Quick questions please. Is the 1955 322 engine just a bored out 264 block ? Is there a single 4 barrel alloy intake on the market for these ?
What Tom says X2..... on the intake , the next best thing would be to find a stock 4 bbl intake and Doc dual plane modify it.... but for a 322 it will most likely be hard to find.... unless your engine already has one.....:Brow: dont mess with any adapters,,, they do not work well....
Thanks Tom -- looks like that plan is shot out of the water. I was offered today to buy a 264 in pieces ( with a set of 322 heads and used pistons ) Thought I might be able to bore it out to take the bigger pistons. Oh well, I'll keep searching. Doc, I have read the article somewhere on the forum regarding the dual plane. I'll try and find it somewhere. Ken.
Most adapters WILL work if proper attention is paid to the details. Like port matching the adapter to the carb. & then the manifold. I WOULDN'T use an adapter to go from an AFB square bore manifold to a Quadrajet carb. for instance. Tom T.
no,, Tom and I agree on this,,, if you do use any kind of adapter, stick with square bore to square bore... or spread bore to spread bore.... Ken, the directions to do the dual plane mod is a sticky .......
http://forums.aaca.org/f162/edelbrock-1406-conversion-333493.html This has been done before...and it even works.
No on the block & unfortunately no on the intake unless you want to go for multiple carbs. So if I ran stock iron manifold with the DOC treatment and single 4BBL ---- Vs alloy 2 X 4 , what fuel economy difference would I expect on a stock built engine driven at modest street conditions ?
A lot better, vs an 2x4 set up.... I originally put a 600 cfm holley in place of the stock carter that was on my riv's 425 and it ran a lot stronger .... had to modify the air cleaner base to fit the holley, but that big 425 really ran strong with the little 600 on it and got 18 mpg out on the road... a smaller engine could get 19 or 20 if it had a good tune up on it....and the right jetting.... The Doc dual plane mod does not affect the mileage one way or the other, unless you plug the heat riser cross over passages,,, dont do that , make sure they are open and in good working order..... the heat helps throttle response....
Another opinion: Go ahead and block off the exhaust crossover ( after you eliminate the butterfly in the LH manifold ). Gasoline boils between 100* F and 190* F (my observations on E-10 bought in July in central Texas is 160* F) and the vapor saturation pressure is even lower. Currently available fuel is made for modern fuel injected engines and is too volatile for old carbureted units. My experience driving around the USA in the summer is no loss in driveability or fuel economy, but I have eliminated paint burning off the intake at the exhaust crossover and percolation. I cannot tell if the performance is changed: 56 performance parts I have searched this forum and cannot find any first hand experience on a 322 with the manifold mods suggested. You can undo the manifold exhaust crossover blocking, but not the mods.
I will say this,,,, I have not had a single report of a engine not running considerably better after the Doc dual plane mod.... and every nailhead that I have blocked the exhaust heat out of the intake ran worse.... 90 % of the guys here have never had 105 octane gas to run in their cars... and dont know what it is like to run real fuel.... you need the heat to make the cat pee flash into a vapor.... otherwise it aint gonna burn.... my idea on blocking the heat (sigh):idea2: is to tap the little round holes, under the carb,and block them with brass pipe plugs so that if you can remove them later if the engine dont respond to the throttle as good as before.....:Brow:
Click on the red "56 performance parts" in Post 11...that is a link. Only the late 55 and 56 322 manifold had the heat track under the carb and the only carb that will work with it is the 4GC with a matching track in the base. If you use a WCFB or adapt a later Edelbrock or Holly, that will need to be plugged. What are you going to do with that 55 322? If it is going into that 4500 lb gem in your avatar, you will need more than carb or manifold mods . Fuel economy? Don't expect more that 16mpg on today's available fuel. 19-20mpg was routine on high octane leaded fuel and even the early unleaded, but the ethanol and other components added killed any economy. Has the "Doc dual plane mod" been done on a 322?
No, the engine won't be going into the Avatar '54. I'm looking to put an engine into this ------ I have a choice of securing a 322 ( maybe ? ) or a 455 engine to put into it. As yet I don't have either as they are very hard to find here. Trying to work out logistics and costs involved in which way to go with it. I can get hold of a 264 in pieces and was hoping to bore it out for 322 pistons but advice says this can't be done.
Neat project! If you can't get the 322 or 455, don't discount the 264. That's what I have in my 51 F-1, which is 3400 lbs vs 3800 lbs for the Special it came out of, 3.92 rear gears and 4barrel manifold and WCFB carb from 322. It not only has all the eye candy of a nailhead, but is FAST. Maybe too powerful for a the F-1 that is otherwise bone stock. I had a chance to install a 401, but that would have required upgrades to the suspension and brakes to be even remotely safe.
Its a good thing you didn't put that particular 401 in your truck. This is one fast truck he has, lots of fun to ride in.
I agree with this. The 264 with the Dynaflow thin steel headgaskets will perform just about as well as the 322. All components except the block, pistons, and (of course) piston rings will interchange between the 264 and 322. Tom Telesco did remind me that the 264 is different in that it doesn't use a harmonic balancer. My theory about the lack of significant performance difference between the 264 and the 322 is that they both use the same size valves - thus the 264 actually breathes better then the 322. I may be alone on this board, but I think that the 264 Nailhead is among the most underrated engines of all time.
Thankyou John, that's interesting indeed. I imagine the steel head gaskets are thinner giving more compression ? Apart from Doc's modification, what else can be done to a 264 to boost HP without breaking the bank. Maybe some head porting and a camshaft upgrade.
The little 264 CAN be made to run pretty darn good, especially in something that's light weight. A performance upgrade would be a 322/4bbl. cam or a stocker 364 cam along with the 1.6 ratio rocker arms for both. Re-curve the distributor, dual exhaust. Not only will it run pretty decent for what it is, but will also give you the benefit of getting really good fuel mileage. When my '55 Special was somewhat stock with the 264/manual shift, it came from the factory with 3.90 gears. With the above mods if I could keep my foot out of it, it would regularly get more than 22MPH or better. Now this is in a somewhat heavy car that weighed around 36-3700pds. Tom T.
