Beemon

The throttle lever at the top is splined. If you missed by a small amount, disconnect that part and then have someone sit in the car with the gas pedal to the floor. Pull the carb linkage to WOT and then set the throttle lever to hold it open at WOT. Adjust the ball joint on the end of the throttle rod just so the carb opens to WOT with the pedal to the floor and not binding on the carb linkage. Then just adjust the dynaflow linkage by unscrewing the screw and then screwing it in while still holding at WOT until the linkage is at its full throw of movement.

Could possibly be resolution and image type the cell phone is saving the image as. What are the image types and max resolution the forum will accept?

Could quite possibly be bandwidth usage or stability of internet connection on a mobile device. Or quite possibly it's the mobile website, where it's doing different things based on smart phone OS? I gave up entirely and now upload everything to facebook, copy the image link and post using "insert other media" on the PC. You can make photos private, though most of my stuff I don't care about sharing. Data plans vary from provider to provider, but if everyone is doing it, then I would wager it's the mobile website, because there isn't an issue uploading from the PC. Was the mobile page updated recently?

I don't know what suspension information is detailed in your shop manual, but in the 56 manual, it shows you how to tell whether or not your springs are good or bad. Most notably, if your rear springs are sagging, then as others have stated, the panhard bar will be anchored in an unusual spot. If the springs are skewed, make sure someone didn't remove an insulator from one side and forgot to install it.

These are just general numbers. For the CFM, I took the max HP RPM of the stock 263 engine off of a web address and put it into a mid 60's muscle car calculator for WOT. There will be different values for different engine loads (idle, part throttle and WOT), which requires in depth analysis. Furthermore, in order to even calculate efficiency, there would have to be an analysis of carbon build up on the cylinder walls to properly assume an approximate vapor distribution in the runners. One would have to dive further into the density of the vapor and vapor pressure within the intake. Since idle is usually a 14.7-15 A:F ratio, and WOT is approximately 12, or should be thereabouts, your mean vapor density would be constantly changing between those two points. Also to my knowledge, engineers didn't use CFM as a unit of measurement until the mid 60s, which means there isn't an equation readily available for use. In order to accurately predict CFM of the engine, one would have to take into consideration the bore, stroke, intake valve timing/overlap and firing order to properly model the air pump. This also assumes, as you said, that the engine is fully warmed up and operating at peak efficiency within idle-WOT conditions and definitely not a cold start. All numbers above are simply just numbers and not reflective of the actual application. I was just trying to convey what I mean by how distance from the carb/throttle body and design of the runners influences intake. In the example above, the difference was 1" pipe and 1/4" pipe. In reality, it might be like 1" pipe and 7/8" pipe. You wouldn't necessarily need smaller pipe, but rather a cone effect used in gas turbines ( >< ), where gases entering are accelerated at the tip of the cones and leave with higher pressures. I think the biggest issue with the design of the runners as they stand right now is the U on U shape, the gases leave the first U and then hit the apex of the curvature of the second U, disrupting flow and forcing the vapors to make an immediate 90* turn either left or right. Because of the triangle analogy, majority of vapors will always go back towards the center, as you experienced with your last engine. As you can see, this becomes a very complex problem to solve, something that 30 or so engineers solved together at the Buick division of GM. That's why I suggested ported injection, because then it doesn't matter what your intake looks like as long as the injectors are equal distance from the intake valves (approx. 1-4", as I've read from others who have done so), but then comes the added cost of equipment, new ECM, more wires, the addition of a fuel rail... doable, but not cost effective. I think, if you wanted to look at remaking the intake manifold, is copy the design of the OEM manifold where the inner and outer runners were separate and not conjoined. That way, you essentially make two independent tracks that do not rely on each other and would have equal flow instead of a divided flow. How come you scrapped your stock manifold? If you don't mind me asking. Did the stock manifold lean out the outer cylinders and burn up the inner cylinders, too?

No worries, it's kind of hard to explain so I made a graphic real quick. It's really crude but illustrates what I mean by a triangle. Figuratively, from the carburetor, the outside runners will take the vapors longer to reach the block than the inside runners, even though they are all the same size, same length. The sharp 90* angle in which the vapors must make at the second U is what dictates your volumetric efficiency and is probably what causes your issues. If you look at the stock manifold, the inside runners and outside runners are separate and run off of one of the two barrels on the stock 2bbl carb. Lets say that the engine is pumping vapor at 230. CFM and you have 1" pipe. Your flow rate (v) is equal to volumetric flow rate (q) divided by the surface area (A), which is v = (3.83ft^3/s)/((.0417ft)^2*pi) = 701ft/s. Now if the runner is 7", or .583ft long, then in a perfect system it will take (.583ft)/(701ft/s) = .00083s for the vapors to reach the block from the carb (or throttle body) assuming laminar flow. By design, and by human error, this is neither a perfect system nor laminar flow since the vapors that exit the first U from the throttle body hit a flat spot at the crest of the second U. So lets say that the efficiency of the inner runner is 57% and the efficiency of the outer runner is 43% (an exaggerated example of course). To simplify, if 100lbs leaves the throttle body, then 57lbs goes to the center and 43lbs goes to the outside ports. Due to conservation of momentum, m1v1=m2v2 (where m1 = 57lbs/(g=32.2ft/s^2) = 1.77slug and m2 = 1.34slug), and assuming that we'll keep the center runners constant (v1 = 701ft/s), then v2 = (m1v1)/m2 = (1.77*701)/(1.34) = 926ft/s. Basically, this says that in order to deliver equal amounts, the outside runners must flow faster than the inside runners. So because the engine pumps constantly at 230.CFM or 3.83CFS (assuming compression is equal on all cylinders), and the outer runners in this example must flow 926ft/s, then the diameter of the tube is derived from first finding the surface area, A=q/v=(3.83)/(926)=.00414ft^2. The radius of the pipe would thus be r = sqrt(.00414/pi) = .0115 ft, or .138 inch. Obviously would not be this severe, especially without proper flow rates, volumetric efficiency and the like, but I hope this helps to explain what I'm conveying. Back then, I really think they eye balled this stuff with their castings, or got "close enough", because it wasn't until the early to mid 60s did they get inline intake manifolds right.

Think of your manifold as a triangle. The carb is at the peak and the engine block is the base. It's a shorter distance from the peak to the center of the base than from the peak to the corners of the base, if that makes sense.

The reason I asked was because ported fuel injection would give you equal fuel distribution into the head. When making an intake manifold, you have to consider fluid dynamics of the gas vapors. Fluid dynamics always take the fastest and least path of resistance, which will always been the inside ports as they're closer to the carburetor. To circumvent this, at some point the outer runners need to be smaller in diameter than the inner so the vapors move quicker and reach the outer cylinders in the same time it takes to reach the inner cylinders. Bernoulli's equations come in hand here. For the first few cylinders, diameter of pipe, flow velocity (dictated by engine compression) and length of the runner would be constant, where time is found. The outer cylinders, time, flow velocity and length are constant and your diameter of tube becomes the variable. The trick is to get the same amount of fuel to the outer cylinders in the same amount of time so there is no least path of resistance. I'm guessing your outer cylinders are lean because of the tube used. With ported fuel injection, you throw all that out the window if the injectors are the same distance from the valves because the engine does the pumping and it would be equal on all cylinders, assuming compression is comparable. Hope to see your engine in the car soon!

You switch it to Off, then insert a paper clip into the hole and keep turning if I recall correctly. Should pop out.

Happy thanksgiving all. Hope you all have a great day, I'm working today so make sure to eat something for me! Lol

Are all the intake runners the same length? I know you have fuel injection on that beast, why not tap your home made intake and add real fuel injectors?

I think its time to start a Me and my Buick... lol

I'm waiting for a dry day to apply sealer around the outside of the window. I put some in the corner where it leaked before and it held... until the water built up around the seal and leaked where I didn't lol

LEDs only belong in projector assemblies. I could go on forever about this subject but the fact of the matter is that LEDs are a one direction light source where filament bulbs are omni directional. Solid state lighting is the future but they should only be used in dome lights unless your housing is specifically designed for an LED like some new cars are. Take a look at the attachments. My mother decided she was going to swap my tail lights with some LED replacements. So before swapping them back, I took a comparison shot. The LED is on the left. That isn't to say all LEDs are bad, you really have to do your research. These bulbs are probably as advanced as LED bulbs get in replicating filament lighting, but they're also very expensive. Made by Morimoto, the top projector company in the urban street race crowd. They've designed them to supposedly reflect 360 degrees. I can't really speak for them other than the name Morimoto really is the best when it comes to projector conversions. And speaking of, this is the end game for current technology. The only issue is how expensive the technology is, and that they don't look like seal beams lol. But the payout is the best lighting possible. You can probably do it yourself for much cheaper if you're knowledgeable and patient enough, but thought I'd share. I've already done some research into this type of thing.

I think it's sketchy to have the glass bowl hang like that. It's one thing to have it directly off the carb or the pump, but just suspended... the vibration alone is enough for me to think that's not the best idea.

I don't know about repopping headlights, but if I found a pair of 1956 T3 bulbs, I would bake the glass lens off and put them on a H4 halogent bulb conversion kit. That way if the bulb ever burns out, I just need to crawl up into the wheel well and replace the bulb and not the seal beam...

My car came with non-stock mirrors as well. The issue with putting new mirrors on is the additional body work to seal the old screw holes, and then also drill new holes for the correct mirrors. I seceded and bought tri-five mirrors for a fraction of the official Buick repro mirrors that had the same screw pattern. Not correct, but they work and I didn't have to drill any more holes.

Oh no, there's no where to put her now. She's all year unless it snows.

Did you ground the alternator?

The passenger window was broken. Thankfully I found a solid piece for $100. I couldn't just replace the window because when I went to remove it, I found out it was broken. The rail the glass sits in rusted through at some point and was bent\broken and ripped the tabs that attach to the roller assembly off. So now the glass is perfect, except for one small bb shot but it's way better than what it was. The front window leaks, though.

You can always bake them to 200*F and then pop the old glass off and bake them on to a new pair of halogens. Of course you're using 60 year old optics with modern lights so the cut pattern and beam diffusion may be lacking in quality but at least they'll function. Guys my age so this all the time except instead of popping the lenses off to change filament, they put a projector housing in there with a HID lighting kit for the full BMW experience. Bake at your own risk, but 200*F is about where the glue between the housing and lense becomes malleable to separate.

The last time I posted here, I had parked my car at a farm on the coast. There was this big scare that the winds were going to be as strong as some gust storm in the early 1960s that blew down the original barn, so I went to go get the car. It was only natural that the storm wasn't nearly as big as everyone thought it was going to be so now the car has been sitting out in the rain at home with me. That being said, my grandpa and I went out tonight and the only photo I snapped was at the bank at the end of our ride. I feel more connected to this car than the car I used to call "daily driver." I'm not sure if it's because of all the pain I've endured during its reconstruction or the sentimental value it holds to both myself and my grandfather, but the car has become an experience for me rather than a mode of transportation and I just feel out of place if I'm not driving it. On the plus side, it gets comparable gas mileage around town to my 2002 Jeep Liberty so no harm done I guess.

The parking lot at school was pretty bare so I thought I would snap a few photos on Friday. Not the best looking Buick but it's my Buick.

Why not go with the Powermaster Generator series instead?

It's not about us, it's about your enjoyment of the car! Sounds like you had fun doing it and that's what counts. I think it looks really good, better than my stock carpets to say the least.