Register now to get rid of these ads!

Technical Rocket Oldsmobile V8 Information Compiled

Discussion in 'Traditional Hot Rods' started by Zaloryan, Jul 10, 2012.

  1. For the above mentioned Toronado bracket questions. Looks like it may work but sure is ugly. Possibly a small block has a different look?

    [​IMG]
     
  2. jebbesen
    Joined: Aug 18, 2015
    Posts: 702

    jebbesen
    Member
    from Winona, MN

    I just found a set. The exhaust port set with steel gaskets is Felpro # MS 9260 SH. It says it fits Olds V8 54-56 and GMC Tr. V8 55-56. Just thought I'd get back to you all with what I found.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  3. Speedy 31
    Joined: May 13, 2016
    Posts: 2

    Speedy 31

     
  4. Speedy 31
    Joined: May 13, 2016
    Posts: 2

    Speedy 31

    Spe
    Pls. Call 731607321 I just bought a 303olds engine from a junkyard. ..need info. .
    Thanks
     
  5. Who are you trying to reach, and what information do you need?
     
  6. blackrat40
    Joined: Apr 19, 2006
    Posts: 1,167

    blackrat40
    Member Emeritus

    ***I forgot to mention that the '49-'56 Olds 303's and 324's have a unique oil gallery plug at the rear of the passenger side of the engine. It is accessed through a freeze plug (3/4"?)
    in the bell housing area. It has a small hole in the screw in gallery plug that shoots oil onto the distributor shaft and gear.
     
  7. Tony modified my TH400 to go behind my '64 394 Olds 98
    Not for the faint of heart or inexperienced builder. Whole lot of fabrication involved, but well worth the effort.
    requires different flywheel and in some applications different lower shell and starter motor.
    Check out my build thread for all the details.
    JT
    TH400 7.jpg
     

    Attached Files:

    Freaky1 and loudbang like this.
  8. Freaky1
    Joined: Mar 25, 2013
    Posts: 85

    Freaky1
    Member

    OK, my head is spinning, I've read through his thread twice now and feel like I'm ready to ask some questions. I'm dropping a '49 303 into a '52 Henry J that is being built into something like a late 50's hot rod. I bought the 303 because it is a runner and I love it's history. I also picked up a J2 3x2 intake but have some questions about mating the two.

    [​IMG]

    Reading in this and other threads I understand that I need to clean up the intake ports on the heads to fit the J2. I had figured I take the heads to a shop here and have them make those changes. Reading about the 1.8 rocker mod got me excited and since the heads will be off it sounds like a good time to kill many birds with one stone. I was thinking about buying a new valve train kit from Kanter and cleaning that all up. I'd thought about buying the '58 kit because, based on what I read, I'd still get the 1.8 rockers but not the offset that happened in '59 and that was also the first year for the beehive valve springs. I also remember reading the shaft mounts are different and I'll be looking for a set.....nudge nudge wink wink. Does anyone have thoughts on this approach, yay or nay? Since I bought this as a runner I really hadn't planned on breaking into the lower end at this time.

    So I'm looking at the intake and I notice some things that I need to ask about.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    From left to right, what is this little steel line running from just below the water neck around the oil filler and into the side of the water pump? There is no port on the new intake for that and I was wondering what should be done about this. Next is the heater hose port, again nothing like this on the new intake but since I live in Colorado a heater will be necessary. Any thoughts on where else I could run this from? Last is the temp sending unit, is there somewhere else I can mount this that wouldn't create issues?

    I got all juicy and excited because this thing has silver heads and I saw a tiny blurb about those being police heads. But I'm not so sure they are given the silver overspray on the lower heater hose and a few other places. Was there any other way to tell if these are police heads other than that?
     
  9. F&J
    Joined: Apr 5, 2007
    Posts: 13,222

    F&J
    Member

    Mine too :) with so many questions to follow.

    I do have a 303 with a J2 intake. To do that, you need to machine the gasket surfaces at the ports, to make the wider J2 fit in the 303/324 valley between the heads. Tony put up a spec on that somewhere on hamb. It was at least .100" per side I think. Mine was cut when bought new over the counter by a local racer back then, so I did not need that spec.

    The next thing is the smaller/shorter intake ports on a 303 head. If the heads are getting worked anyways, blend the tops of the head ports to match the larger J2 intake ports.

    -on the 1.5 vs 1.8 ratios. The old trick was just swapping the rockers and the rocker "stands" from a 52-up to get more lift out of the stock 1.5 cam on 49-51.

    -talking with quite a few old Olds race guys, they all said they ran both ratios depending on what cam grind they had, either new or used from another racer. They all had both rocker setups for swapping cams.

    You should not use 1.8 rockers on a hot 1.5 cam, it will be too much lift.

    If you are going to buy a hotter cam, they will grind it to whichever rockers and stands you have. So, if you buy 1.5 adjustable rockers because they popped up on C/L or ebay, just have the cam ground for 1.5.

    My 55 324 in one car, has a NOS Crower mild Hydraulic which was ground for a 49 or 50 303 because I got that style distributor from the same motor that was never assembled back then...so I knew it was 1.5. To confirm the ratio, I set the cam on V-blocks to measure lift. The lift with figuring 1.8 would put it around .007 from hitting stock pistons, and it proved it was a 1.5 cam, so I found 1.5 rockers and stands for my 324.

    You can look at this two ways: a lower ratio puts less stress PSI on the cam lobe, I would think? Olds dicked around with cams, ratios, rocker oiling differences, cam lobe widths, cam bearing widths...through every year in the 50s. Seems to me that the design of the original 303, all these factors were designed for that load on cam faces and bearings with 1.5. The Horse Power Race of US cars made them alter the cam/ratio, and finally wider lobes. So, I think 1.5 is gooderer :) LOL, but no proof what so ever.


    I just hooked up a heater. One hose went to the water pump just like your silver motor, and the other was at the passenger rear water port in line with the intake ports. I screwed a T shut-off in that plate for summer. it works fine

    .
     
    loudbang likes this.
  10. the little pipe you spoke of is a water bypass route. Forget about it and block it off at the pump cover. The rear block off plate near the rear intake runners gets punched out and a water fitting goes in there for your 2nd heater hose connection. Many of the later engines 51+ have the water outlet plates so it should be easy to find.
    I have a set of NOS Belond headers for the round port 303 heads if you would be interested. PM me if you want.
    There are many 3x2 aftermarket intakes out there for around 300-350. Much lighter!!!! And easier to work with. Might want to see what it is going to cost to get the machine work done to match that J2 to the 303. FWIW
     
    loudbang likes this.
  11. My thoughts as well. While the J2 setup is cool, you'd be money ahead to buy an aftermarket 3x2 that fits the 303 as is, and sell the J2 setup.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  12. F&J
    Joined: Apr 5, 2007
    Posts: 13,222

    F&J
    Member

    I prefer the J2. I just might rip off my Edmunds 2x2 with Rochester AA back drafts, and put my modded J2 on.

    Nothing beats original Rochester trip carbs...not even a bushel basket of 97s :) Disclaimer: Your opinions may vary ..LOL

    His J2 looks mint as far as total lack of corrosion, and that corrosion from dampness, ruins the outboard throttle plates sealing abilities. I'd run it in a heartbeat. The Olds won't feel the extra weight, just like an Orca Betty wouldn't :p
    .
     
    loudbang and Freaky1 like this.
  13. falcongeorge
    Joined: Aug 26, 2010
    Posts: 18,341

    falcongeorge
    Member
    from BC

    Agree with Frank on the carbs, I would take 3 rochesters over 3 3-bolts any day of the week. Correct that the 1.8 rockers will increase the pressure at the lifter/lobe interface as well. Won't stop me from running them though.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  14. F&J
    Joined: Apr 5, 2007
    Posts: 13,222

    F&J
    Member

    I don't have engineering degree, so one thing I can't guesstimate, is that a 1.5 cam lobe with the same effective valve lift of a 1.8 lobe, the "rate of rise" has to be more, so does that increase wear?

    the only reason I wondered about all this, is that Olds kept changing valve train details, and seemed to be fighting wear issues at each modification they made? If you ever looked at a few different years of stock rockers as to how the oiling orifices were changed so many times, it makes a person wonder.

    I am pretty sure there were differences between the 57 and 58 first gen 371s...springs and more? IDK
    .
     
  15. falcongeorge
    Joined: Aug 26, 2010
    Posts: 18,341

    falcongeorge
    Member
    from BC

    Pretty sure it's a straight linear relationship, the valve spring pressure at the lifter/lobe interface is multiplied by the rocker ratio, but I should do some research to be absolutely sure, and I am in Vietnam till sept. You should see the view directly in front of me as I am typing this!
     
    loudbang likes this.
  16. If that Edmunds 2x2 is the early one (which I believe it is), you can rip it off and send it to me, I've been looking. ;)
     
  17. Freaky1
    Joined: Mar 25, 2013
    Posts: 85

    Freaky1
    Member

    And shebam, all my questions were answered!! OK, maybe not all of them but I'm certainly on more stable footing now, thanks everyone. I wish I had more to back up my reason for running the J2 beyond they are cool as hell but I don't, and I'm ok with that. The Henry J weighs slightly more than a large peddle car so I'm not worried about a few extra pounds.

    vtwhead - My biggest issue with anything in the engine compartment is size, there is not much room. I'm planning to use the stock steering box but will be putting a dual master cylinder in there as well so cramming everything around might take some magic. My nephew has a fabrication business (Rebellion Forge) and makes intakes and exhaust for all kinds of euro-type racecars and I think I can talk him into a one off header set.

    I don't have a lot of backstory on the J2 intake but I do have a pretty good history on the 303. From what I was told chances are the thing is 100% stock but I will confirm that before I make any additions. If I'm lucky and Tony is reading this maybe he'll offer the intake gasket difference up. Better yet I think I'll just call him and ask. Since I'm getting the heads done I can't imaging that adding another grind will break the bank.

    Now let the search begin for rocker towers!
     
  18. Paul
    Joined: Aug 29, 2002
    Posts: 16,380

    Paul
    Editor

    It's not just the towers that make up the 1.8s,
    It's the whole assembly,
    Towers, rockers and shafts.
    And the material is removed from the 371 manifold to fit the head, not the other way around.
     
    loudbang likes this.
  19. F&J
    Joined: Apr 5, 2007
    Posts: 13,222

    F&J
    Member

    my early one went to the Orange Crate guy, quite a few years ago...and 4x2 Edelbrock with flash chromed 3 bolts w/linkage. I think it may have been sold later to buy the Crate?

    Those carbs look mint to me, and I've had quite a few. You will like it a lot, running on a 2 barrel until you want faster, and more fuel efficient . The genuine tripower carbs run flawless for me. I can't tell from your pic, if it was converted to mechanical linkage? The original vacuum secondary setup is gone, and it looks like someone messed with the rear carb fuel line,..... and that pre-bent factory rear line normally gets in the way of progressive linkage.
    .
     
    Paul likes this.
  20. Freaky1
    Joined: Mar 25, 2013
    Posts: 85

    Freaky1
    Member

    I was planning on buying a head rebuild kit from Kanter for a '58 that includes rockers, shafts, springs, retainers, & valve guides. The only thing it doesn't come with are towers, hence my search. It would make more sense to remove it from the intake wouldn't it? Newbie I am, but like Gene Winfield says, "everyday is a school day".
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2016
  21. Freaky1
    Joined: Mar 25, 2013
    Posts: 85

    Freaky1
    Member

    I really have no history on where this J2 came from before I got it but he's a buddy of mine so I'll ask but I'm not sure he knows either.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Slow days at work are nice because I get to poke around and read up on car stuff. I saw a J2 on Ebay and the right side, fuel line and such looks the same, they are listing it as a '58. But yes the left side is missing the vacuum parts. I'd also read that normally you'd drive around only using the center carb but when you gassed it the outer two would kick in. Could that be a reason to modify the linkage? To make all three be "in use" at the same time? Could that also make the secondarys more available "on demand"?
     
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2016
    303racer likes this.
  22. F&J
    Joined: Apr 5, 2007
    Posts: 13,222

    F&J
    Member

    -choke is correct, and only one is needed. The original J2 was set up so the car could only use the center carb until the engine was hot and choke was off. The choke when not open all the way, once blocked the other two carbs from working at all, so that it would not backfire through the end carbs when cold.
    EDIT>> Is this your J2 in these pics, or not? I wrote what was wrong, but not sure if it's yours or not :)
    -lots to say here; There is a slight difference in 57 vs 58 J2 carbs. It is the return spring type for the outboard carbs only. Yours is a 57. The 58 uses "mousetrap" style spring, coiled around the lower throttle shaft.

    -The 57 used two small diameter vertical return springs attached to the lower throttle shafts. One spring on front carb, and one on rear carb.... Yours are both missing. I have marked here in yellow where both ends of the spring fits:
    bb.jpg
    ^The pre-bent lines are stock, just that they added a hose barb fitting for a rubber line to the pump. That connector linkage that is unhooked from the rear carb is original J2. This is a very homemade "progressive linkage" modification, because the old school aftermarket progressive kit from Eelco, etc, did not use that original side linkage. It was replaced on that side, by a much longer center carb throttle shaft sticking out towards this side.(passenger). Then a long aluminum lever sticks up from the center carb shaft, which had a link that would pull on the new link to the end carbs.

    -They did some nasty stuff in the next pic. Because it was a homemade progressive linkage system, They had to make that rectangular flat steel throttle lever bracket on the front carb. The front linkage that is unhooked and laying near the "number 1", that would have hooked to one of the three holes in that new plate. You choose which hole by testing the whole system by at full throttle on the center carb, the other carbs also need to be wide open. "simple to test".


    >>>>But, the nasty thing they did was weld? that new plate onto the throttle shaft, it seems? And worse yet, that accel pump linkage lever was supposed to also stay on that throttle shaft. Right now, the front carb won't have a working accel pump/squirter.

    ...When you test the linkages; there are two long links in this pic. The rear one goes to the gas pedal setup. When you move the gas pedal down a bit, you are only opening the center carb. Then as you push further, you will see that the "cylinder shaped bumper" on the Front link will finally start to move the other two carb throttles.

    bbbb.jpg
    The part marked with X is the old bracket for the vacuum switch. Not needed.

    - Also, not that it matters, the accel pump linkages are swapped on the front and rear carb. I outlined the back carb link. That "bent elbow" shape was like that to clear the former large vacuum servo can which was once at the front carb. You don't need to change it, I just mentioned it for reference to others in the future, that are running the vac type linkages.
     
    loudbang, Paul and Martin_F like this.
  23. Paul
    Joined: Aug 29, 2002
    Posts: 16,380

    Paul
    Editor

    looks to me like a previous owner started to modify the setup, probably headed for a hot rod,
    failed and abandoned it.
    All that Frank said plus no bell-crank for transmission linkage,
    and what looks like bolt holes drilled oversize (note the thin wall at the broken bolt hole at #7 port) may indicate it was going on an earlier engine with a stick.. Ford?

    it also looks like a great start, all that is wrong is easy to put right.
     
  24. F&J
    Joined: Apr 5, 2007
    Posts: 13,222

    F&J
    Member

    I need to eat crow...once again.. I made a big mistake on the above tripower. I thought the front carb accel link arm was not on the throttle shaft. A new J2 thread from just now on main board, shows what it really is, and why it looks that way. The OP's is OK

    The bracket looks strange because of how the orig vac servo hooks to the same lever/bracket. Pic below. I also said the accel link on his rear carb that belongs on front carb, was bent more to clear the Vac servo. Wrong again, it is bent to clear the choke related "cold engine, secondary lock-out" linkage. duh
    371 tripower small.jpg
     
    Paul likes this.
  25. Paul
    Joined: Aug 29, 2002
    Posts: 16,380

    Paul
    Editor

    Always a good idea to get yourself some books, in my library I have shop manuals, supliments and parts books covering most early Olds engines, they get used a lot.
    20160818_112848.jpg 20160818_112924.jpg 20160818_113140.jpg
     
  26. Freaky1
    Joined: Mar 25, 2013
    Posts: 85

    Freaky1
    Member

    OK I tried to take a better picture of the linkage but I couldn't get the view I wanted.

    [​IMG]

    So here we are with some more questions.

    In the circle marked "X" is this some piece of the old vacuum switch assembly that was also 'left over"?

    Next, the lone red arrow, these bolt holes look like they were enlarged. I was going to see about making up some sleeves to make these more original size. especially since there is one that has a small piece broken off. Good idea?

    In the circle with the "O" on the front carb the welded on piece, when pulled back, does still make the accel pump/squirter move up. Does it do this correctly? That I can't be sure of. That's what I was really trying to get the new picture of.

    Where the lone yellow arrow is on carb #2, the perch that the forward rod moves through is a nut that was welded on the inside of the linkage and the threads removed.

    Here is the real newbie question of the day. Is there some reason I could, or should, not just clean these things up and tie all three carbs into each other? Instead of some progressive setup just have all three open and close together at the same time? I'm putting a 4 speed on the back of the 303 and it's going to be a fun car not a cruiser so gas mileage really isn't a concern. It's not going to be a gasser or just a drag car but there probably won't be too many long highway trips in it either.

    I know you can't please all the people and it is my car but is the J2 really something that should be restored? I'm not sloppy Joe who is going to weld a hunk of metal on the linkage, I try very hard to make my work nice but not kill the original style. But I'm no fan of people who take a nice original car or part and rip it up, some pieces were meant to be restored. Does this thing look good enough, or is it worth enough, that I should put it on a shelf and collect the parts to bring it back to it's original condition?
     
  27. Freaky1
    Joined: Mar 25, 2013
    Posts: 85

    Freaky1
    Member

    I've got a '64 Starfire convertible and have several manuals on that, they do come in very handy. Sounds like it's time to get on the stick and pick up some '49 and '58 manuals and literature.
     
  28. carbking
    Joined: Dec 20, 2008
    Posts: 3,715

    carbking
    Member

    I'll take a stab at a couple of your questions.

    First, the "sissors" arm in the "X" circle on the center carb was used on all Rochester tripower center carbs (Cadillac, Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, and Pontiac), although there are several different "sissors" shapes. The off/on vacuum switch control which was attached to the bracket still on the front of the center carburetor fit between the "sissors" and the "sissors" turned the switch off and on.

    No comment on the enlarged holes, your choice.

    The whole mechanical linkage setup looks pretty hokey to me. Whether it will function or not I would not hazard a guess unless I could actually try it. Like I said, looks pretty hokey.

    Now, can you run all three with solid linkage? My GUESS is no, for the following reasons.
    (1) The carbs were originally designed for a 371, and Oldsmobile thought that progressive linkage (vacuum actuated) was necessary on the 371. If you put them on a 303, with progressive, you still may have tuning issues with the center carb, as the venturii air velocity will be lower than original design (due to the smaller displacement).
    (2) The end carbs were designed as "dumper" carbs. They have no idle circuit, and no power circuit. They have only the main and pump circuits. GUESSING that anything other than wide open throttle would deliver a serious A/F ratio imbalance to the cylinders (the four center cylinders will be MUCH RICHER than the four end cylinders.

    Again, the above is a GUESS, based on working on hundreds of tripowers in the last 50 years. Not saying you cannot make it work, but don't think it will be easy.

    Suggestions:
    (1) You know it can be returned to the factory vacuum progressive linkage that will work, but the pieces are not inexpensive.
    (2) If you want mechanical progressive linkage, remove what you have and start over. Some might prefer the hotrod aftermarket linkage of the day, I don't. What I would suggest would be to add the front to rear rod on the passenger side, and acquire some of the over-the-counter mechanical linkage used by Pontiac on the 1965 and 1966 Pontiac tripowers. It won't work on the J-2 without some adjustments, because Pontiac used large end carbs on the 1965 with a small center; and all large carbs on the 1966. But the pieces you need are in the kit (see the various Pontiac vendors), and can be modified to work with the three small carburetors.

    This link MAY (or may not) be of assistance:

    http://www.thecarburetorshop.com/Tripowertuning.htm

    The slotted center to rear rod on the Pontiac linkage allows good adjustment for when the secondary carburetors are engaged.

    Jon.
     
    Paul likes this.
  29. az2bc
    Joined: Aug 17, 2016
    Posts: 11

    az2bc

    My 58 accelerator pump actuator "scissor" arm looks like a "J" behind the vacuum switch.

    There seems to be a few different float bowl vent setups. Mine is missing the guard metal that goes over it. I think mine is correct. I have seen 4 different vent setups and different "scissors" as was mentioned earlier. I guess mine is correct for a 58, but who knows?

    Actually, carbking, f&j, paul... is mine correct? Ha!

    This isn't about the carbs, but should be in this thread. I had a hard time finding the head torque procedure for my 58. I hope this makes it easier for somebody. It is super high resolution, so you should be able to zoom in.

    1958 Oldsmobile 371 Head Torque
    [​IMG]
     
    loudbang likes this.
  30. Anyone have a good suggestion for a high torque mini starter that I can use on my 176 tooth 371? I went to put my NOS(What I thought anyways) starter on my starter crossover and it is the wrong bolt pattern. It must be for a 303-324. I never noticed it until now. I've had it for years and never noticed. I hate to use something that modern but at this point I just need it to work. Brand and price would be great to know. Thanks
     

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.