[ChevyMuscle#1]

Hi i have a 1971 Chevelle and was wondering if a motor from a 75 olds would work in my chevelle. The motor that was in my chevelle threw a bearing and i was wondering what all it would take to get the 455 to work in my car.The transmission i have in my car now is a turbo hydro 350 and i need to know if i need a different transmission and what else i would need...Thanks

 

[stock48]

Hi i have a 1971 Chevelle and was wondering if a motor from a 75 olds would work in my chevelle. The motor that was in my chevelle threw a bearing and i was wondering what all it would take to get the 455 to work in my car.The transmission i have in my car now is a turbo hydro 350 and i need to know if i need a different transmission and what else i would need...Thanks

Unless you have a duel pattern bellhousing you will need either an adapter plate, for the trans, or swithch to a BOP transmission. Other than that just motor mounts, (frame and block), exhaust manifolds, or headers, and a fan shroud all from a similar year cutlass.

 

[Stokerboats]

You'd be better off with an old 283.

 

[Project NC]

Thats a interesting question because I just sold my 71 convertible cutlass and I had a fresh 455 engine that I was going to throw in it.Now I'm stuck with the engine and debating if I want to throw it in my hardtop 72 cutlass or sell it and get a ls1 or big block Chevy. I was also thinking if I was going to throw it in the SS but naaaa!
Please keep us posted on what you do.
Stock 48 is right.The tranny isn't going to bolt up unless its a bop tranny.

 

[66 BRONZE]

You'd be better off with an old 283.

Send me what your smoken Bro!!!!!

 

[Stokerboats]

Send me what your smoken Bro!!!!!

I drive a correctly powered Olds. It came with a chevy 350.

 

[PRO 48 Fleetline]

Yes it will work and hold on tite, Those olds motors will run and make some torque like you have never felt! They will take a lil more money to run realllly good but if your looking for a fun street car that dosent need alot of gear and that olds will be fun!

 

[RB69SS396Conv]

Before tackling this, disabuse yourself of any delusions about "massive torque".

That motor is not a "torque monster" of any kind, any more than any other brand of motor is, compared to other motors of the same CID, compression and so on. Gasoline does not wake up, read the name on the side of the block casting, and decide to release heat and create cylinder pressure accordingly. No. That motor made pretty much the same torque as any other 450ish CID motor of similar (8¼:1) compression from those dark days of American automotive shame. That would include any stock mid-70s deep-smogger Buick or Pontiac 455, Chevy 454, Frod 460, etc. They were all pretty much equivalent.

It will make 455 CI of smogger-crippled, low compression, mid-70s lame torque; no more, no less. It will be a Grandpa's sedan motor, not some optional 442 hot-rod powerplant from the late 60s. Don't get stars in your eyes from people telling you all about "I had a [fill in the blank strong-running Olds] and it blah blah blah" because that's not what you've got. Sure, good-running Olds's DEFINITELY existed, and they were DEFINITELY competitive and all that; but that's not what you've got. You've got an old smogger sedan motor that could barely hulk that massive carcass around that it came in, and could barely even run the air conditioning sitting at an idle let alone push the car. For the amount of work and expense you will endure to put it in there, you will be severely disappointed. And on top of that, it will almost certainly cost less to fix your 350 than it will cost to just put that "free" foreign motor in there, let alone turn it into something you could be proud of.

Now, if you were one of those people that knows Olds motors, has good parts laying around, has access to more good parts, knows exactly what fits with what, knows exactly how to get it into a car, etc. etc. etc., the advice would be different. Sure, one of those people could build an Olds motor that would run with quite a few of our Chevy ones. But thinking that some "free" old sedan motor is going to "save money", is a GIGANTIC mistake. "It's paid for" is about the worst possible reason for doing a foreign engine transplant. It nearly always costs WAY more than you think it will, and therefore "I have it" is the wrong motivation for doing it. Don't do it, for the reason you gave (save money), because it won't.

 

[the heckler]

guess it will fit but with mods. the "smog motor" version am sure will not give good performance. there is a very attractive young lady around here who has one in her 69 chevelle. it is out of a 69 olds ninety-eight and is a very strong stock motor...looks like it was a pita to get in there but her dad did it for her....

 

[GLHS60]

You'd be better off with an old 283.

I bought a 68 Olds Vista Cruiser once that someone previously had installed a 427 Chevy. I replaced the 427 with said mentioned 283 and it really worked out nice with a three speed automatic, I don't think any 283 came with 3 speed autos but it was a nice driver combo.
I think OLDS had the starter on the other side of the block. Or was that Pontiac or Buick, or all three?

Thanks
Randy

 

[chadman]

Before tackling this, disabuse yourself of any delusions about "massive torque".

That motor is not a "torque monster" of any kind, any more than any other brand of motor is, compared to other motors of the same CID, compression and so on. Gasoline does not wake up, read the name on the side of the block casting, and decide to release heat and create cylinder pressure accordingly. No. That motor made pretty much the same torque as any other 450ish CID motor of similar (8¼:1) compression from those dark days of American automotive shame. That would include any stock mid-70s deep-smogger Buick or Pontiac 455, Chevy 454, Frod 460, etc. They were all pretty much equivalent.

It will make 455 CI of smogger-crippled, low compression, mid-70s lame torque; no more, no less. It will be a Grandpa's sedan motor, not some optional 442 hot-rod powerplant from the late 60s. Don't get stars in your eyes from people telling you all about "I had a [fill in the blank strong-running Olds] and it blah blah blah" because that's not what you've got. Sure, good-running Olds's DEFINITELY existed, and they were DEFINITELY competitive and all that; but that's not what you've got. You've got an old smogger sedan motor that could barely hulk that massive carcass around that it came in, and could barely even run the air conditioning sitting at an idle let alone push the car. For the amount of work and expense you will endure to put it in there, you will be severely disappointed. And on top of that, it will almost certainly cost less to fix your 350 than it will cost to just put that "free" foreign motor in there, let alone turn it into something you could be proud of.

Now, if you were one of those people that knows Olds motors, has good parts laying around, has access to more good parts, knows exactly what fits with what, knows exactly how to get it into a car, etc. etc. etc., the advice would be different. Sure, one of those people could build an Olds motor that would run with quite a few of our Chevy ones. But thinking that some "free" old sedan motor is going to "save money", is a GIGANTIC mistake. "It's paid for" is about the worst possible reason for doing a foreign engine transplant. It nearly always costs WAY more than you think it will, and therefore "I have it" is the wrong motivation for doing it. Don't do it, for the reason you gave (save money), because it won't.

I agree with some of this. That particular Olds motor is not going to be a big performer. No mid 70's smogger is.

I also disagree with some of this and can prove it if necessary. A 455 Olds with typical mods will make more torque and at a lower RPM than a comparable 454 Chevy. The reasons being are as follows: 1) a 455 olds has a 4.25" stroke stock, a 454 has 4.00". The longer the wrench the more toque right? Same goes for your crankshaft. 2) Olds motors use much smaller port volumes on the cylinder heads. When in the correct hands they can be made to flow quite well. This smaller volume creates much more velocity at low RPM's. Think about it, if you put your thumb over the end of a garden hose what happens to the water? It shoots out much faster. This velocity gives you low end torque. The down side is that they tend to have a hard time feeding 455 inches at high RPM's due to the fact that the airspeed reaches the point where it eventually "stalls out" and can't flow anymore. This is why even Olds race motors rarely see over 6000 RPM.

 

[RB69SS396Conv]

No, the longer stroke WILL NOT make "more torque", if the CID is equal and the cyl fill and compression are equal. And I not only CAN prove it, I WILL.

Torque = piston force x stroke

Piston force = cyl pressure x piston area

Therefore, torque == piston area x cyl pressure x stroke

Cyl pressure varies over time during the course of an engine cycle; but basically, once the ignition timing is optimized, it's primarily proportional to the % of cyl fill (induction system effectiveness) and the compression ratio.

So, take the torque equation and rearrange the terms.

Torque = piston area x stroke x cyl pressure

Now, what is piston area x stroke?

Right: CID. Doesn't matter which way you mulitply those together, like which one is large and which one is small, you still come out with CID.

Now in the real world, the relationship of bore to stroke changes some other things, and therefore disturbs the "all else is equal" assumptions; for example, the inertia of the parts determines the RPMs at which torque begins to fall off, a small bore (long stroke for a given CID) can affect cyl fill by allowing (or not) larger valves, etc. But, to the extent that those factors can be ignored, torque is proportional to CID and compression, assuming equal induction system efficiency. The lower the RPM range in question (i.e. the less the effect of the inertia of the parts), and the more restrictive other parts of the induction system are compared to the valve diameter, the less effect the bore/stroke ratio has on torque output.

Note that the casting foundry does not appear in any of the equations anywhere. The gasoline does not release energy during combustion, and thereby create cyl pressure, in any kind of response to the casting brand, or to the casting owner's fondness or preference for that brand. It's very dumb that way.

In practice, induction system efficiency (also known as "volumetric efficiency", such as is used in the "carb size" equation) also isn't too much a function of cast iron brand, for stock street motors of similar design and purpose (say, a 75 Olds 455 in a 98 vs a 74 Chevy 454 in a Caprice vs a 76 Frod 460 in a truck). Therefore the torque of those motors isn't much different either. Not usually more than 5% or so, in stock trim, or if similarly modified (similar cam profiles, similar exhaust, etc.) but not too far from stock.

 

[ChevyMuscle#1]

No, the longer stroke WILL NOT make "more torque", if the CID is equal and the cyl fill and compression are equal. And I not only CAN prove it, I WILL.

Torque = piston force x stroke

Piston force = cyl pressure x piston area

Therefore, torque == piston area x cyl pressure x stroke

Cyl pressure varies over time during the course of an engine cycle; but basically, once the ignition timing is optimized, it's primarily proportional to the % of cyl fill (induction system effectiveness) and the compression ratio.

So, take the torque equation and rearrange the terms.

Torque = piston area x stroke x cyl pressure

Now, what is piston area x stroke?

Right: CID. Doesn't matter which way you mulitply those together, like which one is large and which one is small, you still come out with CID.

Now in the real world, the relationship of bore to stroke changes some other things, and therefore disturbs the "all else is equal" assumptions; for example, the inertia of the parts determines the RPMs at which torque begins to fall off, a small bore (long stroke for a given CID) can affect cyl fill by allowing (or not) larger valves, etc. But, to the extent that those factors can be ignored, torque is proportional to CID and compression, assuming equal induction system efficiency. The lower the RPM range in question (i.e. the less the effect of the inertia of the parts), and the more restrictive other parts of the induction system are compared to the valve diameter, the less effect the bore/stroke ratio has on torque output.

Note that the casting foundry does not appear in any of the equations anywhere. The gasoline does not release energy during combustion, and thereby create cyl pressure, in any kind of response to the casting brand, or to the casting owner's fondness or preference for that brand. It's very dumb that way.

In practice, induction system efficiency (also known as "volumetric efficiency", such as is used in the "carb size" equation) also isn't too much a function of cast iron brand, for stock street motors of similar design and purpose (say, a 75 Olds 455 in a 98 vs a 74 Chevy 454 in a Caprice vs a 76 Frod 460 in a truck). Therefore the torque of those motors isn't much different either. Not usually more than 5% or so, in stock trim, or if similarly modified (similar cam profiles, similar exhaust, etc.) but not too far from stock.

Thanks for your info about the motor and such. Ill probably either just rebuild my 350 or try to find a different motor that i can rebuild....Thanks again

 

[chadman]

No, the longer stroke WILL NOT make "more torque", if the CID is equal and the cyl fill and compression are equal. And I not only CAN prove it, I WILL.

Torque = piston force x stroke

Piston force = cyl pressure x piston area

Therefore, torque == piston area x cyl pressure x stroke

Cyl pressure varies over time during the course of an engine cycle; but basically, once the ignition timing is optimized, it's primarily proportional to the % of cyl fill (induction system effectiveness) and the compression ratio.


So, take the torque equation and rearrange the terms.

Torque = piston area x stroke x cyl pressure

Now, what is piston area x stroke?

Right: CID. Doesn't matter which way you mulitply those together, like which one is large and which one is small, you still come out with CID.

Now in the real world, the relationship of bore to stroke changes some other things, and therefore disturbs the "all else is equal" assumptions; for example, the inertia of the parts determines the RPMs at which torque begins to fall off, a small bore (long stroke for a given CID) can affect cyl fill by allowing (or not) larger valves, etc. But, to the extent that those factors can be ignored, torque is proportional to CID and compression, assuming equal induction system efficiency. The lower the RPM range in question (i.e. the less the effect of the inertia of the parts), and the more restrictive other parts of the induction system are compared to the valve diameter, the less effect the bore/stroke ratio has on torque output.

Note that the casting foundry does not appear in any of the equations anywhere. The gasoline does not release energy during combustion, and thereby create cyl pressure, in any kind of response to the casting brand, or to the casting owner's fondness or preference for that brand. It's very dumb that way.

In practice, induction system efficiency (also known as "volumetric efficiency", such as is used in the "carb size" equation) also isn't too much a function of cast iron brand, for stock street motors of similar design and purpose (say, a 75 Olds 455 in a 98 vs a 74 Chevy 454 in a Caprice vs a 76 Frod 460 in a truck). Therefore the torque of those motors isn't much different either. Not usually more than 5% or so, in stock trim, or if similarly modified (similar cam profiles, similar exhaust, etc.) but not too far from stock.

So you are saying that velocity(which is directly related to port cross section/volume) has no affect on torque output? This back to back dyno test posted below suggests otherwise. I was all prepared to argue theory, but then it is just that, theory. Actual testing is the only true measurement. And as far as more stroke not making more torque, then why does 3 time Engine Masters challenge winner John Kaase always go for the longest stroke possible(often decreasing the bore in the process) when the name of the game is average power over a usable RPM band(which is what accelerates your car)? Because it makes more torque at a lower RPM which is what you feel when you stomp the pedal.

http://www.superchevy.com/technical...y_engine_port_variations_measuring/index.html

 

[Schurkey]

Before tackling this, disabuse yourself of any delusions about "massive torque".

That motor is not a "torque monster" of any kind, any more than any other brand of motor is, compared to other motors of the same CID, compression and so on. Gasoline does not wake up, read the name on the side of the block casting, and decide to release heat and create cylinder pressure accordingly. No. That motor made pretty much the same torque as any other 450ish CID motor of similar (8¼:1) compression from those dark days of American automotive shame. That would include any stock mid-70s deep-smogger Buick or Pontiac 455, Chevy 454, Frod 460, etc. They were all pretty much equivalent.

It will make 455 CI of smogger-crippled, low compression, mid-70s lame torque; no more, no less. It will be a Grandpa's sedan motor, not some optional 442 hot-rod powerplant from the late 60s. Don't get stars in your eyes from people telling you all about "I had a [fill in the blank strong-running Olds] and it blah blah blah" because that's not what you've got. Sure, good-running Olds's DEFINITELY existed, and they were DEFINITELY competitive and all that; but that's not what you've got. You've got an old smogger sedan motor that could barely hulk that massive carcass around that it came in, and could barely even run the air conditioning sitting at an idle let alone push the car. For the amount of work and expense you will endure to put it in there, you will be severely disappointed. And on top of that, it will almost certainly cost less to fix your 350 than it will cost to just put that "free" foreign motor in there, let alone turn it into something you could be proud of.

Now, if you were one of those people that knows Olds motors, has good parts laying around, has access to more good parts, knows exactly what fits with what, knows exactly how to get it into a car, etc. etc. etc., the advice would be different. Sure, one of those people could build an Olds motor that would run with quite a few of our Chevy ones. But thinking that some "free" old sedan motor is going to "save money", is a GIGANTIC mistake. "It's paid for" is about the worst possible reason for doing a foreign engine transplant. It nearly always costs WAY more than you think it will, and therefore "I have it" is the wrong motivation for doing it. Don't do it, for the reason you gave (save money), because it won't.

Well said.

If bore-to-stroke ratios made much difference in torque output, why are the Olds AND the Buick 455 engines known as torque monsters? The Olds has a 4.25 stroke but the Buick has a 3.90 stroke. Bore-to-stroke fine-tuning the torque curve--maybe--on a high-dollar, special-purpose engine.

Low-end torque is EASY. Big cubes with any practical bore-to-stroke ratio, mild cam, small valves 'n' ports. Done. (although a superb combustion chamber and good fuel distribution will help ANY engine)

Having big low-end torque AND high-rpm power is another story. You have to have a big enough bore to allow big valves/ports without shrouding. (Or you have to spend lots of time and money on the ports to make them super-efficient!)






I'd be opposed to shoving a non-Chevy engine into a Chevelle just on general principles.

Aside from the transmission not bolting up, don't forget you'll need a longer battery-to-starter cable--or--you'll have to move the battery to the driver's side. The accessories (alternator, A/C compressor, and power steering pump) may or may not need massaging of the hoses or wiring due to being relocated. Your exhaust will need rework. You'll need stiffer front springs and a bigger radiator. It's probably wise that you've decided to keep the 350.

 

[chadman]

Well said.

If bore-to-stroke ratios made much difference in torque output, why are the Olds AND the Buick 455 engines known as torque monsters? The Olds has a 4.25 stroke but the Buick has a 3.90 stroke. Bore-to-stroke fine-tuning the torque curve--maybe--on a high-dollar, special-purpose engine.QUOTE]

Because it has more to do with the cylinder head velocity than it does stroke.

 

[RB69SS396Conv]

So you are saying that velocity(which is directly related to port cross section/volume) has no affect on torque output?

No, I DID NOT say that.

I said, over and over again, "all else being equal" (which would include things like port volume which in turn affects cylinder fill which is one of the determing factors for cylinder pressure which in turn is one of the factors of torque).

The Buick vs Olds comparison is an excellent example of why a longer stroke does not mean more torque, if CID is the same and all else is equal (or at least close to it).

As far as John Kaase's reasons for doing what he does, you'll have to ask him that. I won't put words in his mouth, just like I don't want you putting words in mine.

The reason ANY 455 CID motor is a "torque monster", to whatever extent that might be true, is because it has 455 CID. Period. Not because it's one of the "off-brand" discontinued motors, not because of the stroke, not because you or I or whoever "like" that kind; it's because it has 455 CID.

The stuff Schurkey mentions is typical of the big pile of little headaches involved with one of these foreign motor swaps, "torque monster" or no. People tend to think about the big obvious things, maybe the mounts, maybe the transmission, maybe even the exhaust; they conveniently forget about the million little details like wiring, accessories, fuel lines and other plumbing, suspension, and all of that other stuff that will just nickel-and-dime a swapper to death - or condemn the project to a brutal hack job that only barely works, if it ever does at all. All of that is part of why my advice to the OP is NOT to do this swap on the justification of "saving money" by using the "free" motor out of Grandpa's old Lead Sled that's been sitting out in the back 40 since 1985 (or whatever its history might be). Even if the motor was in perfect running condition with absolutely no work or maintenance of any kind required, all of that other stuff will absolutely kill you. Then if the old hulk needs work besides to bring it up to useable condition, or if anything significant is missing off of it or not useable, any hope of a positive economic outcome disappears.

 

[chadman]

I never argued that it would be an economical swap, just that a typicaly built 455 Olds will make more usable torque at a lower RPM than a 454 Chevy. I gave actual tested proof for one of my statements. You gave theory, nothing more.

 

[RB69SS396Conv]

actual tested proof

¿¿Really?? And I assume that this was an "all else is equal" type of test, where all other possible explanations of any observed variation were eliminated? Same cam profiles, same basic exhaust setup, same carb, etc. etc. etc.? If it's not, then it doesn't matter; it doesn't "prove" anything.

I missed all that somehow. Maybe my memory of driving all of those cars when they were new is somehow defective?

You gave theory, nothing more.

No, son; I gave PROOF. Proof consists of demonstrating the underlying truths in a manner that is free of mistakes - as well as free of voodoo and emotion, and free of the common logical fallacies such as "appeal to authority" or "begging the question". Some one random "example" without establishing "all else being equal" is NOT "proof".

 

[johnretired]

I built an olds 455 single AFB, that went into a boat that was raced against an identical boat, same prop etc, and it was only one length behind a 454 at 80 mph, with 2-4s and more compression etc.
The chevy boat was claimed to be 600hp, the olds 475.
They can be built to run really well. But not a stock 75 455.

with that said, I would NEVER put a different brand engine in anything, when a great engine is available.
not even a 454 in a cutlas!!!