55' Buick Special ---results----sad or glad

[Guest btate]

I don't know to be sad or glad in my latest test. a while back at the 500 miles compression test with engine warm, all plugs out, 10w 40 wt oil on the passenger side I got 115 psi for all four cylinders and on the driver side I got 100 psi. each cylinder. Yesterday and 1100 miles on engine with engine warm, plugs out, 30wt oil regular oil, I got 91-92 psi on driver side and 109 -110 psi on passenger side. Strange the numbers are so close to each other per side. I used 3 different pressure gauges to be sure I was getting correct readings I also opened up the throttle but did not seems to make a difference in compression. Of course I do not know how much power the engine produces when new but it is not a much to me but may be close to normal. Here is the "glad" side. The engine sounds great and smooth, does not smoke. so which is it sad or glad. For me, I am much more pleased than I was a few weeks ago and will live with it , even though I may be short a little horsepower. Yesterday I found out that the transmission is only a one speed transmission and if I am pulling out in traffic to use low gear and then shift to drive up to 40 mph per Jim Hughes who built my transmission. As you know the compression by the manual is suppose to be 155psi. On another note I ordered another carburetor and doing an exchange for a re built carb. I had my old carb rebuilt at $280. with the deluxe kit and I believe all the parts are new inside it. I believe it just needs adjusting but I gave it my best shot and car is hard to start. I am paying $469. less $100. core charge for a net of $369. If anyone wants that carb for $100. just let me know before I send it back for credit. It is a Stronberg AAVB 2 bbl. I believe I have done all I can to this point. thanks for all you guys help. Bill

[old-tank]

Bill

Be sure that new carb is what you want before sending back the old one.

As far as performance, just drive and enjoy...maybe a trip to South Bend so that some of us can enjoy also. While the compression numbers are low, you probably would not tell much difference with stock compression. And the only way to get stock compression number would be to replace the pistons with NOS Buick pistons since the available pistons are a compromise and usually lower compression; the rebuilder probably used the thicker head gaskets lowering the compression; the head may have some intake and exhaust valve seat recession making the chamber volume larger with resultant lower compression. From your previous posts I will bet that the rebuilder did not pay attention to piston design vs stock, seat recession, or what gaskets to use.

Willie

[Guest btate]

Willie, what concerns me most is instead of compression numbers going up with additional miles on the car, it going the other way.

[old-tank]

Do the next test on the beach (sea level) with the highest atmospheric pressure. Put the gauge away, drive it like you stole it...if you blow it up then worry.

[NTX5467]

I tend to agree with Old-Tank, on the piston issue. Many aftermarket suppliers can tend to lower their compression height from stock "just to make sure" (as many did with their more modern pistons when higher-octane fuel was harder to find, in the 1980s, but the decrease was about .020", or about .5 CR in many cases. Then, head gaskets started leaning toward the thicker "composition" style of gasket (.040-.060" thick) rather than the earlier steel-shim .020" thick gaskets. Again, to help lower compression for more modern fuels, back then. So, with all of those things stacking up, you could have close to a full CR ratio lower motor IF the rebuilder used "off the shelf" pistons and gaskets (even if they are the modern teflon-coated ones).

BUT, the upside is that you might be able to put a little MORE ignition advance into the motor, from stock, which might help with throttle response at lower speeds, provided "trace rattle" doesn't happen . . . even with the least-octane fuels of modern times.

Remember, too, that maximum airflow through that carb will probably be maxed out by about 2/3 throttle. Otherwise, all heavier throttle movements will do is exercise your right calf muscle and put the carb more into the power mixture mode of things with NOT much more benefit in power production . . . plus start the car initially.

The torque multiplication in the DynaFlow comes from the multi-element (meaning more than "two") torque converter, combined with a mid-three-number rear axle. Even so, you're probably not far off from what the mid-'50s Ford guys have. Their Ford-O-Matics were three-speed automatics which started in 2nd gear when in "D". So that gives them a starting torque multiplication factor of about 2.9 x the rear axle ratio (probably about 3.10). The DynaFlow, with the combined rear axle ratio, would provide similar torque multiplication factors WITHOUT using "Low" gear. I suspect the Nailhead has better lower rpm torque than a Ford 272 Y-block 2bbl V-8, to handle a slightly heavier car better.

ANOTHER thing I discovered in hanging around some guys who raced Chevies in the mid-later 1950s . . . MOST of the "fast" Chevy V-8s had 3.73-4.56 rear axle gears in them, which exploited the easy-revving capabilities of the new Chevy V-8 of that time. As they needed more rpm to maintain "road speed" with those gears, that was "open season" for wilder camshafts, bigger carburetors, and dual exhaust systems. Chevies needed "gears", Buicks had "torque", and Fords needed "superchargers".

To me, you can worry about compression results until past when your bumpers rust and NOT really solve anything! Key thing is that the engine runs smoooothly and is responsive to throttle input off idle. Finesse the timing a little, the carb idle mixture a little (for "best lean idle") and idle speed (so it idles smoothly and quietly, imperceptibly going into gear from "Park", and then silently gliding off into the night from a weekend cruise event . . . impressing ALL at the same time.

IF "tire sounds" are important, then make sure you have some OEM-style skinny whitewalls on the car rather than a later wide-tread tire . . . for good measure. SOME might understand, but others will be impressed as the rear wheels "slip" on take-off.

So . . . finesse, wax/polish, and enjoy the car you've put so much time into so you COULD enjoy it for what it is.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

Edited July 13, 2013 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[Guest btate]

Willie & NTX, I like the way you state regarding the pistons and in general the overall car. I purchased the re build kit from Kanters. Seems a company like Kanters would be up front and note the pistons are different and results will be a lower compression and that let's the car owner decide which pistons he wants. Kanters is making the decision for you, like you do not know what you need or just want to make a sale so bad, they keep it to themselves. I believe I have the timing set as well as possible. I now consider the project finished with the exception of the carb and front tires re balanced. I will take Willie's advice to hold on to the carb I have until I know for sure the replacement carb is good. Thanks for the info

[NTX5467]

I don't know that you can really blame Kanters, in this case, per se. I suspect they are just re-selling pistons from a supplier . . . which will fit a particular engine. They, like rebuilders, rely upon these suppliers/vendors/manufacturers to provide high quality (usually, or better) products to them to resell to their customers. And that's probably as far as it goes. IF the pistons they sell "match" the factory numbers on the underside of the factory pistons, then they are considered to be "the same as . . ." and will fit correctly and all of that.

When I was getting ready to get a Chevy 350 block built for my '77 Camaro, in the 1983 timeframe, I was looking through the various stock piston catalogs at my machine shop operative's place (we were sharing a shadetree shop back then, separate from his business). I noticed a note on many pistons "De-stroked .020*". I chased the note to see that it indicated that the manufacturer had "de-stroked" the piston by lowering the piston pin's location in the piston skirt by .020" to better handle the fuels of that timeframe (remember, we were NOT expecting any "higher octane" fuels in the future, at that time), kind of like a safety measure of sorts. This puts the piston's compression surface .020" farther below the deck surface of the block at TDC. Lowers the compression ratio a few tenths.

Then, many head gaskets started being .040" thick, or even .060" thick, to help kill some compression from the 10.0 or 11.0+ compression ratio motors, again, to help decrease detonation under high cylinder pressure situations (i.e., WOT and/or high loads). THIS was done as an alternative to changing to lower compression pistons in those higher compression ratio motors AND to lower the compression ratio enough that more-normal spark advance curves could be used for better power . . . rather than having to retard the basic spark timing to be able to drive those higher-CR motors on the street without having to use race gas in the vehicles rather than pump gas. Better to have lower compression, slightly, and full normal spark advance than to have higher compression and have to severely retard the basic spark timing (and all of the "heat" issues that can cause!).

When the manufacturers did these things . . . somewhat quietly . . . it was to ensure continued customer satisfaction with their products and to also be somewhat socially responsible at the same time. Nothing wrong with that, usually! In the normal situations with the "industry standard" Chevy 350 4bbl V-8, the average customer would probably never know the difference as the power decrease would not really be noticeable by the time it got to the rear wheels. Yet, with a smaller engine, say in the 200-270cid range, that lower deck height of the pistons, by itself, would have MORE of an impact on the smaller engines than the larger ones, I suspect, as they had less power to start with and less torque, too.

ANOTHER complicating item is that many factory engines are machined a little on the generour side of things, i.e., larger cc combustion chambers, possibly a deck height which is a few .001" taller than it should be. Larger cc combustion chambers mean less CR, just as the thicker head gaskets and lower compression height do. Same with the slightly higher deck height of the block.

THEREFORE . . . I suspect that the ONLY time you can really reach factory compression pressures would be with a fully-blueprinted engine, where ALL measurements and dimensions are "NHRA Specification" in nature . . . meaning "minimum spec." For example, it might not be completely out of whack if a factory cylinder head has a "spec" of 79.5cc for the combustion chamber (with valves and spark plug installed), yet have an "as produced" volume of several cc more.

TO SOMEWHAT COMPENSATE for the things the piston and head gasket manufacturers did to ensure the rebuilt engines would run on 1980s-available lower-octane fuels can be to physically "cc" the combustion chambers. This, like "blueprinting" used to be a very high-end additional proceedure for race motors, in order to eeek out that last bit of power, but as the machining operations have improved since that time, a competent machine shop can now do some of these same things . . . including "torque plate" bore/honing operations. BUT, in order to do it right, you'll first need to cc all of the chambers on each head, and then see how much needs to be milled from the head's deck surface to get the chambers where they need to be. Then . . . you'll then also need to verify the intake manifold "fit" to the head if you mill very much metal from them, doe for good measure. Certainly NOT like summarily milling an additional .040" off of the heads, as compensation, without FIRST seeing where such milling operations will put the chamber volume and intake port alignment. For "a lot" of chamber size decreases, there is also "angle milling", which is a more specialized situation requiring definite knowledge of what's going on! BUT, as with ANY machining operation, you only remove enough metal/material to just get to where you want to be . . . once it's cut, it's cut.

ONE benefit of the Internet is that you can now find piston catalogs online. The KB/Silvolite website is a true vault of information! Piston pictures, specs, information! I'm not sure what they might have for earlier Buick engines, but what they have is plainly visible! Other manufacturers, as Ross and Egge, probably are similar, I suspect.

In the world of piston identification, the factory pistons usually have a casting number on their underside area, somewhere. In the piston manufacturers' catalogs, they will reference these numbers. This does NOT mean the replacement pistons are an exact match! Just that they will work in the place of the factory pistons with those numbers on them. No more, no less.

Almost every replacement piston I've seen in the catalogs does NOT exactly match the weight of the factory pistons! GM's factory pistons are all the same weight, from "std" to .030" oversize. This allows for warranty repairs of piston replacements without causing any "balance "issues. Aftermarket pistons, by comparison, are usually heavier in the "std" size and get heavier with the oversize versions. Basically, that means the engine needs to be balanced as a part of the rebuild, rather than just blindly replacing pistions. Yet I'm not sure how much intolerance of the "new balance" there might be with the heavier pistons where the lighter stock pistons originally were.

As I originally stated, in this situation "You can't really blame Kanter, per se", as the information is there if they might desire to look . . . provided the particular operative KNEW what they were looking at AND what it all meant.

Glad to hear the car is getting pretty "finessed-out"!

Take care,

NTX5467

[Guest btate]

NTX, I appreciate such an effort explaining parts in a re build kit and how it evolved. I am sure many will benefit from this explanation. Many may decide to go with another engine such as a crate engine etc. I know I will never re-built an engine. I guess there not many people that will go to the extremes I have regarding researching all the parts after a re build. I bet most engine builders are not aware of these changes to parts. I guess that is why timing is never per the service manual. The thing I miss the most from the industry I am familiar with, is getting detail drawings of parts. I like to check everything if possible. I have learned a lot from this re-build for sure. Again, thanks

[60FlatTop]

Specialty vendors and collector parts providers for our cars started showing up in the 1980's. Although there have always been a few specialists by marque the "warehouse" sellers came into being around that time and the ones still with us have put a lot of work into the businesses. I have bought from a lot of sources over the years. One thing I ask for is the manufacture of the part. If they don't know the name or I don't recognize it I usually will continue shopping.

To run a large warehouse for obsolete parts the key skill is procurement. Large stocks must be purchased from warehouses all over the country and possibly foreign countries.

Procurement being the key, quality and application may end up in second place. I have seen a lot of "no name" plain cardboard boxes, obscure brand names, and many of the logo mimicking boxes come from a vendor who tries to create this business model.

Once I purchased a full front suspension rebuilding kit from a large warehouse supplier. All the components came in plain boxes with an ink stamped number. The machine work was poor. I remember that the tie rod end nuts were so poorly made that one slid over the threads without gripping. I had to use the original nuts. Luckily I made it work.

It is a matter of what is out their to support our 50,60,and 70+ year old cars.

The first key to success it to maintain what you have so you buy as few parts as you can. And have as few helping hands involved as possible

Second is to run Ebay and Craigslist searches constantly. "1960 Buick NOS" "1964 Buick Riviera NOS" are my top ones. Stockpile. I sent Danny Marx payment for a pair of MOOG '60 Buick ball joints early this week. Those are Murphy's Law ball joints, like all the other stuff I have stashed because of old Murph.

Always ask about the origin of parts when you buy. Second rate parts have been manufactured from the beginning. Today that big warehouse full of old cars parts could be the one that went out of business because it stocked junk parts. When the job is wholesale procurement that detail can be overlooked.

Its work. Its expensive. its not for the timid.

Bernie

Edited July 14, 2013 by 60FlatTop (see edit history)

[bhambulldog]

:cool:Be Glad !!

No Smoke is good. (nasty habit) We rebuilt the Roadmaster's engine in 1975 and it's been smoking ever since...

[avgwarhawk]

Regarding engine rebuild kits, personally I'm glad these kits are available. If these were not available everyone would be running crated Chevy 350's. That is fine if one desires to do a crated motor. Not the kind of car I wanted. I'm astonished that other items for these Buicks are available as well. Glad these vendors are around. Some have had trials and tribulations with them. Over all, glad they are open and have parts.

At any rate, the 264 has a claim of 146hp. Couple that with a automatic and 4000 pounds of a aerodynamically rolling barn door and rocket is not the first word that comes to mind. Enjoy the car for what is was meant to be. A daily driver for some guy back in the 50's needing to get to work. The weekend family truckster. Circle track is really not in the cards when this Buick was designed. My 264 is capable with today's traffic. I do have a three speed manual and that might be of some help. But I start off in 2nd gear. Ok to do per the manual. Certainly not a rocket off the line. 1st gear winds itself out quickly. When it does I'm at 15 mph. So, the 264 is your basic no frills point A to point B steady as she goes motor. I can not describe it any other way.

Edited July 24, 2013 by avgwarhawk (see edit history)

[Guest btate]

Mine according to the manual states 188 hp, but getting timing right and starting in low help a bunch. Not great but just OK.

[avgwarhawk]

Probably 188hp on a good day running pure gas! But, yes, starting in low I would imagine it did feel quite slow. I can say starting in second gear(manual) is quite slow off the line. Starting in first it has some memorable torque. I think the manual transmission and dynaflow are really apples and oranges. The dynaflow sold as smooth continous acceleration. Fluid turbines and gearless from what I understand. I know driving a CVT transmission feels very strange to me. The dynaflow is similar to the CVT from my understanding.