Engine and Transmission Tech

tips, technology, tools and techniques related to vehicle driveline components

Go to Thread: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicLog In


Dan Jones
Dan Jones
St. Louis, Missouri
(308 posts)

Registered:
07/21/2008 03:32PM

Main British Car:
1980 Triumph TR8 3.5L Rover V8

Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: Dan Jones
Date: December 01, 2024 08:54PM

I've been cleaning some Buick 300 parts and decided to run some simulations using some off-the-shelf camshafts and head flow numbers for unported, light port and ported with larger (Buick V6) valves. The 11:1 compression 1964 Buick 4 barrel Wildcat 355 was rated at 250 HP @ 4600 RPM and 355 lbs-ft @ 3000 RPM in an SAE Gross form (no accessories, dyno headers). I don't have the camshaft specs for that engine so I used a Crower 50228 which is supposed to be a reasonable replacement for the OEM camshaft. I've got a low mileage original camshaft here. If I get the chance, I'll have my machinist cam doctor it for me. I also haven't flow benched the Rochester 4GC carburetor so I used flow numbers based upon the venturi diameters. There are three different 4GC venturi pairs:

1.4375" Primary/1.4375" Secondary ==> 486 CFM
1.4375" Primary/1.6875" Secondary ==> 553 CFM
1.5625" Primary/1.6875" Secondary ==> 692 CFM

Eyeballing the restrictions in the venturis, those would likely be optimistic but I assumed 553 CFM. I calculated the compression ratio and 11:1 appears to assume the maximum tolerance stack up (50cc heads versus 54cc nominal, minimum deck clearance) which is typical for advertised compression ratios of the day. I used values from the factory service manual and from the NHRA Technical Specifications for 1964 Buick Motors spreadsheet. Dynomation provides for several levels of intake manifold efficiency. If I assume a standard performance dual plane intake manifold, the simulation predicts 243 HP @ 4000 RPM. I typically see this trend of underestimating the RPM at which power peaks by 500 to 1000 RPM and overestimating the torque peak magnitude by 20 to 50 ft-lbs (depending upon displacement).

For the cylinder head flow comparisons, I assumed 650 CFM carburetor and a Howards hydraulic flat tappet camshaft with specifications:

221/221 degrees seat duration
275/275 degrees @ 0.050"
0.501"/0.501"
108 LSA
59 degrees overlap

I've never driven a hot rodded Buick 300 V8 but that camshaft is similar in overlap to what works well in a high performance street 289 or 302 small block Ford V8 with stock small diameter valves. With unported heads and 11:1 compression, you can expect ~300 HP from a similar SBF.

For the unported heads, I used a set of my rebuilt 1964 Buick 300 aluminum heads with stock diameter valves (1.625" intake and 1.312" exhaust). On Dave McLain's Superflow bench, they flowed:

Lift Intake Exhaust
(inch) CFM CFM
0.200 105 096
0.300 135 108
0.400 142 115
0.500 149 115
0.600 154 116

I will note that those heads had some minor clean up and flow a bit better than similar heads flowed by Dan Lagrou of D&D Fabrications:

Lift Intake Exhaust
(inch) CFM CFM
0.200 090 068
0.300 129 090
0.400 138 101
0.450 139 103
0.500 139 105
0.550 139 106

The lightly port heads retained the stock size valves and flowed:

Lift Intake Exhaust
(inch) CFM CFM
0.200 114 079
0.300 151 108
0.400 159 123
0.450 159 127
0.500 160 129
0.550 160 130

The fully ported heads were hand ported by Jon Carls and used larger seats and valves (1.775" diameter Ferrea F6238 intake and 1.5" diameter Ferrea F6237 exhaust) and flowed:

Lift Intake Exhaust
(inch) CFM CFM
0.100 066 047
0.150 099 082
0.200 129 104
0.250 155 119
0.300 174 130
0.350 187 139
0.400 191 146
0.450 194 150
0.500 196 152
0.550 200 153
0.600 200 153
1964_Buick_300_OEM_engine_and_Howards_221_501_108_unported_and_ported_heads_std_dual_plane.jpg


Dan Jones
Dan Jones
St. Louis, Missouri
(308 posts)

Registered:
07/21/2008 03:32PM

Main British Car:
1980 Triumph TR8 3.5L Rover V8

Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: Dan Jones
Date: December 01, 2024 08:59PM

There are no aftermarket dual planes available for the Buick 300 but if something like an Edelbrock Performer RPM high rise dual plane were available, I'd expect to see a significant increase across the RPM range. On the dyno, induction limited combinations like this usually respond to single plane intake manifolds matching the high rise dual planes at a relatively low RPM (3000 to 3500 RPM). The next plot shows what you might expect from the Willpower Buick 300 single plane.
1964_Buick_300_Howards_221_501_108_unported_and_ported_heads_Willpower_single_plane.jpg


Dan Jones
Dan Jones
St. Louis, Missouri
(308 posts)

Registered:
07/21/2008 03:32PM

Main British Car:
1980 Triumph TR8 3.5L Rover V8

Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: Dan Jones
Date: December 01, 2024 09:16PM

In combinations like these, you can move the power peak up by increasing the duration, widening the lobe separation angle and adding exhaust duration. The Kenne Bell Mark C114A camshaft fits that description (284°/294° seat duration, 0.488"/0.494" lift, 114° degrees LSA). The Kenne Bell catalog notes the C114A works with stock pistons and is the maximum sensible street cam for a Buick 300 with manual transmission. The next plot compares the KB C114A with the Howards cam used in the previous plots. It shows the expected increase in peak power at the expense of power below 5500 RPM or so.
1964_Buick_300_Howards_221_501_108_KB_C114A_ported_heads_Willpower_single_plane.jpg


Dan Jones
Dan Jones
St. Louis, Missouri
(308 posts)

Registered:
07/21/2008 03:32PM

Main British Car:
1980 Triumph TR8 3.5L Rover V8

Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: Dan Jones
Date: December 01, 2024 09:25PM

One way to restore the loss of low RPM power with a wide LSA cam like this is to use independent runner induction. Here's a comparison of using 44mm IDF Webers on a Buick 300 versus the Willpower single plane. BTW, I forgot to mention that in the previous simulation I assumed a 4 barrel carb flow of 750 CFM to make sure that wasn't limiting the results. Repeating the simulation with a 700 CFM carb only gave up a few HP.
1964_Buick_300_KB_C114A_ported_heads_44mm_IDF_vs_Willpower_single_plane.jpg


Dan Jones
Dan Jones
St. Louis, Missouri
(308 posts)

Registered:
07/21/2008 03:32PM

Main British Car:
1980 Triumph TR8 3.5L Rover V8

Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: Dan Jones
Date: December 01, 2024 09:44PM

I'm not sure if I posted these pictures or not but I've got a couple of 1964 Buick 300 V8s that I finally got around to cleaning up. 1964 was the only year they came with aluminum heads and intake manifold and both of mine are the high compression (11:1) 4 barrel carb version. I still need to clean the second block but I de-burred the first one and went over it with rotary wire brushes, soda blasting places the brushes couldn't reach. It was a hot day and I was working in the sun which accounts for the spots of rust in the lifter valley from my sweat. I'll do a final cleaning and prep it for paint after it comes back from honing. There's no ridge in the bores so it appears the block will stay standard. The original rods and pistons spent some time in the ultrasonic cleaner. Even the cam and lifter have little wear though I won't use those.

The Webers are 44mm IDFs. They are real deal, new-old-stock, Italian ones and came with a spare Spanish version. I'll need to make a valley cover and linkage. Not sure about the air cleaners yet (stack mounted dual oval or remote). I'll also polish the adapters to match the rest of the parts. Exhaust manifolds will get ceramic coated but the eventual plan is to fabricate headers (more on that later). The block will get the same silver Imron paint as the bell-housing at the far end of the table), while the oil pan, steel brackets, pulleys and harmonic balancer will be painted black. I scored a set of L2226 high compression pistons for the second block, along with rings, bearings (rod, main and cam), lifters, oil pump kit and timing set for half the price of what just the pistons and pins go for:
[egge.com]

The Egge pistons are 0.020" over and have a slightly deeper dish than the originals. I wonder if that is to offset the larger bore? I know a lot of rebuilder pistons shorten the pin height to compensate for a decked block and/or heads. In any event, I'm leaning towards stroking the Weber equipped 300 with a Buick 350 crankshaft, set of Honda journal NASCAR rods and custom forged pistons similar to what Jim Blackwood has done. I've only managed to find 2 of the 5 main caps to the second block so I picked up a third Buick 300 (later version with cast iron heads) that was for sale locally.
Buick_300_polished_bits_02_resize.JPG
cleaning _Buick_300_parts_04.JPG


MGBV8
Carl Floyd
Kingsport, TN
(4571 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 11:32PM

Main British Car:
1979 MGB Buick 215

authors avatar
Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: MGBV8
Date: December 02, 2024 09:37AM

Wow. A lot of data to absorb. Thanks, Dan!

Btw, Jim Blackwood is also building a 300 with the late Rover heads. Would love to see that plugged into your simulation program.

I have read that Buick's 9:1 & 11:1 advertised comp. ratios were overestimated by about .5-.7.


BlownMGB-V8
Jim Blackwood
9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042
(6508 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 12:59PM

Main British Car:
1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS

authors avatar
Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: BlownMGB-V8
Date: December 02, 2024 11:55AM

I currently have two engines on the stand that are somewhat relevant here. One is a 340 and the other is a stroked 300. The 340 has a .050" overbore and is 350 cid fitted with a set of 10 bolt Rover 4.0/4.6 heads, untouched except for 350 lb springs. It has 7" Scat rods and Venolia forged pistons.

The 300 (346 cid) stroker has Wiseco pistons, Carillo rods and TA/Rover heads with 1.9/1.6" Ti valves and 350 lb beehives. The ports are untouched except for the basic CNC porting as shipped from TA. Both engines are fitted with similar roller cams. Lift is in the .525-.550 range, duration 264-282 range and 112 LS. The one in the 340 is a hydraulic grind where the 300 has a solid lifter stick but both are fitted with solid roller lifters. Grind numbers are 69005 and 69005-B, TA 264-74R and TA 272-82 RH. The part numbers reference the duration for intake and exhaust. As you can see the hydraulic grind has increased duration. These are pretty similar to TA's popular TA-212 street cam as well as that factory SBC "Hot" cam that one of the other Jims recommended. Not real sure how it compares to the flat tappet cams.

Anyway, the scuttlebutt is that the late Rover head *may* flow as well or even just slightly better on the intake side than the aluminum 300 head and slightly less on the exhaust side. I don't think any even back to back testing has been done though, at least I've never seen the results. Everything so far has always been off just enough to not be able to make any valid comparison. The reason this is relevant is that IF you build the engine to use the Rover heads, then the TA heads are basically a bolt-on swap due to the similar chamber volume where the 300 chamber is larger. Also the late Rover heads are quite cheap to purchase from a junkyard where the 300 heads draw a premium. This also makes the iron head 300 a good rebuild candidate for the MGB.

To use the TA/Rover heads or indeed the late Rover heads on the 300 block a little heliarc work is needed. Not much, but the heads will need to be surfaced afterwards. Place the head on the block and look at the upper corners where the block meets the head and you will see a void in the head casting that needs to be filled on each top corner so that the head gasket will seal the crankcase. Fill that void and have it surfaced and then prep the head as usual.

I don't really know what numbers to expect from these two engines, but both will be fitted with the Eaton M112 blower with boost in the 3-6lb range. The goal is to extend top end breathing and redline rather than to boost HP numbers. Redline is expected to be around 7k somewhere. Eventually I may have some dyno results for the stroker and if so that will be RWHP.

But I would like to see flow numbers for the stock 10 bolt Rover heads if anybody has those. I also don't think I've seen the numbers for the unported TA/Rover heads. (They all come with the basic CNC porting job as supplied).

Jim



mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2482 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: mgb260
Date: December 02, 2024 03:13PM

I think the ported late Rover heads will flow better than the stock 64 300 heads.

From Stan Weiss: .100 .200 .300 .400 .500 .600

Buick 300 V8 Alum N/A 1.625/1.312 105/96 135/108 142/115 149/115 154/116

Buick 300 V8 Ported Alum N/A 1.775/1.50

129/104 174/130 191/146 196/152

Rover: 4.0l RL Alum N/A - 54/41 104/81 137/97 139/101 142/104 144/104

4.0l Ported RL Alum N/A - 57/45 110/93 153/123 187/139 192/145 190/149



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2024 03:37PM by mgb260.


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2482 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: mgb260
Date: December 02, 2024 03:42PM

I think Dan's ported 300 heads are in those numbers. That head has no .100 or .600 number. Stock 300 head has no .100 number.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2024 03:46PM by mgb260.


BlownMGB-V8
Jim Blackwood
9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042
(6508 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 12:59PM

Main British Car:
1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS

authors avatar
Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: BlownMGB-V8
Date: December 03, 2024 09:28AM

I don't think comparing ported Rover to unported 300 heads is really valid, do you? Also the ported numbers are very dependent on who does the porting. Those numbers look kinda incomplete but as near as I can tell the unported Rover and unported 300 heads are pretty darned close.

Anybody have the numbers for the unported TA/Rover heads?

Honestly though if the choice is between spending a grand to have a set of heads ported or putting that grand towards a set of bare TA heads which would you choose?

Jim


mgb260
Jim Nichols
Sequim,WA
(2482 posts)

Registered:
02/29/2008 08:29PM

Main British Car:
1973 MGB roadster 260 Ford V8

Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: mgb260
Date: December 03, 2024 11:09AM

Jim, Here you go. From T/A:

Out of the box, these heads flow 225 cfm intake and 135 cfm exhaust. With porting, this head can easily yield 260 cfm on the intake and 190 cfm on the exhaust ports. ..


BlownMGB-V8
Jim Blackwood
9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042
(6508 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 12:59PM

Main British Car:
1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS

authors avatar
Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: BlownMGB-V8
Date: December 03, 2024 02:29PM

Right, thanks Jim. So with no work the TA heads are a big step up from the ported 300 or Rover heads. I guess that sort of justifies the price if you just buy those instead of porting the OEM heads.

Jim

But take note, to fit the 300 the TA (and late Rover) heads need a couple of voids filled so they will seal to the block.
J


Dan Jones
Dan Jones
St. Louis, Missouri
(308 posts)

Registered:
07/21/2008 03:32PM

Main British Car:
1980 Triumph TR8 3.5L Rover V8

Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: Dan Jones
Date: December 06, 2024 02:03PM

> Btw, Jim Blackwood is also building a 300 with the late Rover heads. Would love to see that plugged into your simulation program.

I have the low compression (8.13:1) Rover 3.5L out of my TR8 that I'm going to increase the compression ratio using late Rover heads and Buick 215 high compression pistons. I ran some initial simulations comparing the early and late Rover heads. At first glance (looking at the peak flow numbers), the heads don't appear all that much different but, when you compare the areas under the lift curves, the later heads are a fair bit better and it's reflected in the simulation predictions. I need to get some ball end stones that are small enough to let me work the bowls on the late Rover heads but I'd like to see what sort of power it will make with a bit of home porting. A 10.5:1 compression 3.5L with Isky 264 HFT camshaft, Performer Rover intake, Holley 390 CFM carburetor, TR8 tri-y headers and unported early Rover heads made 235 HP @ 5700 RPM and 232 ft-lbs @ 4000 RPM.

> I have read that Buick's 9:1 & 11:1 advertised comp. ratios were overestimated by about .5-.7.

That tracks with my calculations. The NHRA specs show the assumptions on deck clearance, cylinder head volume, etc. and it takes all the tolerances stacking up to meet the advertised compression ratio. I'll see if I can dig up my calculations on nominal, minimum and maximum ratios.

> I would like to see flow numbers for the stock 10 bolt Rover heads if anybody has those.

I had my Rover 4.6L heads flow benched in unported form with stock valves (1.575"/1.35"):

Lift Intake Exhaust
0.100 060.2 057.4
0.200 105.4 092.5
0.300 132.4 103.7
0.350 135.5 106.9
0.400 135.5 106.9 (114.8 with pipe stub)

> I also don't think I've seen the numbers for the unported TA/Rover heads.

Here's what my assembled TA heads flowed (1.94"/1.6" diameter valves) before porting:

Lift Intake Exhaust
0.100 067.7 047.9
0.200 105.4 070.2
0.300 143.0 102.1
0.350 164.0 114.9
0.400 185.1 126.0
0.500 220.9 137.2
0.600 225.8 140.4

> Those numbers look kinda incomplete but as near as I can tell the unported Rover and unported 300 heads are pretty darned close.

My unported Buick 300 heads were a fair bit better than unported Rover 4.0L/4.6L heads. I'll see if I can dig up some Dynomation comparison results. One thing that I have seen when comparing Buick 300 and late Rover heads, is that at some point the MCSA of unported Rover heads starts to be the limiting factor. Opening up the area beneath the valve seats pays dividends in cases like that.

> Honestly though if the choice is between spending a grand to have a set of heads ported or putting that grand towards a set of bare TA heads which would you choose?

You also need to include the cost to make a custom valley cover, perhaps cut valve notches in pistons and header modifications to suit the TA Rover heads. In my case, an important difference is the required combustion chamber for the desired compression ratio. Half of my engines need the larger chambers of the Buick 300 heads and half require the smaller Rover and TA Performance chambers. That doesn't apply if you are purchasing custom pistons but for most of the off-the-shelf stroker options it can.


BlownMGB-V8
Jim Blackwood
9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042
(6508 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 12:59PM

Main British Car:
1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS

authors avatar
Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: BlownMGB-V8
Date: December 07, 2024 09:07AM

Thanks Dan, great info. Huge jump from the stock to the TA heads. Something like a 60% increase I think?

I'm not certain, haven't asked about it but I strongly suspect that if you wanted them to Wiseco might be willing and able to cut a contoured dish in their pistons to match the heart shaped combustion chamber of the TA heads. Probably be a little expensive but it would maximize the squish area.

Jim


Dan Jones
Dan Jones
St. Louis, Missouri
(308 posts)

Registered:
07/21/2008 03:32PM

Main British Car:
1980 Triumph TR8 3.5L Rover V8

Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: Dan Jones
Date: December 07, 2024 10:56AM

It looks like I'll be getting a Willpower Buick 300 single plane intake to test on the flow bench. It would make sense to flow it and the OEM dual plane attached to unported and ported Buick 300 heads, as well as TA Performance Rover heads to see how much the intake is limiting factor. Here's what Dynomation thinks the engine would make with unported Buick 300 heads and a Willpower single plane for various off-the-shelf Howards hydraulic flat tappet cams.
1964_Buick_300_unported_heads_Willpower_single_plane_Howards_HFT_cams.jpg



Dan Jones
Dan Jones
St. Louis, Missouri
(308 posts)

Registered:
07/21/2008 03:32PM

Main British Car:
1980 Triumph TR8 3.5L Rover V8

Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: Dan Jones
Date: December 07, 2024 10:58AM

And here's the same set of cams with ported Buick 300 heads and Willpower intake. In both, I've assumed 700 CFM of carburetor flow.
1964_Buick_300_ported_heads_Willpower_single_plane_Howards_HFT_cams.jpg


Dan Jones
Dan Jones
St. Louis, Missouri
(308 posts)

Registered:
07/21/2008 03:32PM

Main British Car:
1980 Triumph TR8 3.5L Rover V8

Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: Dan Jones
Date: December 08, 2024 07:52PM

> Probably be a little expensive but it would maximize the squish area.

Apparently that's gone out of fashion. Here's a thread discussing it:

[www.speed-talk.com]


BlownMGB-V8
Jim Blackwood
9406 Gunpowder Rd., Florence, KY 41042
(6508 posts)

Registered:
10/23/2007 12:59PM

Main British Car:
1971 MGB Blown,Injected,Intercooled Buick 340/AA80E/JagIRS

authors avatar
Re: Why you can never have too much head (1964 Buick 300 cylinder head that is)
Posted by: BlownMGB-V8
Date: December 09, 2024 09:30AM

Thanks Dan, I wasn't aware. However, my last piston order included a spherical dish at the suggestion of my machine shop owner, and when I deepened the dish in the old Venolias to match the Rover 10 bolt heads I followed the practice as closely as I could. Not that I'm chasing HP especially but why not optimize if given the choice? It's a counter-intuitive result but it's hard to argue with success.

My heads and 340 intake are done, this weekend I plan to go pick them up. Then the first nice day I get the plan is to set them out on the pad and sandblast them and the other parts I will be ceramic coating. This will include both blower intakes (300 and 340), the TA heads, one timing cover and a couple of thermostat necks, along with a pair of Rover valve covers.

The heads only needed a light skim (.004") after welding up the voids. Obviously if anyone buys these heads for a 300 build that's the first thing to do, and if one were very particular about their work it would be possible to dress down the welded area with a new file. The skim cut does provide peace of mind though.

All this means that by Christmas I should have the blown stroker 300 buttoned up and ready for the accessory drive and the new alternator. I'm going to try to adapt a Mercedes brushless unit to the engine but I may have to make a new alternator case to do it. Have to go visit some guys and look at some parts first.

Jim


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.