Register now to get rid of these ads!

Buick intake? Or can you tell me what it is?

Discussion in 'The Hokey Ass Message Board' started by junkmanjr, Sep 14, 2008.

  1. junkmanjr
    Joined: May 17, 2008
    Posts: 1,153

    junkmanjr
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    This is an intake of my dads. He claims its a nailhead Buick. Shit he thinks he knows it all. Here are a few pics. Can you tell me? Its aluminum, looks factory and it is carrying a GM Rochester.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. CTFuzz
    Joined: Jan 31, 2002
    Posts: 2,632

    CTFuzz
    Member

    It's NOT a nailhead..........................
     
  3. power58
    Joined: Sep 7, 2008
    Posts: 430

    power58
    Member

    Yep not a nail head , cause nail head intakes to not have water passages or themostat housings. It could be a 215 V8 Buick, the all aluminum Buick from 1962
     
  4. RichFox
    Joined: Dec 3, 2006
    Posts: 6,611

    RichFox
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Dosn't look like a nailhead to me either, but what else has that intake port arangement?
     
    Register now to get rid of these ads!

  5. woodbox
    Joined: Jul 11, 2005
    Posts: 933

    woodbox
    Member

    Hey Junkman,
    Just dragged my 215 Buick 2bbl manifold out of the workshop and yours looks to be the same....as near as damnit any way!!
     
  6. Brad54
    Joined: Apr 15, 2004
    Posts: 5,880

    Brad54
    Member
    from Atl Ga

    On a nailhead intake, you set it on the bench and the ports are flat on the surface of the bench, period.
    As was stated, no water passages.

    A lot of guys refer to the 215 aluminum Buick motors as nailheads, but they're wrong.

    Could be what your dad is thinking.

    -Brad
     
  7. HEATHEN
    Joined: Nov 22, 2005
    Posts: 7,585

    HEATHEN
    Member
    from SIDNEY, NY

    It's not a nailhead, and it's not a 215,either. It's from a '64 300, the only year that 300s had aluminum intakes. The '65-'67 intakes were all cast iron.
     
  8. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 26,340

    squirrel
    Member

    it says "64 buick 300" right on it....
     
  9. zman
    Joined: Apr 2, 2001
    Posts: 16,540

    zman
    ALLIANCE MEMBER
    from Garner, NC


    LOL, yes it does..
     
  10. junkmanjr
    Joined: May 17, 2008
    Posts: 1,153

    junkmanjr
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Thanks for the input. It says 64 310 not 300. We didn't take it off the motor. And just because someone wrote that on the intake didn't mean thats what it was. Thanks for the responses. So its a Buick 300 intake.
     
  11. squirrel
    Joined: Sep 23, 2004
    Posts: 26,340

    squirrel
    Member

    I guess it's only obvious that it says "64 buick 300" if you are familiar with the 300, which is a kind of rare engine. (300? 310? could be a typo....)
     
  12. Judd
    Joined: Feb 26, 2003
    Posts: 1,775

    Judd
    Member

    Buick rated their motors by torque not CI so 300CI may have had 310 footpounds of torque?


     
  13. HEATHEN
    Joined: Nov 22, 2005
    Posts: 7,585

    HEATHEN
    Member
    from SIDNEY, NY

    That's correct. Most 401s said "445" on the air cleaner, and 425s said "465".
     
  14. 64LeSabre455
    Joined: Dec 29, 2007
    Posts: 778

    64LeSabre455
    Member
    from Adkins, Tx

    The Buick 300 had 2 different varieties in 64.The 310 and the 355 which is the torque
    rating the 310 was the 2bl and 355 was the 4bl
     
  15. junkmanjr
    Joined: May 17, 2008
    Posts: 1,153

    junkmanjr
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Anybody needs it? I'll sell it for $100 plus shipping.
     
  16. power58
    Joined: Sep 7, 2008
    Posts: 430

    power58
    Member

    Nah , still say it's Buick 215. The 300 would be in the same family, but all 300 intakes Iv'e seen were iron. Buick sold the design to Rover in England. Looked at a Rover version of the intake, Same port layout. And yes I have heard the 300's incorrectly called nailheads.
     
  17. zbuickman
    Joined: Dec 9, 2007
    Posts: 447

    zbuickman
    Member

    64's were Aluminum.... 65-7 were Iron:)
     
  18. power58
    Joined: Sep 7, 2008
    Posts: 430

    power58
    Member

    Nuff said never argue with zbuickman
     
  19. zbuickman
    Joined: Dec 9, 2007
    Posts: 447

    zbuickman
    Member

    yeah so there dont argue;) :confused::confused::confused:
     
  20. MorganGT
    Joined: Jun 30, 2006
    Posts: 30

    MorganGT
    Member

    The Rover version of the engine was eventually redesigned as a stroked (3.5" stroke) 4.4 litre version for use in the Leyland P76 here in Australia - this pic shows (from left to right): a standard P76 2 barrel inlet, an aftermarket 'Willpower' 4 barrel inlet manifold and what is supposedly a Buick 300 4 barrel inlet (with spacer plates to fit the 'wider' P76 engine). I'm no Buick expert, so am only going by the caption with the pic.
    [​IMG]

    And just for kicks, here's what one looks like loosely mocked-up in the engine bay of my ute with a drawthrough turbo setup:
    [​IMG]
    And what the bottom end of one looks like after a rod or 2 lets go at high RPM:
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  21. 64LeSabre455
    Joined: Dec 29, 2007
    Posts: 778

    64LeSabre455
    Member
    from Adkins, Tx

    Last edited: Sep 18, 2008
  22. power58
    Joined: Sep 7, 2008
    Posts: 430

    power58
    Member

    Oh The Humanity !!!!!
     
  23. junkmanjr
    Joined: May 17, 2008
    Posts: 1,153

    junkmanjr
    ALLIANCE MEMBER

    Thanks for all the responses guys.
     

Share This Page

Register now to get rid of these ads!

Archive

Copyright © 1995-2013 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.