230208.

I told him I was thinking of 1.6's as that is what the current rockers on my F/G/??? heads are now?

Thoughts on:
1. PRW stainless rockers?
2. 1.7 SBf WINDORS rockers for OLDS?

My Chevy stuff is pretty much Jesels, (currently 5 sets). BUT I do have Crane GOLDS and Harland Sharps for the only info in my "tool chest" on rockers.
My thought is the steel won't fatigue as fast as the alum? And for a daily driver-style build, I think the SS is worth the chance? Do I drop the $150 on the PRW's or drop $500+ for and Alum HS/Scorpion/Howards????

 

The PRW’s MIGHT work.
AMC, Ford, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac have very similar geometries. However if the manufacture favors one more than the other, they won’t fit the rest as well. You really won’t know until you put them on and mock them up. Just an FYI, I sell an upgraded Harland Sharp rocker for $475 a set shipped. And they are absolutely the right geometry.

 

As Mark said, many of us have put SBF Windsor rocker arms on our Olds V8. With higher lift, the more chances of interference and geometry issues. I ran 1.72 Scorpion rocker arms but with just over .500" lift due to a very mild cam. They fit and no contact but were close with 5/16" push rods. They may work, you won't know till you try them.

 

Thanks Mark will consider those HS. I have time to check things out. Those HS from you would come in about $750 CND with just exchange and duties.

 

You’ll be fine with the sbf ones …if you order a stand alone rocker from HS for the Olds, they are the same part number as AMC and ford.

check for sweep across stem tip and order the pushrod needed.

 

WHat is upgraded about your HS rockers ?

 

sorry about that 307.
Was meant for Mark:
What is upgraded about your HS rockers?

 

Ratio and application stamped on the top. Scallops on each end of the rocker to reduce weight and underneath to better clear the rocker stud.

 

Mark had them made specifically for the new Edelbrock heads. I bought them at the introductory $400. I let Cutlassefi pick the ratio, his choice was the middle 1.65 ratio to go with the mild roller cam for my 358.

 

So essentially they are a set of HS SD6001 with OLDS scribed on them.

 

Hi Rick, They do appear a little different. By the roller itself. Compared to HS listing. On the bottom by the roll

 

No, the geometry is slightly different on the 6001 vs the Olds rocker.
This is the exact reason why I hesitated to answer your question in the first place. Thanks for confirming my suspicions. I won’t answer anymore of your questions from here on out, so don’t bother asking.

 

Mark's rockers are awesome.

What I find funny is that the guy with alleged multiple Jesel setups is going to cheap out. You can't even make that stuff up!
And, China thanks you for supporting their foundries.

 

So, you don't like to be questioned?
Typical of a " superiority complex". !
You have questioned hundreds on this site. And you don't like to be questioned about a product your selling to the forum members.
Get over yourself. You are quite confusing.