650 vs 750 Carbureted Pontiac 400 Hits The Engine Dyno | '67 Pontiac GTO [EP7]

[@tamapalagi]

it's great to see you have fun instead of watching you work on things and doing favors for friends that don't want to spend money to have somebody else fix. you deserve too have a good time and it fits you well. you would make a great crew chief.

[@larryw5429]

No matter what carb was on it that motor was breaking up more than guns and roses! Ignition was all over the place and the open vacuum port on the eldlebrokin carb was amazing to watch dyno guys run it with out it plugged lmao! Lets leaner out boooooys! SUCCCCCCCCK KEEEEEEEEY!!

[@gordondahle7844]

I put two Carter AFBs on my 428. I had a stock cam, 9779067. I added Ram Air IV rocker arms that gave me a .450 lift. It was a Beast! To say the least! I’m a fan of two four barrels!🤗

[@Swilling]

Congrats on firing the poncho, should pull strong, only a set of heads away from 500+ft lbs, love these motors. As for the intake to waterpump leak, seems to happen all the time. i like to cut my water cross over off my intakes, that way i can use the front bolt to pull the water crossover really hard up against the timing cover and eliminate any leaks. Also leaves the cooling system sealed if you ever wanna change your intake , or take a peek in the valley. Great stuff and glad the mystery motor worked out! Cheers, Sam.

[@prancstaman]

Hell yah!! 405 ft torque at the low end. Street racer for sure. That's an rpm range where you can have a lot of fun with it.

[@DEBOSSGARAGE]

we can't wait. so many tires.....

[@theeducatedredneck4144]

Many years ago I swapped out a 650 for a 750cfm and the results were dramatic ! The car was a '66 Pontiac Lemans with a '69, 400 engine with heads from a 428HO. The car was very fast !

[@rbarker4426]

Two times when you shut it down I heard the rod knocking

[@gregschultz2029]

Got To Love Those Pontiac’s,Dare To Be Different ,Thank You !!!

[@DEBOSSGARAGE]

Hate this one when it blew up the first time around the block. Love the 455 that's in the GTO now!

[@Gonecheenin]

@@DEBOSSGARAGE What let go?

[@ddl2k7]

Oh yea gotta love it! I noticed you have the fram oil filter on there and that's what I use on my 355 I built myself because it's so convenient with the rubber grip and the price, but what I'm worried about is I was watching some reviews and the internals of the filter are some of the cheapest on the market with the least amount of plets and everything is cardboard, and stories of them coming apart and filling up the engine with crap and plugging oilers, maybe you could do an investigation thanks

[@DEBOSSGARAGE]

+ddl2k7 Will do! My supplier just sold out to Napa so this one was one of my old stock. I used Fram for years and never had an issue but that is concerning...

[@ddl2k7]

+DEBOSS GARAGE also on the topic of oil filters, I was wondering about finding a larger filter that will fit the same as the sbc just longer, I remember some of the older Roders talkin about using bigger ones for more oil volume, I was planning on finding the one that would work but never had a chance yet, even half a liter more oil would help

[@72troy455]

Can't go wrong with a Wix oil filter.

[@stevewelborn8744]

Frankenstein Monster that's right. The fram will collapse and cause you problems.

[@donnysanner342]

4 tube headers would help a lot too !!!! Enjoy.

[@1967davethewave]

Actual drag strip testing on mild Pontiac engines like this actually show no difference between 3 and 4 tube headers. I didn't know anyone was still making 3 tubes though.

[@mr.pickles810]

How do you distinguish whether to use short tube headers or long tube headers I heard the long tuber for higher RPMs in the short tubes are good for towing and torque but both and a little bit of hp to.

[@1967davethewave]

@@mr.pickles810 Every dyno test I have ever seen shows long tube headers increase power across the entire RPM range. Short tubes increase power as well but not nearly as much as long tubes. As a matter of fact, from the dyno tests I've seen, short tube headers don't increase power enough over stock manifolds that it would warrant the price to buy them. Just search header tests on KZbin. There are a couple and Engine Masters has a some really good ones.

[@byronmcelfresh2380]

@@1967davethewave is that thru too small of exhaust hooked to those headers? Because every Pontiac I've had when running open headers the 4 tube 1 3/4" was always ran at least 2 tenths quicker than those junk 3 tube headers.

[@1967davethewave]

@@byronmcelfresh2380 All I can tell you is what I have personally witnessed. The center tube on 3 tube headers is usually 2 inches with 1 3/4" front and rear tubes. I ran both on my GTO back in the '80's. I had purchased some Black Jack 3 tubes when I first got the car at age 15. Later on when I put a 455 in it I ran it at the track several times but I was convinced that the 4 tubes would make it much faster. I finally saved enough to purchase a set of Hooker Competition 4 tubes. After installing them I went back to the track and ran almost the same. My best back then was 12.98 at 104 with the 3 tubes. My best ever with the Hookers was 12.87 and I think the mph was about the same, it's been a long time ago. All runs were on open headers. But that wasn't the very next time out. It was several weeks later so it's hard to say the headers were the difference. Maybe tuning would have made a difference. I wasn't very experienced when I was 17. I do know that the 3 tubes were way easier to install.

[@lcee6592]

Why would you bring a carburetor that has been sitting around for months or years and not go through it first before bolting it down? Also, is that a crappy fram oil filter? Get a wix oil filter. Pretend you care! Btw, a properly tuned Q-jet will make as much power and torque as any other carburetor if you truly know what your doing.

[@royhaught9516]

A 650cfm is too small for a 400. A well tuned 750 or 800 Qjet will out perform both of the carbs you were using.

[@jedidethfreak]

Never understood why big Qjets aren't more popular in classic street cars.

[@lennyjames1309]

I got 68' 400 i no them motors stock are 10-1 so hope put good gas like 110 in them runs for max hp! I hook mine up with 12-1 with holly 800cfm bored it out&big cam! And it a BEAST! AKA GasHogg

[@Erated78]

That was one cool video Rich. Cheers.

[@DEBOSSGARAGE]

+Erated78 Thanks, we got a patron supporter this week so we stepped it up a notch. Just imagine what we can do with 100 supporters!

[@knightriderlayingdownarubb9715]

I've been a Pontiac all my life I've got a 455 putting out 650 horsepower 637 torque with a Holley 950 double pump I've heard lawn mowers that sounds better than that

[@neighborscomplaint6859]

3 tube headers always sound "off" like that.

[@gibsonexplorer8777]

Haha ya it sounded bad !!

[@frankammirati3385]

This can’t be accurate with an open port vacuum leak right in front of the carb that’s on camera every shot and nobody notices .

[@bicylindrico]

Engine sounded terrible and like it was misfiring

[@GMC4240]

I agree, massive vacuum leak. they are running ported manifold vac in the carb to a vac source on the intake.

[@dihydrotestosterone]

A fine tuned quadrajet is as good if not better than those gas guzzling holleys...

[@morganbrantley9058]

The dyno guy just wrote down factory hp numbers. He wasn't guessing.

[@MasterWitchDoctor]

what a boat anchor

[@lennyjames1309]

thinking same that! But nice block to have they were 10-1 back than on lead gas! so bored just 30over bump it up to 12=1 msd you got a beast!

[@chrisguzman9359]

Sounds like there's a Miss of some type fouled spark plug or flat lobe of the cam not sounding right at all another person commented saying that they heard lawn mower sound better LOL

[@stevearsenault4898]

carb sizing if i remember right is ci x rpm = ? devided by 3456 = cfm's 400 ci x 6000 rpm =2400000 devided by 3456 = 694.4444444 700 cfm

[@jackmehoff4613]

405 lbs isn't bad for a 400. But 510 is better, like in my '69 428 torque monster (after the new cam). Good show boys. Like it!!

[@JohnnyAnderson1]

We're is the specs to this engine? Cam? heads?

[@drdanimalsize]

That's what I want to know

[@donalddday7741]

oh front end off the ground 1st and 2nd had it over 2 years only got beat once by a 66 chevy with a 427, i beat 440,s with 6 packs 400 firebirds first year 455 S D firebird couple of vettes and one was my friends 62 vette straight axle drag car with a hoped up 327

[@ShortLifeProductions]

Carb is too small. Needs and 850 to make good power. These heads can handle more flow than you're giving them also a mild cam will help. My dad had a Carter Thermoquad on his 67 GOAT and it'd pull the front tires up off the ground also had a mild cam but for the most part it was stock.

[@tamapalagi]

how many times have we seen 850cfm or larger carbs used on the dyno just to find out it need smaller jets. also pontiacs don't like to rev very high so the flow of the head isn't as important on this engine.

[@Mcleod0000]

if the horsepower cuts out at 4800 rpm I really don't think it needs a bigger carb . I bet a 650 would be best on this engine up to 6 k rpm easy .

[@stevewelborn8744]

tamapalagi I bet a 750 would have made more power but the one they had was a pos.

[@gibsonexplorer8777]

@@stevewelborn8744 I use a 650 double pumper and I jetted it really big, bigger in the secondaries with #62 heads and 068 high lift hydrolic cam and she flies!

[@garyolinger6798]

You should have put a 800 cfm Q. Jet that’s what I use the factory did it for a reason

[@MrTombrophy]

Why does the camera cut away to goofy people & not focus on the dyno screen when the engine is being tested? Weird-

[@benkrom2737]

Pcv wasn't hooked up which would increase horsepower/torque plus cleaner emissions, a win all around. I wonder what else they skipped on !

[@DEBOSSGARAGE]

explain how having the PVC hooked up would increase hp again?

[@benkrom2737]

DEBOSS GARAGE ; It reduces crankcase pressure created by blow-by and the downstroke of the piston . It's kinda a win-win because it's also better for the emissions . Remember an engine is really a air compressor you add fuel to, make a better air compressor, make more hp/torque . Look at any race engines and you'll see breathers all over the engines. Take the Pcv off those engines and watch the increase in vapor coming out of breathers. It's been a known fact since mid 60's .

[@DEBOSSGARAGE]

There's a breather on the valve cover. I understand how a PVC works. Putting it back into the engine won't increase HP. It will help the environment but nothing about this car is about saving butterflies.

[@benkrom2737]

DEBOSS GARAGE ; Sorry but I disagree. Piston pumps air in both directions, meaning on the topside of the Piston on up stroke and bottom side of piston on down stroke. Pcv ceates negative crankcase pressure to reduce resistance on downward stroke . Pcv is most effective at lower RPMs giving you more torque and is less effective but still a factor at high RPM . Your carb has a nipple for the Pcv so it's also jetted to incorporate the vacuum difference between with and without Pcv . You left at least 30 hp on the table for sure. I Dyno'd my Pontiac 400 with OEM HO cam, points dist, only mods were port matching gaskets and my own windage tray with cranksraper . Made 408 hp 448 torque .

[@stevewelborn8744]

DEBOSS GARAGE it also helps rings to seal and helps against oil leaks. If the crankcase builds pressure it will find away to vent. I breather with nothing sucking on it is not enough. Better than nothing but not enough. PCV does the samething as a crankcase evacuation does on a drag car. The hoses from the breathers to the header collectors. It makes power.

[@blown572hemi]

The edelbrock only flows 700cfm on a good day. That intake is hurting torque and horsepower but I know it’s just a cruiser. If you ever get serious, find a set of 6X heads, clean up the ports and bowls, install a healthy cam and pick up 175-200hp

[@gibsonexplorer8777]

6x heads? They are smog heads low compression I use # 62 heads run 068 GM high lift cam heads are ported and polished and stainless steel valves and it Dynoed at 480 ft torque at 3200 rpms and 425 hp and it's basically stock and I can run it on pump gas BP clear 93 octane but I built this engine and had 6x heads they had to go love Pontiac peace brother...

[@KingsleyWalker-b1s]

Hey m8, on the 400 you were dyno testing you had the vacuum advance round by the manifold facing to the right,this obviously worked fine,?is that a HEI distributor?From what I've seen factory setting is to the left!I'm new to this,we've just bought a 68 catalina with a 400 in it,I have a HEI distributor that I want to put in,so just trying to get my head around what I can do,thanks.

[@dragonking6742]

I've got a 67 GTO my grandpa got original form the factory with a 400

[@coltsc10s81]

DRAGON King same!

[@neilwagner524]

I thought only 389 . Was it a late in the year change to 400?

[@tskraj3190]

@@neilwagner524 They had the 400 in 67'. I had a 67' Catalina with a 400.

[@johnkowloon8187]

I've never been impressed with holleys..the edelbrock 1406 needs to be jetted to work somewhat..the best most responsive was a 68 ho 350 qjet..800 cfm...been thinking f about a efi next

[@papersack4290]

Out of the house from off the couch. Ohhh Canada!

[@glennmanchester1568]

Run a 800 cfm q jet like the trans am came with

[@dihydrotestosterone]

Quadrajet is the better choice over the holley..

[@markthomas9687]

A good Quadra jet would out run any of these square bore carbs

[@joshkeasler512]

Im guessing it's the camera making it spund like q box of rocks?

[@chiefpontiac1800]

I don't know who built the motor, or what was installed in it, but something is wrong with that engine. Both numbers should be higher, and it sound like it has no power in mid to upper range.

[@redneckswitwheels]

Is this BiG CHIEF?

[@scottnangle246]

Hmmm not Chevy so y disturbor in wrong?? Constant mistake made by Chev boys who don't understand torque master motors

[@mattteske240]

Is it just me or does the carb look loose at 2:33?

[@davidmcginnis2075]

probably something from the Dyno room where they put something on top of it to have the sensors maybe or something?

[@joequillun7790]

Did they ever specify if the holley was a spread bore, or square bore?

[@V8Deuce]

Something is wrong with that engine. Stock, it should of pulled over 360. Also, if that engine is going in a '67 GTO, the engine color is incorrect

[@ashqelon7267]

Revisiting Have plans to install a Roller cam in a Pontiac 1969 400 engine. Cam final lift 0.510/0.521. There is a lifter bore brace available for these blocks. Reputation Is some lifter bores-points, are a bit weak. Would like Any feedback / knowledge or experiences about this “lifter brace” device, if it’s overkill or not necessary etc.

[@justanobserver530]

I know this is a very old question/post but with Pontiac heads anything over .470 lift is counter productive as the flow just isn't there, even with porting in most cases. Once you exceed max flow on lift, you're losing power

[@MidnightinSavannah]

Looks like you have 96 heads (96 cc stock) and with flat top pistons the compression is only 8.2. Honestly, if you can find a stock intake and decent Q-jet you probably can make more hp. That single plane Torker II doesn't make power until 2500+ and with a edelbrock you are losing some HP. If you're hell bent on keeping the edelbrock and Torker II, run a 1 inch spacer, the plenum is not enough on them and you make about 10+ HP with a spacer.

[@zwild1160]

You are absolutely right on. In my 77 Trans Am I was running a 69 400 H.O. block that ended up .60 over. The heads were the large plug #96 D-port shaved .10 . The cam I chose was a Crane Ram Air IV grind spec'd at .469 with 1.5 rockers. I used a set of Comp Cams 1.6 roller tip rockers. Topped it off with the Torker II and I had tried several Holley carbs including a 800 dble pumper before settling on a 750 4160 /3310 model. The distributor was the HEI and I ran the three tube headers. I switched from a mechanical fuel pump to a Holley blue 80 gal/hr electric. The car had a 3.73 GM 10 bolt, TH350 , with a ATI 9" 3500 converter. My buddy was running #96 D-port small plug heads on a 72 400 block that was .30 over. He was running a mechanical cam with lift in the .512 range. The only other difference was a Torker intake and a 850 dble pumper. His best was around 13.98 on street tires. My best was 14.20's. Later I switched out the #96 heads for the #48 heads that came on the 69 engine. They were shaved .10 . The compression makes a lot of difference. I was able to get my car in the 12.70's with the head swap but had to run octane boost or cam II. We had a friend who was running a 455 in a 65 GTO with a tri power setup. He separated the water jacket on the intake so he could swap out intakes and not have to mess with the coolant. He tried a Torker II and after a bit he swapped in a stock 69 cast iron 4 barrel intake. He gained a half second in the 1/4 mile. I was going to try it myself when I was rear ended and the car totaled. My next step was a Butler performance 455 short block for use with the #48 heads.

[@1967davethewave]

Definitely sounds like low compression. I wouldn't be unhappy with 405 on the torque with that combo.

[@stephenflowers8516]

Which 67 motor was it the 360 version or the 335 economy motor ? If it's the latter it all makes sense.

[@netrioter]

It says it in the title..it's a 400

[@stephenflowers8516]

Well yeah, A 400 was all you could get in 67 .But they had a economy 400 and a 360 Hi Output motor. You may have been able to get a 421 but I'm not sure about that.

[@BuzzLOLOL]

Either motor is 440 torque stock...

[@garymathews9534]

seems like real world dyno numbers .what cam ? newer designed cams don't big duration numbers to make good power numbers .

[@jackweir7195]

sounds like it has a pretty heavy bog

[@granskare]

my mother's 2nd hubby had a Buick X car and when he got over 80k miles, he was ready for a new car; so he got a Pontiac X car and had nothing but trouble from the first day so there are differences between GM divisions.

[@nachomax1639]

Depends who put it together. I've had mine since 2002 and it pays to use Pontiac specific builders, and/or do your research before building it.

[@daltonallen8365]

I'm very upset that they keep doing pulls with that exhaust leak at the head and exhaust header with the 650 and then the pulls with the 750 no leak

[@frankammirati3385]

Ok now we put the edlebrock and the vacuum port is hooked up 🤦‍♂️

[@thisisyourcaptainspeaking2259]

I missed which carb performed better.......... Guess I wasn't paying attention!

[@glennmanchester1568]

What rpms are you going to 4000

[@lagledavid4353]

Got a pontiac motor and automatic transmission. Not sure what it is. How can I find out. Never been taken apart. 2 barrel carb and points.

[@glennmanchester1568]

More than likely a 350 pontiac

[@ricklewis398]

Cast on side of block

[@gregschultz2029]

Rich ,Thank You For Your Reply ,How Would I Send You Pictures Of My Hotrod ?

[@davidmedeiros3281]

Holly isnt tuned right. Also 650 cfm is to small for 400 ci engine. holly 4779 carb #75 jets front and rear, power valve blocked off in rear meter plate. Should make at least 430 horses

[@smp3745]

Good Lord this poor engines sounds like garbage -_- someone please tear it down and build it right... I have built v6s that have sounded better than this thing...

[@norristammislideshowmulgre877]

I thought the same thing. Sounds like a sewing machine.

[@mr.thebandit.2370]

I agree it sounds absolutely awful

[@VegasRT500]

LOL!!! Your POS V6 does not make that kind of torque. LOL!!!!

[@homersway]

does the DSE stand for dave stirck enterprise? in brampton

[@DEBOSSGARAGE]

No, I'm not sure what it stands for but rhe shop is close to Smithville Ontario

[@charleshenson4183]

Detroit speed

[@johntempest267]

Pontiac 400 runs best with 750 Holley. Not impressed with 400 lbs of torque. The awesome torque curve is what Poncho mojo is all about, but should be 480. Not difficult for this motor to achieve. Even with smog heads.

[@w41duvernay]

Below 400 hps on a Pontiac 400? Must have been a very mild aftermarket cam that was put in there. Must have been less than 230 dur @ .050s.

[@showdonttellyyz]

I will argue that, I have tried two different 400 pontiacs. Both 10.3:1. with #13 heads with enlarged throats. One with the comp ram air iv spec cam and pulled 392hp/433tq. That was through an iron intake manifold. 750QFT and hooker comp headers. The other had an xe284h with an edelbrock performer and we later tried a torker. With the performer, it pulled 389hp and 446tq. With the torker, it pulled 396hp and 438tq. This particular casting was pushed to it's limits in it's stock form. Even with the enhancing we did to it. And to no ones surprise, the difference was marginal because we were at the peaks of the heads flow numbers. They say the heads flow around 180cfm and if you do the math, we are pretty much bang on with both engines

[@glennmanchester1568]

They are awsome in the sense that stock will outperform any stock sbc motor in all areas compare a stock 400 poncho to a stock 400 sbc and the poncho will win all day and if you want real power get with butler performance and you can make a 1000 hp drive it daily with the a/c on it's what big chief wins with all the time he won't run anything but pontiacs in stock form they are total torque monsters I've had plenty of them used to get low mileage boneyard motors in the 80s out of grand prixs and such for 200 bucks tweak the carbs a bit make sure it had a good working distributor with a curve kit bring total advance in quick and I'll tell you what bang for the buck wow bigtime stick a grand prix motor and the turbo 400 they came with in a pontiac Ventura which is basically a nova with a 12 or even 10 bolt 373 :1 limited slip rear and for a real cheap project it would easily out run a lot of stuff that was out there even the grand national back in the day was a close match for that setup a b and m shift improver kit and second gear gave us nerve damage in my neck lol universal joints were common to wear quickly total investment in the drive train was less than 400 bucks and I had a couple of extras ready to go if and when I needed it fuck for 200 bucks why not I only actually blew one engine up by doing donuts whipping it around so hard all the oil sloshed to one side of the pan and it sucked air long enough to spin a bearing knock knock lol but we were shitfaced and had females in the back seat who wanted to get dizzy well I took the challenge and dizzy nah they were barfing lol put another motor in the next weekend lol fun times

[@markthomas9687]

Put the q-jet back on!!!!

[@mariomedeiros6706]

You need a 750 Edelbrock Carburetor 4 Barrel on a 400 6.6 Pontiac engine and you will be King of the Hill

[@utahcountypicazospage5412]

240 hp 300 tq to the wheels with power steering and ac I would turbo it

[@TechnikMeister2]

Its a long way from what you would expect from a mild 400...1 HP per cu in. 400hp. It was also shaking away and that tells me its not balanced properly and its the crank not the rods. That alone will be stealing 50hp and giving the mains a battering. The Pontiac 400 and 455 are good motors that flow well even with factory heads. You can take them to 6500 reliably. What was the air:fuel ratio? Overall, pretty underwhelming. I guess the owner did not want to spend any money.

[@hugieflhr03]

That engine idles like the valves are too tight. That thing should be idling smooth as silk with a torque curve at over 400 at 2800 rpm

[@jordanwiley4582]

That cam is terrible, and the engine is shaking a LOT. I guess the p/o just wanted a quick rebuild. I wonder what compression it is...

[@SweatyFatGuy]

Looks like the heads are 71 vintage 96s, so that means 87cc ish chambers. Now if it has an actual flat top slug in it and not the cheap 8 relief crap that drops at least one but usually two points due to the large chamfer around the edge of the crown, it should be close to 8.5:1 with a .030 overbore.. and yes, that cam is terrible. Looks like its smaller than the 068 stock 4 barrel cam by the torque curve, might be similar to the 067, regardless its tiny. Then they have the Torker II on it, and with a low compression 400, it will be a slug even with the tiny cam. A stock intake is better for what they are doing. They are lucky to have made 400ftlbs with that crap combination. The RPM is not needed, and the regular Performer is about the same as the stock intake, thats how good the stock intake is. These are not chevys that need the entire aftermarket thrown at them to make power in the high rpm range. The heads are decent pump gas heads, they make about 9.5:1 on a flat top 455, which is why they are sought after. They are large valve and flow just as good as the earlier 72cc heads, they simply have larger chambers but are otherwise nearly identical. The 2.11" intake valve D ports are all very close in CFM until you port them, then its a matter of the porting quality. How to make more power, have a great idle, still have 15 inches of vacuum, not be a weak suck pig is simple a 224/228 cam, like the Summit 2802, can go bigger but this size cam is a stuff it in with new lifters and go with the springs, rockers, and retainers it already has. The 2802 is a copy of the RA III stick, and I have one in a 6X headed 400 with a Performer on it, was in my 65 GTO and even with 2.56 gears, a stone stock rebuilt Th350 and stock converter, it was quicker in the quarter than my 98 LS1 powered Formula, which is a mid 13 second ride. So even a low compression 400 can make power, if you put the right cam in it. I use the 2802 because it sells for $78 and lifters are about $30, and you can use all the stock valvetrain with it easily, and spin it to 5500 without issue. The RA IV will work with the stock 1.5 rockers, but will sorta be a pig with that intake, and it will be a little soft on the bottom compared to the 2802/RA III. The RA IV should have more valve spring, but a Comp 996 is a easy swap that will make sure the valves aren't bouncing like a bbc. A dual plane is what that thing needs, I ran the T II on several engines, including a 400 similar to that one with 6X heads, its a very long way from optimal. Put a rebuilt Qjet on it, or a 750 Holley with vacuum secondaries, recurve the distributor so the timing is all in before 3000rpm, and then find out how much timing it actually likes and wants. If it has TRW/Sealed power or better flat tops its all good. If it has the cheap rebuilder slugs with the 8 eyebrows in it, well... it probably has about 7:1 at best with those crappy pistons. Its funny how I can look at it, hear it run, see the power it makes, and tell more about it than they know. Mostly because I have been building and racing Pontiacs for over 30 years.

[@darrylvanrooy]

Is it just the audio from the camera or does the engine sound like it’s an old tractor with a busted exhaust?

[@MasterWitchDoctor]

my guess is the lack on tuning, my 79 with the W72 sounds like a V8 not an over grown Harley Sportster.

[@bopshop8621]

Use a properly built QJet and it will deliver exactly what the engine demands. No more, no less.

[@FeiHuWarhawk]

screw the sycophant donald trump commercial

[@glennmanchester1568]

Something is definitely wrong with that motor

[@user-pp2tl9dz1w]

“Have run,” not “have ran …”

[@gr7673]

115 hp. :)

[@anthonycadiou8367]

There is somthing wrong with this motor, it looks as if there is no balance. Start checking.

[@thomaswilsonsr.9206]

Pretty much all Pontiacs pull that way. There's a balance on the bottom pulley that sits on the crank. That was a universal part. They probably used the old balance when they built it, inatead of sleeving it.

[@anthonycadiou8367]

@@thomaswilsonsr.9206 Thanks for the response. I never expected to get one. I enjoyed Pontiacs all my life I nevere owned one I knew a few people who raced them. I think the most fascinating is the blocks were all the same.

[@thomaswilsonsr.9206]

@@anthonycadiou8367 Absolutely. Maybe not the most reliable, but certainly an American staple. From GM, Pontiac was, just like everyone else, strangled by emissions regulations in the 70's. And for the record, this 400 shown in the video is one of the great survivng engines produced before emissions. Vacuum lines and different kinds of check valves, including the EGR, really put a hit on the muscle car industry. The 400 in 67 was a looot more powerful than the 455 in 78, but less effecient that is. Also, fair warning, the heads on pontiac motors weigh roughly 55 pounds. Be careful

[@72troy455]

Those headers suck, you can do much better.

[@edwardpate6128]

Something seriously not right with that engine. A good Pontiac 400 properly built should be making considerably more horsepower and torque than that.

[@ricksnowden8408]

Sounds rough...

[@asablack1364]

Who are the three idiots that don’t love a good Dyno session. They should probably go over to the Oprah channel.

[@dennisfaulkner5470]

PUT A GM QUAD ON THAT CHIEFTAIN.. I can build one that'll dump over 1000cfn on the secondaries.. 🐏💨

[@michaelcostner5287]

prolly do a lot better if it ran on all 8 cyls

[@Cash2112]

Those cheap-ass 3-tube headers aren’t doing you any favors, probably costing you 20 HP. Also, the Torker 2 intake needs a 1” spacer which will add another 10 HP.

[@MississippiDan1]

#455'th like

[@100inthewind]

I stopped watching the video when he says Duh I don't even care what the numbers are. If he doesn't care why should I?

[@jeffpittman8725]

Holy shit that thing sounds awful!

[@BuzzLOLOL]

Should be 440 torque stock... 350-360 HP...

[@markrich3271]

This should had the turbo LSX

[@chrismontreuil2206]

Engine sounds like its pregnant and in labor......

[@goodbonezz1289]

Definitely not a great endorsement for the Pontiac 400...sounded and performed like crap.

[@tomsettles6873]

That 400 sounds horrible.

[@JimBronson]

Orange can of death

[@jerryjerry8350]

That is the most crappy ghetto Dyno room I've ever seen.