NAILHEAD Article

[BUICK RACER]

http://www.hotrodhotline.com/hammering-home-buick-nailhead-part-i#.UoVnfPmshk6

[NTX5467]

Interesting article. Didn't realize the earlier NailHeads had such large oil pan capacities.

Thanks, Roberta!

NTX5467

[MrEarl]

Good read. Thanks 'berta. But there is one "oops" that jumped out at me.

>The original 322-cid nailhead V-8 was used in the larger 1953 Buicks including Century, Super, Roadmaster and Skylark models>

[1953mack]

This is a typical "oops" article by OCW's Gunner. Had a subscription to OCW and read a lot of his Buick oops for twenty years. Where does he get his information?

Just perusing his 1953 V-8 Specs Section in the linked article, he says.....

■ Re: Cooling capacity

1953 Buick Series 50 (Super), with or without a Dynaflow transmission, the cooling capacity is 12 quarts + 1 quart for the heater.....different than the 1953 Series 70 (Roadmaster) with a cooling capacity of 18 quarts + 1 quart for the heater. In reality, these are the same engine blocks with the same radiators. Buick's specs say 16.5 quarts + 1.5 quart for the heater on a Series 50 with a Synchromesh transmission and 18 quarts + 1.5 quart for the heater on Series 50 & 70 with the Dynaflow transmission. It appears he does not know about the transmission cooler on a Dynaflow.

■ Re: Crankcase capacity

1953 Buick Series 50 & 70 have a 6 quart capacity + 1 quart if a new filter is installed. He's a quart low. In reality, Buick specs say the oil reservoir capacity of a dry engine is 7 quarts + 1 quart for a dry filter.

■ Re: Carburetors

Series 50 were equipped with Stromberg carburetors and Series 70 were equipped with Carter 996S carburetors. In reality, both brands of carburetors were used on both series and the Carter 996S carburetor was replaced with the improved 2053S on the Series 70 second jobs.

I'm sure there are more.

Al Malachowski

BCA #8965

"500 Miles West of Flint"

[JohnD1956]

Actually the entire article is hard to follow. And the individual annual stats could have been presented better. But I'm sure no one is taking this stuff as gospel.

[sean1997]

I believe the author of the article, John Gunnell, is also the author of the Standard Catalog of Buick. I’ve given up on counting the number of errors in that book.

[Guest Scott Roberts]

I noted that in his listing of the 2 barrel engine specs, he showes the non dynaflow engine with an 8.0 to1 compression ratio and the dynaflow engine with a 9.5 to 1 compression ratio. I have seen these numbers before, and would like to know if this was indeed the case. I have not rebuilt my engine in my 3 speed car yet, but I will be installing new pistons when I do. Any clairification would be great.

Thank you, Scott

[TG57Roadmaster]

Did anyone notice this little gem?

"Introduced in some Buick models in 1953, the “nailhead” V-6 had distinctions..."

Funny, I always thought they had two more cylinders. I do, however, admire his choice to illustrate the '57 models...

Not mine, but I had to do a double-take.

TG

Edited November 16, 2013 by TG57Roadmaster (see edit history)

[MrEarl]

I noted that in his listing of the 2 barrel engine specs, he showes the non dynaflow engine with an 8.0 to1 compression ratio and the dynaflow engine with a 9.5 to 1 compression ratio. I have seen these numbers before, and would like to know if this was indeed the case. I have not rebuilt my engine in my 3 speed car yet, but I will be installing new pistons when I do. Any clairification would be great.

Thank you, Scott

Wow, a '58 with 3 speed, how rare (spelled c-o-o-l ) is that. Scott, the 54 322's used different thicknesses of head gaskets to accomplish a difference of .5 compression ratio between D'flow and conventional trannies. The 264's however used different pistons to accomplish a difference of .09. Not sure how they got the 1.5 difference noted above. I'm sure the answer will be provided shortly. Anybody?

[sean1997]

I noted that in his listing of the 2 barrel engine specs, he showes the non dynaflow engine with an 8.0 to1 compression ratio and the dynaflow engine with a 9.5 to 1 compression ratio. I have seen these numbers before, and would like to know if this was indeed the case. I have not rebuilt my engine in my 3 speed car yet, but I will be installing new pistons when I do. Any clairification would be great.

Thank you, Scott

Those number are correct according to the chassis service manual. The factory was often optimistic with some of their reported numbers, so they may not exactly match reality, but manual transmission cars and export cars tended to have lower compression ratios than domestic automatic transmission cars. The master chassis parts book shows 1957-1958 manual trans cars with standard size pistons 1392769 and series 40 dynaflow cars with standard size pistons 1392771.

Edited November 16, 2013 by sean1997 (see edit history)

[Guest Rob McDonald]

Not mine, but I had to do a double-take.

TG

I double-took too but then noticed the missing Tiara Top. Who knew there were two of these beauties running around, dressed in Dover White over Dresden Blue?

[Guest Scott Roberts]

Thank you Mr Earl and Sean,

I have been asking a lot of questions and you gentlmen always seem to have the answers. All the members on this forum have been very helpfull in pointing me in the right direction. I'm currently converting a bunch of pictures so that I can post them in the "Me and my Buick" section.

You are all agreat help. Thank you, Scott

[Lapham3]

I've read a number of nailhead articles over the years and his errors are less than most-and keeping track of all the running changes that the manufacturers made thru the model year doesn't make it easier- Dan Mpls. Mn.

[NTX5467]

I suspect that the best resource would be the factory service manuals as they should detail which engine/trans combinations had what compression ratios . . . NOT to forget about the "Export" models, which had even lower compression ratios. It also could well be that, in the interest of "less numbers", that some of the information was combined with other information at some time in prior history.

As Old-Tank has mentioned, ONLY factory Buick pistons will have the correct compression ratio. This is because (which might be a source of some of the "different" compression ratio numbers) aftermarket piston manufacturers do NOT necessarily produce completely accurate replacement pistons. If they can use one piston rather than "two" (in the factory orientation), with very close compression ratios, then they'll probably do it. They might look correct, but could have minor differences in the "compression height" and/or dish/dome configuration. It might be that you'd only notice the difference when the factory and the replacement piston are placed side-by-side, unless you knew what you were looking at.

The other thing I've noticed in dealing with aftermarket/replacement pistons is that they are NOT the exact same weight as the factory pistons were. GM factory pistons are teh same weight from "std" through ".030" sizes, yet the aftermarket pistons are different for each oversize they build. If you replace them all, it might not be that big of a deal, but replacing one might result in "more vibration harmonics", possibly. Of course, the best thing would be to have the whole rotating assembly balanced.

When it appeared that we'd never have any "high compression-worthy gasoline", many piston manufacturers did a .020" destroke on their pistons . . . which means they decreased the compression height by .020", helping to lower the compression ratio to better tolerate the lower-octane fuels. It might be hard to document that situation now, but it was done by many piston makers and would now have been done long enough ago that few people would know about it. Finding a mid-1970s or earlier piston catalog would have the older, more accurate specs in that respect. As I recall, this was a "running change" and did not affect the part numbers for the pistons . . . it just happened.

I'm not sure if the service manuals you might need to look at are archived in the www.wildaboutcarsonline.com website or not, but it might be worth a look.

Regarding factory service manuals . . . in order for the to be printed and distributed to the dealer network prior or in time for the Fall introduction "show date", much of the information had to be either carried-over from the prior year (if possible) OR completed in about the prior July timeframe. Same with sales literature. In some cases, "Preliminary Information" documents were sent first with the finalized manuals coming later. What this means is that once in a great while, you might find a typo of use of prior-year information when it was not completely correct . . . with later "Revision" pages sent out to the dealerships. Still, though, "factory information" should trump "replacement part/aftermarket" information.

At the present time, though, the "replacement part/aftermarket" would relate to what parts are still available. Key thing is to find the "best match" between the replacement part information and the factory service manual information.

It might be best to go with a higher compression ratiio piston, even if it might not be correct. Reason is that cylinder head combustion chamber volumes usually are on the "big" side of things. This means that unless the heads are milled, the actual compression ratio will usually be a little less than "advertised" or "blue-print spec". The replacement pistons will usually start out .020" more "in the hole" than the factory pistons, so that lowers it a little more.

One other side issue . . . it was not that uncommon for "automatic transmission" engines to state a little higher compression ratio than a manual transmission engine. The automatic trans did not put the same shock loads or "lugging" load on the engine as a manual transmission would. Plus the automatic trans engine needed a little more power to compensate for the power absorption of the automatic transmission itself. And, more power = more reason to get an automatic trans, for some customers. The manual trans engine would usually be the "entry level" engine for those who didn't want to have to use "high test" gasoline, hence a lower compression ratio that would not clatter so bad when the engine was lugged-down "in gear".

By observation, dealing with NailHead Buick pistons is LOTS different than dealing with small block Chevy pistons!

Hope this might help 'splain some of what is out there . . .

Enjoy!

NTX5467

[Guest Scott Roberts]

NTX5467,

I will need to bore our engine due to water damage, probably .020 to .030. Do you have any recomendations for a piston manufacturer as I doubt I will find oversized factory pistons.

I am doing a full restoration however I will be taking certain libertys with the engine internals, such as balancing, bronze guides and stronger valves. I will be retaining the stock Carter 2bbl carborater, factory cam and single exaust.

Thanks, Scott

[Guest]

I like the part about holdouts late in introducing a V-8 such as Pontiac. Truth is Pontiac was ready to go with their V-8 in 1953, but it was a protest to the corporation by Buick to hold Pontiac back in 1953. Seems Buick didn't want Pontiac to steal any attention from the nailhead. Most Pontiac people know that 53-54 Pontiac's chassis and steering are already designed for the missing V-8! Ah, politics..it will never end.

[Lapham3]

Hi there Scott Roberts-you may want to further research using bronze valve guides with the nailhead- do a search at V8Buick.com in the nailhead area for such discussion-good luck-Dan Mpls. Mn.

[NTX5467]

If I was going to do the heads, I'd use the "bronze helicoil" guide upgrade/refurbish items. This way, the integrity of the existing guide in the head is not disturbed, but should sitll keep the good qualities of using a bronze guide "wear surface". I recall seeing the article at V8Buick, but will need to re-look at that. There are a couple of articles you can find about re-building Buick NailHeads. Some tricks and other things, usually.

As for piston size, one reason you always usually see small block Chevies bored +.030" is that that's what it usually takes to clean up the bore and get "new metal" to machine.

As for the machine work on the block, you might want to get the main bearing saddles "line honed" to ensure they are of the correct size and alignment. This will also ensure you have a good base from which to work when boring and honing the block. Many articles reference the Sunnen CK-10 power hone machine, but there are other brands with similar capabilities.

With a seasoned block, this might not be as critical as with a new block, but you might consider getting the boring/honing done with "deck plates" on the block.

With a good main bearing saddle situation, boring done very nicely, the last part of that puzzle is the honing operation. These power hone machines usually have a "load meter" on them to gauge how much load is on the motor as it hones the cylinder walls. A poor operator can ruin the great machinework in getting the cylinders bored by not watching the load meter OR not stopping every so often to check the final cylinder size. The honing operation will also put heat into the block itself, so stopping every so often for "cool down" can be necessary for the best "final spec" cylinder sizing. Again, the experienced operator will know these things and how much that can be done at one time.

If it were mine, I'd get the cylinder walls honed a little slicker than what might have been factory spec back then. THEN put an OEM-spec chrome-moly ring set with it. The C-M ring needs a little slicker bore finish to work in. I've even known of such c-m rings being used in used engines without "surfacing" the cylinder walls, with good results. No "low-drag" or "lower tension" rings needed, otherwise.

As for the pistons themselves, you might probably end up with Silvolite-brand pistons. A quality "rebuilder" piston, now part of the Keith Black-Silvolite entity. You can check their website for all things piston . . . .pictures, specs, applications, etc. NO need for anything fancy, just OEM-quality/spec items. If offered, you might consider the optional "skirt coating" as many newer OEM-spec pistons have, but that's your and your machine shop's judgment call.

Back to the block . . . you might want to consider getting the block decked while it's chucked-up in the machine . . . another reason for an accurate crankshaft centerline. That would complete all of the machine work which could be done to the block, usually.

Back to the cylinder heads . . . I suspect you'll want to get the heads "trued" as a part of their reconditioning. The time-honored way to do that is on a cylinder head lathe, but there are also some newer wet "belt-sander" surfacers which can work well, too. Operator set-up is critical in both cases. Plus removing just enough metal to get a flat gasket surface.

As for gaskets, a quality brand which has what you need should be fine. There are probably some upgrades from what was originally used, in newer materials and constructions. Something else to discuss with your machine shop operative.

Bearings . . . just a normal OEM-spec bearing material is just as good as anything. No need for any sort of "tri-metal" or higher-performance bearing. Same with the oil pump and oil pressure. Compared to more-current production engines, the older engines have a little too much oil pressure. Just ensure that all oil supply passages in the oil filter supply route are "clean" with no burrs or restrictions.

On some of the Buick V-8s, maybe the newer ones(?), my machine shop operative mentioned that the position of the cam bearing hole might need some attention. Seems that the oil supply hole "follows" the load area rather than "leading" it. Logic would indicate that you want the oil supply "there" before the load area is reached, rather than afterward. Rods and mains are dedicated in that respect, so ensuring the oil supply passages/holes in the crank and main webs are clean and de-burred would be good, too.

For my personal pref, I'd put a quality double-roller timing chain in the motor . . . for longevity reasons, even if it has a slight "bicycle chain" noise at idle. I've used Cloyes Plus Roller chain/sproket sets in my Chevy engines will good success AND longevity (like 450K+ miles on one). Upon assembly, don't think that the cam assembly lube is ONLY for camshafts, but you can also add some to the back of the cam sproket and also on the teeth of the sprokets. That area of the engine is only serviced by "secondary splash", usually, so getting everything started with a coating of moly grease and/or GM EOS or Cam and Lifter Assy Lube can be a plus, to me. Then, use a drill motor to power an oil pump drive prior to firing up the finished motor.

There might be some other things which Old-Tank might desire to add as he is one huge resource in this area, as evidenced in getting the engine done/re-done in 5563's Special, a while back.

Keep us posted on your progress.

Take care,

NTX5467