'65 300/'64 heads, no?

[Dunkin]

I got bug bit a couple months ago to build another car, 25 years after the last one. Without much research I bought a '62 Skylark, complete, rust free, w/air, and motor disassembled. The motor was disassembled and missing parts. So far I have collected 2 more 215's, a pair of '64 heads w/balancer, timing cover & intake and a complete '65 300 last weekend. Today I read that '64 heads will not work on a '65 block. How strange, '64-'67 300's are claimed to be the same except for the '64 aluminum. Does anyone know the answer to this riddle? If it doesn't bolt up, I'll have to pull the crank and rods to toss in one of the 215's, but I loose the BOP pattern = no 700R4, 4L60 etc., without adapters.

[pmuller9]

Today I read that '64 heads will not work on a '65 block. How strange, '64-'67 300's are claimed to be the same except for the '64 aluminum. Does anyone know the answer to this riddle? If it doesn't bolt up, I'll have to pull the crank and rods to toss in one of the 215's, but I loose the BOP pattern = no 700R4, 4L60 etc., without adapters.

Did the information you were reading say why the 64 head would not work on the 65 block?

Paul

[bob k. mando]

so long as the 64 intake and heads are together, i'm not sure what the problem is supposed to be.

you don't want a cast iron intake on the alum heads because the cast pieces have much larger runners and the makes a serious reversion step where the intake and heads mate up. alum intake on iron heads isn't that great either because the narrower runners basically choke the engine off but at least you don't have the reversion step.

have you compared oil and water passages between the block and heads?

is the 65 a 2v?

[Dunkin]

Did the information you were reading say why the 64 head would not work on the 65 block?
Paul

No information was given as to why they wouldn't work. I had done a web search for '65 300 engine specs, when I stumbled across an apparently incorrect spec sheet.

[Dunkin]

so long as the 64 intake and heads are together, i'm not sure what the problem is supposed to be.

you don't want a cast iron intake on the alum heads because the cast pieces have much larger runners and the makes a serious reversion step where the intake and heads mate up. alum intake on iron heads isn't that great either because the narrower runners basically choke the engine off but at least you don't have the reversion step.

have you compared oil and water passages between the block and heads?

is the 65 a 2v?

The '65 is a 4bbl cast iron intake, what I have is a pair of 4bbl aluminum heads & 2bbl aluminum intake.(The heads are from a '64 motor that threw a rod, the intake is from the replacement "reman" motor.) I thought that with a 500cfm Holley that combination would work until I find a 4bbl intake for it. I'm thinking I would go with a Performer intake and retain the original Carter WCFB(?) that is on the motor now. But an intake has to be located and the carb rebuilt before I'm back to 4bbls. As a teen I read "whether building a 4bbl or 2bbl engine, start with a 2bbl for break-in, you get less gas wash down the cylinder walls while the rings seat", it made sense to me, so I do that. As far as comparisons go, I haven't pulled the iron heads off yet, it's still fresh from the ride home. I intend to break it down, tank, rifle brush, mic, inspect, then if it's all good, smooth, re-wash, re-ring/bearing/gasket and bolt it up. If it needs more, it will get more. But from all I have read there wasn't any major changes to the 300 from year to year, until the 340 stroke was added.

Thanks for the info Bob, I'll check my head/intake match for proper size and alignment.

[bob k. mando]

I'm thinking I would go with a Performer intake and retain the original Carter WCFB(?) that is on the motor now.


Edelbrock makes a small block Buick intake? since when?

and even if they do make a SBB 350 intake, that still won't work for the 340 ( different valve order ) OR the 300 ( shorter deck AND different valve order ).

i see that they do make a Rover / 215ci intake but you should know that the 1961-63 215ci / 3.5L ( and all Rover variants ) have a shorter deck height yet than even the 300. you'll have to fab adapter / spacer plates to fit that. it WILL work if you're willing to put the work in, the question will be "how much does it flow?" remember that it's designed for a significantly smaller engine, 3.5L vs 4.9L
http://www.summitracing.com/parts/ed...iew/make/buick


and as far as the cast 4v intake goes, i may be willing to take that off your hands.

you should know, though, that the cast iron piece is pretty much one year only production and for that reason has a little bit of demand. in 1966-67 all factory 4v applications went to the 340 except perhaps for some early model year 66 stuff that was using up left over production from 65.

[bob k. mando]

oh yes, Hot Rod mag did a Buick 300 story in 2011. final displacement was 349ci. you'll definitely want to read this:
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e...od_any_engine/

[Dr. Frankenbuick]

I remember reading about the 300 head swap between 300 blocks a few years back, but I could not find it on any of the usual Buick sites with a search (I think it was here). It had to do with different the cooling ports. There is a particular head gasket that needs to be used to swap heads around between years. I don't know which was used with which, but it was in the post.

[65 skylark Eric]

Hello not sure if I'm posting right

I put a 4bbl alm intake on my cast 300
My bud helped me 10 years ago. Got it
running 3 years ago at the time didn't
find or know better. Seems to run good
Mild poston cam seemed to all bolt up good
Passages seemed to line up. What are
runners? and the potential downfalls? Of
build? Not super powerful like a 350
I know that the cast heads /manifold at least have
plugs in some of the crossovers?

Any help ideas?

so long as the 64 intake and heads are together, i'm not sure what the problem is supposed to be.

you don't want a cast iron intake on the alum heads because the cast pieces have much larger runners and the makes a serious reversion step where the intake and heads mate up. alum intake on iron heads isn't that great either because the narrower runners basically choke the engine off but at least you don't have the reversion step.

have you compared oil and water passages between the block and heads?

is the 65 a 2v?

[bob k. mando]

What are runners?



intake and exhaust runners. the portion of the passage that is in the head is referred too as a 'port'. the 'runner' is the portion of the intake ( or exhaust ) that connects the central plenum to the individual port.

when the downstream portion of the runner/port part of the tract is *smaller* in diameter than the upstream portion, this creates what is known as a 'reversion step'. as a choke point, it's functionally smaller than the physical cross section would indicate because slow moving air dams up on the step and extends out into the main flow.

it's always best to have the smoothest transition possible between the different components to maintain velocity but in the case of a size mismatch it's MUCH better for the upstream side to be slightly smaller. so the intake manifold runners should be slightly smaller than the intake ports and the exhaust ports should be slightly smaller than the exhaust runners or header tubes.

you can also get a reversion step if the components slide around and get offset slightly during assembly, although this will only create a reversion step on one side of the airflow path.