PDA

View Full Version : 2x4 intake flow & performance data



Pages : [1] 2

ahhh65riv
11-15-2006, 01:37 AM
Does anyone have flow and/or performance data on any of the 2x4 intakes that they are willing to share?

My motor is at the builders now and putting together a nice "package". This will include a 2x4 setup. I am currently working with Marty at Eelco (formerly nwspeedequipment) and ERD (Engine Research and Development- my local engine builder) to gather this long awaited independant data on the Eelco intake! I have been reading here that many of you have been holding out. I don't know exactly where this is going to lead, but likely will involve various brand intake and carb combinations. The testing and dyno time will not be cheap, but hopefully many will benefit from this independant unbiased data. :TU:

I will keep everyone posted on the project as it progresses

Erik Schmidt

SpecialWagon65
11-15-2006, 09:55 AM
We are looking forward to that data Erik :TU:
Will you have to have a hood scoop on the riv to fit the manifold, carbs and air cleaners? What carbs are you using?

Ted

DualQuad55
11-15-2006, 07:08 PM
Have you spoken with Tom Telesco? I know he has done a few dyno pulls with nailheads but I don't know how many intakes he has used. He helped a friend pull a stroker motor bck in the spring but I think they were using only single 4bbl intake setups.

wkillgs
11-15-2006, 10:52 PM
Bill Stacy has flow data for stock and modified Q-jet and 2x4 iron manifolds on his 'Buickstreet' site:
http://www.buickstreet.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=53

I've heard the old Edelbrock is worth about 15hp over the stock 2x4. EELCO's new manifold is a clone of the 'brock.....so that's the best new intake out there. Sure wish T/A would make us some nice intakes!

EELCO also has intake 'risers' ,or spacers, which I've heard actually hurt performance.

ahhh65riv
11-16-2006, 01:14 AM
Excellent find Walt, Thanks for the link! This will be a good place to start.

Yes, you are absolutely right. The Eelco is basically a Edelbrock b262 clone that has modifications to the porting Similar to what was done to the ones in this article. Marty has sacrificed (cut apart) many of the different types out there to create a pattern for his new casting. so this should, in theory prove successfull. He has some limited flow data already, but is after more specific bench data that is obtained from more modern "live data" dynos. Marty may weigh in here sooner or later on this thread to expand more on this... hopefully.

Even more cool would be this same dyno/flow data for the various other intakes he has, but I'm not just advocating for his products. I am after unbiased independant testing. Maybe one of the Rod and Custom mags might like to pick this up and validate???

As far as the hood scoop, NO WAY! although I have to admit blowers look really cool sticking out of Rivs! According to Marty, they (Eelco) will mill off 3/8'ths of an inch off the intake to fit under the hood if he knows you are putting it on a Riviera -especially a 63, which is the tightest fit.

I sent Tom a message a few days ago with what we were up to. I haven't heard back from him yet. I had another motive I wanted to contact him as well, as I am considering his roller tip rockers in my buildup.

As far as the carbs... I am battleing in my own thoughts still. I am leaning toward Road Demon Jrs. They are designed for dual 4barrels, and my engine builder is a Barry Grant dealer anyway. He is well know up here in the North West in the sprint and circle track world, and is very experienced with them. Then again I may end up with dual 500 CFM Edelbrocks for the sake of the test. What is the consensus? :Do No:

You can check out the BG's here: http://www.barrygrant.com/demon/default.aspx?page=6
Don't forget, there is a second page here for the application data.

nailheadina67
11-16-2006, 09:25 PM
According to Marty, they (Eelco) will mill off 3/8'ths of an inch off the intake to fit under the hood if he knows you are putting it on a Riviera

:shock: :puzzled: There is only a very, very close space between the bolt heads that hold down the valley pan and the stock 2 x 4 intake manifold.......how does he compensate for that? I'd think bringing the intake down 3/8" closer (even though it's an aftermarket) would have it almost resting right on the valley cover leaving no room at all for the bolt heads to fit inbetween. Those manifolds must be much higher than stock. :confused:

telriv
11-17-2006, 04:15 AM
Erik, Tom here. Never got your message, I don't believe. Anyways, can't give any flow numbers other than what's been stated on Bill's site in the past. I do know that the Edelbrock B262 makes the most HP over anything else out there. The Aluminum Dual Quad Experimental is next in line. Stock cast iron is next. All others fall behind with the Offy being the absolute worst. The Q-Jet, on my friend Bob's engine didn't make any more HP over the stock single 4 cast iron intake off my '64 Riv. with an adapter plate & a double pumper Holley. In fact, the Q-Jet had a much smaller HP & Torque curve, 7-800RPM's as opposed to my Holley or any of the dual quads we used, average about 12-1500RPM's for a torque & HP curve. On 2 different engines so far the 1" spacers have lost 10HP & 15ft. lbs. of torque on both, so we didn't try the 2" or the 1/2" spacers that I made. Dyno time is expensive & if there are no results with 1" why go any further??? You could have a cam made to help the risers, but in my opinion the expense for a cam to just use the risers to be a benefit is a waste. Gain in one area & lose in another. Just my thoughts. The risers do have a purpose & that is to raise the manifold you may be using to have linkages clear & not for a performance improvement.
I would imagine the 3/8ths. of an inch would be off the top of the manifold where the carbs. would sit.

4toe
11-22-2006, 02:27 PM
Marty here;

I am looking forward to working with Gary and Eric on this project and we have already started the ball rolling. Performance data in a real time side by side comparison from a third party will be beneficial to us and the customers who own this manifold. We have had a lot of postive response and some claims from our customers; but none we have been able to witness or post data.

I have never met these guys but from the conversations I have had with them; we will all have a good time with this project.

Poppaluv
01-09-2007, 11:33 PM
Any new news????

ahhh65riv
01-10-2007, 01:00 AM
Well, here is where it goes...

After I pulled the 401 engine out and was disassembled, the cause of the "knock" was found. The #5 rod bearing had spun. The crank had already been turned .030 under, soooo... off to look for a new crank! I filled Marty in and it so happened he had one in stock. While I was at it, I bought another 65 Riv -This one a GS- from Marty. I am now using my non GS for a full body restore to the GS! :Brow: (Dang! now I have to change my signature!) The GS body was in pretty bad rusty shape, and not much good other than the drive train, and a few of the GS goodies anyway. Anyway, now I am building up from the 425 block! But now I have the 401 drive train still to possibly put in a mid 80's Regal or GN body in the future??? Perhaps I should take a vote... Wouldn't a blown nailhead Regal be awsome!!! By the way... I got a chance to finally meet Marty and his family in person and got a personal tour of Eelco manufacturing when I picked up the GS stuff. what a treat and a nice family!

I have decided to go with forged pistons (Diamond), got ARP bolts and main studs, rods and pistons should be being weighed and ballanced as we speak with the new (reworked) crank. There was a lot of casting flash clean-up on the heads as well as standard porting and polishing. Havent chosen a cam yet. We are still looking to reduce the valve stem diameter from the stock 3/8's to 11/32. The idea is reducing valve train weight. Gary believes the nailhead has a lot to gain (reduce) here, and not necissarily in changing the size of the valves as there simply is not room for much bigger valves. I wish I could justify a set of Toms roller tip rockers. This would be great for the Dyno testing as well. (see related thread)

The 425 block is in geat shape. It has been hot dipped, and Mag Particled-No cracks. If I remember correctly, he said the bores are yet untouched, so a standard .030 overbore it will be and decked true and no more (was only .003 off) and just a polish on the crank bearing bores.

Things have actually been pretty slow going, as the holidays have slowed things down a bit. As Spring gets closer, race engine builders get too busy for us hobby builders. Things should start moving again, now to be done before race season. These things can't be rushed anyway. I have been out of town also, but will have some photos to post. In the mean time check out Gary Stephenson at ERD via Racerscorner.com. I am sick from going over to the shop to see all the high end race boat blown alcohol stuff an sprint car motors he does over there! :eek2:

Erik

ahhh65riv
01-10-2007, 01:15 AM
Oh... and one more thing! Not to let the cat out of the bag, but it looks like the Eelco 2x4 will be going head to head on the dyno against a Edelbrock B262!

Originally it was going to be against an Offy, as that is the only other aftermarket intake available anyway, but I want to know how MUCH better is it than the currently best known performer (but hard to get) Edlelbrock B262. Who knows, we might do all three. Perhaps even also with the original OEM dual quad setup. Dyno time is expensive, and I don't really think there would be much to gain by that anyway, other than a benchmark.

Erik

wkillgs
01-10-2007, 11:32 AM
It sounds great EriK!
Keep us posted on the results!

ahhh65riv
01-18-2007, 01:10 PM
Here are some pics

DugsSin
01-18-2007, 08:12 PM
Looking forward to the results, personally I won't waste the time and money with the Offy manifold. I've yet to hear of anyone who gained any performance with it.

Will you be running the exhaust crossover open or closed in the manifolds.

telriv
01-18-2007, 11:22 PM
Erik, there's much performance to be gained by the head work alone. It would be a waste to be soooo far & not do any head work. I know, above many other things that you'll be pleased with the results. The cam selection is also a very important topic/issue, many recommendations, many are mostly inaccurate. Ask lots of questions through many different, experienced NailHeaders. Go to the NailHead site, so much invaluable information. Many things are not agreed upon as we all have our own thoughts, opinions, experiences, etc, but a wealth of info otherwise.

4toe
02-12-2007, 10:19 PM
The Eelco 2x4 is on the way to the shop and I will bring along the edelbrock and the stock manifold when the engine is ready. I understand it is being assembled now.

JEFF STRUBE
02-12-2007, 10:29 PM
The Eelco 2x4 is on the way to the shop and I will bring along the edelbrock and the stock manifold when the engine is ready. I understand it is being assembled now.

Whats up on the Eelco intake is it as good as the Edelbrock intake?

Is this intake able to be purchased at this time?

ahhh65riv
02-13-2007, 12:50 AM
Thats the million dollar question! That's what I'm paying to find out...
Ok...not really quite a million dollars, but I want to know the same thing, and Marty (4toe) is putting up! The anticipation is growing!!! This is going to be good!

Erik Schmidt

4toe
02-13-2007, 12:25 PM
The intakes are available at this time. We have sold quite a few of them and have had an overwhelmingly good response as to the quality of the castings and the seat of your pants performance. The manifold was based on the already popular and proven edelbrock manifold. We sacrificed a few B262's in our research to find any design flaws that may have been present. Given the fact that we have better technology than they did in the 60's. Using published flow data from nailhead engines and common formulas for determining volumetric efficiency; we where able to determine that as good as the edelbrock is; there where inconsistencies in the runner volume and the fuel channels (ribs in the bottom of the plenum) where slightly restrictive. We made the changes and upgrades to the design and also made the manifold cosmetically different by creating a completely new carb. mounting flange that was significantly stronger and eliminated the chances of breaking out the mounting bolts. The heat exchangers where also reduced in volume to keep the manifold temps lower and therefore produce horsepower. With all these changes I am certain that we produced a winner. I swapped the eelco manifold with a b262 that I had on my lesabre and immediately could tell the difference. Most of which was at 2500 to 4000 rpm; which is a common operating range for a 2x4. This manifold merely resembles the b262 but as you can tell it is a completely new design. We now have an opportunity to aquire independent testing and I for one and excited to get the results.

66gsconv
02-13-2007, 04:37 PM
Hi 4toe, will this intake fit under the riv hood or skylark gs with a after market air filter? Thanks
Bob

yacster
02-14-2007, 03:19 PM
I can't wait to see the results guys. By the way are you going to test a stock single carb set up just to see the gains. I was just wondering.

ahhh65riv
02-14-2007, 06:07 PM
Yacster-

Naahh. That information is already provided by Buick. I don't see where there would be any gain in that. The purpose of the tests are to compare the performance of 2x4 manifolds currently available.

Although... Eelco will also very shortly (if not already) have available an aluminum high performance single four aftermarket intake that should blow away anything else... Just ask Marty about that...



66GSCONV-

See my response on 11-16 on this same topic about milling off 3/8ths of an inch. I guess that would also depend on what kind of aftermarket air cleaner are you considering.

CTX-SLPR
02-14-2007, 07:25 PM
did the carb spacing change from the stock iron manifold?

nailheadina67
02-15-2007, 12:10 PM
Hi 4toe, will this intake fit under the riv hood or skylark gs with a after market air filter? Thanks
Bob

I don't think it would with a stock air cleaner.........otherwise I might want one! :Brow:

yacster
02-15-2007, 06:13 PM
[
Although... Eelco will also very shortly (if not already) have available an aluminum high performance single four aftermarket intake that should blow away anything else... Just ask Marty about that...



Ok marty - I am asking What about the new single 4BBL intake ... Let's hear what ya got there !

(Still want the dual's - they just look so damn cool:bglasses:)

yacster
03-01-2007, 09:43 AM
Any word on the testing yet??????:Do No:

4toe
03-22-2007, 09:37 PM
Hi Guys.

Sorry for the delay in response here. I don't get a lot of time to get on here. I just finished the 3x2 manifold and a single four is on the drawing board but hasn't come to fruition. I will post pics of the 3x2 in a week or so. It's a new runner design and a real bad ass to boot.

The carb spacing on the 2x4 is a little closer than stock so a stock 2x4 air cleaner wil not work. We have had several customers with Rivieras running 2-2.5" air cleaners with no trouble and we just finished the molds and poured the first finned oval air cleaner of our own design. Pics will come soon on that also.

The B&M style filters with the rectangle elements hanging off the side look and work good also.

If you need to get a message to me faster email me direct: sales@eelco-usa.com

Take Care, Marty

BTW, TA Performance stocks our 2x4 manifold also.

ahhh65riv
05-15-2007, 12:10 AM
As an update...

The Diamond forged racing pistons are in:TU:
Got ARP bolts.
The heads are done They are ported- mostly bowl cleanup (needed lots!) and gasket matched. Not changing valve diameter other than stem size to 11/32
Got the 2x4 intake... Sweet!
The Bary Grant 625's are also ordered.
The block is done. It has been bored .030 over, and journals line bored, and all the other necessities. It has been sonic tested- Plenty of meat! I talked to Gary about Tom T's advise on hard blocking an inch up in the water passage to reduce/prevent ring seal problems, and he agreed that was a great idea. Have been waiting on special ordered 11/32 valves from Manley... and waiting...and waiting...I got this Email today from Gary.

Hi Eric. I received your new valves today and they are very nice however they forgot one process which is major importance. They forgot to undercut the stem behind the head so today i am checking fit and geometry and then shipping them back to be completed.
Thx
Gary..........block is soniced and filled to the bottom of the freeze plugs.

Gary Stevenson
Engine Research and Development
PO BOX 126
CRESWELL ORE 97426
www.racerscorner.com

Oh, and speaking of Tom... Yes, his roller tip rockers are also in the plan for the dyno testing. Got 'em sent Tom? Did Gary call you yet? If you are waiting on payment still, let me know and I will take care of that.

In the mean time, and now that the weather is getting better the Riv is getting some TLC. The interior is stripped out. I have all new rubber, vinyl, carpet and seat belts. I am replacing all the light bulbs, checking motors, heater/AC controls, etc.The miscelaneous assesories- fan, brackets, pulleys, etc are cleaned stripped and primered. The ST400 is out to be gone through.

I have pretty much left Gary alone as he has been extreemly busy. He rarely answers his phone but always calls me back. My "holy nail" is sitting in parts cart next to a 426 Hemi out of a very low milage mint 'cuda. I am "small peanuts" in comparison to all the other racing motors in his shop. Besides, the last thing I want a rush job. He told me last week this is his last season in the racing business. He will semi-retire and wants to do only hand-picked hoby jobs like mine.

On top of a big wedding and honeymoon in June:bglasses: , funds are tight now but hopefully will be able to fire by July.

Catch you all later. This WILL happen. Stay tuned!
Erik

87GN@Tahoe
05-15-2007, 12:00 PM
sounds GREAT!

if i may ask, how much is he charging you for the build and what all are you having done?

wes

ahhh65riv
05-15-2007, 01:07 PM
Too much of course! You know... These things are never cheap, and cost do tend to sneak up. The final bill is not in yet. I wasn't originally planning on going to the extent that I am now, but I am enjoying the hoby. Just the added cost of the Roller Rockers, and the headders blow me over my budget, but as far as the machining cost, I thought was very reasonable. Gary prices out each step of the process and has each one listed on the work-up sheet. The costs go high when custom labor is involved- porting heads, fiddleing with valve geometry, etc. Gary has already spent many unbillable hours because of the research and checking and re-checking because it's not just any ol' Chebby he builds every day going in a sprint car.

Basically the nail is being rebuilt, ballenced, blueprinted and dynoed- complete- from carb to pan. Sorry I can't give you a clear figure at this time. By my estimate, I am guessing I am running around $4,000 range at this point... Then Dyno time will come in.

Erik

87GN@Tahoe
05-15-2007, 03:08 PM
that's not bad... and i'm just a hop-skip-and a jump away:Brow:

Dogboy48
05-15-2007, 03:22 PM
that's not bad... and i'm just a hop-skip-and a jump away:Brow:

And I'm just a hop!!!!!! :Brow:

telriv
05-15-2007, 05:47 PM
Haven't heard anything from yourself or Gary. I did do as I said & have a set with shafts set & ready to go. You or Gary can give me a shout.

87GN@Tahoe
05-17-2007, 02:10 PM
now, is he going to get flow numbers from your heads?.. i'd like to see the results of thoses and the dyno runs..

wes

telriv
05-19-2007, 05:54 AM
Ttt

ahhh65riv
05-23-2007, 06:41 PM
Payment in full for Tom's Roller Rockers sent .:dollar:
This better be good, 'cause there goes the spending money for the honeymoon trip! (Glad the fiance' understands!:spank: )

telriv
05-23-2007, 07:22 PM
Erik, now your making me the heavy!!!!! LOL!!!!! That's one hell of an understanding future wife. Hope it continues that way, way into the future!!!!
HA!!!HA!!!!HA!!!!!


Tom T.

yacster
05-24-2007, 07:35 AM
Payment in full for Tom's Roller Rockers sent .:dollar:
This better be good, 'cause there goes the spending money for the honeymoon trip! (Glad the fiance' understands!:spank: )

BUY FLOWERS NOWWWWWWWWWWWWW OR IT WON'T LAST :Dou:

Poppaluv
05-29-2007, 02:37 AM
sorry for the noob ? But Why is it important to sometimes "fill" a block for the seals. How does it help.

P.S. Tom,

Any idea when the tips will ship.:) Just created
ONE clean, safe,uncluttered spot in the garage w/ all the house crap in there..:Dou:





s

DualQuad55
05-30-2007, 07:41 PM
Hardblocking the water passages helps stiffen up the bottom of the cylinders, keeping them from flexing and egg shaping. By only filling up to the bottom of the freezeout/casting plugs, you still allow water/coolant to pass and help cool the engine.
It is a very worth while procedure especially if you are going to pound on the engine, and the cost is typically very low.
It can be done at home for the 'do it yourselfers' I think jegs, Summit etc sell 'hard block'. I think most engine machinists prefer to have the hard block installed and 'setup' before machining, but you should check with your machinist first.

ahhh65riv
05-30-2007, 09:09 PM
That's 100% correct. When you bore the cyllinders, the walls obviously become thinner, but this also takes away structural support for compression to take place. 425 Blocks are even more prone to this. If you have ever looked at what sonic testing tells you, this becomes apparent how close to the watter passages a 30 over bore (or more) will put you. Under high stress and compression, the walls can flex, egg shape or even worse rupture, but mostly this will represent itself as piston ring seal issues. The "hard block" just helps add back structure to the bore. Today's Moly rings also help. This process is probably not necissary for your every day driver, but could make the difference of when your tired 'ol nailhead starts to smoke and is ready to be rebuilt again.

On a point of clarity- The "hard block" I used is an Epoxy based backing resin. This is used in the industrial world for filler, grouting, floating footings and such. I purchased the stuff from my place of employment as we use it for installing "grouting in" if you will, manganese wear liners in roller bearing rock crushing cones. It is made by several manufactures- Dupont and Loctite and Fel-Pro are a few that come to mind. It's known in the trade as Nordback, Hardback or Strongback. It is lighter than cement and has a coefficient of expansion that is closer to that of steel. Having that stuff come loose in your water passages would not be pretty!:Dou: Full drag racing engines do not have a cooling system at all. The water passages are filled completely full with "hard block" for extreme cyllinder support and overall block rigidity.

Now Tom... Where are those gold plated Rockers?!?!? :bla:

Erik

telriv
05-30-2007, 09:29 PM
As I replied earlier. I received your personal check in late Friday's mail, 5-25-07. Because of the holiday I wasn't able to deposit such check until Tuesday, 5-29-07. As soon as I have confirmation that it has cleared I will inform you & the "Rockers" will be shipped that day. I'm pretty sure we discussed the fastest way for shipment would be a Postal Money Order & that I would have to wait for a check to clear beforehand. I was told I should have an answer on the clearing by Monday the 6th. of June. Is Gary ready yet?? I would imagine if I shipped them the 6th. or 7th. you would have them by weeks end. They are ready & set to go as of 5 weeks ago.

Tom

ahhh65riv
05-30-2007, 10:08 PM
Yes Tom, All right... you did say all of that. Didn't mean to muddy your good name! I was just ribbing ya' some more! Besides, I'm just getting anxious.

Thanks Tom.

Erik

telriv
05-30-2007, 10:12 PM
No problem Erik, I just wanted to clarify & be certain I made no boo boo's.

Poppaluv
06-08-2007, 01:38 AM
As I replied earlier. I received your personal check in late Friday's mail, 5-25-07. Because of the holiday I wasn't able to deposit such check until Tuesday, 5-29-07. As soon as I have confirmation that it has cleared I will inform you & the "Rockers" will be shipped that day. I'm pretty sure we discussed the fastest way for shipment would be a Postal Money Order & that I would have to wait for a check to clear beforehand. I was told I should have an answer on the clearing by Monday the 6th. of June. Is Gary ready yet?? I would imagine if I shipped them the 6th. or 7th. you would have them by weeks end. They are ready & set to go as of 5 weeks ago.

Tom

Hey Tom,
Is this meant for me?
I thought my $ cleared over a month ago, and was just waitin' for them to come in.
Please let me know what's up?.....No worries....I hope....:TU:

telriv
06-08-2007, 08:39 PM
Wasn't meant for you Jason. There are no worries.

riv1964
06-10-2007, 06:18 PM
Any info on the Weiand 2 X 4 bbl intake on the 425? I've been running one for about 26 years. Was ok with the original Carters, but much much improved with 2 500 cfm Edlebrocks
Roger:Comp:

ahhh65riv
06-11-2007, 01:12 AM
I don't have a plan to put a Weiand in the lineup for the test. I believe that information is out there already. I don't want to test a Weiand for the same reason I'm not testing an Offenhauser. The purpose is to hold Eelco's feet to the fire with the claims of their 2x4 being better than anything else out there. I have also heard Weiands are also nice, but it is broadly believed-and dare I say, "established", that the Edelbrock B262 has been the best one of the lot of them based on testimonials and dyno testing of many for a while.

As an update-
Toms Roller-tip rockers are in. Thanks Tom!
The block is waiting on a new flexplate for ballencing, then off to the assembly room! Still waiting on the valves to come back from Manley, but should be back any time.

87GN@Tahoe
06-11-2007, 02:27 AM
you having a new flexplate built?...

on another note, i just left correspondence with your builder about building another, this time low compression for boost:Brow:

wes

66gsconv
06-17-2007, 10:15 AM
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u91/66gsconv/Pic529.jpg

I got my fathers day present on friday. I thought this was the right place to show a few pictures. Erik was right , it is a nice looking intake.

Bob

66gsconv
06-17-2007, 10:24 AM
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u91/66gsconv/Pic532.jpg

66gsconv
06-17-2007, 10:25 AM
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u91/66gsconv/Pic530.jpg

66gsconv
06-17-2007, 10:27 AM
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u91/66gsconv/Pic519.jpg

some reason I could only send 1 picture at a time.
Bob

GOSFAST
06-17-2007, 11:04 AM
Hi Bob, nice piece you got there.

I want to place this post here because it's pertinent to the photos! I "see" this hundreds of times in "shots" up here on the web.

Please don't take this as a "poke" at your work ethics!

When you're working around the vehicle, don't care what it's about, you should never leave the carbs "uncovered" like the photo's show. You have no idea with me doing engines for over 40 years now, how many times we've opened a unit and had a nut, bolt, screw, etc. jammed into the pistons'. I can't count/remember the all the times now.

Occasionally you never know anything dropped/or was placed in there until after "fire-up" and the "catastrophe" is over.

I've actually had one or two done on purpose! Without the owner ever aware of the debris.

I would also "cover" the spark plug holes.

(Important) If this was all done only during the "photo-op", then take these as "tips" for the future!

Thanks, Gary in N.Y.

P.S. One other recommendation we make here is "never under any circumstances fire the unit with open headers", you will never be able to "hear" a problem.

Double P.S. I've always been kind of partial to the "Nailheads" ever since I had the one below in the photo! 1965 Gran-Sport, 4 speed, 2x4's, 4:33 posi, and a "coupe" to boot! Loved it!

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/9194/garys1965gs02um4.th.jpg (http://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=garys1965gs02um4.jpg)

87GN@Tahoe
06-17-2007, 11:12 AM
i wonder what it would be like with dual quadrajets?

that is, IF they had designed the intake to accept quadrajets :rant: :Do No:

66gsconv
06-17-2007, 11:46 AM
Hi Gary, Yes the heads are taped up and that was set up for a photo op.Nothing was bolted down. BUT you did catch me with the plugs out for a week. I was going to clean them up a little, some paint on them. I guess I should get on that. Thanks for the tips though. I will always take some one elses opion that does this stuff for a liveing.
Bob

Riviman
06-17-2007, 02:50 PM
Here's a pic of a Dual Quadrajet Manifold.

DualQuad55
06-19-2007, 09:34 PM
I see that the Eelco manifold has a similar design flaw as does the B262-the 'flange' where the front carb sits has very little arear in the center of the front. This is underneath the idle air passage on stock AFB carbs. It may seal initially but in a short time, the gasket will 'sag' and allow a major vacuum leak most noticable at or just above idle. On my b262, i could actually hear a slight whistle and it took quite some time to find the source. Tom T. said he has run into this a few times as well.
I chose to put steel plates between the carbs and manifold (although only the front carb is of concern, I did both to keep the heights similar).
I think Tom said he has filled the passages in some applications.
ALthough I am currently set up with factory carbs, meaning the front does not have an idle circuit for fuel or air, the base is the same as the primary carb and the passage is cast into the carb base, just not machined in the main body. This still creates the lean-vacuum leak condition.
Other wise the intake looks nice, hopefully it will do everything it is said to do.

telriv
06-23-2007, 03:14 AM
An FYI, this Eelco manifold has more sealing area than a B262. I'm sure one of the improvements.

Tom T.

4toe
07-03-2007, 02:56 PM
Hello Everyone, Glad to see this thread still has an ear. We did add a significant amount of gasket surface to carb bases. It has the same shape as the B262 for asthetics but is larger.

The engine is in the final stages of assembly from what I understand so we are anxiously awaiting. I have had several reports back from customers with their own horsepower claims and all are very gratifying. Thanks for all the support and feedback. Another engine is being assembled here for dyno pulls in Portland so we will post both sets of results.

In the meantime, heres the new 3x2!

Dogboy48
07-03-2007, 09:03 PM
Hello Everyone, Glad to see this thread still has an ear. We did add a significant amount of gasket surface to carb bases. It has the same shape as the B262 for asthetics but is larger.

The engine is in the final stages of assembly from what I understand so we are anxiously awaiting. I have had several reports back from customers with their own horsepower claims and all are very gratifying. Thanks for all the support and feedback. Another engine is being assembled here for dyno pulls in Portland so we will post both sets of results.

In the meantime, heres the new 3x2!

3x2 WOW!Is this for the nailhead only?

4toe
07-04-2007, 12:21 AM
This one is for 401 and 425 nailhead only. We also have one for the 331-354-392 Chrysler hemi

ahhh65riv
09-11-2007, 12:23 AM
Everyone-

It's been a busy summer! Here are some photos of how the build is comming...

15 ERD
1-5 In the assembly room. Note the hardblock up to the freeze plugs.
6-9 Forged Pistons, Toms Roller Rockers, Beehive springs, cam, etc.
10-14 Headwork- porting, polishing, and 11/32 valves...
16-18 Eelco 2X4 intake on block
19 TA high volume oil pump & timing set

Reciprocating assembly is ballanced
Heads are done. (could spend a fortune in more porting and polishing!)
Block is done.
Dual Barry Grants Road Demon Jrs. are on the way...:-) Gonna do it cause no one else has! Gary knows how to make 'em run!

nimrod
09-11-2007, 02:45 AM
faaantastic! that's the way to go for! this should the next stage after i have received and installed the TA headers. hmmmm ... have to think of a way to "redirect" money from our family purse to improving my nailhead:Brow: .

4toe
11-27-2007, 04:22 PM
looks bitchin; can't wait to get down and here it run.

63riv
11-28-2007, 08:49 PM
looks bitchin; can't wait to get down and here it run.

Has there been any dyno runs with the new manifold?

ahhh65riv
11-29-2007, 01:46 AM
Here's some more photo's from just last week.

Obviously the pushrods are not installed in these photos, but I wanted to show the rocker tip relationship to the valve stem centerline geometry. Tom- I would like you to comment what you know about this placement. Am I not correct the roller should pass equally through the centerline as it travels through the open/close cycle, otherwise you would sideload the valve stem?

The photos also show (rather nicely) the extent of porting that was done to the intakes.:TU:

Gary wants to know if anyone else is interested in the 11/32 valve set-up as I have in the photos. His is considering putting valve "kits" together to sell as you see here- Springs, keepers, guides, and Special order Manley valves. I have to admit everything there turned out really sweet! Valve spring pressures turned out right on the money, no coil bind, and with the Telesco roller tip rockers, this is a 1st class set-up! I do however, believe it does require "cutting the pockets" for the springs.

BTW- the two blown belly button chevy motors in the background are going into 69 Corvettes.

I am SORELY dissapointed that I will not be able to run the Barry Grant carbs as I wanted. They simply will not fit- Not even close. I will now be going the Eddlebrock route.

Here is my cam card info:
Comp Cams Part # 91-000-5.
Grind#: B364 5201/5203 H 112+2
Gross Valve lift: Intake .485, Exhaust.496
Duration @.006 Tappet Lift: 275 intake 280 exhaust
Valve Timing Open Closed
@.050 INT 2 BTDC 42 ABDC
EXH 49 BBDC 1 ATDC
These Specs are for Cam installed
@110.0 Intake centerline
Intake Exhaust
Duration @.050 224 231
Lobe Lift .3130 .3200
Lobe Seperation 112.0

We havent got the distributor back from getting recurved, but is due back any day. Will be using an MSD 6AL.

I have a kanundrum. I am sitting on the fence whether to use headders or the original manifolds. Yeah, headders look cool and are a usual bragging point, but I am not conviced there are any performance gains with headers on a Nailhead. I am interested in feedback who has done modifications to stock manifolds for perfomance gains. I have heard of others "45" the openings of the manifold inlets at the bottom to help direct the flow downward better as the exaust naturally comes out of the head, and that this is a better flow improvement than bolting on headders. For the Dyno it would be better to have headders that can be drilled and tapped to install the O2 sensors for each port. Has anybody done this with manifolds? The collector passage in a manifold is pretty close to the inlet where the O2 sensor should be placed.

Supposedly we are getting close to the the Dyno run. Gary has another 426 Hemi ahead of me on the dyno reserved, and is saying that I'm scheduled next after that. We'll see. He said this would be within a month but then again he has had my motor since last October. I know a lot of people have been waiting for this dyno data.

63Riv- If you can come up with anyone else who is willing to publish thier data, please let me know. As far as I know I will be the first to do so, and soley for the purpose of goodwill for other fellow Nailheadders. I am testing the Eelco 2x4 intake in comparison with an Eddlebrock B262. A side benifit will show another dyno result for Toms Rockers.

Marty- Yes. It is Bitchen! It makes my sticker peck out!
Also, do you have that Buick to Chevy trans adapter to borrow for the dyno?

Wes- Gary said he hasn't got your message about a low compression build for running boost. You might want to check again. I cant say gary is quick, but I can vouch for is attention to detail, that things will be done right the first time. After i have financially recovered from my Rivi project, I want to run boost on my 401 in a mid 80's Regal- And I'm not talking Turbo boost either. I'm thinking a carcas of a body and frame with a 671 blower sticking out of the hood could run the 1/4 in numbers rarely seen out of a nail.

Catch you all later.
Erik

63riv
11-29-2007, 01:58 AM
Here's some more photo's from just last week.

Obviously the pushrods are not installed in these photos, but I wanted to show the rocker tip relationship to the valve stem centerline geometry. Tom- I would like you to comment what you know about this placement. Am I not correct the roller should pass equally through the centerline as it travels through the open/close cycle, otherwise you would sideload the valve stem?

The photos also show (rather nicely) the extent of porting that was done to the intakes.:TU:

Gary wants to know if anyone else is interested in the 11/32 valve set-up as I have in the photos. His is considering putting valve "kits" together to sell as you see here- Springs, keepers, guides, and Special order Manley valves. I have to admit everything there turned out really sweet! Valve spring pressures turned out right on the money, no coil bind, and with the Telesco roller tip rockers, this is a 1st class set-up! I do however, believe it does require "cutting the pockets" for the springs.

BTW- the two blown belly button chevy motors in the background are going into 69 Corvettes.

I am SORELY dissapointed that I will not be able to run the Barry Grant carbs as I wanted. They simply will not fit- Not even close. I will now be going the Eddlebrock route.

Here is my cam card info:
Comp Cams Part # 91-000-5.
Grind#: B364 5201/5203 H 112+2
Gross Valve lift: Intake .485, Exhaust.496
Duration @.006 Tappet Lift: 275 intake 280 exhaust
Valve Timing Open Closed
@.050 INT 2 BTDC 42 ABDC
EXH 49 BBDC 1 ATDC
These Specs are for Cam installed
@110.0 Intake centerline
Intake Exhaust
Duration @.050 224 231
Lobe Lift .3130 .3200
Lobe Seperation 112.0

We havent got the distributor back from getting recurved, but is due back any day. Will be using an MSD 6AL.

I have a kanundrum. I am sitting on the fence whether to use headders or the original manifolds. Yeah, headders look cool and are a usual bragging point, but I am not conviced there are any performance gains with headers on a Nailhead. I am interested in feedback who has done modifications to stock manifolds for perfomance gains. I have heard of others "45" the openings of the manifold inlets at the bottom to help direct the flow downward better as the exaust naturally comes out of the head, and that this is a better flow improvement than bolting on headders. For the Dyno it would be better to have headders that can be drilled and tapped to install the O2 sensors for each port. Has anybody done this with manifolds? The collector passage in a manifold is pretty close to the inlet where the O2 sensor should be placed.

Supposedly we are getting close to the the Dyno run. Gary has another 426 Hemi ahead of me on the dyno reserved, and is saying that I'm scheduled next after that. We'll see. He said this would be within a month but then again he has had my motor since last October. I know a lot of people have been waiting for this dyno data.

63Riv- If you can come up with anyone else who is willing to publish thier data, please let me know. As far as I know I will be the first to do so, and soley for the purpose of goodwill for other fellow Nailheadders. I am testing the Eelco 2x4 intake in comparison with an Eddlebrock B262. A side benifit will show another dyno result for Toms Rockers.

Marty- Yes. It is Bitchen! It makes my sticker peck out!
Also, do you have that Buick to Chevy trans adapter to borrow for the dyno?

Wes- Gary said he hasn't got your message about a low compression build for running boost. You might want to check again. I cant say gary is quick, but I can vouch for is attention to detail, that things will be done right the first time. After i have financially recovered from my Rivi project, I want to run boost on my 401 in a mid 80's Regal- And I'm not talking Turbo boost either. I'm thinking a carcas of a body and frame with a 671 blower sticking out of the hood could run the 1/4 in numbers rarely seen out of a nail.

Catch you all later.
Erik

As far as published data, I had my nailhead dynoed back in 1999 but have limited data to share. I could go back to the guy that built it and ran it to see if he has all the data.

telriv
11-29-2007, 05:29 AM
Erik, side loading of the valve stem would be a factor with the stock rockers because they are so short & stubby. This is what contributes to the excessive guide wear on a "Nail", pulling out the guide liners, etc, especially with higher lobe lift cams & stronger valve springs. With the "Roller Tips" there is no "Side Loading" because the roller "Rolls" over the top of the valve stem. You definitely don't want to go with larger O.D. diameter valve springs. As it is stock the springs protrude into the pushrod area. Go with larger diameter pushrods & the interference is magnified. What kind of flow numbers did Gary get out of the heads???? With the cam your using be sure you have enough V-P clearance for a .600" lift. I notice the cotter pins in the end of the shafts are up side down incomparasion to normal. Are the holes for "Rocker" oiling pointing down??? It would also be interesting to know if headers or manifolds do anything for performance other than looking "Cool". With or without "My" & stock rockers. What size Edelbrocks are you going to use??? Progressive or straight linkage set-up??? It's been done & posted about using a "600" for the Primary carb. for better throttle response & better fuel mileage & a 750 for the secondary. Just remember the 750 will more than likely need to be jetted down as it comes out of the box. Also out of the box the float levels are never correct that I've seen. Easy to do before they are bolted on.

Tom T.

ahhh65riv
11-29-2007, 07:34 PM
Non Progressive. I can't get it through my head why 2 (better spaced apart)carbs running in perfect synchronicity with good idle circuits wouldn't run better than a progressive set-up. You would't feed all cyllinders the same on one end of the block running on one carb most of the time untill you open it up.

Its all about tuning for the correct "signal". The carb spacing and plenem and runner design of the Eelco should especially allow non-progressive set-up much better than other intakes. All carbs need tuning whether it is through float level adjustment, Jetting, Air bleeds, etc. Vaccumm "signal" at all aspects will be measured and tuned to on the Dyno. To expect a carb to come perfectly tuned "out of the box" is unrealistic unless you order it from the manufacturer "tuned" for a known application. That is the very reason I wanted to used Barry Grants, and why "others" have problems with them.

I think Dual 500's will be too small for my application. 750's I think would be too big.

I don't have flow bench data for the heads, but they were cc'd and machined within very tight tolerances. The porting was your good ol' fashion die grinder and elbow grease and common sence method.

Tom- Thanks for the call today. Sorry I was so busy at work to not be able to talk longer. And thanks for pointing that out on the cotter pins. Simple and obvious, not critical, but as you have stated in the past a every small detail counts. Yes, I verified for myself that the oil holes were at the bottom. Gary has put "a few" motors together. He is well aware of the V/P clearance. He's all over that like a hobo on a happy meal! You can quit worrying about my motor Tom. This is the stuff motor building is all about, and why I chose to go to Gary to build my motor. I know you genuinly care, and have been burnt before, but this is not garage amateur bolting on your rockers and hoping for the best.

Later

Erik

6671
11-29-2007, 09:39 PM
Hello Everyone, Glad to see this thread still has an ear. We did add a significant amount of gasket surface to carb bases. It has the same shape as the B262 for asthetics but is larger.

The engine is in the final stages of assembly from what I understand so we are anxiously awaiting. I have had several reports back from customers with their own horsepower claims and all are very gratifying. Thanks for all the support and feedback. Another engine is being assembled here for dyno pulls in Portland so we will post both sets of results.

In the meantime, heres the new 3x2!

Not to be rude but "I have had several reports back from customers with their own horsepower CLAIMS and all are very gratifying"? Then a 3 x 2 when a nice 4bbl in aluminum with a modern high rise design would outsell a "trip over" set-up 5:1 at least. Not all nailhead owners are out for simply good looks but some actually want some power to be competitive with their contemporaries like the venerable SS396. How long has the 2 x 4 been out, over a year, and no dyno pulls even from the manufacturer? If indeed several Edelbrock dual quads were cut up to get this intake correct then I would think the guys behind it would be bragging about the results ASAP!
Gessler or our Tom T. would have been glad to test the intake and at least get flow numbers!?

4toe
11-30-2007, 12:20 PM
This is a valid question; Erik's motor was always going to be used for the dyno testing and we had hoped it would be ready back in the spring but as you know; a motor like his takes time and research to assemble. I started on a basically stock engine that may be more comparable to the average buick owners set-up and will finish the motor this weekend. It still may likely be after the holidays before we can test it. I don't think Edelbrock ever did dyno testing on their manifold and it has been out 40 years. Of course; maybe I haven't seen it. The reason I did a 3x2 was it was similar to the 2x4 with a few plenum changes. Only recently have I noticed a peak in the 1x4 interest. I would like to build one but at the moment and to the dismay of many buick owners; the larger Chrysler Hemi market has me busy. Thanks for all the questions; I do follow as close as I can and find this board as a reliable source of constructive feedback.

87GN@Tahoe
12-02-2007, 04:56 PM
Erik,

i am definitely interested in the manley valves... also, what springs and retainers are you using?... part#'s?

what do you think a valve, spring, retainer package run?

have you measured the height difference between a stock 4bb or 2x4bb intake vs. the eelco? those measurements would be extremely helpful

thanks again,

wes

wkillgs
12-02-2007, 11:13 PM
have you measured the height difference between a stock 4bb or 2x4bb intake vs. the eelco? those measurements would be extremely helpful

Wes, I measured a few manifolds.... I laid a straight edge across the carb mount surface, and measured the distance to the manifold/head surface. Height was measured over the front and rearmost manifold-to head bolts. Hope that makes sense!

Stock 4bbl Front= 3" Rear= 4-1/8"
Stock 2x4 Front= 2-7/16" Rear= 3-3/4"
Edelbrock B262 Front= 3-11/16" Rear= 4-1/2"

The EELCO manifold should be similar to the Edelbrock. Can someone confirm?

The later AFB carbs have a shorter air horn that the original carbs. So the air cleaner will sit lower if you use later carbs. I don't know what the height is on the Edelbrock carbs.

Carb Height:
Stock 66 AFB 3.75"
Comp series AFB 3.2"

Erik, I'd also be interested in the Manley Valves. Keep us posted!:TU:

wkillgs
12-02-2007, 11:35 PM
I have heard of others "45" the openings of the manifold inlets at the bottom to help direct the flow downward better as the exaust naturally comes out of the head, and that this is a better flow improvement than bolting on headders.

Erik, I don't follow you on that. Do you mean mill the exhaust flange at an angle?
I have heard the nailhead likes to have the exhaust ports raised. And if the manifolds can be positioned a bit higher, maybe just an 1/8", that is supposed to help.

I'm running a pair of comp series 500 AFB's on my blue car. It's a 425 with a big Isky cam and headers. I would say they are too small.....the car picked up 2 tenths with a '66 Q-jet!
Cam specs here:
http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?t=30928
I'll add your cam specs to the list.

Great info you are posting, Thanks for sharing!:TU:

ahhh65riv
12-03-2007, 04:53 PM
I caught on to the 45' thing, first brought up by Tom T. He, as well as others can elaborate better than I can, but I understand the general concept. The flow of exhaust as it comes out of a head curls around the top (roof) of the the head exhaust port and comes out at the bottom corner of the exhaust port exit. Tom can tell you EXACTLY where on each cyllinder. This points the flow of exhaust directly downward into the manifold. I confirmed this by looking in my old manifold ports and the old carbon deposits. Analyzing those deposits tells me the exact the same story! If you look where the manifold or a headder would bolt on, requires slight deviation or right angle to the natural flow. A headder would be worse because you cant get the first bend any closer to the head and forces the flow at a right angle or even Up! A manifold can go straight down quicker. Just inside from where the flange of the manifold bolts up to the head is the downward radius of the casting into the collector chamber. This is the area to grind back at a 45'. You can only take off as much as (less than) the manifold casting is thick. But someone with skill in welding cast steel could add material back to the bottom/back side of this radius to straighten out the flow even more.

Walt- What you are saying would also make sense if you are talking about the HEAD ports. I suppose if someone was going to the trouble of raising the manifolds, it would also make sence to port the floor of the manifold to make the exit closer to the collector. I have a cross section somewhere... hmmm...

I will get the measurement off the Eelco height and post when I can.

I have asked Gary for the requested information on the valve parts, and will post.

Erik

ahhh65riv
12-05-2007, 12:24 AM
Gary has a booth at the PRI (Performance Racing Industry) trade show in Orlando FL. I got this this morning, so I am posting on behalf of Gary Stevenson at ERD:

ok...
Valves. Manley custom 11/32 undercut stem. 1.92 intake. 1.550 exh. 305.00 full set
comp cam behive spring which gives plenty of clearance at underside of rocker and is a very good quality spring $179.04. Comp retainers $50.40. Hardened 7deg locks $5.00. With mild cutting of the seat you end up with 120 seat and 290 open. Total cost for package. 539.44 plus shipping to customer.
thx
gary...Do you have your water pump? Im heading to PRI in Orlando today. As soon as Im back I will complete engine and get er on the dyno. Hemi is up first then a blown SBC and then you and they take apx a week each.

No. I am not selling these, myself. Furthermore I a not getting any commission or cut from the sale of these valve kits. I will be happy to forward emails or PM's but I would prefer you contact Gary for ordering.

Oh, and one more thing Gary said to me that I noticed that is not in his write-up is the stem heights are right at factory length, so valve geometry is not affected. I also noticed he didn't include the guide... I will inquire when he gets back.

Erik

riv1964
12-27-2007, 09:37 AM
Haven't seen a new post on this.

Erik, Gary, :pray:
Can we get the part numbers of the behive springs? and or dimensions?
Can the valves be ordered standard 1.50 and 1.875 (a little worried about flow restrictions due to the larger valves and the shape of our nail heads)
and lastly, the valve guide liner info
Thanks and Happy Holidays
Roger

ahhh65riv
12-27-2007, 02:36 PM
On behalf of Gary-

The numbers are my secret. took me hrs to work it all out. Guides and seals are not included and valves are custom so any dimension is doeable. We use a bronze liner that we broach to set and then hone to final size.
thx....Pan is on engine and it is primed. Just waiting on paint from you so we can finish.
Thx

gary


Sorry Roger.

yacster
01-10-2008, 11:14 AM
Any time frame of when this engine is hitting the dyno????? Been a loooooooooong wait. I'm getting antsy:bla:

ahhh65riv
01-11-2008, 02:34 PM
You think you guys antsy!!!.... I've got a BAD "Jones" to hear her thumping like you wouldn't believe!

Of all things I am waiting on Buick Green VHT engine paint I ordered before Christmas!

Erik

telriv
01-11-2008, 07:15 PM
Eric, order the paint from Bill Hirsch like I said. If you oder it Monday I'll almost be willing to bet you'll have it by Wednesday or Thursday. That's ridiculous waiting for paint in a rattle can for 3+ weeks.
Just my 2c.

ahhh65riv
01-15-2008, 09:27 PM
Paint is in and delivered to Gary.

Note:
1. I am not happy about Classic Buicks substituting Duplicolor for VHT!GRRRRR!!!! :af:

2. They took WAAAAAY too long to recieve and process my order. I could have driven to Dallas Oregon in just over an hour!

Gary says the SBC is on the dyno next, and I should be on the dyno late next week. however...

... So the Dyno operators wife is pregnate and due to pop any time. = could affect schedule

... I found out today the carbs didn't get ordered, so now I'm shopping for who's got the Eddlebrocks I want for sale... Shouldn't be an issue to make the dyno date. (Any good leads?)

Erik

telriv
01-15-2008, 10:14 PM
Yeah, most good speed shops can have the carbs. & strip kits the next day. Pricing for 750's ,manual chokes, runs about $250.00ea. & strip kits around $50.00

ahhh65riv
01-16-2008, 02:52 PM
Yeah, most good speed shops can have the carbs. & strip kits the next day. Pricing for 750's ,manual chokes, runs about $250.00ea. & strip kits around $50.00


Looking for 2 650 AVS with Endurashine- I'm seeing prices all over $400.

Erik

yacster
01-17-2008, 08:35 AM
The endurashine adds about $100 to the price:Dou:

ahhh65riv
01-30-2008, 11:25 PM
Alrighty folks!

I can now tell you what NEXT feels like!

The Duplicolor was a lot better paint than expected. I would definately use it again!

Dyno operator's wifes baby was born.:birthday:

The blown SBC is on the Dyno this week. I watched the break-in run and the first pull last night. Was running lean (hot) and is getting re-jetted. They are now waiting on Demon Jets (didn't have the ones they need) and will run again on Thursday.

I apologise posting a picture of the belly-button but i want to show the Dyno. I have video also, but will save that for the Nailhead run!

Marty was supposed to ship down the borrowed Nailhead/Chevy bellhousing this week...

I think I'm going to score some Sanderson Headers... Or should I go TA?

ahhh65riv
02-19-2008, 07:33 PM
Blown SBC is still on the dyno... Barry Grant didn't plumb the power valve internally, and left no instructions it needed done! There goes a chunk of change of wasted time on the dyno that could have been prevented!

Got Carbs. Endura shine= Worth every bit of $100!:TU:
Got bellhousing and pilot bushing for the dyno.
Got Taylor plug wires- 8mm Spiro Pro- Yellow (SWEET!):pp http://www.taylorvertex.com/
Got Sanderson block huggger headers :Brow:
Got finned aluminum stuff.:cool:
Got carb linkage:eek2:

:kodak: Here's photos I took with my camera phone with some (but not all) of the above stuff. Oh- and it's not finish painted yet either.

Anxious
Erik

yacster
02-19-2008, 07:57 PM
Get over there and unbolt that Chebby from the dyno, it's probably making the machine weak. The suspense it killing US!!!!!! Sorry I have to play the part of the impatient New Yorker!!!:laugh:
Engine looks good:TU:

wkillgs
02-19-2008, 09:33 PM
It's been a long time coming Erik!
I'm anxiously awaiting the results as well!

May I ask if the compression ratio was calculated? What is the dome volume, the deck clearance, and head gasket thickness? And finally, were the heads just given a clean-up cut, or was extra material removed?
I expect to take my block to the machine shop soon. I was going to shoot for 0.020" deck clearance and top that with an 0.015" gasket for a total of 0.035".
I'm curious how your build compares. Thanks:TU:

ahhh65riv
02-19-2008, 11:37 PM
Walt,

I dont have that data at my fingertips, but I can tell you my compression is 9:1. There's no sense in requiring oneself to buy race gas. You know what I'm saying? I dont want detonation issues either. At some point, I might be inclined to throw a 100 shot of nitrous at it or something, and would be built to handle it.
The head were CC'd (many times) for EVEN volume. The Racing Pistons are custom so the domes were kept even also. Again, I can't tell you the figures at the moment, but the machining was VERY minimal as I recall. If fact I don't think the heads or the deck took much of anthing (if anything at all) to get true. The gasket was the standard Fel-Pro gasket out of the box whatever it measures.

I hope that satisfies your question.

Erik

wkillgs
02-20-2008, 08:40 AM
Thanks Erik. I suspect the 425 in my blue car has a CR is in that range as well.
It has run 102 mph in the 1/4 mile. At close to 3900 lbs race weight, 1/4 mile/HP calculators put it at approx 385 engine HP.
It'll be interesting to see how yours compares.

funkyriv
02-21-2008, 01:52 PM
Man, this guy is patient - this post started 1+ years ago. wow, i can learn many lessons other than engine building from his experience.

I hope your patient waiting leads to fantastic results with the motor!

cheers!

Tech @ BG
02-21-2008, 04:34 PM
Blown SBC is still on the dyno... Barry Grant didn't plumb the power valve internally, and left no instructions it needed done! There goes a chunk of change of wasted time on the dyno that could have been prevented!

ErikAll of our blower calibrated carburetors use an externally referenced power valve and are not plumbed internally. This is so that a vacuum line can be installed and ran to the manifold to properly open and close the powervalve. Gary is sending the 525's back so we can take a look at them and determine why they were lean. The motor looks nice in the pics.

ahhh65riv
02-21-2008, 11:53 PM
Wow! I am really impressed you guys have an ear on this board. To me that shows that BG is willing to listen to it's customers, and that means alot in todays market! Especialy since you don't even make a carb for us Nailheaders!
(HINT-HINT-WINK WINK!)

I hope you guys get it figured out soon- Whatever the issue is! As you can see there are a lot of folk following this thread that are anxious to see the results of my dyno run (myself included). Yes. I have patience. As the saying goes...Good things come to those who wait. Besides, what else am I going to do?

And just for the record- As you may have read in this very post, if I had the option there would be Barry Grant carbs on that thar NAIL you see in those photos instead of Edelbrocks!!!

As usual... the legendary Nailhead Buick falls second in line to the Mass marketed SBC. :(

Thanks for weiging in!

Erik

jamhdit
02-22-2008, 03:36 PM
wow you guys are patient

when i started reading this thread and saw the date i thought for sure id see some #'s at the end here

Tech @ BG
02-22-2008, 03:42 PM
Wow! I am really impressed you guys have an ear on this board. To me that shows that BG is willing to listen to it's customers, and that means alot in todays market! Especialy since you don't even make a carb for us Nailheaders!
(HINT-HINT-WINK WINK!)

I hope you guys get it figured out soon- Whatever the issue is! As you can see there are a lot of folk following this thread that are anxious to see the results of my dyno run (myself included). Yes. I have patience. As the saying goes...Good things come to those who wait. Besides, what else am I going to do?

And just for the record- As you may have read in this very post, if I had the option there would be Barry Grant carbs on that thar NAIL you see in those photos instead of Edelbrocks!!!

As usual... the legendary Nailhead Buick falls second in line to the Mass marketed SBC. :(

Thanks for weiging in!

ErikWe do care what our customers have to say which is why we read and interact on the boards. We are here to try and help. I'll have the carburetors soon and will go back through and flow them when they get here and then check the specs on them.

yacster
02-28-2008, 08:02 AM
Drum roll please!!!!!!


<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NNaZedAWmlE"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NNaZedAWmlE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>



And the numbers are???????????????

skrubahlinc
03-10-2008, 02:16 AM
Holy cow the suspense is killing me...

tyoneal
03-10-2008, 01:58 PM
Erik:

The Drummers are tired of Drumming. :sleep: What are the numbers??? :spank: This is like the Night before Christmas.:rant:

Pleeaasse?

Ty

ahhh65riv
03-10-2008, 02:58 PM
Patience...

I know mine have grown thin as well. I'm still wating on the dyno...

Erik

56buickboy
03-10-2008, 03:07 PM
Good things come to those that wait................. :)

tyoneal
03-10-2008, 08:58 PM
I'm not really P.O.'ed, I am just anxious.

jamhdit
03-22-2008, 08:54 AM
So Do You Have A Date For The Testing Yet?

skrubahlinc
03-27-2008, 02:06 PM
Don't know if any of you guys are looking for one but somebody just listed an Edelbrock B262 2x4 intake on Ebay. they say it is new old stock.

cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Buick-Dual-Quad-intake-Manifold-Edelbrock-B262-Nailhead_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ36474QQihZ011Q QitemZ320232312905QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

buickbonehead
03-27-2008, 02:10 PM
The intake looks pretty good. Watch out for the negative feedback though.

good link (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&viewitem=&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ebay.com%3A80%2Fsearch%2Fse arch.dll%3Ffrom%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm37%26satitle%3D 320232312905%26category0%3D%26fvi%3D1&item=320232312905)

Rick

yacster
03-27-2008, 02:39 PM
If the EELCO matches up to B262, the starting price should be cut in half! Sad- I had a shot at one a few months ago but communication got F'd up and someone else snatchedit up.

ahhh65riv
03-27-2008, 03:26 PM
I'm half tempted to bid on this for the testing, so I'm not relying on borrowing someone elses.

Just as an update... I am waiting for Craig (dyno operator)to call back any minute. We are trying to put a plan together to start hooking the nailhead up. I'm hoping he will be available tonight!:pray:

Erik

56familykar
03-28-2008, 07:43 AM
For those who haven't heard ANY dyno numbers before. We did a stock- like 401 that put down 340hp and 450 lbs/ft. That was with a stock 4bbl and a 660 Holley. There was more in it. By the simple math it should have made around 400hp.

I'm doing a lot of testing here lately. If anyone would like their intakes to be tested on a flow bench, I'd like to work something out. (Marty, If you are out there)
I'm trying to get some honest comparatative and quantative data as far as the best manifolds (on the bench mind you)


Thanks

66gsconv
03-28-2008, 05:25 PM
Was this a stock build or modified?

doc
03-28-2008, 05:32 PM
It would be intresting to me to know how much increase is realized by cutting the front to rear partitions out of a stock 4 bbl intake manifold. I did it and could feel a lot of difference in my 64 riv.

gsgtx
03-28-2008, 06:26 PM
It would be intresting to me to know how much increase is realized by cutting the front to rear partitions out of a stock 4 bbl intake manifold. I did it and could feel a lot of difference in my 64 riv.
Doc what do you mean cutting the front and rear? do you end up with two holes instead of four holes. thanks

wkillgs
03-29-2008, 07:40 AM
For those who haven't heard ANY dyno numbers before. We did a stock- like 401 that put down 340hp and 450 lbs/ft. That was with a stock 4bbl and a 660 Holley. There was more in it. By the simple math it should have made around 400hp.

I'm doing a lot of testing here lately. If anyone would like their intakes to be tested on a flow bench, I'd like to work something out. (Marty, If you are out there)
I'm trying to get some honest comparatative and quantative data as far as the best manifolds (on the bench mind you)


Thanks

Hey 56, glad you joined us here!:beers2:
Sounds like your R&D is producing some good results. Keep it up!
Curious if you will be pursuing the rotted honda idea???
Hopefully, you guys will be offering porting services for Nailheads in the future.

ahhh65riv
03-29-2008, 04:03 PM
For those who haven't heard ANY dyno numbers before. We did a stock- like 401 that put down 340hp and 450 lbs/ft. That was with a stock 4bbl and a 660 Holley. There was more in it. By the simple math it should have made around 400hp.

I'm doing a lot of testing here lately. If anyone would like their intakes to be tested on a flow bench, I'd like to work something out. (Marty, If you are out there)
I'm trying to get some honest comparatative and quantative data as far as the best manifolds (on the bench mind you)


Thanks

56familykar- Do you have the dyno pull data saved or in a printout that you can send or post? I am very interested in seeing the graph at which RPM torque and HP meet and peak, then start to drop off. So far, I have seen nothing on paper (or electronic for that matter) on any nailhead dyno pull. I still have no hard data for comparison.

Thanks

telriv
03-29-2008, 10:09 PM
HP & Torque always cross paths at 5252 RPM's. On most normal engines that's one thing that's always constant.

Tom T.

DaWildcat
03-29-2008, 10:19 PM
It's true for all engines, since 5252 is the constant in the equation HP = (TORQUE * RPM) / 5252.

Devon

doc
03-30-2008, 09:29 PM
GSGTX, Yep you end up with 2 more or less oval shaped holes.

56familykar
03-31-2008, 01:06 PM
thanks all for the warm welcome.
I DO have a full dyno sheet. We dyno'd this engine at our facility where I work. I will try to get a short story posted up here in the short future.
It was a stock rebuild other than mild port job, 425 GS cam and Tom's Bad A$$ rockers!
I am still looking for anyone who would like to have their intake tested. The test I would like to perform is purely an out of the box situation. NO porting, nothing more than bolting it up on a common port to compare to.

Thanks
Mike

telriv
03-31-2008, 04:29 PM
Mike, the exhaust & intake manifolds arrived to day at 11:17 am. Did you get them???? Don't forget about the compression ratio you ended up with & the problems you ran into with carbs. etc.

Tom T.

skrubahlinc
04-02-2008, 03:26 PM
Another interesting auction on ebay if anyone is interested.

cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1965-Buick-Nailhead-4-71-GMC-Supercharged-425_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ140684QQihZ024QQite mZ370038589816QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

56familykar
04-02-2008, 05:15 PM
Mike, the exhaust & intake manifolds arrived to day at 11:17 am. Did you get them???? Don't forget about the compression ratio you ended up with & the problems you ran into with carbs. etc.

Tom T.



This is true. The engine had about 140PSI cranking. Which is about 9-9.25:1 mechanical compression.
We ended up with some problems with the 2 4bbl carbs we had (which is now aleviated)

Stay tuned!
Mike

ahhh65riv
04-06-2008, 12:13 AM
Hee hee hee!

71GSX455-4SPD
04-06-2008, 08:23 AM
I've been more of a watcher on this thread, but boy the anticipation is getting painful! :bglasses: Must be that much more for you!!!!

Looks like your getting close, can't wait to see results and numbers (like everyone else)!:pray:

yacster
04-07-2008, 09:19 AM
Hee hee hee!



F'in ehhhhhh- Finally. Strap in kids it's gonna get crazy up in here :eek2:

skrubahlinc
04-08-2008, 12:46 PM
Another interesting offering from ebay while we wait. What do you guys think of this.

cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/2x2-buick-nailhead-intake-4x2-3x2-6x2-u-fab-401-425_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ34203QQihZ010QQitem Z200214539161QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW

buickbonehead
04-08-2008, 01:06 PM
Here is the LINK (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&viewitem=&ru=http%3A%2F%2Fsearch.ebay.com%3A80%2Fsearch%2Fse arch.dll%3Ffrom%3DR40%26_trksid%3Dm37%26satitle%3D 200214539161%26category0%3D%26fvi%3D1&item=200214539161)

Rick

doc
04-08-2008, 08:34 PM
I dont think Buick will have data on a single 4 with a big carb like a 950 or a 1050 cfms. It would be intresting..........

ahhh65riv
04-08-2008, 10:55 PM
uh huh. I know what your angle is Doc.:Smarty:
I might be interested if there were a decent flowing single 4 intake worth testing, but that's not what my testing is about.

BTW... I almost have my hands on a Weiand 2x4 to throw in the mix. Should be here in a day or two thanks to Russ Martin at Centerville Auto Repair! You know... we might all be surprised and have been wrong all along about our assumptions of what intake is better all along.:Dou: ... and Doc you might right too ...if we were testing single 4 intakes too...

Erik

doc
04-09-2008, 05:05 AM
Erik,
pard, I am just dreaming, I would be real intrested in the stock 4 that has been hogged out between the primary and secondary bores with the 1050 3bbl that I am currently using. I figure that it does better than most guys think. say, better than 3/2s or even some 2x4 set ups. right now there is no single 4 speed equipment manifolds for the nails so the hogged out stocker is the best we have. If eelco will ever get off thier butt and make one I will be in line to buy because at the least it will be lighter.

wkillgs
04-09-2008, 09:39 AM
I agree, it would be nice to know how a standard 4 bbl/carb compares to a 2x4 setup. That's what most Nailheads are using. Would make a good baseline for comparison, especially if a stock AFB was used.

Doc, data provided by Greg Gessler gives a avg flow of 222cfm for a stock Q-jet intake, and 252cfm ported. A 2x4 was 252 stock and 282 cfm ported. One was thru a carb, the 2x4 was thru 'clay inlet radiuses'

How about it Erik, can you test a stock 4 bbl for us?

ahhh65riv
04-09-2008, 11:15 AM
I do have a couple stock single 4 intakes and an original AFB, but it needs overhauled. If someone has an intake and a carb set up already, I might be inclined. It's easy enough to swap out intakes on the dyno. Who wants to pull their functioning intake and carbs off for testing? Probably not many or nobody.

... so many claims, so little time and money...(not to take away from those generous souls that have contributed to the dyno fund already!)

Erik

DugsSin
04-10-2008, 07:40 AM
Now if we only had one of the bolt on EFI setups that some of those other brand motors have available. That what's in my dreams for induction.

yacster
04-11-2008, 07:36 AM
Now if we only had one of the bolt on EFI setups that some of those other brand motors have available. That what's in my dreams for induction.

Yeah, and a Blower, and nitrous system, and a. . . < THUD!> Did y'all hear that?? It was Erik hitting the floor after passing out-poor dude is exhausted from this dyno thing. :bla:

telriv
04-11-2008, 08:31 PM
When we did the engine dyno testing on Bob's engine some of the things we tested were intake/carb. combos as well as many different spark plug changes. Only thing I can say is that the Q-Jet (850) held the usable HP & Torque RPM's for less RPM's than either the single 4 with a Holley/750 dbl. pumper (but made about 5HP more & no more torque) or the 2x4 with 750 Edlebrocks. If memory serves me correctly the Q-Jet had a usable RPM range of 700-800 RPM's. The 1x4 with Holley held it for 1300-1400 RPM's. The 2x4 held the usable HP & Torque for 1500-1600 RPM's. Way back when the Q-Jet manifold & carb. combo made more noticeable difference because the carb. size went from (at the time) a 625 AFB to a 750 Q-Jet. Then for more power some added an 850 or 1000 CFM Thermo-Quad. Small intake plenum's like bigger carbs. & larger plenum's like smaller carbs.
Just my observations.

Tom T.

63riv
04-11-2008, 08:46 PM
When we did the engine dyno testing on Bob's engine some of the things we tested were intake/carb. combos as well as many different spark plug changes. Only thing I can say is that the Q-Jet (850) held the usable HP & Torque RPM's for less RPM's than either the single 4 with a Holley/750 dbl. pumper (but made about 5HP more & no more torque) or the 2x4 with 750 Edlebrocks. If memory serves me correctly the Q-Jet had a usable RPM range of 700-800 RPM's. The 1x4 with Holley held it for 1300-1400 RPM's. The 2x4 held the usable HP & Torque for 1500-1600 RPM's. Way back when the Q-Jet manifold & carb. combo made more noticeable difference because the carb. size went from (at the time) a 625 AFB to a 750 Q-Jet. Then for more power some added an 850 or 1000 CFM Thermo-Quad. Small intake plenum's like bigger carbs. & larger plenum's like smaller carbs.
Just my observations.

Tom T.

Tom T. When you say '..usable RPM range..', what do you mean?:Do No:

ahhh65riv
04-13-2008, 12:27 AM
Ready to fire!

Unfortunately I will be out of town for most of the week. We are scheduled to make the break in run on Friday.

I would like to thank everybody for thier patience. I know this had been a long tie coming.


Erik

56familykar
04-14-2008, 12:54 PM
Sorry for the long delay all. Been SWAMPED!

Here are the dyno sheets some have all wanted.
any questions, just ask.

Mike:3gears:

jamhdit
04-14-2008, 06:41 PM
Wow I Didnt Realize Torque Dropped Off So Much

wkillgs
04-14-2008, 09:35 PM
any questions, just ask.

Mike:3gears:

BTW, this is the build...
>>>It was a stock rebuild other than mild port job, 425 GS cam and Tom's Bad A$$ rockers! ....with a stock 4bbl and a 660 Holley. There was more in it.

The engine had about 140PSI cranking. Which is about 9-9.25:1 mechanical compression.
We ended up with some problems with the 2 4bbl carbs we had (which is now aleviated)<<<<


Mike, that's not bad for a basicly stock rebuild....You're 15 hp over the stock rating. At least it's not lower than the stock rating like the 401 that Street Rodder built!
How much more do you think that combo has left in it with tuning changes?
From what I can make of the data, it looks like the mixture is rich at 12:1.
Leaner is meaner...so how much more hp could be gained with a leaner mixture?
I wonder if a different carb would make much of an improvement.

tyoneal
04-15-2008, 04:39 AM
So if I see this correctly:

The 401 rated @ 325 hp was actually closer to the 425 rating coming in at 340 hp.

I wonder it a lot of these engines were underrated or that Tom's Rockers added 25 hp. (Probably the latter)

Do people run hydraulic roller lifters in Nailheads? This along with tom's rockers would free up another pretty good chunk of power plus give a lot of flexibility of cam choices.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Thanks,

Ty

doc
04-15-2008, 05:52 AM
Like I said, dont sell a single carb nail head short, he he he.

wkillgs
04-15-2008, 08:40 AM
I dug up these power curves from some '66 Buick literature. First is the standard Skylark GS 401, rated at 325hp. To the right is the optional Q-jet 401, rated at 340 hp.

P.S. the optional 401 340hp Q-jet engine was called the 'Wildcat GS' engine....

wkillgs
04-15-2008, 08:47 AM
And here they are overlaid...
The AFB engine makes more hp below 3200 rpm, but the Q-jet takes over and makes more peak power.
The Q-jet engine also has more torque over 3500 rpm, tho it's slightly lower than the AFB engine at lower rpms.

Now I wish we could find curves for a 2x4 engine...

jamhdit
04-15-2008, 09:10 AM
Family Cars Torque Drop Off Much More Than The Old #'s

wkillgs
04-15-2008, 09:26 AM
And for the heck of it, here is the dyno curve overlaid on the Buick curves.
Now, realize the margin of error must be huge, but.....wth!
Still, it's interesting to see that they are close.

SpecialWagon65
04-15-2008, 11:11 AM
I thought the torque and HP curves had to cross @ 5250 rpm-


"Because torque and rpm are divided by 5252, torque and horsepower are always equal at 5252 rpm. If you solve the equation at 5252 rpm, the rpm value cancels out, leaving horsepower equal to torque. If you plot torque and horsepower curves on a graph, the lines will always cross at 5250 rpm (rounded off). If they don't, the curve is undoubtedly bogus."
(from http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/horsepower_vs_torque/index.html )


I have to look at the graphs again with what Jim said in mind now. If there are different scales, they curves are not going to cross at 5252.
Not thinkin' right, musta been at work.

jamhdit
04-15-2008, 08:24 PM
It Looks Like Family Guys Specks Would Cross At The Rite Rpm But Buick Must Have Just Made Up Their Lines

jamhdit
04-15-2008, 08:29 PM
Disrgaurd That Last Comment Buick Used Different Scales On Either Sid Of Their Charts

56familykar
04-16-2008, 07:50 AM
Different carb would HAVE to make an improvement. A 660 Holley is not enough for 400 inches.
Actually. when it comes to air fuel ratios, each engine is different. I've found 11.7-12.1 is the best for the most HP.
I think a better distributor/ a curved one would have been the better bang for the buck in this instance.


Mike




BTW, this is the build...
>>>It was a stock rebuild other than mild port job, 425 GS cam and Tom's Bad A$$ rockers! ....with a stock 4bbl and a 660 Holley. There was more in it.

The engine had about 140PSI cranking. Which is about 9-9.25:1 mechanical compression.
We ended up with some problems with the 2 4bbl carbs we had (which is now aleviated)<<<<


Mike, that's not bad for a basicly stock rebuild....You're 15 hp over the stock rating. At least it's not lower than the stock rating like the 401 that Street Rodder built!
How much more do you think that combo has left in it with tuning changes?
From what I can make of the data, it looks like the mixture is rich at 12:1.
Leaner is meaner...so how much more hp could be gained with a leaner mixture?
I wonder if a different carb would make much of an improvement.

ahhh65riv
04-22-2008, 01:45 AM
AAALLLLLRIGHTY FOLKS!!! The moment we've all been waiting for!!!

Tonight I got in the first break-in run, and one quick pull to get a starting place to tune. She got broke in at 1800-2000RPM, then pulled the oil filter and cut it open ('Normal).

Attached are the dyno pull sheets. We pulled just from 3500 to 5000 RPM. showed 361 HP @ 4600RPM and Torque was on it's way down at 459 ftlbs on the first measurement at 3500RPM. It wasn't pretty for a first quick run, but here it is in all its glory just the same. Again this is the "out of the box" numbers. #4 cyllinder was running hot for some reason, Not exactly sure why. We moved the EGT probe and confirmed it was that cyllinder. We will likely change metering rods (richen) over just that carb bore. All the rest weren't too bad, except a little rich. My water pump also sprung a leak so the testing ended there.

She sounded B-E-A-UTIFUL!!! here is a vid on U-tube:
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuIKyzct4Sc"> </param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xuIKyzct4Sc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"> </embed> </object>
<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TWGYfCwEvO8"> </param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TWGYfCwEvO8" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="350"> </embed> </object>
Me--->:pp

Erik

doc
04-22-2008, 07:07 AM
Does he really know what my angle is???????????????
hehehehe

yacster
04-22-2008, 07:49 AM
Stock #'s so far :Do No: I am sure some tweaking is in order, but my guesstimate is 410HP 490lbs./ft. when all is said and done. Good luck Erik- don't break it!!:TU:

jamhdit
04-22-2008, 07:17 PM
Wow
Not Impressed So Far Hope You Can Tune For Some More Horsies

ahhh65riv
04-22-2008, 07:50 PM
Don't dispair, or give up so quick. That one doesnt even coun't! I was debating not to even post that one. That wasn't a fair or complete pull as we were only looking for a starting place on the carbs. There will be many more pulls to come.

Erik

jamhdit
04-22-2008, 07:55 PM
when are the next pulls?

yacster
04-22-2008, 08:18 PM
Don't dispair, or give up so quick. That one doesnt even coun't! I was debating not to even post that one. That wasn't a fair or complete pull as we were only looking for a starting place on the carbs. There will be many more pulls to come.

Erik



What is your guess Erik? We should do it just for kicks, makes it fun:cool:

wkillgs
04-22-2008, 10:16 PM
You're off to a great start Erik!
Ted's built 401 pulled 377hp. His Nail has a bigger cam, but you have more cubes. Can't wait to see how yours does!

These Nails seem to be maxing out the hp at 4700 RPM, so we're not gonna see real big hp numbers like you would with an engine that peaks at 6500 RPM....I gotta find more dyno curves to see how other engines compare at 4700 rpm.

This is cool!:bglasses:

doc
04-23-2008, 05:14 AM
like I always say, speed equipment doesnt make much more hp, it just makes the engine get what it gets quicker.

56familykar
04-23-2008, 08:08 AM
Not bad for the first pull.
Looks like you could use some timing. I've found it actually likes a little more lead.
BSFC is kind of all over the place. I'd like to see a little smoother but not bad!
What determined pulling at 3500? I think if you look at the curve, the beginning of the pull is very close to peak.

Mike
my .02

ahhh65riv
04-24-2008, 01:00 AM
Here I plotted my breakin in run XL. You can see that the curve shape itself is pretty close to the others you have recently posted. (I just plan on moving them up the chart from here!) and promise I won't skew my chart numbers like Buick did that Walt found that he posted. When I get time I'd like to take those data points and put them on a normal graph like this rather than put torque and horspower on the same graph with two different scales on each side of the page.:puzzled:

Yac- I can only hope for those numbers! Keep your fingers crossed! Honestly I dont give a RIP about HP. I want to see bigger TORQUE numbers! Isnt that what they say?- Horsepower sells cars and part, Torque wins races!

I got a(reman) water pump, Gary got the jet/rods, so we will get a chance at some more runs again Thursday night. We will make many adjustments- timing carbs, cam degrees, plug gaps etc.I hope you all understand, but I am going to hold off posting any more pulls untill after we are satisfied enough with our tune, then we can start swapping parts:TU:

BTW- Did I mention that I have IN MY HANDS an Edelbrock B262 and a Weiand 2x4 intake?

Doc- If you had your way... A ported single 4 intake (Spreadbore probably) or modified with the dividers cut out at least with a HUGE 850-1100 Holy, would be your quest. Right?

Later
Erik

doc
04-24-2008, 05:01 AM
Yup, You got me peggd.
What I am really intrested in is The power difference between the 2x4s and a big single [950 cfm or bigger] on a hogged out single intake. I would bet that the single will do almost as good as the duals.

56familykar
04-24-2008, 07:42 AM
Hey all~
I have flowed an Eelco 2x4 intake now, thanks to Bob for that! I have also flowed the Kring Intake for the 48 IDA webers.

the Eelco 2x4 flows about 15-20 cFm MORE than the stock 4 intake.
Naturally, The Kring LOG intake flowed the best thus far.
I'm working on porting the stock 4bbl intake. (Hope Doc is listening) to see if there is any air flow based on the flow bench. Interesting fact, cutting out the divider didnt show any signifigant gains on the flow bench but I believed it wouldn't. I think that is a more accurate test for the dyno and real world driveability due to fuel distribution.

Mike

funkyriv
04-24-2008, 10:36 AM
And here they are overlaid...

The Buick literature curves match the advertized power and torque very well. However, in Ted's "Nailhead Dyno'd" thread multiple comments are made that Buick overstated the performance values.

If Buick overstated the torque/hp specs, how was the Buick data generated? Generous dynamometer calibration? Were the Buick curves from a circa 1960's engine performance model or estimation, so not measured data? :Do No:

gsgtx
04-24-2008, 08:55 PM
Hey all~
I have flowed an Eelco 2x4 intake now, thanks to Bob for that! I have also flowed the Kring Intake for the 48 IDA webers.

the Eelco 2x4 flows about 15-20 cFm MORE than the stock 4 intake.
Naturally, The Kring LOG intake flowed the best thus far.
I'm working on porting the stock 4bbl intake. (Hope Doc is listening) to see if there is any air flow based on the flow bench. Interesting fact, cutting out the divider didnt show any signifigant gains on the flow bench but I believed it wouldn't. I think that is a more accurate test for the dyno and real world driveability due to fuel distribution.

Mike does 15-20 cfm more, make alot of difference in performance?. thanks

flynbuick
04-24-2008, 09:12 PM
The Buick literature curves match the advertized power and torque very well. However, in Ted's "Nailhead Dyno'd" thread multiple comments are made that Buick overstated the performance values.

If Buick overstated the torque/hp specs, how was the Buick data generated? Generous dynamometer calibration? Were the Buick curves from a circa 1960's engine performance model or estimation, so not measured data? :Do No:



They used old dynos with dial gauges and nothing digital. There will always be some variation from dyno to dyno unless they are calibrated relative to some common denominator. The rpms used to take a measurement can vary the numbers.

Buick for sure fudged engine output numbers. A 70 RIV engine rated at 370 hp was the same as a GS 455 nonstage engine rated at 350 hp. Frorm D. Manner's factory dyno tape we know it was really about 360 hp. A 70 stage 1 was rated at 360 hp but was 376 in fact.

56familykar
04-25-2008, 07:59 AM
Yes, 15-20 CFM will make a difference in an engine that is naturally suffocating to support itself!.

As for dyno numbers. There IS a standard calibration out there. And you cant compare '70 model stuff with the earlier due to changes in engine ratings.
I can MAKE an engine show 15 or more HP on the dyno by changing the RATE I allow it to accelerate.


Mike

doc
04-25-2008, 08:11 AM
As I remember, there was a change in the way the factories rated hp along in the late 70's or so.
I noticed that in my 1965 factory shop manual the hp is listed as 325 for the 401 engine [brake hp] and 56.11 Taxable hp. [taxable hp was the hp available at the rear wheel after going thru the drive line.] Taxable hp is what really moves a car.

doc
04-25-2008, 08:15 AM
A lot of mods dont neccessarily give more horsepower, they just allow the engine to accellerate quicker, giving a ''seat of the pants'' feeling of gaining power.

66gsconv
04-25-2008, 09:01 AM
Erik- I hope no news is good news. I agree with you. A heavy riv. is looking for all the torque you can find. Thanks for the sacrifice ($$$$$$$) so everyone can find out what really works.

Doc- after talking with Tom T about this 1x4 mod. I went ahead and did it. It is basically what you are talking about. I have it on the car now with a 950 and drove it last sunday like this. It might be a hard to beat combo on the nailhead. I also am getting my eelco and edelbrock carbs ready. In a few weeks I am trying to drive over to the dyno and compare the two set ups.
We will see how that works out

Mike- Thanks for flowing the eelco. I think there is a lot to be said about the way your testing these intakes. THanks.

56familykar
04-25-2008, 12:45 PM
Thanks Bob! And to everyone, I started a thread with Flow numbers. Here is a copy/paste of that in case you miss the thread:

Greetings All~
Many have wanted some good quantative data on intakes and etc. I have had the opportunity to do some of that with the assistance of our fellow Nailheader's.

Here is a basic run down. I have more detailed stuff for those interested.
Port by itself on the flow bench followed by the Stock 4bbl, The Eelco 2x4 and then the Kring Log intake.
.100 65.5 63.4 64.0 63.8
.200 124.0 117.3 121.3 122.8
.300 166.9 148.8 158.4 159.8
.400 196.7 169.2 183.7 189.5
.500 219.8 182.5 201.2 212.0

I have flowed these all higher than this. I have also flowed both upper and lower plenums all in .050 increments.
Overall, the 2x4 has a 15-20 cfm increase over a stock 4bbl.

Mike
More to come later

Eelco-Portland OR 503-651-3352
Don Kring, Nailhead Specialists Indiana 260-493-6078

Both have websites

56familykar
04-25-2008, 12:47 PM
Yup, You got me peggd.
What I am really intrested in is The power difference between the 2x4s and a big single [950 cfm or bigger] on a hogged out single intake. I would bet that the single will do almost as good as the duals.


I'm not that far yet doc but I'm working now on getting a stock 4bbl to perform. As of yet I've only done 1 modification and seen 1.5 cfm in gains.

ahhh65riv
04-26-2008, 01:01 AM
What determined pulling at 3500?
Mike
my .02

I have learned a lot over the last few days about how an engine dyno works.
It was an RPM selected that was higher in the RPM range to pull from. As the computer part of the dyno appllies the load, the engine "bogs" down. This setting determines the lower range in the RPM you start applying the pull (load) from. The lower it is, the harder it is for the engine to recover and pull out of the load. Basicaly it was kinder for the engine for the first reference pull, as it is barely broke in!

The funny thing is... since then, we have pulled from lower than 3000, but most pulls are made from 3000. Craig Schuck (the operator/owner) said out of all the many race engines he has dyno'd, and thousands of pulls, he had never seen any engine ever recover out of a 2500 dyno pull before! :laugh:
That says a lot about torque!!! The ol' nail had no problem!

Thanks Mike for the Eelco flow bench numbers! Someone will have to help by teaching me how to understand those numbers though.:Smarty:

Changing intakes this weekend.:Brow:

Erik

ahhh65riv
04-26-2008, 08:16 PM
We switched to the Weiand intake. I have to say she is a beaut!

:idea2: We have come to the conclusion that the included calibration and metering chart for these carbs is for a single four application only. We were using the given chart for the 1805 & 1806 carbs that we have. We have to go to a different chart and metering rod/jet kit (Edelbrock calibration kit#1486) as the Dual quad arrangment is different. We are seeing differences (lean/rich) for the 3 stages of tuning: Idle circuit, primary, and secondary that means more jets and metering rods needed! We wont have the kits until the middle of next week.:Dou: We will consult with Edelbrock on Monday to confirm.

Erik

tyoneal
04-27-2008, 02:22 AM
Thanks Bob! And to everyone, I started a thread with Flow numbers. Here is a copy/paste of that in case you miss the thread:

Greetings All~
Many have wanted some good quantative data on intakes and etc. I have had the opportunity to do some of that with the assistance of our fellow Nailheader's.

Here is a basic run down. I have more detailed stuff for those interested.
Port by itself on the flow bench followed by the Stock 4bbl, The Eelco 2x4 and then the Kring Log intake.
.100 65.5 63.4 64.0 63.8
.200 124.0 117.3 121.3 122.8
.300 166.9 148.8 158.4 159.8
.400 196.7 169.2 183.7 189.5
.500 219.8 182.5 201.2 212.0

I have flowed these all higher than this. I have also flowed both upper and lower plenums all in .050 increments.
Overall, the 2x4 has a 15-20 cfm increase over a stock 4bbl.

Mike
More to come later

Eelco-Portland OR 503-651-3352
Don Kring, Nailhead Specialists Indiana 260-493-6078

Both have websites
===========================================
"Here is a basic run down. I have more detailed stuff for those interested."

Yes, Yes, Yes, always interested. Please post or email.

Have any ported heads been flowed?
============================================
Question for everyone!!

Even though the heads characteristically don't flow that great, would you still expect the same % increase on a Nailhead if it was Blown (Turbo, Supercharger) as you would any other engine that was Blown??

This should fundamentally be correct, right?

Thanks,

Ty O'Neal

tyoneal
04-27-2008, 02:31 AM
I have learned a lot over the last few days about how an engine dyno works.
It was an RPM selected that was higher in the RPM range to pull from. As the computer part of the dyno appllies the load, the engine "bogs" down. This setting determines the lower range in the RPM you start applying the pull (load) from. The lower it is, the harder it is for the engine to recover and pull out of the load. Basicaly it was kinder for the engine for the first reference pull, as it is barely broke in!

The funny thing is... since then, we have pulled from lower than 3000, but most pulls are made from 3000. Craig Schuck (the operator/owner) said out of all the many race engines he has dyno'd, and thousands of pulls, he had never seen any engine ever recover out of a 2500 dyno pull before! :laugh:
That says a lot about torque!!! The ol' nail had no problem!

Thanks Mike for the Eelco flow bench numbers! Someone will have to help by teaching me how to understand those numbers though.:Smarty:

Changing intakes this weekend.:Brow:

Erik
==========================================
I think the peak Torque on the Nailheads (at least the 425 was at 2800 rpm) so they might even handle a pull from 2000 rpm. It would be cool to see how low they can go before they can't pull out of it.

Almost all race engines I've had didn't start making good power till at least 3000 rpm's, but these are a totally different animal. They pull more like a Diesel than a Gasoline Engine. In fact I think "Banks Performance has a Diesel that will out Rev a Nailhead, and still be making power!)

The Nailheads would probably really raise Hell on the 1/8th mile.

Ty

56familykar
04-28-2008, 07:53 AM
We pulled our 401 out from 2900. It does take a lot of servo on the dyno to pull that low anyway but peak torque was 3600ish. I dont think pulling a nail down at 2000 would be a good idea. That's pretty low for FULL LOAD, something it will never see. It is also really rough on the dyno itself.
Ty, send me an email and I'll be glad to send the .050 increment flow data.
It should be noted that the flow numbers are on a PORTED intake port. They are a little down from a couple tests previous but I've still got work to do and when you go too far, that happens.
Keep up the good work Erik!
I want to thank again the people who have sent me an intake to test.

Mike

56familykar
04-28-2008, 07:55 AM
Even though the heads characteristically don't flow that great, would you still expect the same % increase on a Nailhead if it was Blown (Turbo, Supercharger) as you would any other engine that was Blown??



any engine will see an increase in power with forced induction. It should also be understood that Nitrous does not care what it is put in. A '50' shot will add 50 HP to a 1000 cubic inch tank, OR a 5hp Briggs!

Mike

telriv
04-28-2008, 05:40 PM
I don't think ANY diesel can spin to 7100 as our "Nail" did & still make power. The last engine peaked at 5800, at about 450HP, & took a nose dive at 6000 . With the "Rockers" it went as far as we wanted, or dared, to go & at 7100 the HP was still at 420HP. All this is tellin' us is, I WANT MORE AIR!!!!!!! A cam won't do it, porting won't do it, pressurizing will help a hellava lot. The valves need to open a reasonable amount or it ain't gonna flow the amount of air needed to make any reasonable HP. Along with the increase in HP is naturally torque, since torque is what HP is factored from. For those who know & those who don't know how an engine works. Density (AIR) =HP which =RPM's. All internal combustion engines rely on AIR!!!! From the smallest to the largest it's all about passing AIR!!!!!!!

D-Con
04-28-2008, 06:23 PM
Humbly butting in, Isn't the exhaust port the bottle-neck with the nailhead breathing? Believing that it is, supercharging, and even nitrous in fact WILL NOT make the same HP in a nailhead as in a better exhausting engine. If you can't allow all of the exhaust gasses to adequately exit the engine, you can't stuff as much fuel and air in. Even power-adder engines with good exhaust flow make more HP when the exhaust is made bigger than normal. Bigger exhaust valves, headers, and exhaust. All those burnt gasses have to go somewhere, whether they are created with forced induction or nitrous; if they can't get out of the exhaust they will take up space in the cylinder where fuel/air mixture should be.

So, I respectfully disagree, an equivalent amount of nitrous in 2 engines with different volumetric efficiencies will not increase the HP by an equal amount. The potential is the same, but not the resultant output. The more nitrous added, the more pronounced the difference will be.

telriv
04-28-2008, 07:46 PM
In a naturally aspirated application it's the INTAKE that's the bottleneck. For the last 50 or so years everyone thought it was the exhaust, not so. In a pressurized application it now becomes the exhaust that's the bottleneck. Now the proper cam comes into play. How many $$$$$$ ya got for experimenting???? After 10 or so different cam profiles it starts getting very costly. As an example. The last engine we spec'd another cam. Added 2* additional lobe separation. Added 4* intake duration at .050". Lobe lift & exhaust duration at .050" was the same. Results, 20HP. Removed heads. Removed all exhaust valves. Measured from top of head to exhaust seats. Sunk exhaust seats a little deeper. Cut a .015" groove around the outer top edge of exhaust valve. Smoothed all sharp corners. Left exhaust valve heights all different as we now have an adjustable valve train. Results, 22HP. Thought about adding 1*-2* more separation with another cam. Didn't do, have spent TOO MUCH already!!!!! Many applications are all different from each other. What may work for one will not work for another. Only thing I can say is that for most "Nails" they seem to like a wider lobe separation than most with a very fast rising ramp profile, somewhat like stock.
Just my dimes worth for what it may be worth.

tyoneal
04-29-2008, 05:22 AM
In a naturally aspirated application it's the INTAKE that's the bottleneck. For the last 50 or so years everyone thought it was the exhaust, not so. In a pressurized application it now becomes the exhaust that's the bottleneck. Now the proper cam comes into play. How many $$$$$$ ya got for experimenting???? After 10 or so different cam profiles it starts getting very costly. As an example. The last engine we spec'd another cam. Added 2* additional lobe separation. Added 4* intake duration at .050". Lobe lift & exhaust duration at .050" was the same. Results, 20HP. Removed heads. Removed all exhaust valves. Measured from top of head to exhaust seats. Sunk exhaust seats a little deeper. Cut a .015" groove around the outer top edge of exhaust valve. Smoothed all sharp corners. Left exhaust valve heights all different as we now have an adjustable valve train. Results, 22HP. Thought about adding 1*-2* more separation with another cam. Didn't do, have spent TOO MUCH already!!!!! Many applications are all different from each other. What may work for one will not work for another. Only thing I can say is that for most "Nails" they seem to like a wider lobe separation than most with a very fast rising ramp profile, somewhat like stock.
Just my dimes worth for what it may be worth.
--------===================
Tom:

My thoughts are for maximum Power IF we are unable to get better heads:

Dished 8.5:1 Forged Pistons
Roller Cam, Roller Followers, your Roller Rockers
Cam- As much lift and the longest duration possible on the exhaust (Maybe intake also) This should be easier with dished pistons.
Stock Heads fully ported
(Maybe even a Holley EFI System)

Should easily be able to get 7-9 Pounds of boost, With a good inter-cooler and if necessary a bit of added alcohol, 12-15 pounds of boost
114-116 LSA

From what I understand, at 7-9 pounds of boost we should see about a 55&#37;-65% increase in Torque and HP and be able to spin the engine up a lot higher.

At 15 Pounds of Boost, you could just about double you torque and HP.

If 465 Torque (425 Stock Engine) @ 2800 RPM's (Per Buick Literature) and 340 HP with 4X1, WITH A PROPER TUNE!!!! (Carb Size etc) 800 ft pounds of Torque, and 600+ HP, should be enough to launch a Battle Ship. (Especially if it weighs 4400 pounds ;-))Assuming the Engine is Strong enough structurally to handle the additional stresses.

With the additional Modifications mentioned above, YEE HAW!!!!! Bring on the Vettes.

Thoughts?

Regards,

Ty

BTW: Here is the link for the Diesel Truck that Pulls 5000 RPM.

http://www.bankspower.com/DmaxTypeR-ProjectOverView.cfm

Main Web Site

http://www.bankspower.com/

56familykar
04-30-2008, 08:06 AM
BTW: Here is the link for the Diesel Truck that Pulls 5000 RPM.

http://www.bankspower.com/DmaxTypeR-ProjectOverView.cfm

Main Web Site

http://www.bankspower.com/[/quote]



Yes Diesels will pull 7R's. I've seen a B- Cummins do it! Kevin and the guys at Dr. Perf. can do it as well! But this is another subject.

56familykar
04-30-2008, 08:08 AM
Humbly butting in, Isn't the exhaust port the bottle-neck with the nailhead breathing? Believing that it is, supercharging, and even nitrous in fact WILL NOT make the same HP in a nailhead as in a better exhausting engine. If you can't allow all of the exhaust gasses to adequately exit the engine, you can't stuff as much fuel and air in. Even power-adder engines with good exhaust flow make more HP when the exhaust is made bigger than normal. Bigger exhaust valves, headers, and exhaust. All those burnt gasses have to go somewhere, whether they are created with forced induction or nitrous; if they can't get out of the exhaust they will take up space in the cylinder where fuel/air mixture should be.

So, I respectfully disagree, an equivalent amount of nitrous in 2 engines with different volumetric efficiencies will not increase the HP by an equal amount. The potential is the same, but not the resultant output. The more nitrous added, the more pronounced the difference will be.




This is True! Moderation is the key to survival. Anything out there can put up with a meager 4psi of boost and the gains are noticeable. And Forcing exhaust out with a means of pressure would be helpful.
The exhaust is a pain. Tom, I need to ask you more questions because I cant get this thing to respond!

Mike

D-Con
04-30-2008, 03:13 PM
In a naturally aspirated application it's the INTAKE that's the bottleneck. For the last 50 or so years everyone thought it was the exhaust, not so. In a pressurized application it now becomes the exhaust that's the bottleneck. Now the proper cam comes into play. How many $$$$$$ ya got for experimenting???? After 10 or so different cam profiles it starts getting very costly. As an example. The last engine we spec'd another cam. Added 2* additional lobe separation. Added 4* intake duration at .050". Lobe lift & exhaust duration at .050" was the same. Results, 20HP. Removed heads. Removed all exhaust valves. Measured from top of head to exhaust seats. Sunk exhaust seats a little deeper. Cut a .015" groove around the outer top edge of exhaust valve. Smoothed all sharp corners. Left exhaust valve heights all different as we now have an adjustable valve train. Results, 22HP. Thought about adding 1*-2* more separation with another cam. Didn't do, have spent TOO MUCH already!!!!! Many applications are all different from each other. What may work for one will not work for another. Only thing I can say is that for most "Nails" they seem to like a wider lobe separation than most with a very fast rising ramp profile, somewhat like stock.
Just my dimes worth for what it may be worth.

Very interesting! I don't profess to be a nailhead expert. I think they are a great nostalgia engine, and love everything Buick. Possibly the best looking mass-produced engine ever except maybe a decked-out flathead Ford.

Just looking at the crazy profile of that exhaust port is enough :idea2: to lead to the conclusion the exhaust is the issue.

wkillgs
04-30-2008, 04:17 PM
Anything out there can put up with a meager 4psi of boost and the gains are noticeable. And Forcing exhaust out with a means of pressure would be helpful.

Mike

So on a blown Nailhead, using a cam with some valve overlap would help push the exhaust out using the pressurized intake charge!
Most blown applications don't have much overlap in the cam profile....so the Nailhead is once again different.
Wish I had a dyno.....and a million dollars:laugh:

telriv
04-30-2008, 07:44 PM
The bigger the intake charge the more pressure that will be generated when the exhaust valve opens, everything else remaining equal, so it WILL go out, it has no choice, it HAS to. Then again, how efficiently it goes out is another matter.

wkillgs
04-30-2008, 08:26 PM
Just for comparison, JW posted the dyno sheet for a warmed-over 350.
348hp @ 5200 rpm, and 399 ft lbs @ 4100
See it here:
http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.php?t=153248

tyoneal
05-01-2008, 12:48 AM
So on a blown Nailhead, using a cam with some valve overlap would help push the exhaust out using the pressurized intake charge!
Most blown applications don't have much overlap in the cam profile....so the Nailhead is once again different.
Wish I had a dyno.....and a million dollars:laugh:
==================================
When I was Mentioning a Blown Nailhead I was talking about 114-116 LSA (IS: Very Little Overlap)

Overlap in the cam profile will lower your cylinder pressure. Overlap on Cams are with a Lobe Separation Angle of 106* to 110* or there about.

Ty

ahhh65riv
05-01-2008, 02:46 AM
My testing of the 2x4 intakes is complete.

I wish to give to those individuals that have made contributions to this cause the FIRST LOOK at this long awaited data. Those that have made contributions to the dyno fund will receive the dyno pull sheets in a personal email from none other than yours truly. :Comp: These dyno sheets will contain the intake comparison tests of the Edelbrock B262, the Weiand WB4D, and the Eelco 2x4 intake manifolds.

There is still further testing in progress! Next I am taking off Tom Telescoís Roler Tip rockers, and installing a set of stock rocker arms, followed by installing the stock exhaust manifolds instead of the Sanderson BNH headers.

Its not too late if you wish to be added to the list! As it is I am way deep in this thing. I don't want to think about what the final bill is going to be...:ball:

If you missed that thread, Last minute donations can be made here at paypal:

https://www.paypal.com/us/verified/pal=browneyesvictim%40yahoo.com

If you aren't/weren't able to donate- that's ok- just remember to give me (your fellow nailheader) your 2 CENTS WORTH when I have a silly question to ask here on the board!!!:beer

Erik Schmidt

jamhdit
05-10-2008, 07:20 PM
So Now Your Going To Keep The Results Secret From Those That Can't Afford To Donate?

DualQuad55
05-10-2008, 09:20 PM
EASY guys, if you read the post- it says he is giving FIRST LOOK to those who have contributed to the costs of testing different setups. No where does it say that he will not post the info for everyone to see later. I think this is just his way to say thanks to those who helped him pay for some of the testing.
As far as soliciting money, if I recall correctly( without going back and re-reading all the posts on this thread) Erik had been asked by several people to try several items on the dyno for comparison. When he said that he could not afford all the dyno time required to try so many items, this is where donations came into play.
As far as how much HP he is making-I don't really care either, but it is nice to get an idea how much HP I can make or expect depending on what similar mods I do. I don't think this is a 'Look at me' type thing, just some useful info on parts available to us. The magazines do this every month and people pay money to buy each issue. How many times do you need to read how to make xxxHP in a SBC, SBF, etc...
We are finally at the point where new aftermarket parts are being made and someone took the time and cash to do some actual unbiased testing of them. Obviously results will vary depending on each individuals complete setup, but atleast now there is a starting point. It sure beats buying a bunch of parts and trying them out, just to find out which ones make more power. After about three or four different intake and carb setups, I don't want to spend anymore on them personally.

ps-I have not been able to contribute financially to the cause, so like many of you I await the rest of the results .

doc
05-11-2008, 08:06 AM
Well said, Joe.

ahhh65riv
05-12-2008, 10:49 PM
Dear fellow Nailheaders!

Thanks for hanging in there. I would like to apologize for the delay. I know a lot of you folks have been keeping a close eye out on this thread. It has also been gaining a lot of steam! You know I started this thread over a year and a half ago with the SOLE INTENTION of sharing my data with this group. I am still unwavering in this resolve! If I could please indulge your forgiveness, everyone will see this has not been without good reason for this delay. I am pleased to announce Rodders Journal has offered to publish this data in their magazine as well! As I'm sure you can all understand this will be great publicity to get a bit of credit for our beloved yet under-rated Nailhead! I did however, wish to keep true to the contributing members of the V-8 Buick board that have made contributions toward this effort FIRST! My fear was that posting my results here would kill the article. As of this evening, I have confirmed this article will run in addition to my results being posted here. I hope you can see there was a "bigger picture" here.


At last! Here is the final 2x4 intake data we have all been interested in. Attached is the "All B.S. aside", "apples to apples", "side by side", "100% independent" comparison of three dual quad intakes: Edelbrock B262, Weiand and Eelco. This is the first of 4 posts in a row I will make. The next 3 posts will contain the specific dyno data for each intake manifold.

The attached sheet is the comparison chart. Here is the legend:

Square (425ES014) = Eelco
Circle (425ES013) = Edelbrock
Diamond = Weiand

Lately there has been discussion about the HP and Torque ratings from recent dyno sessions that have shown the actual HP and torque numbers acquired that barely match- or sometimes rate below the ratings Buick published over 40 years ago. So did Buick embellish their numbers? My testing leads me to believe this could be true, yet at the same time Craig Schuck (Shuck Motorsports- dyno owner/operator) has made a comment that he has had customers that have tested their same engine on his competitorsí dyno 17-20 HP higher than on his. Therein I have come to believe that there are just as many other variables that can sway the data one way or the other. Another point of note is, all of these tests were performed WITH heat applied through the exhaust crossover. Certainly I COULD have gained a few more horsepower, by blanking them off without any other modifications at nearly ZERO cost. I COULD put in a bigger cam and gain more horsepower. My point is, I never was out to build the ultimate high performance nailhead. So I'm not hung up on the numbers. What is important is that what you are getting is comparative data of different intakes on the same engine on the same dyno, on the same day, with the same carbs, etc. In the end, I will have an every day driver that will last for a long time, made from the highest quality parts and machine work that are available today. I will still be able to dish out some punishment to the punk in the import with bad exhaust on and off the strip and be consistent. I will do it riding in style and comfort with the A/C on and the windows open! Oh, and did I mention when I lift the hood for onlookers I will be watching the reaction of every single person that sees that dual quad "eye candy"? My conclusion is each "speed part" has its own benefits and weaknesses. Selecting the right part is a personal choice that is right for what YOU want.

I wish to thank every one of you for your patience, generosity as well as those that have made a financial contribution to help offset a portion of the cost of dyno time. Most importantly, I would like to especially thank everyone for their support guidance and camaraderie' on V-8Buick.com. If you are like me, it didn't take long to realize the value of knowledge and information to be gained on the site; however, there are often opinions that are disguised as facts. There are so many claims and theories! How does a person discern fact from another personís opinion? This information I am sharing is small token of REAL DATA to hopefully help others make informed decisions about the parts they choose to install on their nailhead. I realize this is only comparing intakes, but this has taken over a year and a half and cost thousands of dollars to get this far. I'm here to tell you the data did not come cheap! In the end I am going to take my nailhead home and install it in my 65 Riviera Gran Sport, and will KNOW I have one of the best built hot-rod engines ever produced, and enjoy cruising in it for years to come! You can find me talking about it and "sharing the pride" on V-8Buick.com and other forums on the net.


Your fellow rodder,
Erik Schmidt

ahhh65riv
05-12-2008, 10:56 PM
And the winner is....

Eelco! ...just slightly.

Highlights:
Max torque is 468 ft-lbs @ 3600 RPM
Max HP 365.5 and HELD through several hundred rpms!

Looking at the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption(BSCF), I am real happy with this pull!

*EGT probe #7 was in-operable

ahhh65riv
05-12-2008, 11:00 PM
In third place (performance wise) is the Weiand. Although very rare, this manifold is all about "looking good"!

On the graph, it shows (average) 27.2 FT lbs less torque, and 21.8 less HP than the Eelco, however there are some features that I like about this intake.

1. I like the carb spacing. There is more room to work on it, get at vacuum ports, mixture screws etc., One would also be more likely to find an air cleaner that will fit this spacing.

2. There is more space underneath the plenum- no need to grind off fins on aluminum valley pans.

3. Has a lower overall profile height- probably for better hood clearance. Even more could be taken off from the bottom.

4. It is more efficient, by using less fuel.

When we installed the cabs on the manifold we had to be real careful as the secondary butterflies liked to hang up on the inside bores of the intake. Centering within the "slop" of the carb mounting studs was critical. Furthermore when looking down I noticed the port openings of the intake were smaller than the diameter of the carbs! It was very clear that this cut down on flow! With some "garage mechanic" level skills one could easily "port match" the intake openings to gain HP. If it wasn't "borrowed" I probably would have done that to see what we could pick up. (You can relax Russ!) :-)

Again, the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption(BSCF) has the same good curve in the middle (a little better actually).


*EGT probe #7 was in-operable

ahhh65riv
05-12-2008, 11:06 PM
A very close second place behind the Eelco is the Edelbrock B262. The long regarded reigning champion is just a couple points shy of 1st place. As it was expected it performed very much like the Eelco... or vise versa. Just how far? Perhaps enough to win/not win a race?

Average difference:
Torque: 3.6 Ft-Lbs (437.5 - 441.1)
HP: 2.7 Ft-Lbs (337.4-334.7)

There are certainly a lot of variables that come into play that could have changed the results, but on this day, on this dyno, on this engine, these were the numbers. and the number don't lie!

Please reply and let me know your comments and/or questions!

Erik Schmidt

gsgtx
05-13-2008, 01:02 PM
A very close second place behind the Eelco is the Edelbrock B262. The long regarded reigning champion is just a couple points shy of 1st place. As it was expected it performed very much like the Eelco... or vise versa. Just how far? Perhaps enough to win/not win a race?

Average difference:
Torque: 3.6 Ft-Lbs (437.5 - 441.1)
HP: 2.7 Ft-Lbs (337.4-334.7)

There are certainly a lot of variables that come into play that could have changed the results, but on this day, on this dyno, on this engine, these were the numbers. and the number don't lie!

Please reply and let me know your comments and/or questions!

Erik Schmidt Erik what is your comp ratio and whats your cam specs. and thank you for all your hard work. Joe

ahhh65riv
05-13-2008, 02:47 PM
Joe,

Your welcome. My compression is around 9-1/4:1. I have A Felpro Composite gasket. I have posted this and my Cam card data in this tread.


For all-

As a reminder I am still yet to post my Dyno results from Toms Roller Tip Rockers, and the Sanderson Headers. :Brow: I will have to scan them tonight and post more!

Erik

71GSX455-4SPD
05-13-2008, 04:32 PM
For all-

As a reminder I am still yet to post my Dyno results from Toms Roller Tip Rockers, and the Sanderson Headers. :Brow: I will have to scan them tonight and post more!

Erik


Anxiously awaiting those, should be very valuable information!

funkyriv
05-13-2008, 11:25 PM
My compression is around 9-1/4:1. I have A Felpro Composite gasket. I have posted this and my Cam card data in this tread.

How much does the lower compression (9:1 vs. Stock 10:1) reduce the HP results?



As a reminder I am still yet to post my Dyno results from Toms Roller Tip Rockers, and the Sanderson Headers. :Brow: I will have to scan them tonight and post more!

Are you implying that the TT roller rockers were not used in the previous posted results using the various 2x4 carb/intake set-ups? I thought you already had the TT roller rockers in the motor; were you using the stock rockers?

thx,

ahhh65riv
05-14-2008, 02:29 AM
Yes. Toms rockers have been in the whole time... up to now.
Yes. I know I dropped maybe a couple of horsepower because I dropped the compression a fraction. There are some that will say more, and some that will say compression is overrated. I know I won't have to worry about detonation when I run pump gas. I COULD change all of that if I put in a different head gasket.

After I was finnished testing the intakes, the remaining pulls were all done with the Eelco intake manifold. In this process of putting it back on, we removed the valley pan, rocker covers, the Telesco rockers, and pushrods and install a set of factory rocker arms and used adjustable pushrods to take up the lash for the remaining tests. Here are the dyno pull sheets...

Max torque: 459.9 @ 3600 RPM
Max HP: 352.4 @ 4400 RPM

So that means to me on my engine Toms rockrs are worth roughly (max) 8 Ft-lbs of torque and 13 HP! :3gears:

ahhh65riv
05-14-2008, 02:41 AM
For the next test I left everything as it was and we installed an air meter over the front carburetor, then we repeated the test with the meter on the rear carb. Preferably we would have had an air box to cover BOTH carbs at once to get a true air volume reading.

Now if I'm not mistaken you could theorteticaly add them both together to get your A/F ratio, CFM, calculate volumetric efficiency, etc. Obviously this method is not entirely accurate, but close.

ahhh65riv
05-14-2008, 03:11 AM
Lastly, we pulled the Sanderson Headers off and installed the original factory 65 Riviera exhaust manifolds. The choke heat tube was removed and plugged. The manifolds were open (Blew the dyno water all over the place!:Dou:

I found this test very interesting, as this moved the torque lower and HP higher in the RPM range!

455.3 @ 3000 RPM (already peaked!)
347.1 HP at 4800RPM

This means the Sanderson headers are worth roughly (peak) 5 HP on my engine (with stock rockers), and up to 5 (possible) ft-lbs of torque.

This concludes my testing. I hope all of this information I have shared becomes a launching pad for inspiration for anyone considering building their nailhead. I also hope this gives some insight for so many POSSIBILITIES of new products that are yet to be developed!

Oh, and THANK YOU Joe for your recent donation!

Erik

flynbuick
05-14-2008, 05:08 AM
"How much does the lower compression (9:1 vs. Stock 10:1) reduce the HP results?"

If it is like most engines a factory rating of 10 to 1 compression was never 10 to 1 in fact. It would likely have been somehere in the mid 9's. Someone like Tom may have measured this amd can nail down the figure. Generally the rule of thumb is 4&#37; per point of compression. So if if it was 9.5 to 1 in fact from the factory, the loss on a 350hp engine being 9 to 1 is about 7 hp. With his being 9.25 in fact you are talking 3.5 hp loss on the same assumptions.

56familykar
05-14-2008, 07:37 AM
For the next test I left everything as it was and we installed an air meter over the front carburetor, then we repeated the test with the meter on the rear carb. Preferably we would have had an air box to cover BOTH carbs at once to get a true air volume reading.

Now if I'm not mistaken you could theorteticaly add them both together to get your A/F ratio, CFM, calculate volumetric efficiency, etc. Obviously this method is not entirely accurate, but close.


If I had known Erik, We have one here I could have loaned you. It was set up on an Offy with 2 Demons but I think it would have been close. The hat would have fit the Superflow intake.

Nice work. Thanks
Mike

ahhh65riv
05-14-2008, 10:55 AM
If I had known Erik, We have one here I could have loaned you. It was set up on an Offy with 2 Demons but I think it would have been close. The hat would have fit the Superflow intake.

Nice work. Thanks
Mike



Well, to tell you the truth, he did have a pretty slick box for dual carbs that was adjustable to fit different carb spacings, but unfortunately it didn't come together close enough to work on the spacing I have. Had I thought of it at the time, I would have used it on the Weiand intake as that spacing is farther apart. Then again I'm not sure how much value there would be in that now knowing the limited performance it has and the rarity of it. It would have taken a bit of fussing with it to modify it to get it to work. Craig wasn't into that.

BTW- How did you get the Demons to work on the Offy? They wouldn't fit on the Eelco.

Erik

gsgtx
05-15-2008, 09:25 PM
"How much does the lower compression (9:1 vs. Stock 10:1) reduce the HP results?"

If it is like most engines a factory rating of 10 to 1 compression was never 10 to 1 in fact. It would likely have been somehere in the mid 9's. Someone like Tom may have measured this amd can nail down the figure. Generally the rule of thumb is 4% per point of compression. So if if it was 9.5 to 1 in fact from the factory, the loss on a 350hp engine being 9 to 1 is about 7 hp. With his being 9.25 in fact you are talking 3.5 hp loss on the same assumptions. buick said stock was 10.25:1. the two engines I had apart came out about 9.9:1. 129cc head,.015 stock head gasket and pistons were about 57 thousands in the whole.

yacster
05-16-2008, 08:18 AM
Buick engineers were big fat liars!!!!!!!!!!:moonu:

funkyriv
05-16-2008, 09:32 AM
buick said stock was 10.25:1. the two engines I had apart came out about 9.9:1. 129cc head,.015 stock head gasket and pistons were about 57 thousands in the whole.

The top of the piston has a dome that extends into the combustion chamber. How did you account for the dome volume in the calculation above?

gsgtx
05-16-2008, 12:57 PM
The top of the piston has a dome that extends into the combustion chamber. How did you account for the dome volume in the calculation above?
I used 53cc which some one said on the site here.

SpecialWagon65
05-17-2008, 11:14 AM
Buick engineers were big fat liars!!!!!!!!!!:moonu:

I doubt it was the engineers- the marketing dept usually had the say about these ratings!!:laugh:

doc
05-17-2008, 08:27 PM
O K ; Here goes,
When engines, any engine, any company, is made there is ''manufacturing tolerances'' involved. I havent seen any engine that has perfect specs when compared to the ''blue print'' specs.
None of them will have the advertised numbers. That is what ''Blue printing'' engines was all about in the mid sixties.
You took your engine and carefully examined it and corrected the machine work to make it conform to the ''blueprint''. This resulted in an engine living a long time and putting out a bunch of horsepower. As for as Buick lying, I noticed that , for instance, the rated taxable hp for a wild cat 310 was 45, and the rated taxable hp for the wildcat 355 [the engine with a 4bbl. + 11;1 compression + dual exhausts ] was 45 hp. Putting the 64 and 65 skylarks right at the top of their drag racing class. Yup, they lied. And created a class winner.

funkyriv
05-18-2008, 12:04 AM
As for as Buick lying, I noticed that , for instance, the rated taxable hp for a wild cat 310 was 45, and the rated taxable hp for the wildcat 355 [the engine with a 4bbl. + 11;1 compression + dual exhausts ] was 45 hp. Putting the 64 and 65 skylarks right at the top of their drag racing class. Yup, they lied. And created a class winner.

I didn't know about taxable horsepower until you mentioned that it is in the shop manual. Thanks for the tip! I still did not know what it meant, so I looked up the definition, which explained that the concept was started in England and Europe in order to tax larger vehicle engines. By the 1960's it was an archaic concept that had almost zero relevance to engine HP performance. Here is how you calculate it:

TaxHP = Bore^2 x # cyl/2.5

for the 401NH, using 4.1875 bore, TaxHP = 56.11
for the 425NH, using 4.3125 bore, TaxHP = 59.51

These are the exact values listed in the manual.

As to why the advertised values were not in line with reality, wikipedia lists several reasons:
1) SAE standards on Gross HP ratings were very generous with pressure and temp corrections. The SAE Net HP ratings almost never met the Gross.
2) Tests were performed with blueprinted test engines under idealized conditions not meant to translate to production cars.
3) Marketing, Sales, and Production managers usually altered the test results for their own purposes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower

doc
05-18-2008, 06:24 AM
Ok, Funk, [I wish I knew your name] Let me ''splane'' myself. When I went thru Ford School back in the 60s, they taught us that the taxable hp was the hp that was actually available to be used in moving a vehicle. IE. from the rear wheel axel flange to the ground thru the wheel. After all the running friction and power robbing accessories bled off what they used.
We were shocked at the small amount available to actually use. We were also shocked at the performance that came out of so little amount of actual usable hp.
Now, I aint no mathimitician [ heck, I cant even spell it] and I dont doubt what you say at all, but at the time that is what fomoco said that they called taxable hp, and that was their definition of it.

yacster
05-18-2008, 07:01 AM
Either way you guys explain it, Someone was still a "Big Fat Liar" and I bet they had coodies too!!!!!:pp :bla:

doc
05-18-2008, 04:25 PM
Yeah, Yaccy, they probably did.

SJ 66 Lark
05-25-2008, 11:41 PM
Looking at the overall picture here, a 2x4 is worth 4 hp and about 10 ft pounds over a stock four barrel... For the price they go for I think porting the single four factory chunk may be the way to go :)

My impression and opinion is that either the few aftermarket parts available for Nailheads are primitive, or original factory parts were very well designed and/or the engine just doesn't have much left to give after a good quality rebuild. Maybe a little bit of all of the above.

I'm not a knowledgeable Buick guy, but just looking at it, the water cross over is not integrated with the intake (cooler intake charge), the intake has an "Air gap" for the same purpose, the valves and ports were purpose built for maximal useable lower RPM torque. Velocity at low lifts over Volume at upper RPM's...

Seems to me the guys who designed the Nailhead did a fantastic job and used ideas that were cutting edge, if not decades before their time... Edelbrock makes a fair bit of money selling "Air Gap" intakes these days.

The things have the torque curve of a diesel...

Still intakes that maximize velocity might be the way to go, I would have loved to see how 3 deuces faired in the same Dyno shootout. Or a bunch of Webers...

I'm also left wondering how a smaller CFM 4v like a 700 CFM Edelbrock on a fictional high rise (Victor Junior like) manifold would have compared.

doc
05-26-2008, 05:09 AM
Blue printed nailhead+ good port job+ good supercharger+ big carb or efi+ good exhaust system= screamer.

tyoneal
05-26-2008, 06:16 AM
Blue printed nailhead+ good port job+ good supercharger+ big carb or efi+ good exhaust system= screamer.

Yes I think that would be the Nailhead, "Holy Grail",and the ONLY way to make what most people today consider, "BIG", Power.

Thanks for all your hard work. You have shed some light on my ideas about a build.

I'm thinking now that the best bang for the buck (If a Power Adder is used) is to clean up the ports, match the ports, Toms Roller Rockers, new SS Valves, add forged pistons and a great blower cam, then put a STS Turbo on it.

Use a "Blow Through" hat and get out of the way.

With the boost, I don't think the headers, and the big port jobs will add much of anything compared to the money it cost. Pressurized induction makes a lot of expensive things irrelevant.

Oh and a good Tune.

Thoughts?

Ty

gsgtx
05-26-2008, 07:26 AM
Looking at the overall picture here, a 2x4 is worth 4 hp and about 10 ft pounds over a stock four barrel... For the price they go for I think porting the single four factory chunk may be the way to go :)

My impression and opinion is that either the few aftermarket parts available for Nailheads are primitive, or original factory parts were very well designed and/or the engine just doesn't have much left to give after a good quality rebuild. Maybe a little bit of all of the above.

I'm not a knowledgeable Buick guy, but just looking at it, the water cross over is not integrated with the intake (cooler intake charge), the intake has an "Air gap" for the same purpose, the valves and ports were purpose built for maximal useable lower RPM torque. Velocity at low lifts over Volume at upper RPM's...

Seems to me the guys who designed the Nailhead did a fantastic job and used ideas that were cutting edge, if not decades before their time... Edelbrock makes a fair bit of money selling "Air Gap" intakes these days.

The things have the torque curve of a diesel...

Still intakes that maximize velocity might be the way to go, I would have loved to see how 3 deuces faired in the same Dyno shootout. Or a bunch of Webers...

I'm also left wondering how a smaller CFM 4v like a 700 CFM Edelbrock on a fictional high rise (Victor Junior like) manifold would have compared. where did you get 4 HP over the single 4 carb, which post? on the thread dyno testing didnt they used the buick 2x4 x manifold and not the b262 or the eelco intake? thanks.

SJ 66 Lark
05-26-2008, 10:26 AM
where did you get 4 HP over the single 4 carb, which post? on the thread dyno testing didnt they used the buick 2x4 x manifold and not the b262 or the eelco intake? thanks.

Maybe I need to re-read the thread, wasn't his baseline run done with a stock 4bbl setup?

Never mind, I see now that his first runs were with the 2x4, I shouldn't have assumed he would baseline with a factory 4bbl.
my mistake.

Erik did you get pulls with the ported 4bbl big carb combo?

ahhh65riv
05-27-2008, 01:19 PM
Nope. Doc couldn't come up with "the stuff" to prove his theory! :moonu:

I only did 2x4's.

Erik

SpecialWagon65
05-27-2008, 02:24 PM
Maybe thinking about my experience- a ported/polished matched single carb intake + 750 edelbrock
vs the X-code dual quad experimental manifold I threw on there just to see what happened.
Not the definative test by any means. That Engine was built to run the single;
I will be putting a bit more effort to match up the dual quad to the 425 in my Wildcat. That includes spending much more time with the dual quad tuning than we did on the 401.

6671
05-27-2008, 09:44 PM
The bigger the intake charge the more pressure that will be generated when the exhaust valve opens, everything else remaining equal, so it WILL go out, it has no choice, it HAS to. Then again, how efficiently it goes out is another matter.

Ever try a cam with MORE lift and duration on the intake side than the exhaust? Perhaps about 4-6* more intake duration and .030-.040" lift. Have the exhaust lobe close a bit later to so the piston plays a role besides the scavenging of the spent gasses to get those spent gasses out. This should allow a larger amount of fresh charge into the cylinder and make more power if indeed the intake is the weak side of the nail's head. Seems it is. Just a thought.

doc
05-28-2008, 09:15 AM
Wellllll,,,,, I did not know that I was expected to come up with the "stuff" to prove a theory. I was just offering a suggestion. I stated what would be interesting to me. If I had buckets of money I suppose that I could have pulled the modified manifold and holley 3 bbl off my car and shipped it from Tn. to Or. and let it be tested. Not feasable on retirement pay though.
Is there some animosity toward ol Doc????????????

yacster
05-28-2008, 10:00 AM
I think Erik's just bustin your horns a little Doc-some friendly ribbin. You know we all love ya you big lug :grin:

ahhh65riv
05-28-2008, 11:57 AM
It's all good Doc! I was just playing. Believe me, I understand where you are coming from as far as a budget. I would have loved to prove your theory one way or another, too. My pockets(and those that donated to the cause) can only do so much. I was getting a jab in, because you have been making your case about the hogged out single intake with a huge Holley, on many threads for some time now. Closer study of the results might suggest you are on to something...

...But then again there IS all the those "f"ord words you've been throwing around....:grin:

let me make it up to you. I'll buy you one----> :beers2:

Erik

56familykar
05-28-2008, 01:03 PM
You know Doc. I'm only here in little ol Crossville.

Maybe when I get the little 364 of mine on the mule I'll give you a buzz.

Mike






Wellllll,,,,, I did not know that I was expected to come up with the "stuff" to prove a theory. I was just offering a suggestion. I stated what would be interesting to me. If I had buckets of money I suppose that I could have pulled the modified manifold and holley 3 bbl off my car and shipped it from Tn. to Or. and let it be tested. Not feasable on retirement pay though.
Is there some animosity toward ol Doc????????????

SJ 66 Lark
05-29-2008, 10:51 AM
Erik I'm curious why you went with dual quads if you were after torque? Conventional wisdom is that dual quads are for peak hp. single 4 and even single 2bbl carbs should produce more torque in usable street RPM ranges.

For torque you want air speed not big volumes. So smaller CFM carbs and dual plane intakes, not giant CFM carbs and tunnel port intakes. if you look at most "high rise" and multi carb intakes for drag racing, they almost all make significantly less torque (10 to 30 foot pounds is not uncommon) from idle to 4000 RPM's than a normal street oriented intake.

If you look at Chevy and Ford intakes for big blocks or small blocks where there are loads of dyno data; you will see Intakes like 2x4's Tunnel rams, and even single carb high rise pieces like Edelbrock Victor Jr and Sr. All develop more peak HP than a single carb dual plane manifold. but they move it up into the 4500 to 7000 RPM range, and they make less torque below 4000 to 4500 RPM's (generally speaking).

Granted there's not a lot of selection for the nail.

ahhh65riv
05-29-2008, 12:49 PM
SJ,

Everything I have ever heard, or come to know tells me the nail is not like a chevy, and shouldn't be compared to the same way. The nail wants more air which means more CFM. I agree that if we could get shorter intake runners we would see bigger torque numbers. My understanding of how HP is computed (torqe x speed- directly related!) leads me to believe volumetric efficiency VE is the determining factor in the nailhead, hence the small valves.:Smarty:

We will likely see proof of this in the very near future when Eelco (any day now) releases their new and improved single 4 manifold for use with BIG carbs. This is only a theory, of course untill someone comes along to do the dyno testing for documented proof.

Erik

telriv
05-29-2008, 04:32 PM
And I may be doing just that in the very near future. We'll see if it comes to fruition & in time. I would have really liked to send the modified B262 for testing, but as all well know, they are like hen's teeth & if it got lost it would be hard to replace. Then we would have to try & copy the mods that were done. I liked the more even torque & HP graph of the B262 over the Eelco even though the Eelco had just barely higher torque & HP levels. I noticed the Eelco had peaks & valley's throughout the RPM range. But, at least now we have an alternative to the coveted B262 with better sealing improvements for the carbs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the work, time, effort & expense Marty has gone through. I hope it all turns out excellent for him as well as this new manifold. I, as well as Marty I'm sure, are hoping this new manifold will help our asymatic "Nails" to breath a little better. All in the quest for HP & the famous low end torque the ole "Nail" produces.

Tom

gsgtx
05-29-2008, 09:06 PM
And I may be doing just that in the very near future. We'll see if it comes to fruition & in time. I would have really liked to send the modified B262 for testing, but as all well know, they are like hen's teeth & if it got lost it would be hard to replace. Then we would have to try & copy the mods that were done. I liked the more even torque & HP graph of the B262 over the Eelco even though the Eelco had just barely higher torque & HP levels. I noticed the Eelco had peaks & valley's throughout the RPM range. But, at least now we have an alternative to the coveted B262 with better sealing improvements for the carbs. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking the work, time, effort & expense Marty has gone through. I hope it all turns out excellent for him as well as this new manifold. I, as well as Marty I'm sure, are hoping this new manifold will help our asymatic "Nails" to breath a little better. All in the quest for HP & the famous low end torque the ole "Nail" produces.

Tom
Eelco also had more avg HP and torque than the B262. and more peak HP and torque like you said.

doc
05-30-2008, 06:38 AM
Wellll, i am glad yall splained it to me cause I was about to get into my FFFFord and go off and eat worms and die. :Brow: :Brow: :Brow:
Now I wonder could I get a big carb to work on that Truck???:pray: :pray: :laugh: :laugh:

6671
06-02-2008, 10:42 AM
Yeah the "asthymatic" condition has always been the issue with the nailhead. The issue should be to use the motor within the parameters it already has while expanding them as much as possible. No reason to rev to 5300+ if it is not making power, shift 400-500rpm after peak power is the rule of thumb.
So work on making power and torque for a longer amount of time(read revs), say from 3000 to that 5300rpm point or whatever each motor has as it's sweet spot.
DENSITY is not air but one of the factors that make yup the air with denser air making more power. Maybe a water injection from Snow would be a good addition? I'll look for their site. Keep up the testing!

JEFF STRUBE
01-28-2009, 03:27 PM
That's 100&#37; correct. When you bore the cyllinders, the walls obviously become thinner, but this also takes away structural support for compression to take place. 425 Blocks are even more prone to this. If you have ever looked at what sonic testing tells you, this becomes apparent how close to the watter passages a 30 over bore (or more) will put you. Under high stress and compression, the walls can flex, egg shape or even worse rupture, but mostly this will represent itself as piston ring seal issues. The "hard block" just helps add back structure to the bore. Today's Moly rings also help. This process is probably not necissary for your every day driver, but could make the difference of when your tired 'ol nailhead starts to smoke and is ready to be rebuilt again.

On a point of clarity- The "hard block" I used is an Epoxy based backing resin. This is used in the industrial world for filler, grouting, floating footings and such. I purchased the stuff from my place of employment as we use it for installing "grouting in" if you will, manganese wear liners in roller bearing rock crushing cones. It is made by several manufactures- Dupont and Loctite and Fel-Pro are a few that come to mind. It's known in the trade as Nordback, Hardback or Strongback. It is lighter than cement and has a coefficient of expansion that is closer to that of steel. Having that stuff come loose in your water passages would not be pretty!:Dou: Full drag racing engines do not have a cooling system at all. The water passages are filled completely full with "hard block" for extreme cyllinder support and overall block rigidity.

Now Tom... Where are those gold plated Rockers?!?!? :bla:

Erik

I would like here more about this Expoxy and Part # and where you can get it.You can PM me as well or call me 720-217-7859 Jeff

telriv
01-28-2009, 04:14 PM
Any place that sells or repairs ROCK CRUSHING equipment. Look in the Yellow Pages & use the name Erik mentioned for brand/type.

ahhh65riv
01-28-2009, 08:04 PM
The Epoxy "backing" comes in a 22lb bucket. You will probably need less than 1/2 a bucket for a partial fill per block- probably closer to 1/3rd for the nailheads. Each bucket comes as a "kit" with a smaller hardener container inside the bucket. You can mix as much as you need at a time as long as you keep your mix ratio proportional. Or you can use the rest of the un-used portion to fill in the cracks in your concrete floor :idea2:

The epoxy backing is used in the rock crushing industry to "grout in" replaceable manganese wear liners in cone style rock crushers. As I mentioned in the post I work for a manufacture of just such equipment, but we sell through distributors. I see you are in Colorado. Check with our dealer in Colorado called Power Motive, or if you want or anyone else is interested, I'll be happy to sell to my buick buddies as much as you want at list price for $3.21 a pound plus shipping. Check with your local suppier, but you will likely have their mark-up on top of that well. I can get you a pretty good discounted shipping rate too. Anyone who is seriously interestd PM me for a shipping quote.
Erik

JEFF STRUBE
01-28-2009, 10:17 PM
The Epoxy "backing" comes in a 22lb bucket. You will probably need less than 1/2 a bucket for a partial fill per block- probably closer to 1/3rd for the nailheads. Each bucket comes as a "kit" with a smaller hardener container inside the bucket. You can mix as much as you need at a time as long as you keep your mix ratio proportional. Or you can use the rest of the un-used portion to fill in the cracks in your concrete floor :idea2:

The epoxy backing is used in the rock crushing industry to "grout in" replaceable manganese wear liners in cone style rock crushers. As I mentioned in the post I work for a manufacture of just such equipment, but we sell through distributors. I see you are in Colorado. Check with our dealer in Colorado called Power Motive, or if you want or anyone else is interested, I'll be happy to sell to my buick buddies as much as you want at list price for $3.21 a pound plus shipping. Check with your local suppier, but you will likely have their mark-up on top of that well. I can get you a pretty good discounted shipping rate too. Anyone who is seriously interestd PM me for a shipping quote.
Erik


Thanks for the info we will check on it. I will shot you a PM if i have any other Questions

telriv
01-28-2009, 10:52 PM
We used this filler to fill the cooling system to the bottom of the outlets of the timing case cover, about 3/4's or so full & only used 1/2 the bucket or less. This stuff is GREAT!!!!!! It's self leveling, the block doesn't need to be vibrated to get the bubbles out, has more vibration resistance than "Cement", & if you accidentally overfill just open up the drain plug to let some out. Depending on how high you fill you will have to put in another drain or make up some kind of tube to be able to drain the block. The machinist I use locally does a lot of twin turbo BMW 6's & had problems with the block decks holding up under the pressure. Would always had to have at least one or two blocks ready just in case. Last season went through the whole season without any deck failures & after taking apart off season found no evidence of any pending problems beginning to start. You must fill BEFORE boring as it will do some distortion. Even the cam bearings had to be fitted ever so slightly in our case. Because of the terrible core shift problems in the latter part of the "Nails' existence core shift & uncentered bores are common. I recommend that even on a stock rebuild that the block be filled to the bottom of the big freeze plugs to add stability to the bottom of the cylinders. On all whom I have recommended this to they report no adverse effects on the cooling system. In my mind it makes it even better as the water flows closer to the top of the bores where it's needed more than at the bottom. The more stable the lower part of the cylinders the longer even a stock rebuild will last. Just need to make sure the internal passages are CLEAN!!!!! I use muriatic acid to do this. Gets things clean as brand new. Just use it outside.
Just my nickels worth.

Wicked50
11-28-2009, 12:11 PM
Thanks guys this was a very informative thread. I was actually looking for this exact test. I have a 401 and want to put a 2x4 on it and wanted to findout which one would give me the best performance.

ahhh65riv
11-28-2009, 02:06 PM
Welcome! I see this is your first post!

I also see this thread hasn't refreshed around in almost a year!:Do No:

Erik

Wicked50
11-28-2009, 08:20 PM
Thanks for the welcome Erik, I recently bought a 401 from Russell Martin and am looking a 2x4 intake. I read your thread and the eelco is the better performing intake. Would you say this would be true if it is used with a stock 401?

ahhh65riv
11-29-2009, 09:29 PM
Nice score! I'm sure Russ did you fine on the engine.

Absolutely! The 401 should respond the same (relative) way as the 425 with the eelco 2x4 manifold. Just remember to recurve the distrutor to match the spec.

Erik

DeuceCoupe
03-20-2012, 01:01 PM
I have very much appreciated this thread, the dyno series and the comments.
I am searching for any dyno testing that may have been done with the stock dual quad intake.
The reasoning:
It looks like most conclude that the stock nailhead ratings were high, which is fine, most of Detroit did that back in the 60s.
But, the stock 2x4 intake must have been pretty good since those cars ran awfully good.
I got Brooklands Riviera from the wife for X-mas (makes her shopping easy!) and noted
the folllowing 425/360hp 2x4 Rivieras, all of them over 2 tons curb:
15.90 at 89
15.40 at 92
15.50 at 95
:3gears:

To get any kind of match to that 95mph car in my simulator I had to use a tailwind of 20mph.
They noted winds of 22-28mph and 40F temps but still I had to assume that strong wind in their favor.
But even the "not as windy" tests - that SuperWildcat was a strong engine, the stock intake couldnt be THAT bad!
So I wondered if any dyno testing has been done on it?:confused:

flynbuick
03-20-2012, 03:00 PM
You can back into the actual factory SAE horsepower output for the 425 Buick by using the February, 1966 Road and Track test report for a 66 Riv GS with 2 fours. It ran the quarter mile at 16.7 seconds and 86.7 mph. The car as test weighed in at a svelte 4710 pounds. (The factory curb weight was only 4375 pounds). So add 200 pounds for a driver to 4710 pounds and any desk top dyno will spit out the horsepower number you seek.

For those that are doubters throw in the August 1966 GS Riv test report from Car And Driver also equipped with a Buick 425 with two fours. As tested it weighed in at 4835 pounds. It ran the quarter in 15.9 seconds at 87 mph.

Notice how well the 86.7 mph one magazine obtained correlates with the 87 MPH the other obtained. This suggest the horsepower of the two GS Rivs is very close.

Who has a desk top dyno program that can run the numbers?

DeuceCoupe
03-20-2012, 04:06 PM
Jim,
Yes I understand the suggestion, in fact it is the reason I started writing my simulator back in the 1970s, about the same time the others got started. It's not user-friendly or on the market, but just so I understand things - and one way I use it is to go up against as many dyno tests, old road tests, and timeslips as I can. I do use it to make predictions if I can, just to help the hobby. :)

But, the problem with backing out SAE Gross hp as you suggest, from old road tests, is, just too many variables.
One problem is, scatter. I have 11 old road tests of the 425-8v. All the trap speeds are either 86-87, but four of them are 88-89-92-95. All in Rivs or Wildcats plus passenger[s], some weight scatter but not that much. So using the old "1mph=10hp" rule (approx I know) that implies a 90hp scatter in the same engine, slowest to fastest. I know that even out of the factory, you might get +/- 5hp from the build, and maybe +/- 10hp more from the tune. That explains some of it, but also makes it harder to say, "what SAE Gross hp would a typical (mean) factory 425-8v put out".

The other thing is that, any simulator that can tell you horsepower from et/mph is really only telling you the AVERAGE REAR WHEEL horsepower down the track. It is then making assumptions to get from average to peak rear-wheel, then more assumptions from rear-wheel to net horsepower, then even more assumptions from net to gross horsepower. And that's if you know the weather and wind and direction! I know what most of the factors are, but there is so much scatter in guessing them - especially for old road tests - that an accurate estimate of SAE gross peak HP from trap speed is hard to get. You could say, "well it's 330hp +/- 40 for sure and 440ftlb +/- 40 for sure" but we kinda already know that much, I think.

So I find that in practice, it's not possible. I've read elsewhere here that it is estimated the aftermarket (Edel or Eelco) 8v intakes are about 15hp better than the factory iron. Well, that would only be about .15sec et, maybe 1.5mph, which would completely get lost in all the above factors in those road tests. So it led me to ask if anybody had dynoe'd the factory 8v intake. I've searched here and other forums but cannot find any!:Dou:



You can back into the actual factory SAE horsepower output for the 425 Buick by using the February, 1966 Road and Track test report for a 66 Riv GS with 2 fours. It ran the quarter mile at 16.7 seconds and 86.7 mph. The car as test weighed in at a svelte 4710 pounds. (The factory curb weight was only 4375 pounds). So add 200 pounds for a driver to 4710 pounds and any desk top dyno will spit out the horsepower number you seek.

For those that are doubters throw in the August 1966 GS Riv test report from Car And Driver also equipped with a Buick 425 with two fours. As tested it weighed in at 4835 pounds. It ran the quarter in 15.9 seconds at 87 mph.

Notice how well the 86.7 mph one magazine obtained correlates with the 87 MPH the other obtained. This suggest the horsepower of the two GS Rivs is very close.

Who has a desk top dyno program that can run the numbers?

flynbuick
03-20-2012, 05:33 PM
How about we run it just for a frame of reference? We ran one this morning for a Buick 350 engine in order to test the validity of what we predicted its output would be. The desk top dyno run confirmed our prediction about the SAE horsepower.

DeuceCoupe
03-20-2012, 07:23 PM
How about we run it just for a frame of reference? We ran one this morning for a Buick 350 engine in order to test the validity of what we predicted its output would be. The desk top dyno run confirmed our prediction about the SAE horsepower.

OK I now have simulations that have a good match to all 11 SuperWildcat road tests.
In all cases I used the simulator (affectionately ??? named the Gonkulator by the guys on the Ford FE forum)
which said that a typical production (or dealer in 66) 425-8v would dyno SAE gross at
Torq 441 at 3100
Powr 331 at 4700
To match all 11 road tests, I had to vary traction to match the given 0-30mph and ET's, and vary wind to match MPH.
The wind I needed ranged from 20mph tailwind (for the 95mph test where they noted a 22-28mph wind) to a 6mph headwind in the slowest case. In the slowest case, the 86mph Riv test, I had to assume the engine was down 5% on power, not unusual for the occasional road test turd that is out of tune.
So it's a reasonable set. but it takes some guessing.

But, that assumption makes the stock iron 2x4bbl intake about the equal of the Eelco.
Then again, I can "detune" the iron intake in the simulator so it deliberately makes 15hp less than
the Eelco, as guessed elsewhere on the forum here. I then get for the average production engine:
Torq 444 at 2800
Powr 316 at 4600
But once again, I can match all the 11 road tests, if I just cut the headwind by 3mph (so now in most cases there is either no wind or a slight tailwind).
One modeling assumption is about as legit as the other - therefore,

I can only conclude that the 425-8v would typically make 317-331hp, somewhere in there as a mean value.
It might be the equal of the Eelco intake, or it might be 15hp down to the Eelco as guessed here.

That's why I was looking for some dyno data on the stock 2x4v intake.
The road test series narrows things down but is not definitive!
:ball:
Comments and help welcome of course - thanks for the replies so far!:laugh:

---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ----------


How about we run it just for a frame of reference? We ran one this morning for a Buick 350 engine in order to test the validity of what we predicted its output would be. The desk top dyno run confirmed our prediction about the SAE horsepower.

Then again if GSGTX is right and the 091 cam had .461 .461 lift, then even with the "lower" flow, the "down 15hp vs Eelco" iron 2x4v intake, the higher cam lift adds about 6hp vs .440 lift so that would put the average 425-8v at
Torq 449 at 2800
Powr 323 at 4600
Is a lift of .461 for the 091 cam commonly accepted?
I've never measured one!

---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------


How about we run it just for a frame of reference? We ran one this morning for a Buick 350 engine in order to test the validity of what we predicted its output would be. The desk top dyno run confirmed our prediction about the SAE horsepower.

Then again if GSGTX is right and the 091 cam had .461 .461 lift, then even with the "lower" flow, the "down 15hp vs Eelco" iron 2x4v intake, the higher cam lift adds about 6hp vs .440 lift so that would put the average 425-8v at
Torq 449 at 2800
Powr 323 at 4600
Is a lift of .461 for the 091 cam commonly accepted?
I've never measured one!

flynbuick
03-20-2012, 08:12 PM
I am not up on nailheads like most who have posted here. But if you are trying to determine what the factory two fours set up adds to engine output relative to the factory single four barrel set up, there is the May 1965 Hot Rod magazine article referencing a Buick Dealer Service Bulletin. It says 13 hp is added to a "401 cid engine" if you use the dealer option 2 x 4 set up intake and carbs. I suspect you guys are already aware of this but just in case I thought I would throw it into the mix.

DeuceCoupe
03-20-2012, 08:23 PM
I am not up on nailheads like most who have posted here. But if you are trying to determine what the factory two fours set up adds to engine output relative to the factory single four barrel set up, there is the May 1965 Hot Rod magazine article referencing a Buick Dealer Service Bulletin. It says 13 hp is added to a "401 cid engine" if you use the dealer option 2 x 4 set up intake and carbs. I suspect you guys are already aware of this but just in case I thought I would throw it into the mix.
Thanks Jim I was NOT aware of that.
Usually such things are pretty accurate, moreso than the overall hp rating which marketing might fudge high or low for various reasons. So +13hp, iron 4v vs iron 8v, is one hint to help calibrate things.

Now maybe somebody will chime in to confirm that .461 valve lift on the 091 cam.....