Broken block or poor casting??

[fullahotair]

I have the engine out of my WH1 project, and I took the intake off and noticed at the front of the block what appears to be either a chunk of block that had broken off at one time, or came of the factory that way??? I was able to break a 1/4" size piece of with my fingers where it was real thin. I pulled the oil pan, but didn't find anything in there. There were no known issues with the motor prior to pulling it out. So i guess i am asking if this is normal, not typical but OK, or block is junk?

Thanks,
N8

 

[Boost231]

wow thats not normal. how long have you owned this car. i would really like to see what the bottom end looks like.

 

[incubus2432]

I've never been inside a 109 block but I'd certainly say that this isn't normal (or at least I sure hope it isn't).

 

[NUTS4LC2]

Damn That doesn't even look like the inside of a 109. Check the casting # on the side of the block.

 

[NUTS4LC2]

Defintely not the inside of a 109. Look more like a pre '86 block. HTH

Buick V6 Engine Block Guide

P.D. - Ok just re-read ur username, I'd replace the block. Just my $.02.

 

[DR BOOST]

every pre 86 block ive seen looks like that. keep on riding.

 

[fullahotair]

its an 85 block...I should have mentioned that. So Dr. Boost, you are thinking thats typical? What worries me, is that i have broken off two small pieces (1/4 inch x 1/8 inch) with just my fingers where the casting appears to be thin....

THe bottom end looks fine from what i can see so far. I have probably put about 10K on the car since i have owned, and it always ran fine...


Thanks,
Nathyn

 

[bison]

Ive seen early blocks like that. Not a big deal as long as it doesnt break off and get caught up in the rotating assembly.

 

[fullahotair]

I just pulled looked at the #'s on the block...

the numbers by the flywheel on the block is #25506818
Numbers at the front of the block are 5901149

and the heads are 25506293. The heads should have been the 8445's.

I am beginning to think someone swapped out a NA V6 block at some stage in this cars life....Does anyone know what these numbers correlate to? i am going to do some research on this site now to try to find out...

Thanks,
Nathyn

 

[fullahotair]

It looks like its an early 80's turbo block....

http://www.turbobuick.com/forums/pa...lock-pick-up-tulsa-ok.html?highlight=25506818


Should I consider using this block? or just bite the bullit and get a 109. I am hoping to run 11's...


Thanks,
Nathyn

 

[bison]

Im not positive but i think they used a better rod design in the 83 and later engines. The oil passages in the block may be smaller on the earlier blocks also. Id prefer an 83 or later myself. Ive seen 83 blocks and they appeared to be nearly the same as a 109 in regards to the oiling and main webbing. There are at least 2 3.8 castings pre 109 that are decent with one of them being a 20 bolt and one being a 14 bolt pan/cover.

 

[Underboost]

That's odd!

If you have the cash maybe it's time to swap with an 86-87 109 block.

But if these guys are saying it normal I guess it's ok. I wouldn't feel comfortable driving down the highway noing the inside of my block looked like that. Just my .2

 

[DR BOOST]

its an 85 block...I should have mentioned that. So Dr. Boost, you are thinking thats typical? What worries me, is that i have broken off two small pieces (1/4 inch x 1/8 inch) with just my fingers where the casting appears to be thin....

THe bottom end looks fine from what i can see so far. I have probably put about 10K on the car since i have owned, and it always ran fine...


Thanks,
Nathyn

i wouldnt worry. there wont be any fingers prying off pieces when the engine is back together:wink: . its been there for 20 years and it will be fine for the next 20. if its apart i would deburr it, but its really not necessary

 

[fullahotair]

i pulled the heads and they have the unbridged water jacket ports, it has the 2 dot rods, but a non turbo crank....


n8

 

[bison]

i pulled the heads and they have the unbridged water jacket ports, it has the 2 dot rods, but a non turbo crank....


n8

The bridging doesnt matter much. The heads in my sig are un-bridged. A lot of guys have gone really fast on NA cranks. The NA crank flexes just as much as a 4.1/turbo crank and is not much of a concern in a stock capped un-girdled engine.

 

[d0n_3d]

What in the world? Are you kidding me? Those holes look like something went through the lifter valley! That is FACTORY??? What a pile of junk! That just doesn't look normal to me at all.

 

[2 QK 4 U]

3 months ago I rebuilt my Dads engine in his 67 GTO. The lifter valley looked just like that. All the Pontiac books say to grind off the flashing smooth. Not only does it look better it provides more room for oil flow.

If you are tearing the whole thing down anyway I would just grind those ugly pieces smooth and be done with it. No more worrying about it.

 

[Boost231]

i would be worried about the lifter area for those 2 lifters. there is not much meat in those areas anymore.

 

[turbofabricator]

Looks to me like a non turbo engine was installed. The block will be fine with moderate power (less than 550hp) the crank is good to about the same, too. The bridged water port heads "might" hold the gasket better, but the 6293 castings came in both bridged and un bridged. The stageI (one) head IS a 6293 casting with none of the EGR holes drilled, and hand selected based on core shift. The pistons would be my biggest concern. Turbo pistons have a steel top ring land cast into them to keep the top ring from hammering itself to death under load (and detonation) The turbo pistons have "Hepolite" cast into them on the bottom of the piston. Not sure if the non-turbo pistons have the same thing, though. What you have will work under moderate power levels, but beyond that, go with a 109 block, turbo crank, rods, bolts, pistons and 8445 heads. The 6293 ports are nearly identical to the 8445 castings, though. Hope this helps.

 

[fullahotair]

Thanks for all the info guys. Very informative and helpful and as always. I think I may just go right to an 86/87 motor.


THanks again,
Nathyn