3.2 196 buick v6, anything good about it?

[usetaboost]

Never have seen one for sale until now. Selling cheap so I figure it's a paperweight. What the hell would it be used for?

 

[charlief1]

You could short stroke it and make it a high RPM engine, or tie it to the rope that holds your boat in place.

 

[usetaboost]

Tried looking up specs but gave up. Didn't know if it was a small bore or short stroke crank.

 

[charlief1]

Tried looking up specs but gave up. Didn't know if it was a small bore or short stroke crank.

Stock 3.4 stroke but the bore is smaller Jesse. If you can find a 3.0 crank to put in it then you can do a 2.6 engine if I remember right.

 

[Nick Micale]

You could short stroke it and make it a high RPM engine, ...............

Small displacement engines can make awesome power when done right.

If you had the resources you could build a 210 cubic inch turbo Buick V-6 with 1375 HP which was enough to power the Gallina/Duttweiler GN to the NHRA record of being the FIRST Super Stock car into the 7's!

Cool thing about this record, no other racer can ever hold it.

The GN weight was 3100#'s, and the engine made power to over 9000 RPM.

 

[usetaboost]

I've looked all over to find build info on mixing and matching buick cranks and bore sizes but there is nothing out there. WIth the low end torque these cars have you'd think a 3.8 with a shorter crank would even out the curve and be able to get more rpm out of the motor and flow more air. I'm guessing I shouldn't bother on snatching this 3.2 then??

Nick, it's too bad the production stuff can't hold up. Probably why no one ever builds the destroked engines with the stuff.

 

[usetaboost]

With all the low end torque these motors have I've always thought it would make more sense to get these motors to spin more and move the powerband up some. Probably end up losing spool though and it would be a turd on the street.

 

[novaderrik]

never heard of a 3.2.. what were they installed in?

 

[usetaboost]

Apparently they were standard in the century and regal.

 

[usetaboost]

78 and 79 I think, maybe 80

 

[Nick Micale]

.................Nick, it's too bad the production stuff can't hold up. Probably why no one ever builds the destroked engines with the stuff.

I would not say "production stuff can't hold up" when we have many street cars with over 600 RWHP running around here and other areas as well?

My personal experience is that by increasing the bore on a Buick V-6 you can easily get much more torque than messing with the stroke.

Since our GN's are relatively heavy, and mainly played with on the street, our low end torque will kill most modern muscle cars, or at least embarrass them!

 

[charlief1]

If you can find a powersource or "How to hotrod your Buick V6" you can find all the recipes that they came up with. You can also find de-stroked forged cranks once in a while on here and evilbay. The big issue is the bores size since you can't really use big valve heads. The 3.2 came in H body cars mostly ans was only for 78-79.

 

[usetaboost]

I've looked at a few stroker builds and for the price of the gains I don't see the point of spending the money besides the reliability part of it

 

[mikemcvaney]

Apparently they were standard in the century and regal.

Ive seen them in 78 regals have only seen a few did not know they had a smaller motor than a 3.8 ntil i saw one

 

[ijames]

The Indy motors used a short stroke, I think the displacement was the same 210 cu in as the Galina motor. I think that's where all of the short stroke forged and billet cranks floating around came from. Billy Anderson built a TSM motor with a short stroke in a 109 block and spun it up to about 9000 rpm. Got into the 9.4's when the class record was 9.0 or 9.1ish, but he only campaigned it one season so hard to say if it was an advantage or not.

 

[usetaboost]

Interesting. It would be nice to get him on this thread

 

[novaderrik]

Ive seen them in 78 regals have only seen a few did not know they had a smaller motor than a 3.8 ntil i saw one

other than looking at the emissions sticker under the hood, what kind of visual cues make it different than a 231? different carb, perhaps? i think the 231 had the "half a quadrajet" carbs on them...

 

[Philv6]

Here are a couple pictures of a 3.2 block I have. It’s a 1979 virgin block with a casting number 1261785 the bores are under the 3.500” that would have been used in production. I would guess the girdle dates back to around 1979. At one time I’m sure this block was intended for a performance build.

 

[usetaboost]

Nice score on the block with girdle. I wonder how far those can be bored

 

[gdouaire]

A turbo 3.2 could mean great fuel milleage / and high power-rpm when you step on the accelerator. If someone needs a larger displacement, there's always a 3.8 or a 4.1 ...

Posted from the TurboBuick.Com mobile app