It's only been recently that I became aware of TA Buick/Rover head. I have never flowed an alum. Buick or Rover head, but have spent a lot of time on the flow-bench with the cast iron 300/340 head. I know that the intake in both the Rover and the alum. 300 head have smaller intake ports and valves than the cast iron 300/340 head, so there is little doubt that they flow less. As you probably know, the 300/340 head has a 1.81 intake valve and 1.37 ( same as 64 alum. 300) exhaust valve and, I can assure you, TA will need to spread the valve centers inorder to run bigger valves.
When Buick change over to the cast iron head they put in the biggest intake they could fit, obviously to acomodate the extra cu.in. of the 340 ( although this same head was used on the 300 ). Even with the larger intake, the 300/340 iron head is still a weak suck and flows about the same as a 289 Ford ( another weak suck ). The exhaust is even weaker than the 289 Ford, and is one of the weakest I have ever seen. No doubt the TA head will been very expensive, so if it dosn't flow better than 200 cfm on the intake and at least 140 cfm on the exhaust, it won't be worth the money.
Last edited by DynoDave; 03-10-2010 at 11:52 PM.
hi i have a 67 rag top I just bought it a few months ago. I have done a lot of research i think the most power your going to get is maybe 300hp using the stock 11:1 pistons and a radical cam, and a 650 holly.
I have been thinking about using a turbo or 2 hoping to get near 400hp.
these little motors have strong lowerends if you fix some oilling issues.
theres a book building buick performance engines that goes into depth on the oil mods. buick was the first one to use turbos on the 215 but dropped the ball. Olds took the plans and built the jetfire turbo in like 62. they tried to run 10:5 to 1 and cool it with an over engineered washer fulid injection system. I think that if buick had worked out the bugs then the 300 would have lasted into the 70's\80's 1987 gnx 300 turbo has a nice ring to it. well i have to dream for a while more plenty of body and resto work before I need to build the motor
I had Greg Gessler do a mild port job on a set of 340 heads for my '65 Special w/stock size valves.
Valve lift .100" .200" .300" .400" .500" .550"
Intake @ 28CFM 64 117 159 187 187 189
Exhaust @ 28CFM 50 82 96 109 133 115
Intake to exhaust ratio 78% 70% 60% 58% 60% 61%
Not fire breathing results but with ported & port matched manifolds/heads it should be a fun motor with a 200R4 behind it.Cant find my cam specs,i'll add them when i do.Note i'm using 300 rocker covers for the stealth factory 300 look
STARTER/ALTERNATOR/GENERATOR REBUILDER SINCE 1979
selling buick mini starters & alternators
65 Special convertible
69 Special Deluxe
Lost to garage fire:
69 cali GS
but if it dosn't flow more than 200 cfm on the intake and a least 140 on the exhaust, it will be over priced.
last i heard, TA was adapting their Buick v6 ports and chambers to the Rover style head.
and given that the Stage 2 v6 chamber used to be the hot tip on the Buick design SBC head....
i would link you to the hosted article but it looks like we've picked up a typo in the php programming.
Parse error: syntax error, unexpected '<' in /home/teambuic/public_html/reference/library/hybrid_head.php on line 200
i suspect a missing "k" in /teambuic/
The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.
Government schooling is about "the perfect organization of the hive."
H.H. Goddard, Human Efficiency (1920)
Based on the flow numbers I have been able to get the head up to, plenty of compression, and the extra 49 c.i., I expect to make about 300 H.P. with a cam that only has 214 deg. @.050 on the intake on 112 deg. lobe centers.
This is a long stroke motor with a relatively small bore and not-to-steller head ( although it has been improved significantly over stock ). This motor is not a good candidate for high horsepower, so I am focusing on it's strength, good low and mid range torque production.
It should peak at around 4800 to 4900 rpm (which is why it will only make around 300 h.p.), but I expect it to make 350 to 375 lb.ft. of torque at a low rpm.
I am not using Buick pistons, the 300/340 piston has too much compression height ( 1.81 in.)to work in a 300 stroker combo and because it is a fully skirted piston it will not clear the counter weight at the bottom of the stroke. This one is also going into a very nice 67 hardtop Skylark.
Last edited by DynoDave; 03-11-2010 at 11:21 PM.
@28" of water. This is the Flow Bench test pressure most often used today when testing intake and exhaust ports. The 64 117 159 187...is the
actual flow in cubic feet/min.
Inorder to know how much you have gained in air flow from porting a given head, you first need to accurately establish a base line on the unmodified head. The stock 300/340 iron head with stock valves flows:
Lift: .100 .200 .300 .400 .450 .500
intake CFM @28" 54 112 153 172 175 175
exhaust 38 75 99 102 104 104
The gains on your head are modest but they are gains none the less.
I can tell you for sure, this head has a lot more in it and requires extensive porting and better valves to reach it's full potential, which is still nothing to write home about when compaired to what is available for Chevy,Ford and Mopar guys today.
Most engine builders today will tell you that the intake is more important than the exhaust and an exhaust to intake ratio of 65 to 70% is sufficent
(modern Pro-Stock heads are about 65%). Anytime you see a head that is 80% and above, it really means that the intake is too weak.
Good luck on your project.
my plans for the 300 engine in my special include the following,
Eagle rods CRS6000S3D 4340 FORGED H-BEAMROD 6.000'' (small journal 327)
buick forged 3.8 turbo pistons
TA heads and the new 215 intake with custom spacers
Rover roller cam
Sanderson shorty headers
the 300 has a very short stroke and with the right heads and intake will rev like a chevrolet 283 or 327, add a turbo or centrifugal supercharger and you have mighty mouse on steroids
Last edited by Bob Gibbs; 03-20-2010 at 06:27 PM.
Even with relocating the valve centers, they will not be able to put in anywhere near as big of valves as the above mention Chevy and Ford engines because of the small bore of the 300/340/350 Buick engines. When Buick intorduced the 350 in '68, the engineers knew that they had a deficient cylinder head and that it was limited in valve size because the valve center demensions of the 300/340 heads are the same as the little 215. So, they designed a new head to accommdate larger valves and bigger ports. Still, the valve size of a Buick 350,1.88x1.55, is small when compaired to Chevy,Ford,Mopar, and AMC V-8's of similar displacement.
With a 3.8 bore there is enough room to put in a bigger than the 350 1.88 intake valve, but because the small bore shrouds the larger valves, the full benifits of larger valves will not be relized.
When it comes to making big horsepower the bigger the bore the greater the horsepower potential, especially with parallel arranged/two valve heads. This is evidenced by the fact the NASCAR Cup motors, limited to 358 c.i., feature large 4.200 bores and NHRA Pro Stock 500 in. motors have nearly a 4.700 in bore!
Making big horsepower, in relation to the displacement, with a normally asperated engine requires good breathing and spinning the motor to very high RPM. Besides needing good parts in the lower-end, you need a very good oiling system, which the Chevy/Ford/and Mopar small blocks have but unfortunately is another weak point of the Buick.
There has already been one ported iron head stock intake procharged buick 350 that made over 1000 hp. it had a lot of special parts. my 500 hp project is easily feasable. the oiling system is nowhere near as big an issue on the 300 as it is the 455 because of the smaller bearing dimensions and lower bearing speed. plus i can use a rover front cover with integrated crank driven oil pump similar to what the late model 3.8 used.
Last edited by Bob Gibbs; 03-27-2010 at 08:25 PM.