Talk:Buick V8 engine

Citation Added on 350 Motor Reliability

Tonight I added a citation on the claim that the Buick 350 motor was reliable. I am also inclined to add a citation as to the reliability of the 231 motor, a motor that my 60 year old mother had to replace in her 1984 Buick Regal, not once, not twice, but 3 times before an Olds 350 was installed in its place. Perhaps I am adding this citation based on personal experiences, and I have owned and driven all GM products with the exception of Cadillac, and the Buick product had the weakest motor during this period of GM ownership time (1975 - 1990). My experience with the Buick 350 motor in a 1974 LaSabre was terrible. This car had 75,000 miles on it, and refused to go over 10 miles on regular 10W30 oil without lifter chatter. Had to put STP in the crankcase to keep the noise down, or had to put 10W50 in it. This forced me to use an oil heater dipstick overnight during the cold Buffalo NY winters so the car would crank over in the morning. Buick had a great car, but the 231 and the 350 motors were not of good quality.

I am willing to discuss this citation with anyone interested. Perhaps the article should be changed to say "Although the early 231 and 350 motors were reliable, those engines manufactured in the mid 70's to mid 80's were of questionable quality. I invite others to share their Buick engine experiences.

Please site references as to the reliability of the Buick motor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paris.bill (talk • contribs) 05:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the early 231 and 350 motors were reliable, those engines manufactured in the mid 70's to mid 80's were of questionable quality - that statement would require just as much of a citation as your assertion and would need to satisfy WP:Reliable sources. Wikipedia isn't a chat forum. Any collection of individual experiences would probably constitute WP:Original research. --Falcadore (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

455 Torque

The Olds 455 (L31) was also rated at 510 ftlbs. 2001:56A:F414:D300:E4AF:ECC2:3969:932C (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

5 Torquiest American Production V8s Developed During the Muscle Car Era (Link was blocked from posting)

Chrysler 426 HEMI V8 - 490 lb-ft (664 Nm)

Chevrolet 454 LS5 and LS6 V8 - 500 lb-ft (678 Nm)

Pontiac 455 HO V8 ( D-port) - 500 lb-ft (678 Nm)

Oldsmobile Rocket 455 V8 - 500 lb-ft (678 Nm)

Buick GS 455 V8 - 510 lb-ft (691 Nm) Gtofever (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turbocharger

" aluminum V8 also spawned a turbocharged version, (only in the 1962-63 Oldsmobile Cutlass version), the first ever offered in a passenger car." Was not the 62 Corvair also turbocharged? from the Corvair engine page "YR 6 cyl with T/C 4 sp fr, 1962". 2001:56A:F414:D300:E4BC:A080:ECA3:651C (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally admitted that the Jetfire from Oldsmobile (which was technically NOT branded as a Cutlass) was released a few weeks before the Corvair Spyder, but at this point it seems to be mostly a point of pride for Olds afficionados and not well sourced, to my knowledge. These 2 cars can probably share the honour ;) Clarrieu (talk) 16:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Buick 430-4 Stage 1 V8 in a Blazer.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

High Torque of Nailhead

I would point out that higher torque requires filling the cylinder with more mixture. While a small diameter intake tunes the engine for peak torque at lower RPM it does not produce greater cylinder filling. Good cylinder filling requires blowing the mixture down into the cylinder and this is where the vertical valves had an advantage. They blew the mixture straight down to the piston. With small valves the flow rate flow rate was too low to produce good filling at higher RPM, but with enough time they could put more mixture in the cylinder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oratiolibre (talk • contribs) 22:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small Block lineage and 350

While the 350 was indeed the small block V8 for Buick during its production years, its lineage with the preceding 340 is questionable at the very first glance, without any need for an in-depth look : the valve order was changed from EIEIIEIE to EIIEEIIE with new heads, intake and exhaust manifolds, but that also required modified pushrod passages in the block to clear the relocated intake ports and a new camshaft design to match, such that even the block is absolutely different from the 340 (except for the 3.8in stroke) and has more to do with an adaptation of the then-current 400-430-455 design to the previous general 340 dimensions.

While the 300 is a cast iron, larger bore 215 (and many parts interchange), and the 340 is a raised-deck 300, I feel the 350 entry should probably mention the substantial break in lineage.

Clarrieu (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go forth and WP:BEBOLD, but do add citations if at all possible. Mr.choppers | ✎ 18:24, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article layout and content

This is an encyclopedia article. It is not meant to serve Buick enthusiasts and is not meant to be the end-all-be-all repository of intricate detail.

Fansite neologisms like "NH1" and "BBB" have no place in this article at all, let alone in section headings. The 215 section in this version of the article is a disorganized mess. Why is it going from Buick to Pontiac and back to Buick again? Anyone not already deeply familiar with this engine isn't going to be able to make sense of what's going on - the article must be written to be intelligible to the general English-speaking public.

I don't want to say that "nobody cares" about what engine in what model was painted what color in what years, but that is highly esoteric information and most certainly does not belong in the article lead. --Sable232 (talk) 14:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second all of that - although I do kind of like the engine colors being listed. I will restore that chunk but further down the page. @Gtofever: please discuss before restoring your edits again. Mr.choppers | ✎ 14:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos to whoever cleaned up my overzealous additions (Sable232?). Your re-order of the 215 section was nicely done! In my defense, I deleted a lot of "unrelated" info too LOL. I really like the way it all flows now.

As far as engine colors, I do think they belong in this article (Thanks Mr.choppers). I initially put the color table in the intro, but I strongly agree it doesn't belong there. Here's a thought: The infobox is a wreck....an incomplete, mixed up salad of info. How about we create multiple infoboxes; a short one with data common to all Buick V8s (ending with the color table), then separate ones for each common group (NH1,NH2,BBB,BSB). Bar that, maybe this article should just be a list, with links separate articles for each V8 group (but its flowing so nicely now!).Thoughts?

"Not meant to serve Buick enthusiasts" WHAT??? Who else is gonna read this article LOL Gtofever (talk) 22:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, i read this information Gtoforever. It's taught me aton about my 1663 buick skylark 3.5L V8 With AC. Pages like this, people looking for information on their vehicles appreciate it. Thank you. 98.118.175.226 (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support breaking up the infoboxes as per the four main types. The main infobox would thus be rendered unnecessary.

Be careful with stating that this is only for Buick fans: WP is meant for general knowledge, not for the granular kind of info that only enthusiasts would enjoy. If a topic is too narrow to interest the general public, then it would by definition also be too narrow to be included in Wikipedia; see WP:N. Best, Mr.choppers | ✎ 00:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]