1964 300

[skylarker]

just reread the sentence, didn't catch the 455 part. anyway, i'm talking about 1964 300 parts on 1964 300 engines, two barrel manifold and carb on the high compression engine....and while im throwing it out there, what would i expect to see if i put the four barrel manifold and carb on the low compression engine.

[bob k. mando]

no, look.

in 1964, you have both 2 barrel and 4 barrel versions of the 300ci. all of these engines have ALUMINUM heads and intakes.
other engine options in 1964 include the 225ci 90 degree v6 ( which is the 300 with two cylinders knocked off ) and the 401 / 425 Nailheads. those are all cast iron.

http://www.teambuick.com/reference/y...ine_number.php

1965 has all the same engine options EXCEPT that the 300ci is now completely cast iron.

http://www.teambuick.com/reference/y...ine_number.php

in 1966, the only change is the option of the 340ci small block Buick, which is a tall deck version of the 300ci. so you can't use a 340 intake because it's too wide. this is the last year of Nailhead production.

http://www.teambuick.com/reference/y...ine_number.php


in 1967, the big block Buick was introduced with the 400ci and 430ci variations. you can't use any big block parts to speak of.

http://www.teambuick.com/reference/y...ine_number.php

1968 was the last major change in Buick engine options until 1977 when GM started moving towards the 'corporate' engines. this is the first year of the Buick 350, the last major change in the small block Buick architecture.

http://www.teambuick.com/reference/y...ine_number.php


the 400 / 430 were retired in 1969 and the 455 was the big block until GM shut down Buick big block production in 1976.


you have one year of production if you want a 2 barrel intake, 1964 and 1964 only.

my comment about the 2 barrel 455ci was a throwaway in reply to someone else and has nothing to do with your question.





and while im throwing it out there, what would i expect to see if i put the four barrel manifold and carb on the low compression engine.


better full throttle or high rpm power, poorer fuel economy.

[65specialconvert]

I get what he's asking Bob.How the motor would perform putting a 2bbl on a 10:25:1 or a 4bbl on a 9:0:1
And I have no idea.I don't know why you'd want to risk driveability for 2-3 mpg but someones probably done it.

[Bob]

My thoughts are two barrel are for company cars. They give better economy there because it doesn't matter how the driver behaves it can only get so bad. 4 barrels are best for both economy and performance. IF you keep your foot out of it, you are running on two smaller barrels than you would be with a two barrel, and you have the option of reducing your mileage by putting your foot into it. I find most people who are considering this change have a motor that is not running well and getting the appropriate mileage for the car/truck. Usually the mileage is being lost in the distributor, but sometimes it can be mechanical problems like cam failure or even just a worn out old motor.

Just my thoughts, keep the 4bbl and take the car to a good tune up/diagnosis guy.