Register now to get rid of these ads!

Hot Rods Blown 264 Nailhead

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by Fordguy91, Oct 7, 2015.

  1. Fordguy91
    Joined: Apr 14, 2013
    Posts: 49

    Fordguy91
    Member
    from Fl

    Well I've had an itch to build a blower motor for some time now and I've recently acquired a 264 nailhead for cheap (always wanted one). My questions are what are everyone's thoughts on a 671 blower on an engine this small? I'm obviously doing forged pistons and better rods full rebuild etc. I see they make manifolds for the 401-425s but nothing for the little guys so I'll have to fab something. So what do you guys think about a 671 on a 264, has it been done? Any advice?
     
  2. D.N.D.
    Joined: Aug 15, 2012
    Posts: 1,385

    D.N.D.
    Member Emeritus

    Is the 264 the same length as the 425 ones, as the 6-71 might be too long and no room for your Dizzy or Mag and maybe a 4-71 would be a better fit

    A six on top of the 264 might take half of your HP just to spin it [ just kidding ] but it will take some power
     
  3. Fordguy91
    Joined: Apr 14, 2013
    Posts: 49

    Fordguy91
    Member
    from Fl

    I believe they're the same length but the 264 is narrower than the 401-425 by 3/4"
     
  4. Rusty O'Toole
    Joined: Sep 17, 2006
    Posts: 9,656

    Rusty O'Toole
    Member

    I'm no supercharger expert but a 6-71 sounds too big for that size engine. What do you want to accomplish? It can't be racing, for the street you won't want too much pressure so a 4-71 should be good.

    Do you specifically want the looks of a GMC blower? Because there are more modern blowers on V6 Buicks and V8 T birds that can be found reasonable.
     

  5. pdq67
    Joined: Feb 12, 2007
    Posts: 787

    pdq67
    Member

    I think that Buick raised the 264/322 decks by a 1/4" when they went to the 364 engine.

    pdq67
     
  6. mgtstumpy
    Joined: Jul 20, 2006
    Posts: 9,214

    mgtstumpy
    Member

    No expert and agree that a 6-71 is too large for that small displacement engine. It looks good though. An underdriven 4-71 would do the job better IMHO. Can't find my chart at present to work it out.
     
    65GSCustom likes this.
  7. Fordguy91
    Joined: Apr 14, 2013
    Posts: 49

    Fordguy91
    Member
    from Fl

    Going to be mainly for looks definitely not racing just cruising around town hot rod shows etc. A good friend of mine works with old detroit diesels and said he can get me a 671 for next to nothing so was going to snatch it up and switch it over for a gas application. As far as being too big i figured i could just underdrive it as far as i understood. Strange bird gasser is my inspiration as well as many others im sure and yes i know hes running the bigger nail but im just trying to throw some random parts that are at my access. Thats what hot rodding is all about right?
     
  8. D.N.D.
    Joined: Aug 15, 2012
    Posts: 1,385

    D.N.D.
    Member Emeritus

    You are right 91, I built a 350 with a six and like you say I under drove it with a tad more compression and a bit more spark and it ran great

    That was in 86' and it was very mild and made 560 HP with 540 LBs on the dyno, for a 32' 5 window

    So full speed ahead with your blown mini nailhead, yep that's hot rodding
     
    greasemonkey54 likes this.
  9. Fordguy91
    Joined: Apr 14, 2013
    Posts: 49

    Fordguy91
    Member
    from Fl

    Thank you very much D.N.D. That's what I wanted to hear. Do you remember how much boost you were running?
     
  10. D.N.D.
    Joined: Aug 15, 2012
    Posts: 1,385

    D.N.D.
    Member Emeritus

    No I sure don't as it was too many years ago, but at the time Blower Drive Service here in so-cal was a help and maybe a call to them would get you dialed in
     
  11. Fordguy91
    Joined: Apr 14, 2013
    Posts: 49

    Fordguy91
    Member
    from Fl

    Thank you sir I will contact them as well as a few others that come highly recommended on here for pulley ratio and such.
     
  12. Rusty O'Toole
    Joined: Sep 17, 2006
    Posts: 9,656

    Rusty O'Toole
    Member

    The big blower has a lot of friction and pumping losses. On a blown fuel dragster the blower can eat up 200HP or more. I'm not saying a 6-71 on your engine would be that bad but even under driven, would eat up half the extra power it makes.

    Another gimmick that used to be done on show cars is to use a hollow blower casing with a carburetor inside and a bug catcher on top. That might be a better deal for what you want.
     
    Blues4U likes this.
  13. Fordguy91
    Joined: Apr 14, 2013
    Posts: 49

    Fordguy91
    Member
    from Fl

    No I gotta have the blower. That blower surge is what really hooked me into hot rods at first. So as far as I'm concerned as long as she makes decent power and hunts for an idle I'm good. I have other cars with 500+ inch big blocks on them so this one will be for nostalgia.
     
  14. Can your buddy get you a 4-71? Smaller and easier to addapt to a 4 bbl intake, and like others have said it takes a lot to spin a blower over, and that's a lot of air getting forced into small bores...and a lot of fuel, just something to think about
     
  15. Fordguy91
    Joined: Apr 14, 2013
    Posts: 49

    Fordguy91
    Member
    from Fl

    I quite honestly would rather go find a 401 or 425 and buy the manifold from nailheadbuick.com rather than put a 471 on the 264 maybe just me being stubborn but I have the 264 and 671 in my reach so in my opinion if I were to put a 4-71 on at 1 to 1 and it would work I could put the 6-71 on and underdrive it by 20-30% or whatever and the blower will live forever because the blower rpm is so low and wouldn't take anymore hp to drive than a 4-71 straight up. Or am I wrong?
     
  16. Rusty O'Toole
    Joined: Sep 17, 2006
    Posts: 9,656

    Rusty O'Toole
    Member

    Go ahead and try it.What have you got to lose?
     
  17. Fordguy91
    Joined: Apr 14, 2013
    Posts: 49

    Fordguy91
    Member
    from Fl

    Well I already kind of figured I'd do it rusty just looking for some insight on anything I might have overlooked. The intake fab should be easy then it's pretty much just a matter of figuring out my crank pulley and drive belts. I have quite a bit of folks around me with lots of experience and fabricating skills as well as the fact my future father in law has a full machine shop equipped with brand new CNC machines and all.
     
  18. Fedman
    Joined: Dec 17, 2005
    Posts: 1,163

    Fedman
    Member

    There is a lot of Nailhead info on this site if you wish to check it out.
    http://www.teambuick.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?76-Nailhead-264-322-364-401-425
    I had a 1956 322" which was a great Engine.
    The early 264" were not very good in comparisn and it would be a shame to throw good money at an early engine when you can get a later model, do the machine work, blower drive etc. and have a great runner.
    It has been a few years since I went through my re-build, they are not cheap to build!
    Talk to Goatroper on the HAMB or Russell Martin @ Centreville Auto in California.
    Good advice from either of them can save you a boat load of trouble, and cash on this project.
    A 10% under 6-71 on a 322" would be a beast in a Hot Rod, good luck with your project and please keep us all updated with your progress.
     
  19. Fordguy91
    Joined: Apr 14, 2013
    Posts: 49

    Fordguy91
    Member
    from Fl

    Well I already kind of figured I'd do it rusty just looking for some insight on anything I might have overlooked. The intake fab should be easy then it's pretty much just a matter of figuring out my crank pulley and drive belts. I have quite a bit of folks around me with lots of experience and fabricating skills as well as the fact my future father in law has a full machine shop equipped with brand new CNC machines and all.
     
  20. Fordguy91
    Joined: Apr 14, 2013
    Posts: 49

    Fordguy91
    Member
    from Fl

    Hey Fedman just curious why you say the 264 isn't as good. As far as I knew it was just a difference in bore between the 264 and 322
     
    1927graham likes this.
  21. Fedman
    Joined: Dec 17, 2005
    Posts: 1,163

    Fedman
    Member

    I do not want to rain on your parade at all, and like I said it has been a few years since I went through my re-build and learning curve regarding Nailheads.
    The original 264" have horrific connecting rods with a bolt to hold the piston pin in place, I believe that they also had iron pistons, not good at all. Again excuse my memory on exact specs.
    Buick also was coming out with a revised cylinder head I believe every year up to 1956 for the small Nailheads. The first 322" is considered poor, the 1955 better, and the last 322" 1956 to be the best for component design, including the cylinder heads. They also were changing the piston design along with the cylinder heads. When I began my 322" re-build I was unaware of all the yearly changes and characterisics of the "Baby" Nailhead. I was fortunate enough to have Russ Martin to guide me through the process. These are not Small Block Chevies where everything fits and exchanges with little trouble. For the amount of Money you are looking at spending on this, please talk to a Nailhead expert (I am not one) and get the most bang for your buck!
    Again, best of luck with your project!
     
  22. Fordguy91
    Joined: Apr 14, 2013
    Posts: 49

    Fordguy91
    Member
    from Fl

    I will definitely be doing some research on that. Thank you very much.
     
  23. belair
    Joined: Jul 10, 2006
    Posts: 9,013

    belair
    Member

    What Fedman said. For example, look up the recent thread about trying to get valve springs for a 322. I have a 322, and the further you get from stock, the faster you get into problems. As was said-these are not SBCs.
     
    1927graham likes this.
  24. Fordguy91
    Joined: Apr 14, 2013
    Posts: 49

    Fordguy91
    Member
    from Fl

    If it was a sbc there wouldn't be any questions to be asked lol. That being said they aren't my cup of tea I have 4 under the bench at my shop that get no attention. My toys are a couple of 500+ inch big block fords my 292 y-block with triple deuces and my baby nailhead.
     
  25. Brad54
    Joined: Apr 15, 2004
    Posts: 6,021

    Brad54
    Member
    from Atl Ga

    There's Pros and Cons to this project:
    The Pros are that it's a bitchin' idea! You should definitely go forward with a Huffed baby nailhead! There's no reason not to.
    Now, the Con: doing it with a 264.
    The 264 is a 2-year engine; '54 and '55. The problem isn't that it's small, or smaller than the 322; the problem is with the design of the 264 itself.
    There is no provision for a harmonic damper on the 264--it uses a cast crank pulley with no damper. The 322 uses a damper. For a blower motor on the street, I'd think that's a huge "plus."
    The 264 has a small bore, while the 322 uses a 4-inch bore.
    That 4-inch bore will be a big benefit when you go to have pistons made and buy piston rings.
    It's been a hell of a long time since I've dug into one, but there was a more modern rod that could be used on the 322 as well... I think it was BBC, but don't hold me to that.
    Finally, I believe the 56 322 can use modern SBC lifters. Again, been a long time, but I do know the lifters were different 54/55 to '56.

    Good luck with the project either way! Nobody builds huffed baby nailheads, and it'd be very, very cool to see one!

    -Brad
     
  26. Fordguy91
    Joined: Apr 14, 2013
    Posts: 49

    Fordguy91
    Member
    from Fl

    Yea when I first bought this nailhead it was sight unseen and was told it was a 322. When I went to the guys shop to pull it I saw the cast crank pulley and was a little upset and told him I didn't want it but he told me he didn't know the difference and said if it would make the deal he would sell it to me for $200 so I went ahead and took her home. That's how I ended up with it. Now did you mean the harmonic balancer was good for the street or having the cast pulley was good?
     
  27. Brad54
    Joined: Apr 15, 2004
    Posts: 6,021

    Brad54
    Member
    from Atl Ga

    If I was building it, I'd prefer to have one with a balancer, not just a cast pulley.
    The heads, water cross-over, distributor, oil pan, water pump, valley pan etc. all interchange between it and a 322--just the crank, rods and pistons are different... oh, and the block. Amazingly, Buick cast a completely separate, 2-year-only block, and it can't be bored to 4.00-inch bore.
    There is also some difference in heads (and corresponding piston domes); 264 are the same, and then I THINK 54, early '55 are the same, and late '55-'56 are the same. If you search that out here, I've written about it before but it's been years ago.
    If you're having pistons made, you could swap on a set of later 401 heads with bigger ports and valves... but then you're project goes from building a blown engine from bits you have easy access to, to building a blown engine around a valley cover and oil pan! (which... sadly... kinda describes most of the projects in my shop!)

    -Brad
     
  28. Fordguy91
    Joined: Apr 14, 2013
    Posts: 49

    Fordguy91
    Member
    from Fl

    So can you use a 322 balancer on a 264 if you rebalance or are the snouts different?
     
  29. Brad54
    Joined: Apr 15, 2004
    Posts: 6,021

    Brad54
    Member
    from Atl Ga

    Don't know. That's a good question, though.
    At that point, if I were looking into it, I think I might start taking measurements and see what "reactive" balancer I could fit, with some machine work, such as a Rattler.
     
  30. Fedman
    Joined: Dec 17, 2005
    Posts: 1,163

    Fedman
    Member

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2021 The Jalopy Journal: Steal our stuff, we'll kick your teeth in. Terms of Service. Privacy Policy.

Atomic Industry
Forum software by XenForo™ ©2010-2014 XenForo Ltd.