export was factory moniker for legalized hop up equipment to increase the power and speed for the racing circuit.

Josh

My "Buick Master Parts Book" covers 1940 to 1970.
Your parts book (info from another post) is up to
1960. As the years go by, Buick drops many part
numbers, and, as in this case regarding high
compression pistons, this is a good example.

My parts book does not show any part number for the
322 hi-po cam, but I have seen an earlier parts book,
probably the book you have, and it does list the cam
my book does not.

Thanks for the info Josh,

Marty

In looking for these earlier parts books, finding the one with the printing date nearest to the production year of your vehicle will usually yield all of the "original" part numbers and such for that vehicle. Many times, you can go up to about two or three years from the production year and still get what you want to find, but possibly with a few part number changes in the mix at that time.

Remember too, that a parts book printed in the last quarter of the year would have the new model year's parts listings in it. For example, 09-51 would usually have the 1952 models in it. These "first of the model year" books would usually have a separate section of all of the "New For ______" parts listings at the front of the book (sometimes in pages colored goldenrod).

Enjoy!
NTX5467

NTX,

I concur 100% about finding info and parts books in that time
period.

Changing "gears" for a moment, notice that Buick engineers went
to shell lifters for light valve train weight to increase rpm
potential to complement the hi-po cam. Most agree that nailheads
are all done by 5500 rpm, yet racers of that era would exceed
6000 rpm and Max Balchowsky would tach some of his nailhead motors
to 7000 rpm.

Marty

From what I've seen of Max in the documentaries on Speed Channel, there's probably some secrets of getting Buick V-8s (salvage yard motors, as they might have been, initially) to do what he got them to do that he took to his grave. There's no telling what he cross-bred to get them to do what they did for him on the race track. Remember that in those earlier times, you didn't just call up and order things, you either made them yourself (as Max did his cars) or found something that you could adapt to make things better. Back then, a long distance call (operator placed, typically) was a major ordeal, pretty exotic, and nothing like the 10-digit dialing we have today--much less having credit cards (rather than COD or open charge accounts).

And the plot thickens . . .

Enjoy!
NTX5467

NTX,

One trick Max did to the cylinder heads was to
"angle" cut the intake mating surface to straighten
out the port. Max probably theorized, as do I, that
since the port volume was limited that he would take
advantage of the relatively straight intake port
and maximize its velocity.

Marty

I would like to know how he might have done that AND used an intake manifold without similar cuts . . . while still retaining existing flanged gasket surfaces . . . and have cut it such that it really made a difference in flow.

I'm aware of how heads are angle milled on (on a surfacing lathe) the combustion chamber side, to increase the compression ratio quicker than with normal "flat" milling/surfacing, plus that you have to make some related cuts to the intake port side so the manifold still bolts on without having mismatched angles and "leaks".

Just like when you "flat mill" (or surface) the combustion chamber side of things, you're also supposed to take an incremental amount of material from the intake manifold mating surface so that the intake still bolts "flat" to the head surface.
Therefore, if he had seized on the "angle milling" of the cylinder heads to up compression, it would also have been necessary to do a similar "angle milling" of the intake manifold mating surface so that it would seal correctly . . . with all due respect, I suspect you'd have to really make a big "cut" to get the port flow to act as you describe and if something else was not done, none of that stuff would bolt together and seal correctly . . . unless some sort of individual runner induction system was used (i.e., non-factory Hilborn fuel injection).

From what I recall reading about the '65 Buick Skylark GS (401 V-8) in a Petersen New Car Annual, it mentioned that the Nailhead used small valves (compared to other engines of similar size) to get better mid-range torque and "passing gear" performance. The smaller port runners and smaller valves would indicate higher port velocity for a given valve lift, to a point. Therefore, the only real power increase could come from compression ratio increases rather than gouging the ports out for more suspected flow. It is suspected that a straight port will have greater flow than one with curves, but that might not always be the case, due to the entry area of the port in the intake manifold (and related turbulence) not being the smooth shape that might be optimum for such entries. Not to mention what happens to the "flow" as it enters the combustion chamber itself. One thing might "look good", but how it interfaces with the other aspects can easily nullify the goodness.

A particular case in point would be the Ford Y-block V-8. The intake ports appear to be generously sized (for the size of the engine and compared to the Chevy 283) and the intake valves are also adequately sized for the engine size. The intake ports are unusual as they are "stacked" rather than being side-by-side (as the Chevy ports are). It could have been that the Ford engine designers were trying to seize on something related to modern swirl-port technology (at that time "stratified charge" was the technology being explored) by deliberately shrouding the intake valve with the side of the combustion chamber (which Ford did in the '80s with some 302 and 351 V-8s, but for about one year only) to induce more controlled turbulence into the combustion chamber. But it was felt that such shrouding (in the Y-block head) hurt ultimate port flow, so the "trick" was to cut a particular radius in the chamber's side to unshroud the valve. In 4.00" bore diameter Chevy small block V-8s, the 1.72" (usually truck applications) and 1.94" intake valves have enough clearance between them and the side of the combustion chamber that things work as designed, but when 2.02" intakes are installed at the factory, THEY add a radius cut to the side of the chamber so they will flow more than if that was not done (typically, the 2.02" non-cut situation might not flow anymore air/fuel mixture than the same chamber with the normal 1.94" valve). Same head casting, same chamber design and size,different valve sizes, and the additional factory labor op to make the 2.02" valves "work".

One area that tended to indicate that the Ford ports did not really work was that they didn't make horsepower "to their potential" until they had a Paxton Supercharger bolted on them (even for NASCAR racing back then) . . . in comparison to the naturally-aspirated Chevy 283 2x4bbl V-8s. Basically, "forcing" the incoming mixture past any restrictions in the ports and combustion chambers. Therefore, just because it "looks good" doesn't always mean that it'll work well or have good flow bench numbers--or a good quality of flow in the process.

The OTHER consideration would be the class rules for the races he was running the car in. Some, as modern NHRA rules, dictate what might be done to ports per se, whereas "angle milling" the heads for increased compression could go undetected (especially back then) without a post-race teardown AND then somebody knowing what they might be looking at.

Still, we know that Max was a great pioneer in his field back then. We can be proud of what he and his associates accomplished in that earlier time.

Has there been any determination of why he chose to used Buick Nailheads back then? Maybe because they were in the salvage yards at reasonable prices, in vehicles that had been well-cared for? Easier to "package" than a Chrysler "double rocker" V-8, perhaps, and lighter weight too? Just curious.

Just some thoughts,
NTX5467

Thank you for your reply NTX. Great info.

Max made several intake manifolds on his own.
In fact, Max had also designed an aluminum
cylinder of his own port design for the
nailhead. My understanding is that the
company that cast the head did a poor job.

As far as the "angle" cut head at the intake
manifold mating surface, you are correct that
an "indepedant runner" intake was used and
of course was modified by Max. It used Webers.
The straighter shot to the intake valve
yielded 10 to 15 more hp.

Marty

From what I've read, those dual throat Webers, when correctly calibrated, were pretty much just as good as fuel injection in the power production department. I suspect that's one reason that many exotic high horsepower engines of the '50s and '60s used them rather than the somewhat troublesome (and few people to work on "in the field") fuel injection systems of that time. Just took a regular-type fuel pump to feed them too (or an electric pump or some kind). Of course, the Hilborn fuel injection systems were pretty much race-only items (although some did seem to appear on "street" cars).

Enjoy!
NTX5467

NTX and group............


Please go to www.nailheadbuick.com and look
under the link "Max Balchowsky" to see his
aluminum heads and modified (intake flange
milled/removed) cylinder heads.

Very interesting site Russ Martin has put
together.

Marty

Marty, thanks for that link. Russ is one of the most knowledgeable Buick enthusiasts around and has done a great job with his site.

to all of you that have contributed to this thread, I have really enjoyed it. This is what the Performance/Modified Forum was intended for.

Lamar,

Thank you for the kind words.

I missed an EBay auction (ended January 21st) on
the adjustable rocker arms.

If I see any more auctions or info I will pass it
on.

The rockers did not sell and may be listed again.

Marty