Appreciate your input Tom. I have a couple of irons in the fire to pursue, it all else fails I'll check the 264 out. I'm not much of a lead foot so the fuel economy bit interests me more so than smoking tyres. I intend to put a T400R4 behind it. I have a set of 3.9 rear end gears to swap out for the 3.08 I have put in from a donor modern car.
I have this 1955 322 just laying around doing nothing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PIsLj4KMu0&feature=youtube_gdata_player Sorry about my friends sailor mouth
I was thinking, if I put a 2 X 4 manifold on, could the engine run successfully with just one carb set up to run and the other blanked off and there just for show ? My initial thinking is no because of the intake runner setup , but maybe -------- o No:
Your first thought was probably right,but you could disconnect the secondaries on both carbs and it will be very cool looking 4 bbl. Derek
a lot of guys used to do that carb blocking thing,,,,,, on the stock set up the engine runs on the front barrels of the back carb anyway.... they would block the entire front carb and the secondaries of the back carb, giving you in effect a 2 barrel set up.... no reason it would not work with the linkage set up for it....
Well,,,,, when you do that set up the front barrels will be about 350 cfm.... give or take.....the easiest carbs to use would be the factory carters.... ugh..... but you would have to fab up your linkage.... and most likely your air cleaner assembly.... but it should run and idle just like a factory stocker.....I would suggest that instead of doing all that,,, just use the readily available 3X2 set up.... use the small carbs like stromburg 94's or 97's that was popular back in the 50's.... you need the idle system on the end carbs blocked off , just idle on the center carb.... and a ford type air cleaner.... and you could still run on just the center carb or run progressive linkage.... just do not try to use carbs with all three idle systems working , that will run you crazy.... same with the 2x4 set up,,, idle one carb only.....on any system.....
Ken,,, that will work but not near as good as a single 4 barrel.... those were used in the days when there were very few alluminum intakes available.... there is way too much restriction , turning ect. of the air/fuel charge.... My uncle put one on a flat head ford engine and it was just slightly, slightly better than a single 2 barrel.... he could have done better by just opening up the bores of the stock intake and putting on a bigger 2 barrel from a truck.....:Brow:
Adding to what Tom T said - When I yanked the factory 2bbl Stromberg carburetor off of my '55 264 and replaced it with a factory 322 Carter WCFB setup, the performance improved drastically and the highway fuel economy actually got better. A case of win win. I wouldn't think that it would be all that hard to find a 4bbl manifold. I think that between '53 and '56 there were about as many Nailheads built with 4 bbls as with 2 bbls. Intake manifolds survive pretty well. You could yank one off an engine that had been sitting outside for 40 years, sandblast it, paint it green, and bolt it on. My stickshift 264 would consistently take down 324 Oldsmobiles, 352 Fords, and once a stickshift 292 '56 Ford that had a bit of a local reputation. BTW - The heads on that 264 may be from a 322, but there was no significant difference between the 264 heads and the 322 heads. Buick didn't even make headgaskets specifically for the 3 5/8 bore 264. All factory headgaskets were 4" bore.
Hey fellas, thanks again so much for your valuable information. I'm learning a lot here. I hope I'm not asking too many questions, but down here Nailhead performance modifications are vitually Nil. There are very few cars with hotted up Nails, most are originals in restored cars. And performance parts are like rocking horse poo.
Disregarding the exhaust manifold issue Tom , are there any possibilities with piston interchange ( or even using 401 heads ? )
Yup. And I too had a (actually two) '55s with 264 manual shifters. I did put the thin Dynaflow headgaskets, a Weber aluminum flywheel, and a 4bbl intake manifold and carburetor from a '55 Century. On the highway they would do an honest 20mpg. I don't know what you have for gasoline where you are, but the crud that we have to burn these days with 10% ethanol added probably would knock a little off of that 20 mpg.
John , tell me more on the Weber flywheel please. I've never heard of it. Where would you get one from ? We have that Ethanol stuff but at the moment it's optional if you want to buy it. Not mixed with regular pump fuel -------- yet.
I have no idea if Weber (as a company) still exists. Back in the '60s they made a fair amount of speed equipment including intake manifolds, flywheels, and even Ford flathead Cylinder heads. The aluminum flywheels for the Nailhead weighed about 14 lbs and had a steel surface for the clutch disc. I think the factory steel flywheel weighed around 42 lbs. If you are really desperate to know for sure, I do have one (a factory 264 flywheel) inna basement; I will throw it on the bathroom scale for you if you really care about the weight. Of course you had to have the new 'wheel balanced (actually unbalanced) the same amount as the stock Nailhead flywheel. I have always been a weight freak. I believe that the easiest way to gain performance is by weight reduction. I once spent 2 1/2 hours drilling weight reduction holes in the mounting brackets for the trailer hitch in my Buchev pickup. I'll bet the truck lost eight ounces! I have a plan to fabricate a radiator support for my '82 Buchev pickup from Aluminum. I'll probably spend $300 and save 10 pounds. Stupid? Probably, but you seldom see a U-Haul trailer behind a hearse.:grin:
My 54 Buick Special 264 2-barrel would run about even with the 55 fords and chevys. My 54 Buick Special 322 4-barrel 1956 engine, out ran all 1950's cars, every 390 Ford in the country. Also ran to a fender with a 421 Grand Prix, Beat a 62 Impala 409, 389 Bonneville, etc. After running over 100 cars and never refusing anyone (I had no fear), I swear my 322, (255 hp) had every bit of 100+ HP more than my 264, (143 hp). That 322 brought more excitement into my world than I can put into words. In summer of 1964 I was beating almost everyone with it. In fall of 1964, my "friend" took it without my permission and totaled it. Just my experience with the 264 vs 322.
Thanks for the information and offer John, but don't go to any trouble yet. I still haven't decided which direction to take ( until I source suitable engine ) And I know what you mean about weight reduction obsession. I built an old race bike and tried everwhere to lose weight. Even with my Buick project it's always at the back of my mind. Gary that's an interesting history there. They reckon if you are going to use / build a 322, the 1956 is the one to get.
