How could we drive the old muscle cars today?

isellhondas

Awhile back, I left a post under the Most
Beautiful Cars topic.

As I typed, I daydreamed a bit about the beautiful
1965 Buick Riviera I once owned.

And...I would love to find another one just like
it.

But...How would I ever find gasoline it would run
on? When it was new, it needed super premium 100
plus octane, red blooded leaded gas!

It had a 425 Cubic Inch engine with two four
barrel carbs and it put out 360 H.P.

Now, when I owned it, ten years ago, leaded
premium was still (barely) available. It wasn't
very good compared to the old stuff, but the Buick
would run on it.

In order to avoid pinging, I had to retard the
timing which, to me was like hobbling a race horse!

And, I think that Buick had 10.5 to 1 compression
ratio. Some muscle cars had an even higher
compression ratio.

How could these cars even run today?

I also owned a 409 Chevy and a Pontiac GTO. These
also needed very high octane gasoline.

When I had the Riviera, I tried gas octane
boosters. They seemed to have little effect and
made the engine run hotter.

Muscle car owners, have you crippled your cars
with thicker head gaskets, etc or what?

Just curious!

carnut4

Last year I saw a beautiful, all original 65 Chevelle Malibu SS with the 350 horse 327and 4speed. White with maroon interior. 64,000 original miles-documented. The engine had never been detailed. I remember looking at these on the lot brand new, when I couldn't afford one. I actually considered buying this one. But thinking about how I was going to feed that motor with 11 to 1 compression-there was no way-or was there? What would it be? The owner told me he was afraid to run any octane boosters in it, because of damage to carb and other rubber parts. What would one do??

badgerpaul

You can always go to your local General Aviation airport and buy 100/130 octane avgas. It will cost you, but the cars seem to like it.

isellhondas

We have similar tastes! A '65 Malibu with that drivetrain is one of my all time favorite cars!

Ever see a late '65 Malibu SS with the 396? Very rare but I think I would rather have the 327.

badgerpaul,

Yeah, I've heard that suggestion and in my area, there are no small airports that I know of. Even so, will they sell gas to non avation customers?

With that Riviera, I probably would have used a quarter tank of gas getting to the airport if it was more than 20 miles away!

Any other ideas, anyone?

carnut4

When I was considering the Malibu, a friend who's a mechanic suggested going out to the airport. Trouble was, it cost 3 bucks a gallon. And I was palnning on driving this car! Isell-when the very first 327/350 Malibu arrived at the local Chevy dealer in 65, it was all black, and boy did I want one! I always preferred the 64-65 bodies to any of the later Chevelles. Later that year, I remember the first, and only 396 65 Malibu to arrive. It was silver with black interior. What a sweet car! But-I too preferred the 327/350-one of my all time favorite engines.

Mr_Shiftright

I think you could build a lower-compression version of the motor in such a way, using improved components, to perform just about as well as the very high compression version of the past--but of course it would not look stock. For one thing, you could turbocharge or supercharge, either of which demands a much lower compression in return for lots of added power.

carnut4

Well, sure, as many have done with their small block street rod motors. The thing about this Chevelle was that it was a pristine, intact, original car-you just don't see many like that with that combination of options. It'd be a shame to change the engine, and probably lower the value of the car. Now, if someone else upgraded the engine and made it look all stock [and lowered the price] maybe I'd go look again....

isellhondas

I would hate to "geld" a car like that by doing some micky mouse modification that would stop the pinging or whatever...

Guess there is no good solution.

stickguy

If it's going to be a 100 point trailer queen, it doesn't really matter. If you want the look and feel, and really be able to drive, you can always find a motorless car, and drop in a new GM crate motor (don't they make a 350 and a big block direct replacement?). Then you can drive to your hearts content, on pump gas.

Only other idea I have is, if you have an all original hi-comp. engine car, is swap out the original engine (and store it), put in a street driveable motor, and swap the original back in if you decide to sell/show it. Sort of defeats the purpose, but at least you can use the car.

I hate seeing some of these cars never being driven. Seems like such a waste.

Mr_Shiftright

It IS a waste...these are not one of a kind handbuilt Bugattis, these are strong production cars that can take the real world. So you scratch it, you fix it, big deal...whaddya gonna do, be buried in it? You know, you do the show circuit, it gets old after a while...and if it doesn't get old, you need a new life maybe. I mean, I love cars as much as the next guy, but I do get a littel bored after a while arguing over the authencity of the color of the master cylinder reservoir cap cover.

carnut4

Isell-probably right-no real good solution for that car. Just buy some expensive gas and drive it around a little like you would any other old car in mint condition. But for others-like these so called matching nos Vettes with original high compression engines-what do they do? I mean drivers-who cares about the trailer queens. Id never buy a car just to show.

Mr_Shiftright

It's getting pretty extreme these days. I've seen cars that are not only never driven, but have mittens for the tires so when they are put on the ground no dirt or grass gets in the treads.

carnut4

Yeah I've seen some of those trailer queens. Some of those owners are also trailer queens, with mittens to keep their hands warm while they get them off the trailer. Some of those guys don't even know what engine their cars have.They just get on their cellphone and call their broker. That's what intriqued me about that 65 Malibu-it had never been shown. Like I said, the engine had never been detailed, but looked like any 63,000 mile car
that had been driven, stored, and pampered. It came from some rancher in Montana who bought it new and drove it along with all his other toys. Stored for some years till sold to the current owner in estate sale. Current owner hadn't driven it more than 1,000 miles in last 8 years. Not many Chevelles like that out there. Most are either "trailer queens"[and some of those are FAKES] or have been totally restored, all new, with upgrade heads, etc to make them drivable on the street. And actually, none of those Chevelles do much for me at all. But seeing this one,and remembering that first new one I saw new-gee here was my chance to have a new 65 to drive around. The other problem with this car was he wanted WAY too much money.

seeburg100

... for almost all high compression cars of the 60's. That is the consensus of my fellow GTO owners on the GTO mailing list. If you experience knocking you can retard the timing a little but with an engine in good tune even that might not be necessary. Or you can add Toluene in a 5-10% ratio to bump up the octane level considerably.

johnrr1

Pump gas is fine , even though the factory rated the motors at 10.5 or 11 to 1 they really aren't , they are usually at least a half point to a point lower, retard the timing or add some booster. Even better would be to install a thicker composite head gasket and add hardened exhaust seats while the head is off , your valves will thank you for it , they will seal better than the thin steel shim and unless you are racing it you won't hardly feel the difference.
If your old enough to remember a '65 new on the lot then getting back behind the wheel of a 400 plus h.p. monster will scare you enough that a little drop in h.p. will be welcomed . I talked to an older gentleman recently selling a Challenger with a 383 that was hopped up a little and when I asked him why he was selling it, he said it scared him , was going to by a Camaro with a smallblock . I know it hurts but its reality.

Please give me a break with the ... but it looks so pristine , I wouldn't want to change it.. unless you tell someone they will never know. I know it is great to have it look all nice and original , if that's the case then get inline with the trailer queen guys and put the mittens on the tires. If that's your bag , fine either don't buy it or spend the money and blow the dust out from underneath the cover from time to time while you hide it, not driving hurts it more than retarding the timing and using lower octane fuel , unless of course your storage is climate controlled year round .

I just repurchased my 69 Superbee , paid 10,000 for it , I put a bigger cam and an aluminum intake and Edlebrock carb on it , it has headers , but it looks basically all stock till you open the hood ,I drive it and I race it. I even closed the hood on something on top of the radiator and dinged the hood from the inside out and cracked the paint , oh well I'll have it fixed , it's not a show car as far as I'm concerned but it did take third in the first show my friend put it in. This winter I'm building a stroker motor and when you pop the hood you won't be able to tell its 500 cubes in that low deck b motor ... sorry for the rant , but these things were meant to be driven not hidden in some warehouse never to be seem , its the guys in the mittens that have put a Hemi car out of my reach , and I'm still p.o. about it ... john

Mr_Shiftright

I'm all in favor of changes for performance and safety. Just keep the old parts in a box if someone wants the inferior brakes, manifolding or whatever else you're changing.

Who ever got the idea to put a Plymouth or Ford or Chevy in a museum...these aren't suits of armor or Roman statues...they're cars. Drive 'em!

carnut4

WEll that's exactly the point here. Someone saved a car I thought I could DRIVE. But I wasn't THAT stoked to pay what the guy wanted.Plus I remember those weak brakes and rearends. A friend went through 3 rearends on his 64 Malibu in 6 months. Who wants to know how to drive a trailer queen for christ's sake... Didn't think that's what I was asking. Thanks for the tips.

isellhondas

I don't want a trailer queen. I have attended many a car show and swap meet. The cars that attract me are the daily drivers that are in a condition 3 or so.

When and if I buy another old car, it'll probably be driven maybe 2000 miles a year or so.

I don't care if everything is dead original. I just don't like cars that have been Mickey Moused too much.

Getting back to my old Riviera...It did NOT like pump gas one bit and these octane boosters didn't seem to do a thing. Maybe it was different, or, who knows, it may have been carboned up too which can cause pinging.

It had very low miles and had belonged to an old lady.

Anyway...thanks for all of the ideas!

rea98d

"It had very low miles and had belonged to an old
lady."

There's your trouble right there. It WAS carboned up. Little old lady cars are usually only driven to the supermarket and Church, and as a result never get a chance to be run long enough or at high enough RPM's to blow out all the carbon. I think they make chemicals you can add to your fuel to clean the carbon out, or you can do what I did to my lawn mower-disassemble the engine and clean everything with varsol. (Good time to check all the specs and see if anything needs replacing.)

isellhondas

Lots of ways to rid an engine of carbon.

Rislone is excellent at this if poured down the carb. Auto trans fluid works too!

I've even seen old timers de carbon an engine by pouring WATER (slowly) down the carb.

You wouldn't believe the crap that comes out of the tailpipe!!

Wonder why I didn't think of that when I owned the Riv?

rea98d

Transmission fluid works, but also damages your engine. (You gotta wonder about the very first guy that did that...) And water-well, I'd be afraid of rust forming inside the engine, especially if some of the interior components are slightly damaged by years of use. I have no Idea what Rislone is, but unless it's specifically designed to be poured down a carburetor, don't do it-you'll be taking a big risk damaging something.

Mr_Shiftright

After trying to SCRAPE carbon off with a sharp instrument, I'm not so sure any kind of liquid is going to do it!

rea98d

I still say disassembling it and using Varsol is the best approach. Of course, completely tearing down a 400 CID engine isn't always the most practical repair job on earth :-)

isellhondas

Rislone has been around for 50 years and it works!

Once in awhile, we will get a trade in with low or uneven compression in one or more cylinders.

In the old days (I was there!) this usually meant a valve job or worse.

Nowdays, it's usually carbon deposits causing the problems. Little old lady trades that have never seen over 2000 RPM are the worst.

I wouldn't have believe it myself because I have never believed in oil additives.

But...If you pour a quart of Rislone Concentrate in the oil (not the carb) and go drive the hell out of the car, high RPMS, for a half hour, and then recheck the compression, you won't believe the difference!

Rislone is sold in any auto parts store. comes in a yellow plastic bottle. It works!!

And...no, I am not a stockholder!

carnut4

somehow that reminds me of a very funny story that dates to 1967. Off topic, but oh well. A friend had just got back from Vietnam [alive!] and was footloose and fancy free. An uncle had given him an old 47 Packard, with a shot and badly smoking engine. 4 of us cruised around in that car, which had such bad compression it would stall on the slightest hill. Overevving it somehow caused sparks to fly out of the hood near the hood ornament. Anyway, we stopped at a gas station and poured in a can of additive. He stomped the gas a few times and produced a HUGE cloud of smoke that engulfed the entire gas station and beyond. Noone could see anything because of the smoke. My friend continued to stomp the gas while we laughed and laughed. Finally we were told to "get that thing out of there" and left. Oh what a ride that Packard was! It was way, way beyond a can of Rislone!

isellhondas

Fun times, weren't they...?

In the gas station where I worked, we had an old timer who would sometimes pour a can of ATF down a carb in an attempt to free up a stuck lifter.

Sometimes this method worked.

But...the SMOKE !! One day so much smoke was created that it stopped traffic in the street.

A cop pulled in and wanted to know if he should call the Fire Dept!

When he found out the source of the smoke, he wasn't too happy with us!

Mr_Shiftright

ATF is actually a VERY high detergent oil, but the crazyman should have known that pouring it down the carb doesn't get to the lifter at all....this would be great voodoo but very bad science. He should have put it in the oil.

isellhondas

In addition to the quart the carb got, he would add a quart to the oil.

Looking back, I think he just liked the smoke!

Mr_Shiftright

Completely dumb thing to do, by the way.

rea98d

Speaking of smoke, I've heard of hot-rodders custom making a smoke apperatus by installing a fuel injector into the exhaust manifold, and connecting it to a small tank of motor oil. Putting it closer to the tailpipe and adding a spark plug would create flames belching from the back end.

Mr_Shiftright

I thought Harley invented that as standard equipment.

rea98d

Maybe they did...
I don;t know too much about motorcycles.

isellhondas

When I was quite young and easilly impressed, there was an 18 year old who lived up the street from me. He had a 53 Mercury. somehow, he had screwed a spark plug into the exhaust system. He had a switch on the dash that would fire the spark plug.

He would tear down the street, switch off his ignition for awhile, then put it back on while flipping that switch.

What would follow was a HUGE explosion and about a ten foot fireball from the tailpipe!

Of course, we loved it, and would do our best to encourage him to put on a show!

Mr_Shiftright

And the local muffler shop loved him too I bet!

isellhondas

When I was in high school, in around 1966, my dad had a 55 Oldsmobile 98 2 door hardtop.

It was amazing how many cars that big heavy Olds could whup!

And...could it EVER backfire! He had lots of fun at the expense of a few mufflers.

After about the third muffler, the guy at the muffler shop decided to give my dad a clue as to what was causing the demise of these mufflers.

This ended my fun, at least with that car.

We would tear through a tunnel, turn off the ignition, wait....wait....NOW!! KABOOM!!

Made an M-80 sound like a cap gun!

Cars today are no fun! fuel injection, catalytic convertors, etc...oh well...

isellhondas

I sure didn't mean he! I meant I. It was I, of course with my hand on the ignition switch!

speedshift

Getting back to the '65 Riviera that wouldn't run well on modern pump gas, I have a theory that the older the cylinder head design, the more prone to detonation it is. I say this because the '66 GTO I had, with the older 389, was much more prone to detonation than the '67 or '69 400 GTOs I had. (Of course, it could have been that the '66 was carboned-up, and the '67 HO and '69 Ram Air III GTOs had had the carbon blown out of them by a long line of enthusiastic drivers.) That nail-valve was obsolete even in 1965. However, the '63-65 Rivi was one nice car, even with the base 325-hp engine. Quick, solid, good-handling, sporty and beautiful. I owned a '65 at the same time I owned a '62 Gran Prix, and there was no comparison. The Rivi made the GP feel like a wallowing tin can (probably because it was a wallowing tin can).

mtnbunny27

I also owned a Riviera....in the 80's couldn't find the 65' so bought a 1964 to restore with 60 thousand miles on it, blown engine. I went thru the whole car, rebuilt the 401, and interior, spending $5500.00 on it. I never had a any trouble with pinging, but did run Super in it. It had the Carter high performance carburator, and the high rise manifold. Very fast!
Always lusted after the 65 Grand Sport however, with the 425 and two 4 barrel carbs. What a setup, but probably about 5 mpg. I think I got about 12. I used the additives, 104 Octane Boost, never really thought it did anything. I used it in my 69 Cadillac Eldorado too, with the 472.

At about that time I found a 69 Buick Skylark 2 door with the 350 2 barrel carb, with 39 thousand on it in 1985......what a find, like a new car, and yes it was a little old lady's from California. (I had owned a 66 special, and knew that the 64 thru 69 Skylarks and Specials were about the best midsize cars to come out of Buick!)Anyway, I still have it, most dependable car I have ever owned (knew it would be!). But I did burn a valve in 1995 from having to burn the unleaded gas. I added the lead additives, but obviously, they are worthless. Either way, I went ahead and had the heads re-done into the hardened valves. When I had it done in Tucson, by a guy that was the "best", he said, "are you going to hold on to this car", I said why, (thought maybe he wanted to buy it)...."Because he said when you pay this bill, you will want to keep this Skylark forever"! The bill was nearly $1000.00, but felt it was worth it, as I had rebuilt the engine a few years earlier. Now I run unleaded with no problems, and regular 87 octane too. It never pings, has the 350, with 2 barrel Rochester. It now has 145,000 miles on it, and it's life is nearly over. In Arizona the sun is so hard on cars, and even though mechanically it is still solid, I don't think I want to go thru it again, after all I have driven it now for 16 years.

isellhondas

Actully, Buick did something strange back then. In 1963, the stock engine was a 401 with 325 HP. A 425 / 340 horse version was available. These are very rare. In 1964, the "base" engine was the 425 cubic inch / 340hp. This could be ordered in '64 with the dual 4BBL / 360 hp.

For some reason, in 1965, they went back to the 401/325hp engine as the base one. The 425/340 and 425/360hp were still avaliable. The 360 hp in the Gran Sport version. Gas Mileage? You have NO IDEA how much gas that car used!!

And...it is possible that your '64 Riv did have the 401/325hp engine. I understand that a very few of these made have been made although I've never seen one. when I belonged to the Buick Club, this was something the guys would argue about.

mtnbunny27

It is my understanding that the 401 was standard for at 1963 and 1964, and 1965. I do have a 1965 owners manual. It says right in the back, engine, (standard: 401), (option 425 engine as the Wildcat 465), or the (425 with two 4 barrel carbs), as the Super Wildcat engine or (Grand Sport option). My 1964 had the 401 and that was the standard engine for that year. I rebuilt it twice, so know what it was, I do think there may be some publication confusion for that year. I am somewhat of an expert on early Rivieras, I owned a 1963, and restored and drove a 64 for 5 years, even had it bored out, the second time I rebuilt it. I had the owners manual for it, and shop manual, if it had said anywhere that the engine was only a 425, believe me, I would have noticed.

isellhondas

I too am pretty knowledgable on old Rivieras and have owned a couple of them.

And, I'm almost sure that you are mistaken. Would I bet 100.00 - yes. 1000.00 - no that the 425/340hp was, indeed the standard engine in 1964.

and that the 401 *may* possibly have been available as a option (but, why?)

These engines look the same.

Guess I'll have to do some digging.

By the way, all three years used a different transmission.

Mr_Shiftright

Lessee...my books show the 425/340HP as standard in the riv for 1964, with a 360HP option, and that the 401 was standard in 1963. This is from the Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975.

isellhondas

I was sure I was correct, but it's been a long time since my Riviera days.

But, I wonder if he bought my buddy's '64?

Back in 1970, my best friend was driving back to California from Cape Cod.

After a couple of days of 100 MPH driving, his beautiful riviera blew it's engine out in the middle of nowhere in Brady, Nebraska!

I've heard him tell the story several times...At the time he was very young and very broke! This town had a population of something like 500.

There was one tiny shop in town that fixed his car. His uncle wired him money., he had to stay for days in a fleabag motel..long funny story.

One bar in town where he spent much time. He was almost a celebrity!

Anyway, his old block was runied from the thrown rod and a used 425 couldn't be found. they ended up shipping in a used 401, and the Riviera lived again. My friend wasn't happy about the 401, but it got him home and ran well for years after.

And, who would know the difference? The air cleaner was from the 425 and the engine looked the same!

Maybe he bought my friend's car!

mtnbunny27

I know there are publications that say in 1964, Buick used the 425 as the standard. However, I had the 401, and I feel that Buick did something at the factory that was not in line with the press releases, and that they put the 401 in several cars, mine could not possibly have been the only one! Even my owner's manual said the 401 was standard, My car did not have an owner's manual, and I had to order one from a (owners manual guy) for the 64 Riviera. Obviously this is an old issue, as I have a book on older Buicks. The other day when I was double checking the engine size, I saw where I wrote in on one page, back in 1980, "this book is wrong, they did use the 401 as standard on Rivieras in 1964!". As the book states "the 425 was standard for 1964". Obviously it is something that when restoring the car in 1980 I noticed was a mystery. I had my engine researched at the time to make sure it was the original engine. It was, and was indeed a 401 put in at the factory.
Now, could it have been produced at the end of the year, a 1963 perhaps, but sold as a 1964 model, I have heard of manufacturers doing weirder things than that??? I have restored a lot of cars, and researched all of their histories, including paying out money for title searches for each one of them, to find out where they were purchased and lived originally.
I don't remember the manufacture date of my 1964, but maybe that had something to do with it. And also maybe Buick didn't really do what the books say they did for all of that year. This happens all the time in the automotive world! I can't remember if there was a 401 stamped on the engine somewhere, I am almost sure there was, I had to pull and rebuild it twice. The sad thing about it was, I didn't even want the 1964 or the 401, I wanted the 425, and the 1965 Riviera. I loved the design of it better. I couldn't locate a 65 so settled for the 64.
Nice to talk with some old Buick owners.
I have had several:
1960 Electra 2dr 225 very rare
1964 Buick Lesabre? (can't remember the model now, parts car)
1963 Buick Riviera
1964 Buick Riviera
1966 Buick Special
1969 Buick Skylark

isellhondas

I have been around literally hundreds of 1964 Rivieras and have never seen one with a 401. The air cleaner gives it away. I did hear a rumor that a very few 401's were built though.

When I belonged to the local chapter of the Buick Club, that issue was discussed in length one night. We had a guy there who was (REALLY WAS) one of the foremost experts on early Rivs, and he said that rumor just wasn't true. Who really knows?

Maybe you DID buy my buddy Bob's '64! It was blue.

I also like the '65's but hate the retractable headlights that are a PITA to keep working!

My '65 had every opion there was (I think). It was yellow with a black vinyl roof. Deluxe interior, AC, power windows, vent windows, seats, twlight sentinal, factory reverb, kleenex holder, purse hook, and more stuff I can't remember now.

Wish I had it back!

speedshift

Re: transmissions, I thought they used Dynaflow in '63, then Turbo 400 in '64 and '65. My '64 and '65 had three-speed ATs. Always thought the 425 was standard in '64, but don't want to re-open that can of worms. Re: build quality, had a '62 GP and '65 Rivi at the same time, and the Rivi made the GP feel like a flexi flyer.

Mr_Shiftright

Oh, you know, there are tons of these "mysterious engines" or "mysterious options" controversies that fly about in the collector car hobby. Some are rumors, some are just great topics of conversation, some may even be true, but in most cases, if no one's come up with proof after 30-40 years of diligent research, chances are the answers will never be known for sure. When in doubt, go with the known reference books. Even "oral histories" from former employees is often not reliable.

Mustangs are great for these rumors, and everyone is still looking for "Corvette #1".

isellhondas

Shifty...I hear it's in a garage in Dunsmuir, CA!

Speedshift,

The 63 used the old Dynaflow. I think they called the '64 a Super Turbine something or other like mtnbudddy said. Those weren't bad, just kinda different. They got it right in '65 with the 400.

Great cars!

mtnbunny27

Sorry for all the confusion I have stirred up. But I do have all the paper work I wrote up when I was working on the car, that is why I still have all the exact information. I have a file on Riviera with all sorts of articles etc. and hand written notes on the car. I found one such paper that I wrote up with all the options and transmission, it says "Super Twin Turbine 2 speed Hydramatic" transmission. On another it says the Super Twin Turbine 400, 2 speed. I had written under it, (first year for this transmission).

In the 65 Riviera Owners Manual I have, they went to the Super Turbine 400, 3 speed.

On another subject my 69 Skylark has the Super Turbine 300, I guess it is unusual and certainly is hard to get filters for, (went through that recently). I have had people actually stand in front of me and tell me that it could not possibly have that transmission in it. My Dad still trys to tell me that the 66 Buick Special I had, had the Chevy 2 speed something or the other in it....not true! (A Ford man.) Just like people that try to tell me that my 69 Buick Skylark, that I spent weeks rebuilding personally has the Chevy engine in it. (It says Buick 350) right on it). I know there was a lot of engine sharing in the 70's. When I am restoring a Buick, I don't want any Chevy parts in it!!!.....I am a big Buick fan...and Buick all the way for me...PURE BUICK! Personally I think for people to get to bottom of these types of things, talk to someone that has spent endless hours restoring a car, and searching for parts nationwide. And also a person that has the written documentation from the vehicle in question. Books are worthless, as manufacturers make substitutions that aren't always documented in mainstream publications.

PS Anyone been to the Laughlin Car Museum in Laughlin Nevada???.....I may be wrong, but I think it is the original Imperial Collection....talk about a great place to spend an afternoon out of the 110 heat! I love that place, and have spent hours there. I think they have a 65 Riviera GS, but may have seen it in another collection. I think The St Louis Car Collection, (can be found online) had a lovely 65 for sale recently, I sure drooled over that one!

mtnbunny27

PS... Certainly it is not fair for me to say books are "worthless", but I will say that they should be used as a general guide at best. There are and always will be exceptions to what is actually installed on the assembly line. These altercations do not always make it into the books........enough said...

mtnbunny27

Well, finally I have the real story on the 401 engine for 1964 Riviera! I did some research and talked to someone that is an expert on Riviera. I knew that I was not getting the real scoop in this forum, as I did have a 1964 Riviera, and it DID have a 401 original engine. Like I said before, just because someone owns a Riviera, doesn't men they ever restored one or knows anything about them. I guess this should be a lesson for many....use these forums as a general guide, but don't bank on anything people espouse here. So here is the real story from someone that is an expert on Riviera.
His site is as follows:
http://www.redeemer.on.ca/~cknowles/index.html

His letter to me is as follows:

Here's the answer to your 401 vs 425 question.
The STANDARD engine for 1964 was the 425, and the option 425 with 2 4 bbl carbs.
During early 1964, only the 425 was officially available, with the option being the potent 425 with dual 4 bbl. Late in 1964 production, the 401 was re-introduced as a more "fuel efficient" option. But was too late to be introduced into the factory literature. This became official for 1965.
It is not documented how many 401's were installed in 1964, but I have encountered quite a few in my travels.
Unlike ordering cars today, you could have nearly anything installed in your car from the factory if you knew what option codes to order.
Since Buick still made the 401 in 1964 you could order it.
The engine codes for 1964 Riviera were as follows:
KT 401 4bbl
KW 425 4bbl
KX 425 dual 4bbl
(end of letter)

Now it is settled, anyone wanting to check out a great Riviera site, check out Chris' Riviera Spot Splash Page.