Nailhead cam ID

[65VerdeGS]

A few months back I came across a horde of parts being sold by the widow of a hobbyist. Among other parts he had several cams, many in the original GM cardboard tubes.  Most of the cams he had were for Chevy and Pontiac, but one had a wired tag saying "1963-65 401/425 eng".   The part number on the cardboard tube is illegible, unfortunately.  So, on the chance it proved to be a genuine Buick cam, I went ahead and bought it. 

 

The number cast into the shank of the cam is 1362241.  However, I can't find this number listed in my copy of the Buick Master Parts Book (dated 1966.)

 

What is the application of this cam?  Is it correct for a 63-65 nailhead?

 

[Chimera]

Could I please see an overall picture?

[XframeFX]

Says a late model Camshaft of no particular grind. Need to measure it up?

[RivNut]

The above shows the same number on the shank. To differentiate the three and figure out which one you have, look at the groove machined or missing on the shank.

[JZRIV]

That part number is just for the blank used to make various grinds as you can see above. But it appears you may just have a holy grail on your hands if yours has the groove! Pic of groove below. The precise groove location and width may vary slightly.

 

Edited November 27, 2021 by JZRIV (see edit history)

[arnulfo de l.a.]

Which cam on the chart above is the 425 2- 4 barrel carb cam? From what i have read on this forum its more aggressive than the others. I am having a hard time deciphering that info from the above chart. 

[JZRIV]

Yea that charts takes careful assesment.

 

63 425 (all) Cam PN 1358100

64 Dual Quad - Cam PN 1362242

65-66 Dual Quad - Cam PN 1368091

 

The cam in the 63 425 was same grind as the later dual quad cam. Crazy huh.

I always felt there is no aftermarket cam grind that suited the dual quad setup on an otherwise stock engine like the original Buick 2x4 cam. The engineers really had it dialed in to the car is was going into. As aggressive as it could be staying mild mannered enough as well as maintain enough vacuum 

Edited November 27, 2021 by JZRIV (see edit history)

[telriv]

The BEST CAM from above is the one with the .060" groove. Late '63-early '64 ONLY. After that it was a variety. NO 2x4 had an early cam. I've spent MANY hours on this with Dennis. The early cams were just TOO RADIAL for a 2x4 set-up.

Jason knows this from his own experience.

 

Tom T.

[XframeFX]

10 minutes ago, telriv said:

The BEST CAM from above is the one with the .060" groove. Late '63-early '64 ONLY.

I don't see a difference in profile of this one to the '63 cam. identical grind. Even the groove is the same. It only has different shank and P/Ns.

Edited November 27, 2021 by XframeFX (see edit history)

[telriv]

The early was built with 4* retard built in for the cubic inch displacement between the 401 & 425 to better utilize the extra 24 cubes for top end. Lose a little down low & gain it in top end.  Because of more cubes NOTHING was lost down low. Whereas the other was built straight up. So THERE IS A DIFERENCE. You just can't see it on paper & NOTHING states that fact. Otherwise a completely new cam would have had to be made, designed, tested, etc.  This was in conjunction with advice from Zora Duntov transferred to Dennis. The designer for the original 30-30 cam for the SBCs.

The groove states this.     .060" as opposed to .120" & a 109* lobe separation for both.  OR the mildest of all no groove & a 114* lobe separation to try & make the idle smoother.  As this was the contention on the earliest cams.

Buick had a TSB about this. For customers with the "earlier" cam when a customer came in complaining of a rough idle IF everything checked out OK they were to replace it with the standard 401 cam. This in turn mostly satisfied the customers.

 

Tom T.

Edited November 27, 2021 by telriv (see edit history)

[RivNut]

What’s funny about these cams is that there’s a faction over on V8buick.com that thinks the Buick cam that ends in 092 is a cam designed by Zora Duntov.  He designed a cam for the small block Chevy that was a hot cam for the early V8 Corvettes. Now because both cams end in 092, they think that the Buick cam is a hot cam designed by Duntov. 

[JZRIV]

17 hours ago, telriv said:

The BEST CAM from above is the one with the .060" groove. Late '63-early '64 ONLY. After that it was a variety. NO 2x4 had an early cam. I've spent MANY hours on this with Dennis. The early cams were just TOO RADIAL for a 2x4 set-up.

Jason knows this from his own experience.

 

Tom T.

Tom,

To make sure I, and I'm sure others understand:

The earlier 63 425 cam shown above had the 4 degree retard built in, but the later 1x4 63/64 and 64/65/66 2x4 cam did not? 

I always heard a distributor from a 63 425 had the same amount of total mechanical advance as the 2x4 distributor but I never heard a 64 distributor was same, nor did I realize all 64s had the what I call the 2x4 cam. According to chart above it does. If that's the case, wouldn't a distributor from a 64 be the same as the 2x4 as far as amount of total mechanical advance?

 

The original 2x4 cam that came out of the MZ had a .090 wide groove. I passed it off as being a manufacturing error but could it have been done intentionally to designate some change?

Thanks

Edited November 28, 2021 by JZRIV (see edit history)

[RIVNIK]

who knew you guys were so smart? respect.

[MikeJS]

2 hours ago, RIVNIK said:

who knew you guys were so smart? respect.

Concur. This forum never ceases to amaze me. I read somewhere that cams are essentially the mechanical brains of an engine. They tell the distributor which cylinder to fire, which valves to open, to close, when, and for how long. The amount of knowledge of the 'brain surgeons' in this thread is indeed pretty impressive.

 

Later,

 

 

[telriv]

Jason,

 

    Not in '63/425 apps. Early '64/425's also had this cam.

All I can say is the earlier cam, late '62 for the '63 model year, as the 425 didn't debut until the later part of 12/62 then ONLY in Rivs. which carried over to the '64 model year earlier in the production run. Now for the '63 model year the DynaFlow was used. Being as smooth as it was it was also very inefficient & the idle speed could be increased slightly to make up somewhat of the rougher idle characteristics of this particular cam. Come '64 & the introduction of the 400 trans.  Rough idle complaints were rampant because the trans. was so much more efficient than the DynaFlows. Even at a low idle speed, which made the rough idle even worse, it would creep at 2-4MPH.  This was a quality MANY could not accept/put up with as this was supposed to be a quality Buick car.  Like our fathers before us the quality of a car with an auto trans. is it would not creep at a stop light. Most ALL early autos didn't do this. It was decided at one point, because of all the complaints of rough idle, to substitute the .120" groove camshaft.  To solve this problem is when they came out with the switch pitch 400 in the '65 model year. I believe this was done Jan, Feb. of '64. I have no real proof of this & at the time being so many years later Dennis didn't remember.  And later you will notice all the cam specs. remained the same EXCEPT the the LSA went to 114* to help even more with a rough idle.

    Dennis was the Father of performance at Buick along with his engineers working late at night in the "Back Room" so to say to try & come up with as good combos as could be possible & experimenting. The wildest cams, the 2x4's, the aluminum heads & D-port/Big port heads. Many renditions of aluminum 2x4 intakes known as the :X" intakes for experimental use & on & on.

     I could go on for days & since my typing skills are reduced to one finger that would also take days.  It's crazy what one put's oneself to when you have a quest & a passion for something & to learn as MUCH as possible about why, when & where.

   Ill be back later to answer questions on the dizzy's.

 

Tom T.

Edited November 29, 2021 by telriv (see edit history)

[1965rivgs]

10 hours ago, JZRIV said:

Tom,

To make sure I, and I'm sure others understand:

The earlier 63 425 cam shown above had the 4 degree retard built in, but the later 1x4 63/64 and 64/65/66 2x4 cam did not? 

I always heard a distributor from a 63 425 had the same amount of total mechanical advance as the 2x4 distributor but I never heard a 64 distributor was same, nor did I realize all 64s had the what I call the 2x4 cam. According to chart above it does. If that's the case, wouldn't a distributor from a 64 be the same as the 2x4 as far as amount of total mechanical advance?

 

The original 2x4 cam that came out of the MZ had a .090 wide groove. I passed it off as being a manufacturing error but could it have been done intentionally to designate some change?

Thanks

Hi Jason,

  The answer to your question is no, the 2x4 engine and the standard engine did not have the same distributor. The reason they used different distributors is because each application called for a much different base timing setting. Therefore, the weights and springs are different resulting in a different distributor part number. The Dynaflow cars had the same base timing as the later 2x4 cars, hence the reference to their respective distributors to be the "same".

Tom Mooney

[1965rivgs]

7 hours ago, telriv said:

Jason,

 

    Not in '63/425 apps. Early '64/425's also had this cam.

All I can say is the earlier cam, late '62 for the '63 model year, as the 425 didn't debut until the later part of 12/62 then ONLY in Rivs. which carried over to the '64 model year earlier in the production run. Now for the '63 model year the DynaFlow was used. Being as smooth as it was it was also very inefficient & the idle speed could be increased slightly to make up somewhat of the rougher idle characteristics of this particular cam. Come '64 & the introduction of the 400 trans.  Rough idle complaints were rampant because the trans. was so much more efficient than the DynaFlows. Even at a low idle speed, which made the rough idle even worse, it would creep at 2-4MPH.  This was a quality MANY could not accept/put up with as this was supposed to be a quality Buick car.  Like our fathers before us the quality of a car with an auto trans. is it would not creep at a stop light. Most ALL early autos didn't do this. It was decided at one point, because of all the complaints of rough idle, to substitute the .120" groove camshaft.  I believe this was done Jan, Feb. of '64. I have no real proof of this & at the time being so many years later Dennis didn't remember.  And later you will notice all the cam specs. remained the same EXCEPT the the LSA went to 114* to help even more with a rough idle.

    Dennis was the Father of performance at Buick along with his engineers working late at night in the "Back Room" so to say to try & come up with as good combos as could be possible & experimenting. The wildest cams, the 2x4's, the aluminum heads & D-port/Big port heads. Many renditions of aluminum 2x4 intakes known as the :X" intakes for experimental use & on & on.

     I could go on for days & since my typing skills are reduced to one finger that would also take days.  It's crazy what one put's oneself to when you have a quest & a passion for something & to learn as MUCH as possible about why, when & where.

   Ill be back later to answer questions on the dizzy's.

 

Tom T.

  The wildcat was also available with the 425 engine in `63 Tom.

Tom M

[RivNut]

The 1963 Chassis manual was published before the 425 was considered for that year. Here's a photo from that 63 Chassis manual showing the 12° timing for the 401 if used in conjunction with the automatic transmission. The timing for cars equipped with a synchromesh transmission is shown as 5°.

 

 

I also have some older chassis manuals. This shows basically the same thing for 1960 Buicks equipped with a 401 and an automatic transmission (Dynaflow..)

 

 

[telriv]

Yes Tom, but the 425 wasn't available until about Feb. of '63 (or late Jan. '63) or thereabouts for the other cars.  I believe the Wildcat was 1st. after the Riv.

 

Tom T.

[1965rivgs]

On 11/28/2021 at 7:08 PM, telriv said:

Yes Tom, but the 425 wasn't available until about Feb. of '63 (or late Jan. '63) or thereabouts for the other cars.  I believe the Wildcat was 1st. after the Riv.

 

Tom T.

  Earliest Buick reference to the availability of the 425 in`63 I have seen is a Buick service bulletin dated 12- 5 -`62 which states the 425 is available in both the 4600 (Wildcat) and 4700 (Riviera) series cars.

Tom M

[RivNut]

Tim Nugent, @tenugent has the earliest dated 1963 with a 425 that is in Jim Cannon’s 1963 registry.  If/when Tim reads this, perhaps he might share the build date of his ‘63.  

Edited November 30, 2021 by RivNut (see edit history)

[tenugent]

Build date 12-4-62

[1965rivgs]

55 minutes ago, tenugent said:

Build date 12-4-62

Howdy Tim,

  Where did you get the exact day of build from? Do you have a build sheet? Or the body build is the 4th week of December, `62?

Tom

Edited November 30, 2021 by 1965rivgs (see edit history)

[tenugent]

Hi Tom,off the cowl tag, no 62

[65VerdeGS]

On 11/27/2021 at 8:22 AM, JZRIV said:

That part number is just for the blank used to make various grinds as you can see above. But it appears you may just have a holy grail on your hands if yours has the groove! Pic of groove below. The precise groove location and width may vary slightly.

 

Hi Jason,

Well, looks like no holy grail cam for me.  Here's what mine looks like:

 

Same 1362241 casting number as in your photo, but no groove.  My cam has the letters "CWC" cast between two lobes to the left of the casting number - see photo.  What does "CWC" mean?  

 

Still wondering what cam I have... Is it a nailhead cam?  Or did they use the same numbered blank to make cams for other engines? 

 

Any other ideas on how to find out what cam I have?

 

Thanks,

 

[JZRIV]

Alex,

Take a micrometer and measure any two lobes right beside each other and see what the maximum dimension is measuring at the highest point of lobe. Also try to get the minimum OD down on the base circle of lobe.  I have some reference dimensions from an NOS 091 cam and might be able to determine about what lift it has.

Also post a pic that shows each end of the cam.   

CWC was also on my cams. Also had a date code.

Edited December 1, 2021 by JZRIV (see edit history)

[telriv]

Alex,

 

    It has to be a "Nail" cam as it fits your engine. CWC is the manufacturer of the cam. So it's not the original & has been replaced some time in the vehicle/engines past probably when it was rebuilt/freshened up or otherwise. CWC would have ONLY made a somewhat stock replacement cam that covered ALL makes & models of "Nails" from 364-425. IF I remember correctly they were very mild to cover ALL the various cubes from 364-425 with a 114* LSA. It would be a little more radical in a 364 & very, very mild for a 425. Definitely NOT a performance cam in any way.

 

Tom T.

[65VerdeGS]

Hi Jason,

 

Here are some pics of the ends of the cam I have:

 

I'm probably measuring wrong, but it seems each lobe is 1-11/32" in height.  That's the height of each lobe, top to bottom.  If that isn't the correct way to measure, let me know.

 

Does this help you confirm this to be is a nailhead cam, and if so, which one?  

 

 

Thanks,

 

[65VerdeGS]

Jason - Here's the mic I used to measure the cam lobes, showing what I measured:

[EmTee]

The lift value can be determined by subtracting the base circle measurement from the one that you made above.  Measure again 90* from the lobe axis.

[JZRIV]

Yea that's a nailhead cam. Can the calipers measure in decimal? I should have also asked you to measure the minimum diameter exactly like Tim said. Take the max measurement and subtract the min measurement then multiply by 1.6 rocker arm ratio. I did that when checking an NOS 091 cam and came within .001 (actually .0006) of the factory advertised lift.

 

Edited December 4, 2021 by JZRIV (see edit history)

[PWB]

What a great story.

 

What great teamwork.

 

You all did fantastic