Jump to content

"Exports"?


Guest imported_MrEarl

Recommended Posts

Guest imported_MrEarl

there's a great Buick racing article in the the new Bugle. the writer refers several times to 54 and 56 Buicks having "exports". Can anyone tell this dummy what exports are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two possible situations with the "export" designation.

First, an "export" motor generally had a lower compression ratio to handle the lower octane/quality fuels available outside of the USA (at that time). Usually about 1 full point lower than what was production stock for the USA-spec vehicles. This was typical for all makes of vehicles back then.

In order to make up for the power loss of the compression ratio, a hotter camshaft could have been part of the package too. That might keep rated horsepower basically where it had been for the higher compression motor. This is speculation on my part. Therefore, the "export" camshaft in a normal-spec engine would make it run more powerfully than the stock cam.

Second, back in that time frame, each manufacturer had their own code words for "high performance part". In some cases, it might have been "Marine" (i.e., boat applications), "Severe Duty", "Police Interceptor", or "Export". In these cases, to know what you were getting required a firm knowledge of the specs of these parts and how they related to stock production parts. When the AMA ban on "racing" took hold in 1957, these "code word" parts became highly necessary as "high performance" and "racing" were bad words at the manufacturers--intensifying the "back door parts" that "appeared" on certain people's cars back then, or were sold quietly "under the parts counter" at the local car dealer's parts department.

I'm not sure just what these kits might have had in them, but it could start with the cam/lifters and include a HD distributor, larger venturi/throttle bore carb, main and rod bearings of a HD material, and other "durability" items. I'm going on generalities here, from what I've seen in parts books and magazines over the years.

There were also "Export" suspension calibrations too. Stiffer springs, stiffer shocks, HD wheels, larger sway bars, and related items, for example, as "export" roads were generally rougher than USA roads and the driving speeds on these roads were generally higher than in the USA. In later years, these might have transitioned into "police" spec parts.

This might not be the "hard and fast" specific things you were desiring, but it might help explain things a little--hopefully.

Enjoy!

NTX5467

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Export" and "High Power Equipment" are two terms Buick used regarding

engine components to provide two separate functions.

Export:

Due to the poor quality fuel (usually lower octane), Buick would use lower

compression pistons to help meet the lower octane requirement.

High Power Equipment:

Buick had several parts for high performance use for the 322 and 364

engines listed in their parts books as "high power equipment".

The parts are:

Solid lifter camshaft with high lift and longer duration.

Shell (hollow) lifters.

Longer pushrods (to accommodate the shell lifters)

Adjustable rocker arms

Intake Manifold Gasket (less heat holes-364 only)

For some reason the two parts classifications are

called "export" by many, but clearly Buick does

list them separately.

Marty Supple

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For some reason many call the "export" motor or

"export kit" as something associated with

high performance. It is just the opposite.

Vehicles with the classification of "export"

means just that.........exported out of the

United States. Since the quality of our fuel

has been generally superior to other countries,

Buick lowered the compression of the engines

using low compression pistons and usually a

thicker head gasket destined for outside the U.S..

Lowering the compression ratio reduces power

output.

Buick had a separate parts program (very limited)

known as "high power equipment". These are the

parts you would want, and my previous post lists

what those parts are. Buick never installed these

parts on production vehicles and were sold "over

the counter" at your local Buick dealership.

Racers and vehicles used in NASCAR would be the

recipients of these parts, and very few people

even back then knew of the existence of these items.

Marty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's common verbage to describe a hotter cam/lifter/spring package, and/or adjustable rockers for '50s vehicles. It was a way the factories could skirt the rules and get hot rod parts with a factory part number to racers.

These parts (the adjustable rockers, hot cam, etc) weren't for sale on engines in the US, but "We sell them like that for Export to other countries" spoken with a wink and a nod got the parts qualified as legal.

Buick did offer adjustable rocker arms at two different times--these are referred to as "Export" rockers. The first ones were 1.5, the second version were 1.6 ratio, and both were iron (the standard 401 rockers were 1.6 aluminum. The 1.5 were available for the 322)

This was all when "Stock Car Racing" on the ovals and "Stock" at the drag strip really were STOCK!

-Brad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brad,

The adjustable rocker arms are listed in the

"Buick Master Parts Book" as follows:

53-56 All V8 High Pwr. Equip. Part #1171078 R

53-56 All V8 High Pwr. Equip. Part #1171079 L

57-58 All V8 High Pwr. Equip. Part #1175508 R

57-58 All V8 High Pwr. Equip. Part #1175509 L

All Buick rocker arms were 1.5 ratio through 1958.

In 1959 they were 1.6 and in 1960 through 1966

the arms are aluminum.

Are you saying that the 57 to 58 rockers listed above are

1.6 ratio prior to Buicks introduction of this ratio

on production cars in 1959?

Thank you,

Marty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody told me about those at one time, but now I can't remember for the life of me. There was a reason they had a different part number for the 364 ('57-'58) adjustable rockers, otherwise they'd be a straight interchange between the 322 and 364 (if they were both 1.5 and adjustable), and would not require a different part number.

I was fairly certain someone had told me the later ones were 1.6--which let them be used on later 401s. But they were iron, instead of aluminum. At the time, I remember contemplating the benefit of adjustable rockers versus heavier weight of aluminum.

It's ENTIRELY possible I could be wrong about the later adjustable rockers...they may be 1.5 ratio. If anyone can verify for sure, post it!

-Brad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the "export" orientation, most did have lower compression ratios, but if the cars were going to Europe (where higher octane fuels were generally available to fuel THEIR own high performance vehicles) they could well have been USA-spec vehicles. With the generally higher cruising speeds in Europe, than in the USA, the hotter cams and related hardware would have come in handy.

In some cases, the term "Export" or "High Power Equipment" were "code words" for "high performance part". In other areas, "Police" or "Trailer Package" parts were higher performance or HD parts too. Just depends upon what parts are being referenced and which manufacturer was involved. And, of course, having a motivated and knowledgeable parts counter person (at the dealership) could be a huge help!

Enjoy!

NTX5467

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brad thank you for your reply.

After reviewing the "Buick Product Service Bulletins"

of 1956, I noticed a new design rocker arm was introduced on

June 1, 1956. The oil lubrication hole was moved

from the top "rib" of the rocker down to the main

body of the rocker and new part numbers were issued.

Maybe the "adjustable rockers" were also changed at this

time.

I have a set of the "adjustable rocker arms" and the

casting numbers on them are nearly impossible to read.

Also, in most cases, casting numbers are not the same as part

numbers.

If anyone in this group has "adjustable rocker arms" it

would be interesting to compare them.

Maybe Buick did change the rocker arm ratio in 1957 for the

adjustables.

Thank you Brad,

Marty Supple

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this question over on another hot rodding board, and there are a few pretty knowledgeable Nailhead guys.

According to them, all the adjustable rockers were, in fact, 1.5 ratio. He said that you would lose ratio putting them on a 401. But he didn't know why they were different ratio.

I hadn't thought about looking in TSBs! I do remember reading that there was an oiling modification in the rocker arms. I hadn't thought about that. I'd be very, very interested to see if anybody has a set of unabridged '57 TSBs, or any from '55-'58, that has a section on the adjustable rockers.

-Brad

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brad,

A year or two ago I posted to this board and made

some phone calls to very knowledgeable people

regarding the adjustable rockers. So far, the info

available on any of the items (adjustable rockers,

longer pushrods, hollow lifters, camshafts)are part

numbers only, no specs.

I would imagine somewhere, there must be a bulletin

or document that would give the necessary specifications...

camshaft lift and duration, rocker arm ratio, etc..

I have seen various photos of the "adjustable rockers" and

compared them to what I own and I cannot visually see any

difference. That is certainly not to say that there is not

any difference...I just can't tell.

If anyone out there has any of these parts (adj rockers, cams)

and can "spec them out", it would be very much appreciated.

Thank you,

Marty Supple

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhere, in the archives of the SAE, there should be a list of engine specs (other than just horsepower, torque, and taxable horsepower) for the engines in question. SOME of these things might even be in a Buick Chassis Service Manual, especially the cam specs and similar. There could also be an "SAE Transaction" (i.e., tech paper presented by Buick operatives), but I don't recall seeing one back in the 1970s when I found them hidden away on an upper floor of the Texas Tech Univ. library.

To get a better idea of what "works" and "interchanges", rather than go by GM part numbers, it might be better to use a highly vintage Perfect Circle or TRW Engine Parts catalog. This might make more sense AND it might also reveal the rocker arm ratios for the various rocker arms AND possible identifying casting numbers or date codes. The 1982 printing of the TRW book I have only mentions the hydraulic valve train items, though. Have to look for the earlier (and bigger) books I have archived (key word -- "archived"), plus the Petersen "Engine books" that started in 1965 (similarly archived).

There might even be some Buick engine buildup articles in some of the old Hot Rod Magazines. Somewhere, outside of the normal GM/Buick literature, there is probably some publication that has the desired information.

Just a hunch . . .

NTX5467

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NTX, thank you for your response.

I have most of the Buick service manuals for the mid 50's

through early 60's. Also in my possession are some of the

"product service bulletins" and other literature along with

several Buick "parts" books. The only reference of these

parts, by Buick, that I have found, are part numbers only.

Your suggestion of magazine articles of that era is excellent,

and I do believe that someone must have in their basement or

attic, some mention by Buick, specifications regarding their

"export kit" or "high power equipment" program.

As mentioned in a previous post regarding this topic, Buick

did not actively push this program to the public. It was for

racers and others "in the know".

Thanks again for your suggestions.

Marty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest imported_MrEarl

Some very good discussion!! Perhaps Pete Philips could get with the author of that story, Pete Fileca and do a follow up on the initial story and include the question of just what were the "export" components he can recall using on his 54 and 56. Whataboutit Pete? I enjoy reading the Buick Racin articles in the Bugle and hopefully they will continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, the High Power equipment package was not legal for NASCAR competition in 1955, and probably not for other years, since it was a dealer-installed option. USAC was more liberal, and so it may have been legal in their sanction.

I'd br happy to write an article on High power equipment for the Bugle as a part of my M-1 escapade. I'd happily do it withcurrent head-to-head dyno info -- if someone can help me find the parts to build up an engine.

BTW, M-1 April Bugle cover) is getting a HD three-speed and 1955 NASCAR-spec 322 for a run on Daytona Beach in July. Will also take the opportunity to test the OE Rochester carb against a Fish M-1 unit. Would love to hear from the Florida chapters on this.

Josh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THAT SOUNDS NEAT!

A few years ago, I saw an article about the middle 1950s era NASCAR race cars. They were actually bought off of a new car dealer, taken to the shop, and race-prepped (usually tires and suspension items, as I recall-can't forget the sponsors' decals) before the race. No engine mods allowed from what came down the assembly line, but "finessing" and "massaging" and "tuning" made the difference in that "more basic" era. One reason that we saw so many multi-carb engines, fuel injection on Chevys, supercharged Fords, and bigger 4bbl carbs, I suspect--everybody wanted a piece of the action for their customer base back then.

For your project, reckon you might get with the Mercury Marine people and see if they have a C-300 they might like to provide for some "color" and possible comparisons? Just a thought.

With respect to the dyno "numbers" you might generate . . . the modern computer-controlled dynos are possibly more accurate with a "normal" dyno operator. In the "analog" dyno era, the operator could "make or break" the readings by how they varied the load on the water wheel, engine rpm, etc. It took a fine touch to balance these things and get all of the power out of the engine that was in there . . . i.e, "experience". Many of these early dyno operators did just that and nothing else, and took a great deal of pride on what they did and the results being "repeatable". Kind of like a doctor coaching a pregnant lady during the birthing of her child.

A while back, an enthusiast magazine ran a freshly assembled (to OEM specs) muscle car engine on a new computerized dyno and the numbers were "less than expected". Inside sources contacted some of the now-retired dyno operators for that car company for their input, which is where the professionalism and pride of those employees came to light. In some cases, the marketing people might have "helped" things a little, but not much as there seemed to be a "known relationship" in the enthusiast network of what size engine could produce how much horsepower by the respective manufacturers. Some situations resulted in "sandbagging" or "overstatement", but the NHRA (in later years) did their own "factoring" (which was sometimes political and other times accurate, by observation). And, of course, there were SAE specs on how to conduct the dyno runs too, then as now.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, NTX. NASCAR teams essentially blueprinted the engines, and incorporated petitioned modifications. In M-1's case, that meant use of the thinner Dynaflow headgaskets and DF camshaft in front of the conventional transmission. They also honed the cylinders a few thou, polished the bearings, matched gaskets, and otherwise loosened up the engine. Red Vogt also shortened the pushrods, which makes a lot of sense in concert with the thinner headgasket, but that's what they ultimately found to disqualify the car for. Read the whole story at www.FireballRobertsM1.com.

Chassis-wise, NASCAR mandated a frame-mounted steel rollbar or cage, and I'm trying to find out if they allowed bigger brakes and hubs. Were 50/70 brakes and hubs larger? Would they bolt to a 60 Century? I'd like to know the answer to that.

Marty,

I'd like to acquire those rocker arms if you think they are correct. If I can find the cam specs, I'll have a stock one reground. Cup-type lifters ... ? What else fits?

Also, does anyone have the definitive conversion to an hydraulic clutch actuation set up?

Keep an eye out on www.FireballRobertsM1.com, here and on the Yahoo Nailhead group page for progress on M-1.

Josh

post-38705-143137879816_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shorter pushrods might have been needed, but if the gasket was only about .020" thinner on the DF motors (for a little more power to compensate for the power consumption of the automatic compared to the manual trans), that would not have been a really big deal. BUT, a shortened pushrod on a hydraulic valve lifter would allow the lifter's plunger to extend farther and not "pump up" as quickly as when the plunger was centered in it's bore (travel-wise, i.e., vertically). The same thing could have been accomplished by putting shims under the rocker arm shafts, but that would have been obvious. Same principle as adjusting small block Chevy rocker arms to "click and then 1/4 turn preload", but done with the push rod length in a non-adjustable hydraulic valve lifter valve train. End result, the useable rpm range was closer to that of a mechanical lifter valve train on the same engine.

In order to do that "right", it would require some pushrod tubing stock and some end caps (which might be obtained from other pushrods) so that the wear surface of the pushrod ends would not be thinned excessively and still last the entire race. In more modern times, you can buy the kits to build pushrods to a particular length, but back then you'd have had to find your own pieces and "finesse" things. Or . . . some shorter pushrods might have made their way out of the vendor as "rejects" as they were "too short" and showed up at the race engine shop in a plain brown box???

Just some thoughts . . .

NTX5467

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh,

I am currently building a 425 for my 1965 Buick Riviera using the

following Buick factory parts:

"D" cylinder heads

"D" exhaust port manifolds

Factory experimental ("X" code) 2X4 aluminum intake manifold

Adjustable Rocker Arms

Shell (hollow) lifters

Pushrods were never made for the 401/425 to be used with the

shell lifters. Buick factory parts books list pushrods for the

322 and 364 engines respectively since their "deck" heights are

different from one another (high power equipment). The 401/425

also differs from the earlier engines with respect to "deck" height.

On occasion, I will see adjustable rocker arms on "EBAY", and in

the classifed section in "The Bugle".

I have neve seen any info on the camshaft other than part numbers.

The Buick Master Parts Book shows "high power equipment" cams

for the 322 and also a separate part number listing for the 364.

I believe what we need to do is to find the "specs" on the hi-po

cams, since finding a 50 year old camshaft that was used for racing

would only yield a "worn" cam and would be nearly impossible to find.

"Cam Blanks" are still available for nailheads, and grinding the blank

to the "hi-po spec" would give us what we want.

Marty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By observation, the GM/Buick factory parts books will not have any engine specs for camshafts, only "part numbers" and possible some addition identifying stamp numbers, color codes, etc.

It could well be that the High Power Equipment items were detailed in a separate Buick Service Bulletin back then, as "somebody" had to know the information and get it out to those that wanted it. Similar to how they put all of the GNX-specific parts in a TSB and NOT in the GM Parts database. Unless you had that TSB, or a copy, you had to contact a Buick dealer's parts department that could find it (AND remembered getting it!) to just get the part numbers. Still, no specs, though.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest imported_MrEarl

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 years later...

Good morning Group.

Picked up a NOS "export cam" a while back for the 322 nailhead. I am planning on having it checked for lift and duration.

Still trying to resolve the differences between the 53-56 adjustable rocker arms and the 57-58 ones..............is there a ratio difference? Why the different part numbers?

Now I just need a 55 Buick Century to put it in.

Marty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marty, if you have a suitable block, you can slide the cam in, put two lifters in the #1 cylinder lifter bores. Then a used crank can be installed, with used bearings, too, so that the timing chain set can be installed. From there, you'll need a dial indicator and some way to keep the lifters sliding freely in their bores (so their weight will keep them always in contact with the cam lobe), maybe add some pushrods to make contact with the plunger on a magnetic base dial indicator easier to happen. Then a "degree wheel" can be screwed into the front of the crankshaft (somehow).

Then you'll need to find TDC for #1 cylinder with the dial indicator. When #1 fires, both of the #1 cylinder valves will be closed. You might need to rock the crank back and forth a little to fine the true TDC position . . . then make an indicator (from a coat hanger or a welding rod with the flux knocked off of it) for TDC on the degree wheel.

From there, you can do your own check of duration and valve lift/timing events . . . at the cam lobe. The SAE spec'd procedure is to, from the base circle of the cam, not start counting the valve event until the lifter has moved .006" from the base circle diameter, this takes "the ramp" on the lobe out of the valve duration equation. While you're doing these checks, you can ALSO do event duration checking at the hot rod industry's "standard" of .050" lift. Now, it's been a while since I've thought about these things, but I tend to believe that the .006" and .050" measurements are "lobe lift" rather than "valve lift".

In rotating the partial engine assembly, you'll need to probably rotate it around one revolution before you use the second revolution to note the valve event measurements on the degree wheel. You can slow the rotation somewhat to make sure of the "max lobe lift" number on the dial indicator, which can be pretty easy to do. End result, it might take several revolutions to get things nailed down on each valve lobe, intake and exhaust, so appropriate oil on the main bearings, rod bearing, cam bearings, cam lobes, valve lifters, etc. will be needed . . . but not too heavy of an oil to put a drag on the lifters in their lifter bores.

Once you see how this all works, with the various readings written down, it can be enlightening in many areas. With these figures, you can now have the "valve open and close" events noted for intake and exhaust, lobe lift for the intake and exhaust, and also figuring the "overlap" duration (when both intake and exhaust valves are open) under the SAE procedures. "Cheap entertainment" as a good while of time vanishes, from my own experiences! From the "lobe lift" figures, you can multiply them by the rocker arm ratio to result in "valve lift".

So, if you've got a used engine "in stock", you can put the cam and 1 pair of lifter in it and have fun discovering the mysteries which your camshaft might hold. Magnetic base dial indicators can come in handy for other functions, too. The degree wheel can be sourced, probably, from Moroso or similar.

Let us know what you find, whether you do it or have it done!

Enjoy!

NTX5467

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...