bammax

I'm looking at cleaning up the 307 in my '84 Buick and need some pointers. I'd like it if the responses don't include "swap in a bigger engine" or "throw it in a lake" because I know how some of you guys are

My ultimate goal is to get as much torque out of the engine as possible with as little unnecessary expense as possible.

I'm starting with an engine that runs and doesn't seem to have any major issues other than some oil leaks and a carb going bad, so I figure it's a good starting point. It's basically bone stock with 5a heads and the A4 intake. Unless I'm reversing something since all these designations get me confused

Here's what I'm thinking:

1) Edelbrock 1400 carb (enough cfm plus has provision for evap)
2) Either an adaptor/spacer or swap the intake to an Edelbrock squarebore intake
3) A set of headers
4) Full mandral bent 2.5" dual exhaust from headers back, including x-pipe
5) Electric fans
6) a/c and air pump delete

I read somewhere that certain heads from a 260 would raise my compression to almost 10:1 but I doubt I'll ever find a set of those in decent shape for cheap money so that's probably not an option for me either.

And that's as far as I can figure. I know I should do work to the heads but it's too expensive. I also want to block the crossover but I don't think I can do that myself and can't afford to have it done. So any other things I'm missing that can be done for cheap money with hand tools in a driveway?

joe_padavano

Sorry for the rant, but why is it that people seem to think it's a good idea to swap heads with crappy ports and small valves just to increase compression? Compression alone does not make a high output engine. You need a complete system that matches all parts to maximize airflow at the intended use conditions. 5A heads are OK. 1968-1972 5,6,7, or 7A (not 7A) heads are marginally better.

If you want torque, look at small diameter, long tube headers. 2.5" exhaust is overkill, but won't hurt anything. Don't waste your time with a carb adapter, since the flow disruption will negate any benefit. Get a carb and intake that match. Consider a properly built, non-CCC Qjet, since the small primaries will help with low-end torque and economy.

bammax

I've got no problems with the rant. I know very little about Olds engines so I have no clue which heads are good, bad, or different. I just saw something mentioned about 260 heads boosting compression and didn't even realize that there was a 260 v8 built by Olds. I've always been more of a Chevy guy so the only Olds stuff I know revolves around the fact that 455's have a taller deck than 350's and that 307's were the end of the line.

The reason for the exhaust sizing is that to save money I'm using parts for a mid 90's Caprice/Impala, and that's an off the shelf dual exhaust setup that I could order tomorrow if I choose. Plus eventually the car is going to end up with a Buick 455 so the exhaust will be just about right for that engine

I keep hearing people say to stick with the q-jet, but I'm having a hard time justifying the price difference and the fact that it's not something I'm comfortable tinkering with. I've dealt with e-brock's before and they seem more intuative to me. Maybe because they're dumbed down to my level

I appreciate the insight greatly though. Please keep it coming. School this noob on how to get an Olds to hold it's own in the world of 5 litre engines

Warhead

I agree with Joe.
The 307 comes with 1.75 intake valves, and 1.500 exhaust valves.
The 260 has 1.522 intakes, and 1.300 exhausts, and smaller ports to match those valves.
Impossible to make this quantum leap.

You are going backwards with this swap, I don't care what your compression.

Big air in, big power out.
Little air in...

I'd learn on the q-jet. It has a very fine metering circut that only fuel injection could beat. Great mileage, and better power than anything else of that size. I feel, once again, back-peddleing on power, and mileage will be your result. The e-brock??? (it is the old Carter AFB design) is very old school, and not nearly as finely calibrated as the q-jet. I like them too, but who likes getting third best? It won't get the best mileage, and won't make the most power. Fact.

I love the Bu455's, but the Olds 455 is a BOLT-IN swap.
The Buick is not, even when you find a good one.

JMO
Jim

joe_padavano

Gotcha. Same one I'll be using on my 84 Custom Cruiser (with an Olds 455).

80_cutlass

I'd stay away from the FlowTech headers when it come time to pick a set. Mine interfered with the shifter on my car.

Edelbrock makes a set of cross over block plugs. I have a set, have not used them yet, but I will soon. Part # 2733. Some have said they rattle loose. But it is something you can do.

I'd use a non-computer Q-jet and a non-CCC distributor. Even a points set up would be more desirable and more adjustable than the CCC stuff. JMO

sb

bammax

I see Joe is a fellow b-body lover

80_cutlass I'm assuming you have the auto with a column shifter? If so then that's a very good heads up that I'll keep track of. I'd rather not have to hammer clearence into a header if I don't have to. I know the b-bodies have a bit more room under the hood than the g-bodies do, but the basic geometry is similar enough to pay attention.

Warhead thanks for the info. I know nothing about the valve and port sizes on Olds heads so now I've learned something very valuable. I'm used to the Chevy stuff which is a little easier to find info on.

As for the e-brock my only reason for looking that way is because I have experience with them and have connections with people that are used to them. I don't have any of that with Holleys or Q-jets. To me the ease of understanding and the fact that they're widely available and almost idiot proof is worth more than a couple mpg's or a couple ponies. I already switched from a '95 with an LT1 engine down to a 307 with a carb so it's no big deal for me to "downgrade"

80_cutlass

It would not have mattered what shifter was on there. It was rubbing on the transmission itself where the shifter goes into it. Could only go from park to neutral. Messed around with it for a couple of days, got it to go into drive, but never further than that.

sb

J-(Chicago)

What is the budget?

joe_padavano

Well, the thing I really like about the 1977-1990 cars is that they were based on the chassis design of the 1973-1977 A-body cars as part of GM's downsizing program after Oil Crisis I. My Custom Cruiser is within an inch or less of every dimension of my old 1968 Vista Cruiser (except for the wheelbase). It just feels like the right size. Of course, any Olds motor falls right in (as does any other GM motor) and as noted there are lots of applicable parts from the Caprice and Impala SS world. And, of course, these cars are still dirt cheap.

bammax

I'm looking at building this up over the next year while it still sits in my daily driver. That's one of the reasons for not wanting to get to deep into the engine with machining and such.

The budget is about $100-$200 a month, and some months that money is getting directed towards chassis/suspension/brakes. Any parts that run more than $200 or that need proffessional help need to be saved up for, which means that they get pushed further down the list. The carb and exhaust are exceptions because my exhaust is falling off and needs to be replaced anyway, and the stock carb is starting to show it's age and will need to be rebuilt/replaced soon.

It'll be interesting to see how far I can go with this project on such a thin budget

joe_padavano

Go for it. Craigslist and swap meets are your friends.

bammax

What year carb and distributor do I need to remove the ccc system from my car?

There's a 1980 Cutlass I have access to that's still pretty much complete. Would any of those parts be worth scavanging for my project?

J-(Chicago)

1980 should be non ccc.
It started in 81.

joe_padavano

If the distributor has a vacuum advance canister, it is not CCC. Similarly, if the carb does not have a TPS connector at the front driver's side corner, it is not CCC.

bammax

I checked out the '80 and it turned out to have a 4.3 in it and pretty much complete. The only problem though is the distributor didn't have a vacuum advance canister but instead had a couple different wiring harnesses running to it. The carb also had a fair bit of wiring to it from what I could see. I'm guessing this car was a late 1980 or something because it deffinetly looked like it had ccc. I also ran the vin to make sure they dated it right and the vin comes back as a 1980 with a 260.

bammax

So I've done more research before spending any money and need opinions. I'm looking to run the e-brock performer rpm (7111) intake with a 600 cfm carb. That seems to be the best bet from everything I've read.

What I'm wondering is how people feel about running the e-brock cam in a 307. I've seen people say it's kind of weak for a 350 but that might make it good for my smaller displacement motor. Any insight would be appreciated.

Here's the specs for those who don't know it:
#7112

ENGINE: OLDS 350-403 V8
RPM RANGE: 1500-6500

Duration at 0.006" Lift:
Intake: 290°
Exhaust: 300°
Duration at 0.050" Lift:
Intake: 224°
Exhaust: 234°
Lift at Cam:
Intake: 0.310"
Exhaust: 0.325"
Lift at Valve:
Intake: 0.496"
Exhaust: 0.520"
Lobe Separation - 112°
Intake Centerline - 107°

Olds64

Instead of filling your exhaust crossover in the heads with aluminum you can cut soda cans into small strips and put them in between the intake gasket and the intake manifold. Someone also mentioned using aluminum foil balled up and jammed in the intake manifold exhaust crossover as a "shade tree mechanic" trick. I've never used these tricks but I guess they would work...

80_cutlass

I installed my edelbrock block off pugs into some 4A heads. I had to do some shaping to the pieces to get them to slide all the way down. I did this using an angle grinder.

I took it a step further and used some nickel rod to weld them in place. Maybe more than you want to do.

That being said, these were such a tight fit, I doubt they would rattle around UNLESS someone went overboard in grinding them to fit. The combination of the plugs and an intake manifold gasket with out the crossover hole, would most likely give you a nice easy way to make the heads flow a bit better and cool off your intake manifold.

sb

olds 307 and 403

That cam is huge for a 307. A 403 adds a MASSIVE amount of torque compared to a 307. Get 1 5/8" long tube A body headers if they fit in the wagon. If not get the Sanderson O351 shorty headers. Mill the heads .030 and a good valve job. A cam needs to stay small like the factory HO cam. The 307 makes acceptable torque and good economy. You will lose a couple of mpg's, unless you are really good tuning that Edelbrock carb.

geckonz08

[quote=bammax;192188]So I've done more research before spending any money and need opinions.


Hey I can relate to that bit .With all the advice I have received here over 2 ? years ,all the good ideas , the money saving options, all the do`s n don`ts ,I guarantee I am 100% over on build costs(this would be largely due to inexperience also) .Not grizzling , just trying to forewarn you.You buy piece #1 and to maximse its performance you have to buy its related sister #2 .
When building houses , I carefully cost the plans etc and add 30 %(exchange rates ,client preferences etc ).
With engines , the options are never ending and $$ seem to slip out the exhaust somehow .
Have fun
mike

80_cutlass

Just did a set of 3A heads the same way. The HUGE difference between the way the 4A heads and 3A heads are made is astounding. These plugs will not work nearly as well in 3A heads. I don't know how they will work in the 307 heads, but something else to bear in mind.

sb

bammax

I've got the 5a heads on the 307. Those are the standard 307 head until they went to the roller setup in '86.