Could a '69 Chevelle be ordered w/ a 454?

[Mr70]

True that!

[TMagda]

It's easy to see how confusion could be created around the existance of certain option combo's. This was roughly 1975 and I was working on my Z/28 in a friends driveway. His next door neighbor (older guy - I was 16) comes home driving what appears to be a '69 triple black Chevelle SS 454 w/Torque Thrusts and For Sale signs. I called another freind and he bought it shortly after. That means that sometime after 1970 but before 1975 someone swapped the engine and installed 454 emblems all around. Looked very stock.

[XXXGoldL34M20]

454's started being built late 1969 for 1970 cars so chevrolet never had one in a 1969 model car.

[Postsedan]

Ask the same question...with a 427? Yes, indeed! Besides the 427 was a much better engine!

Dan.

[markjohnson]

'Ya really think, Dan? You're gonna create a firestorm with that statement! Seriously though, that's an arguement that's been going on a long time. 454 vs. 427. It's hard to beat an extra 27 Cubic Inches but it does takes 440 RPM for a 427 to move the same amount of air through it as a 454 @ 7000 RPM. The 427 does have a desireable rod/stroke ratio of 1.63 which makes it a little harder to hurt and decreases piston "rock" in the cylinder which makes for less bore and piston wear. Crankshaft is slightly stronger too with that shorter stroke because short stroke crankshafts are generally SLIGHTLY stronger than their long-armed brethren. I've had many of both (and much bigger) but I've always tried to put the biggest motor together that's financially possible! I'll tell you......I've always been impressed by the Buick 455 and the power that people have gotten out of them.

[Postsedan]

Mark,

I agee with you 100%.... the Buick 455 is a true torque monster.

Dan.

[SUSQ]

[ QUOTE ]
Mark,

I agee with you 100%.... the Buick 455 is a true torque monster.


Dan.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't agree more. Had a high school buddy who had a bone stock GS455. It was an absolute beast (an pretty darn luxo too!). The 350 hp rating wasn't even close. Anybody know what a base GS455 engine dynos at? Gotta be 400+? How would a stock GS455 fare when matched up against full-sized, stock Hemi car in the quarter mile?

[jannes_z-28]

[ QUOTE ]
How would a stock GS455 fare when matched up against full-sized, stock Hemi car in the quarter mile?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a compilation from magazine articles of the time were they have listed all tested cars and their E.T.

This was all factory stock cars, brand new.

The Buick GS came third on that list with all Hemi cars below it. The two that beat the Buick was Corvettes.

I think it was Car Craft that put together the list and it was republished in MCR a while ago.

In 1970 the Swedish truck manufacturer Scania came with a new model that had a V8 diesel at almost 1000 cu. in. The most powerful truck engine in Europe! The 1970 Buick 455 had slightly more torque than that truck diesel engine!

Jan

[jeff morocco]

[ QUOTE ]
Besides the 427 was a much better engine!

Dan.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with you Dan. here's a little story about a 454 vs a 427 in 1970. my dad and his friend were in the final round against each other at Oswego dragway. he had the yenko and his friend had the 70 LS6.




my dad won the race with a 12.42 to a losing 12.98. that race was the reason for fred,the owner of the LS6 , to go to the E.T. Shop and swap out the 454 for a 427.

final round time slip





and the trophy





so yeah.......i agree, the 427 is a better engine!! even though i was only 2 !!

[Keith Tedford]

I can believe 12.4s for the 427 but a good LS6 should be right there too. The only dyno figures that I have seen showed an L72 making about 430 hp and an LS6 making around 460. The difference in weight and state of tune can make a big difference in how well these engines can perform. From the factory, with retarded timing and #68 primary jets, they sure didn't show their true potential. In about 200k miles about all that ours needed replacing was a water pump, fan clutch, and one valve spring. I guess they just weren't up to the rpm potential. Now, that's a good engine in my book. I was told back in the day that the COPO engines were honed out to the loose limit of the bore spec. Any truth to that. Ours revved as freely as any small block. Curious.