Any place that sells or repairs ROCK CRUSHING equipment. Look in the Yellow Pages & use the name Erik mentioned for brand/type.
The Epoxy "backing" comes in a 22lb bucket. You will probably need less than 1/2 a bucket for a partial fill per block- probably closer to 1/3rd for the nailheads. Each bucket comes as a "kit" with a smaller hardener container inside the bucket. You can mix as much as you need at a time as long as you keep your mix ratio proportional. Or you can use the rest of the un-used portion to fill in the cracks in your concrete floor :idea2: The epoxy backing is used in the rock crushing industry to "grout in" replaceable manganese wear liners in cone style rock crushers. As I mentioned in the post I work for a manufacture of just such equipment, but we sell through distributors. I see you are in Colorado. Check with our dealer in Colorado called Power Motive, or if you want or anyone else is interested, I'll be happy to sell to my buick buddies as much as you want at list price for $3.21 a pound plus shipping. Check with your local suppier, but you will likely have their mark-up on top of that well. I can get you a pretty good discounted shipping rate too. Anyone who is seriously interestd PM me for a shipping quote. Erik
We used this filler to fill the cooling system to the bottom of the outlets of the timing case cover, about 3/4's or so full & only used 1/2 the bucket or less. This stuff is GREAT!!!!!! It's self leveling, the block doesn't need to be vibrated to get the bubbles out, has more vibration resistance than "Cement", & if you accidentally overfill just open up the drain plug to let some out. Depending on how high you fill you will have to put in another drain or make up some kind of tube to be able to drain the block. The machinist I use locally does a lot of twin turbo BMW 6's & had problems with the block decks holding up under the pressure. Would always had to have at least one or two blocks ready just in case. Last season went through the whole season without any deck failures & after taking apart off season found no evidence of any pending problems beginning to start. You must fill BEFORE boring as it will do some distortion. Even the cam bearings had to be fitted ever so slightly in our case. Because of the terrible core shift problems in the latter part of the "Nails' existence core shift & uncentered bores are common. I recommend that even on a stock rebuild that the block be filled to the bottom of the big freeze plugs to add stability to the bottom of the cylinders. On all whom I have recommended this to they report no adverse effects on the cooling system. In my mind it makes it even better as the water flows closer to the top of the bores where it's needed more than at the bottom. The more stable the lower part of the cylinders the longer even a stock rebuild will last. Just need to make sure the internal passages are CLEAN!!!!! I use muriatic acid to do this. Gets things clean as brand new. Just use it outside. Just my nickels worth.
Thanks guys this was a very informative thread. I was actually looking for this exact test. I have a 401 and want to put a 2x4 on it and wanted to findout which one would give me the best performance.
Welcome! I see this is your first post! I also see this thread hasn't refreshed around in almost a year!o No: Erik
Thanks for the welcome Erik, I recently bought a 401 from Russell Martin and am looking a 2x4 intake. I read your thread and the eelco is the better performing intake. Would you say this would be true if it is used with a stock 401?
Nice score! I'm sure Russ did you fine on the engine. Absolutely! The 401 should respond the same (relative) way as the 425 with the eelco 2x4 manifold. Just remember to recurve the distrutor to match the spec. Erik
Re: 2x4 intake flow & performance data old thread new questions I have very much appreciated this thread, the dyno series and the comments. I am searching for any dyno testing that may have been done with the stock dual quad intake. The reasoning: It looks like most conclude that the stock nailhead ratings were high, which is fine, most of Detroit did that back in the 60s. But, the stock 2x4 intake must have been pretty good since those cars ran awfully good. I got Brooklands Riviera from the wife for X-mas (makes her shopping easy!) and noted the folllowing 425/360hp 2x4 Rivieras, all of them over 2 tons curb: 15.90 at 89 15.40 at 92 15.50 at 95 :3gears: To get any kind of match to that 95mph car in my simulator I had to use a tailwind of 20mph. They noted winds of 22-28mph and 40F temps but still I had to assume that strong wind in their favor. But even the "not as windy" tests - that SuperWildcat was a strong engine, the stock intake couldnt be THAT bad! So I wondered if any dyno testing has been done on it?
Re: 2x4 intake flow & performance data old thread new questions You can back into the actual factory SAE horsepower output for the 425 Buick by using the February, 1966 Road and Track test report for a 66 Riv GS with 2 fours. It ran the quarter mile at 16.7 seconds and 86.7 mph. The car as test weighed in at a svelte 4710 pounds. (The factory curb weight was only 4375 pounds). So add 200 pounds for a driver to 4710 pounds and any desk top dyno will spit out the horsepower number you seek. For those that are doubters throw in the August 1966 GS Riv test report from Car And Driver also equipped with a Buick 425 with two fours. As tested it weighed in at 4835 pounds. It ran the quarter in 15.9 seconds at 87 mph. Notice how well the 86.7 mph one magazine obtained correlates with the 87 MPH the other obtained. This suggest the horsepower of the two GS Rivs is very close. Who has a desk top dyno program that can run the numbers?
Re: 2x4 intake flow & performance data old thread new questions Jim, Yes I understand the suggestion, in fact it is the reason I started writing my simulator back in the 1970s, about the same time the others got started. It's not user-friendly or on the market, but just so I understand things - and one way I use it is to go up against as many dyno tests, old road tests, and timeslips as I can. I do use it to make predictions if I can, just to help the hobby. But, the problem with backing out SAE Gross hp as you suggest, from old road tests, is, just too many variables. One problem is, scatter. I have 11 old road tests of the 425-8v. All the trap speeds are either 86-87, but four of them are 88-89-92-95. All in Rivs or Wildcats plus passenger, some weight scatter but not that much. So using the old "1mph=10hp" rule (approx I know) that implies a 90hp scatter in the same engine, slowest to fastest. I know that even out of the factory, you might get +/- 5hp from the build, and maybe +/- 10hp more from the tune. That explains some of it, but also makes it harder to say, "what SAE Gross hp would a typical (mean) factory 425-8v put out". The other thing is that, any simulator that can tell you horsepower from et/mph is really only telling you the AVERAGE REAR WHEEL horsepower down the track. It is then making assumptions to get from average to peak rear-wheel, then more assumptions from rear-wheel to net horsepower, then even more assumptions from net to gross horsepower. And that's if you know the weather and wind and direction! I know what most of the factors are, but there is so much scatter in guessing them - especially for old road tests - that an accurate estimate of SAE gross peak HP from trap speed is hard to get. You could say, "well it's 330hp +/- 40 for sure and 440ftlb +/- 40 for sure" but we kinda already know that much, I think. So I find that in practice, it's not possible. I've read elsewhere here that it is estimated the aftermarket (Edel or Eelco) 8v intakes are about 15hp better than the factory iron. Well, that would only be about .15sec et, maybe 1.5mph, which would completely get lost in all the above factors in those road tests. So it led me to ask if anybody had dynoe'd the factory 8v intake. I've searched here and other forums but cannot find any!ou:
Re: 2x4 intake flow & performance data old thread new questions How about we run it just for a frame of reference? We ran one this morning for a Buick 350 engine in order to test the validity of what we predicted its output would be. The desk top dyno run confirmed our prediction about the SAE horsepower.
Re: 2x4 intake flow & performance data old thread new questions OK I now have simulations that have a good match to all 11 SuperWildcat road tests. In all cases I used the simulator (affectionately ??? named the Gonkulator by the guys on the Ford FE forum) which said that a typical production (or dealer in 66) 425-8v would dyno SAE gross at Torq 441 at 3100 Powr 331 at 4700 To match all 11 road tests, I had to vary traction to match the given 0-30mph and ET's, and vary wind to match MPH. The wind I needed ranged from 20mph tailwind (for the 95mph test where they noted a 22-28mph wind) to a 6mph headwind in the slowest case. In the slowest case, the 86mph Riv test, I had to assume the engine was down 5% on power, not unusual for the occasional road test turd that is out of tune. So it's a reasonable set. but it takes some guessing. But, that assumption makes the stock iron 2x4bbl intake about the equal of the Eelco. Then again, I can "detune" the iron intake in the simulator so it deliberately makes 15hp less than the Eelco, as guessed elsewhere on the forum here. I then get for the average production engine: Torq 444 at 2800 Powr 316 at 4600 But once again, I can match all the 11 road tests, if I just cut the headwind by 3mph (so now in most cases there is either no wind or a slight tailwind). One modeling assumption is about as legit as the other - therefore, I can only conclude that the 425-8v would typically make 317-331hp, somewhere in there as a mean value. It might be the equal of the Eelco intake, or it might be 15hp down to the Eelco as guessed here. That's why I was looking for some dyno data on the stock 2x4v intake. The road test series narrows things down but is not definitive! :ball: Comments and help welcome of course - thanks for the replies so far!:laugh: ---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:16 PM ---------- Then again if GSGTX is right and the 091 cam had .461 .461 lift, then even with the "lower" flow, the "down 15hp vs Eelco" iron 2x4v intake, the higher cam lift adds about 6hp vs .440 lift so that would put the average 425-8v at Torq 449 at 2800 Powr 323 at 4600 Is a lift of .461 for the 091 cam commonly accepted? I've never measured one! ---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ---------- Then again if GSGTX is right and the 091 cam had .461 .461 lift, then even with the "lower" flow, the "down 15hp vs Eelco" iron 2x4v intake, the higher cam lift adds about 6hp vs .440 lift so that would put the average 425-8v at Torq 449 at 2800 Powr 323 at 4600 Is a lift of .461 for the 091 cam commonly accepted? I've never measured one!
Re: 2x4 intake flow & performance data old thread new questions I am not up on nailheads like most who have posted here. But if you are trying to determine what the factory two fours set up adds to engine output relative to the factory single four barrel set up, there is the May 1965 Hot Rod magazine article referencing a Buick Dealer Service Bulletin. It says 13 hp is added to a "401 cid engine" if you use the dealer option 2 x 4 set up intake and carbs. I suspect you guys are already aware of this but just in case I thought I would throw it into the mix.
Re: 2x4 intake flow & performance data old thread new questions Thanks Jim I was NOT aware of that. Usually such things are pretty accurate, moreso than the overall hp rating which marketing might fudge high or low for various reasons. So +13hp, iron 4v vs iron 8v, is one hint to help calibrate things. Now maybe somebody will chime in to confirm that .461 valve lift on the 091 cam.....
