1968_Post

I have a choice to make...

I can get one of 2 engines. The 1st is a early 455, .030 over F with reworked big valve "C" heads, rebuilt as a street engine.

Engine #2 is a similarly built 403 with "5" big valve heads, a mild cam and a nodular crank from a early 350. I don't have a lot of the particulars yet on either, other than both are similar in build style and condition.

Target vehicle for one of these is a 1968 442 with a TH-400 trans.

I'm familiar with the 455, but not familiar with what could be expected from the 403. Ultimately I'll make my own decision, but would like some input as to which would be the favorable setup for what will be a cruiser built for things like Cruisin' the Coast, power tours, etc.

Whaddya think?

Mikes65

455 for sure in my opinion
Not just because of the fact that it is more cubes but i believe the 403 is a weak engine with some internal restrictions.
Others hers will know more.
Good luck

olds 307 and 403

They both have draw backs. The 455 would probably be best, especially if you want to run exhaust manifolds. I personally love the SBO. The 403 block is weak but the are a lot of failed 455 builds with heavy parts. The oiling system seems less challenged on the short deck/stroke version.

J-(Chicago)

any blueprinting on either? or just he said/she said?

joe_padavano

I'm sorry, but has ANYONE here failed a 455 in normal street use? This whole "oiling system" myth seems to come from dedicated drag strip applications where the engine was abused. This may be hard to believe, but not everyone routinely performs six grand holeshots in their cars. The O.P. stated that he's building a cruiser, NOT a race car.

Bottom line is that the 455 is the far better choice. Sorry, but an SBO does not belong in a 68 442. This is a no-brainer.

1968_Post

Pretty much just a "he said" scenario right now. Both are supposed to have been bored .030, but I haven't seen the invoice for the work yet. For the money, I doubt there's been a bunch of machine work.

I'm actually OK with something that's just freshened up, as long as whoever did the work knew what he was doing and I can verify the work.

I still have a problem buying a bullet that is hanging on an engine stand that's been "rebuilt" when I don't know the builder or the seller, so I'm being cautious.

Too many years working in the service end of the car business, I guess...

1968_Post

Thanks Joe... That's the way I feel also. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't overlooking a better choice just because I wasn't aware of its value.

I've been waiting for a period correct 455 to surface, because that was the way to go back in the day. Something about a 68 motor in the 68 that just seems right.

When I was an Olds parts guy, I sold a bunch of 455 short blocks to owners of 68 and 69 442's. It was the step guys took to improve performance. I can't count how many times I was sworn to secrecy as to what a guy just bought for his car.

olds 307 and 403

Not arguing, make sure the cooling system is up stuff on either. I personally had many issues with my 403. Many complaints from 455 owners too. He does have an automatic, meaning no missed shifts and a 455 belongs in a 68 442.

J-(Chicago)

Normally, I agree with everything Mr. Padavano says. And I will also agree this time as well. That being said, I will also state that a hopped up 350 would be most ideal for a cruiser car in my opinion. A 455 with any decent amount of work done to it would get horrible power tour mileage. If you dont care, neither do i though. Enjoy!

captjim

Just curious, but how would the deck height or stroke affect the oiling system?

J-(Chicago)

403's are goofy. Like having a 16 lb sledgehammer head on a 16 oz. hammer handle.

1968_Post

Thanks for the input. Road trip tomorrow to see, touch and feel the engines.

We'll see which one follows me home...

joe_padavano

Shoulda quit while you were ahead.

Kennybill

If it's a "real" 442, why not find a correct 400 engine. 2nd option would be same platform of engine that was it in. That way exhaust/etc.could be reused holding down cost. Jmo, the 403's are a good engine. I have heard all the stories about the cranks falling out and the weak main webs. For a street engine, you won't hurt one put together right. I built one out curiousity because of the large bores. I beat on that engine for 3 years, zero problems. I "accidentally" took it at 6500 rpms. Usually kept it under 5500 rpm's. I did have a halo support on it. I hope to dig it out a resurrect it in the near future. 3600# g body with stock one angle small valved #5 heads, 12:90's @ 105. Way more left with better heads. I have 455/425's also. I'm not knocking them "but" look at the main webs of them. Nothing to brag about. They are what they are. Buy whichever is the best engine by condition/price and ease of installment. Jmo. Ken

oldsmobiledave

A 403 has its place. A 1968 442 is NOT one of them.

The good Doctor sent your car to its' first owner with a BBO under the hood. That is what should be in it now. Go for the 455.

droptopron

If resale is a factor at all people want big block power between the fenders of a 442.

mac61891

I tend to think bigger is better. I am, however, sticking an 403 in my 84 Cutlass Supreme. Couple of reasons for this. the 403 was readily available for a very good price still in the car. I drove it home. Also, I figured that if they were good enough for the Trans Ams, they ought to motivate my little cutlass. And wouldn't a Cutlass look awesome with a Shaker sticking out of the hood proudly proclaiming "6.6L OLDS"

cutlassrichard

455

joe_padavano

Uh, because the G-block 400 is kind of a turd?

m455sx

i agree with Joe p. 455 is the way to go.

1968_Post

A picture's worth 1,000 words... (if I did it right)

As far as I can tell, it is a real 442, but I'm beyond the matching number routine. Restoring Corvettes cured me of that.

I thought about the 400 engine as Kennybill suggested, but decided to go the period correct route and bought the one in the pics.


Oh yeah, ignore the color.

J-(Chicago)

Atta boy! I kind of like that corporate blue color. Not as cool as ford blue, but it always looks good before it gets dirty.

1968_Post

The engine numbers won't match, but the paint will in the long run... it'll end up bronze
.

J-(Chicago)

numbers schmumbers. beat the **** out of it!

So long as the number 442 on the passenger fender matches the 442 on the driver fender, I'd say you have the green light with that one.

olds 307 and 403

I am no expert on the oiling system. Talk to builders out there. Huge differences in their recomended clearances. Some swear by restrictors, others call them useless. Maybe it is the heavy parts and improper balancing and over spinning it, like my 403. Maybe lousy machine work. Seems to be less 350's with bottom end issues. Maybe there are just that many more 455's built. I plan on doing my stroker right with girdle and keep the rpm's down, even adding a rev limiter. This build won't be another $500 build, the rings alone will nearly cost that.

Octania

Sorry, but an SBO does not belong in a 68 442. This is a no-brainer.
A 403 has its place. A 1968 442 is NOT one of them.
==================
That's like the way I feel about the matter. Glad to see you got a nice 455 for it.



403's are goofy. Like having a 16 lb sledgehammer head on a 16 oz. hammer handle.
======================
"She's real fine, my 409"
409 ch3>y Bore 4.312" x 3.50" (6.0" rod)
403 Olds bore 4.351 x 3.385 stroke (6.0" Rod)

Sounds pretty comparable to me. 0.115" less stroke and 0.039" more bore on the Olds... because they were would not deviate from the stroke of the current small block.

I have one now, with #6 heads and a cam and forged pistons. Very nice package. I have driven one before also, bone stock, in the '67 Cutlass. Not bad. Don't put a 45 degree cam in it, they run poorly with that, er, so I hear. Easily fixed.


http://auto.howstuffworks.com/chevy-...v-8-engine.htm

joe_padavano

The only people who swear by the restrictors are the people who sell them. Spend five minutes reviewing the oil flow drawing in the Chassis Service Manual and 'splain to me how the restrictors that go between the mains and the cam bearings do ANYTHING other than reduce oil flow to the cam bearings.

And again, the ONLY difference in oiling systems between an SBO and a BBO are the diameters of the bearings, period. Yes, reciprocating mass has a big affect, but I'm still struggling with why people think there's a difference between building a 425 in a BBO block and a 425 in a DX block. And frankly, someone with more ambition than I have should run the numbers. Are the loads on a 455 bearing at 5,000 RPM any different than those on a 350 bearing at 6,000 RPM?

And as I said before, the O.P. wants a STREET CRUISER. He will NEVER have an oil problem with ANY Olds motor under those conditions, making this whole oiling system diversion meaningless in this thread.

Kennybill

To Joe, let it go. You know how many Oldsmobile "myths" are out there. Some people believe them. Anyhow, I would have looked for a SMW'ed 403! Later, Ken

joe_padavano

Well, given the bounty on the SMW 403, I'd turn it into cash.

By the way Chris, is the reward indexed for inflation?

captjim

I jus asked what the deck height had to do with the oiling syatem. I think it is fair to say that most 455 builds (along with other performance engines) fail due to tight clearances in the bearing and pistons.


I agree, BBO in a 442

380 Racer

Well Joe I was gonna stay out of this one but I guess not now. I can give you many reasons for building a SBO 425. The main reason is in between the fenders of my car. Has been run hard for the last 4 years with no bearing issues (knock on wood). The oil tests come back excellent showing no metal wearing. I use oil restrictors but not the ones you harp on. I have never spun a bearing in the 32 years I have owned my SBs. I have seen plenty of BBs with spun bearings.

Yes bearing size has a bunch to do with my choice. My DX has bearing spacers so my custom crank runs 2.5" mains with 2" rods. I feel less bearing speed equals better oiling/longer lasting rotating assembly.

You have your opinions but I have proven mine work. Oh ya I also get tired of hearing "but it's a street motor".

joe_padavano

And if I were building a race motor, I'd likely duplicate yours.

olds 307 and 403

Nick hit it on the head. I think much less bearing to take up oil on the SBO makes a big difference. I think restrictors are complete BS. Everyone agrees on the 455 for a 68 442, should have came factory.

DeltaPace77

403's can run pretty strong, as had one stock, and with some bolts on's like cam and dizzy tuning, ran pretty good. Did end up suffering some bearing damage from weak oiling though, so just searched for a 455, and built that. The 455 is vey good, and pretty much looks stock under the hood. Fuel milage really isn't much different with either engines, and a big part of it is the 3.73 posi axle with 700R4 0.70 od lock up tranny. Like cruising the highway with a 2.56 axle in top gear.

380 Racer

Ha ha......good one Joe.

Kennybill

Not that I want to stir the pot "but" the one engine I wish they would have made is a 403 diesel.

captjim

Bad idea for a BUNCH of reasons.

joe_padavano

I'm guessing (hoping, actually) that you want a 403 diesel just so that large bore DX403 blocks would be available?