364 potential?

Discussion in ''Da Nailhead' started by jmos4, Oct 29, 2017.

  1. jmos4

    jmos4 Well-Known Member

    Hi all,

    Just got a freebie 364 and made me start thinking about the possibilities.

    Most build either a 401/425 and from most power seems to be done over 5200-5600 rpms, and stroking those only lowers the power range from what I've read here.

    How would a 364 perform, being a shorter stroke. Would it still make power over the 6000+ rpm range?

    Curious what all of your knowledge would think, I doubt this engine will see a build with all of my other projects, but still wanting to see what discussion this might generate.

    Regards,
     
    8ad-f85 likes this.
  2. 8ad-f85

    8ad-f85 Well-Known Member

    The power potential is derived from the heads and induction (top end).
    Having a same/similar top end as the 401/425 then yes...it would begin to tax the induction at a higher rpm.
    Those have 375-500 hp or more potential (with porting and mods), so the 364 would definitely need to spin faster.
    In terms of cubes and CFM, a 425 @ 5400 is equal to a 364 @ 6300 rpms.
    As far as moving a vehicle though...the torque of more cubic inches is tough to compensate for if your vehicle is heavy, even if the two extremes have similar hp potential.

    Getting the bottom end to safely spin that fast or beyond is a slightly different question, but not unreasonable.
     
  3. doc

    doc Well-Known Member

    Never ever sell a 364 short.... for their cubes they are tork monsters....if you take one and do the mods in my list of cheap tricks sticky you will like the results... bigger ,vacume secondary carbs will work good on them.. and my DDP mod... pay attention to port matching and bigger , free flowing exhaust,,, recurve the dist.... leave the heat in the intake,, in fact make sure that it does work.... and put a better air cleaner on that puppy..... :):););) we had a early model super that surprised a lot of people ... it was the 300 horse version....
     
    Harlockssx and 300sbb_overkill like this.
  4. Gary Bohannon

    Gary Bohannon Well-Known Member

    There was a bone stock 57 Buick 364, 4 barrel carb with dynaflow that kicked everyones butt for miles around my hometown in 1963-1964.
    * "Motor Life" (Feb 1957) tested a 57 Buick Century 364, 4 barrel carb, 1 speed dynaflow at 0 to 60 in 8.70 seconds.
    * "Popular Mechanics" (Jan 1964) tested a 64 Pontiac Grand Prix 421, 3x2 barrel carbs, 4 speed stick ...0 to 60 in 8.73 seconds.
    How bout that....
     
  5. doc

    doc Well-Known Member

    my folks had a super with the 364/4bbl/dual ex. that I beat a 57 Ford 312 /2x4/Tbird engine stop light to stop light....
     
    JayZee88 and 300sbb_overkill like this.
  6. jmos4

    jmos4 Well-Known Member

    Hi again,

    It would be neat to see your build, and what results you get, maybe even add some ported heads, maybe larger valves with smaller stems, etc...

    Regards,
     
  7. 8ad-f85

    8ad-f85 Well-Known Member

    If you aren't seeing 1 hp per cube by 5500 rpm then you are either referring to a chassis dyno or there are serious issues with your improved performance build.
    If it's chassis dyno, then ignore the number due to the incredibly inaccurate calibrations and inertia calcs associated with deriving data from that process.
    Which LSA 401 cam?
    Info on porting please?
    With numbers like that and potential issues, it makes it tough to understand what you say are perceived problems.
    If it is a fine running build that exceeds a factory vehicle's acceleration, then ignore the dyno number.

    Just reading the tq curve part and noticing that if you are @ 350tq by 4200 then it would be 280hp at same rpm.
    If the graph showed the hp numbers climb from there to 5800 rpm then there's a problem with the dyno printout.

    If you don't mind posting more about this build, it could be insightful to the thread and OP's recent Q's.
     
  8. 8ad-f85

    8ad-f85 Well-Known Member

    I apologize for sounding confrontational, allow me to clarify...
    I don't believe there's much merit to the opinion of rocker arms being automatically better than even basic porting.

    Porting would fill the cylinder as well as the porting would allow, and the rocker arms would show the cam open slightly further at the higher lift points, with the lobe holding close to max lift for more degrees of crank rotation.
    The two don't really compare in a blanket statement. It would greatly depend on what cam profiles and build type you would be referring to.
    With a mild cammed build, basic porting could easily trounce the dollar/output metric.

    Porting and valve work will show huge gains at even low through mid lift, where the rockers do almost nothing.
    I'm a big fan of improved rocker systems, and have made several.

    I think if you plot the two versions on paper to compare the cfm at each lift point, and then average the cfm per intake cycle, you might see it a different way.
     
  9. 8ad-f85

    8ad-f85 Well-Known Member

    There's a couple of points I'm stressing here, and I'm not concerned with the story on your build other than specs...so that I can steer the thread towards what the OP is asking about.
    Again forgive the blunt manner, I think you are getting misled erroneous numbers/information.
    Your build may not be as disappointing as you think.

    You had indicated that your tq curve had held to 350lbs @ 4200.
    That amount of torque at 4200 equals 280hp...at 4200.
    You are already exceeding the 260 hp claimed at peak.
    **What's the story there?
    Even if the hp curve starts to suffer and die early, you should already exceed 300-320hp, if not the 350 expected, by 5500.
    That's what I meant by the 1hp/cube spec. It's showing that potential right now.
    If there's a downfall, it isn't because 'it's a nailhead'.
    If hp#'s continued to climb past 4200 then something is not right about that.
    Likely the dyno calcs, if the engine didn't flat out puke and die at 4400.
    (re-read my previous post as I expressed concerns for the data and how it's derived)
    Your engine could very well be 320-350hp already.
    Again, what dyno and do you have a print out to share? (not to be critical of your build, but to clarify or rule out bad data)

    The airflow is paramount regardless of cam with any engine.
    Stating that porting isn't as important in an engine design that's known for being choked up is misleading to the thread and OP.
    If you put more cam in a choked-port engine, it won't do much to improve it.
    There isn't too much magic in the cam specs at this point. A little squeak of a couple hundred rpm getting a tiny bit of hp number isn't what we're talking about.

    If you are on a limited budget, then a couple hours worth of head work should triumphantly crush a $1000 rocker system in most cases of restricted engines.
    You already demonstrated that the top end was selected for it's increased flow capacity.
    There's enough cfm in a well ported head for 500hp.

    Your choice in cam specs with a smaller engine should have an effect on the torque curve.
    I don't recall offhand if the '59 cam has only one LSA (109*).
    If it has the wider LSA then torque shouldn't be as strong near the bottom of the curve, esp. in a smaller engine.
     
  10. 8ad-f85

    8ad-f85 Well-Known Member

    I was wondering you had the chance to look over the dyno sheets again, jay3000?
    I'm suspecting there would be a discrepancy noticed such as occasionally where the 5252 rpm crossover doesn't coincide with the same hp/tq number or when there's 2 different metrics used on the same graph.
    (The crossover thing should never happen but has...and the second can be quite confusing)
    Also there's the chassis dyno issue where a pre-programmed non-accessible fudge number is used to estimate inertial compensation that skews reality too far off, leaving the owner disappointed.
    There's always the chance that people use their equipment in a dishonest way in order to lean more business to their services.
    I've personally seen them use a 'way too small' carb and deceive a customer to further services by saying, "should have let US do this"...all the while ignoring the fact that the engine was pulling a strong vacuum before peak torque...
    Your build offers insight to the OP's as the flat torque described is more than ample.
     
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2018
  11. 8ad-f85

    8ad-f85 Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the response, that's great information.
    I wasn't sure if the tq curve was by more recollection, and I suspected some confusion by the process more than any dishonesty.
    In this case, I'd flat out ignore the numbers and be happy with the way it runs.
    If it did make about 1 lb tq per cube hanging on to a reasonable rpm and pulls strong to 5500 or so, it's likely making close to 1 hp per cube too.
    Very miniscule things can throw the numbers around, such as a baro correction or misapplication of the SAE correction parameters ...I see 80hp swings from incorrect info at times, and that's with legit intentions.

    Dyno being 'tuned for race engines' is unsubstantiated (being polite here).
    Having an understanding for sweep rates vs. static testing and various other testing techniques is what's happening.
    I get that the lingo might be beyond the consumer's daily jargon and that there are times in which shops use catch phrases to appease a disappointed customer. Nobody is questioning anyone's integrity here.

    I'll refocus your comment on porting again to say that Nail's aren't as finicky as perceived and respond to the common sense things done to the port...the caveat is to avoid the lurking thin spots in places not normally seen by common platforms.
    I would say less "skill" per se and err more to the cautious and learning types doing just fine.
    I'll remind that a guy here learning porting over the years eclipsed one of the most notable names in porting on a Nail, by taking his time and asking for general guidance from other porters.
    No doubt about it, Bob is a sharp dude. He earned every bit of the results.

    I'll also say that the magic isn't the special cam.
    If you have the air flow the cam only needs to be ballpark, after that it's just moving around a few hp.
    No fancy parts needed to make power (other than obvious weak links to Nails), none of the modern thingy's mentioned do anything to create power. Easy for the consumer to get sucked into marketing hype, lol.
    Airflow and a good assembly is what does it.
    Simple.
     
    Harlockssx likes this.
  12. 8ad-f85

    8ad-f85 Well-Known Member

    So with porting and factory parts, but good pistons and properly matched components would hit the power goals and save $2-3k.
     

Share This Page