I can't speak for the #10 heads, as both my 1955 as well as my 1956 engine have #8 heads on them. Or maybe I have two 1955? Anyways, is it possible that it lined up with the rocker stand mounting holes?
I think you lined up with a rocker stand hole^ like Martin said, All the center bolt covers use the same 2 bolt holes 49-58......You can even use 49 covers on a 57-58 head, if you work on the end stands, or not run them at all like the earlier engines Tony
Yes, I was thinking about that last night. I am sure it was a rocker stand. Well, I suppose if you could find quality all thread, you could make it work. Yikes.. We were in a rush loading the truck, so maybe I will look into that if I get some time. I sure don't want to use them on an Olds. They looked strange, and out of place, but it would be fun to listen to experts at a old time show, telling their buddies what kind of motor it is
Finally got the carb rebuild kits in today. Got more questions now... This came with it: And it says "secondary carbs don't need choke parts, idle adjusting needles and power valve parts". I know about the choke and idle parts, but unsure what all are the power valve parts. I'm assuming parts 45, 46 and 33. Anything else? Do I just not install them, or do I also have to plug the holes up?
Hold the phone Are you using these as a 2x2 or 3x2? 2x2 is usually run non progressive from what I have seen. In that case they are set up as two primary carbs.
2x2. I was thinking running them progressive, so it'll run a little more economic. And the stock engine only had one 2 bbl on there... Are you running yours direct?
Ok if this was covered here and I missed it sorry.I am looking for a neopreme rear main seal for an Olds, I got a leaker and would rather not use the rope seal if possible especially with the engine in the car.I saw one on line but am leary that it's a crossover that is for another engine.Appreciate any knowledge.Thanks.
so what you are saying is to run two primarys on a 2x2 setup. with a progressive linkage. i was looking at vintage speeds new alum base for some 94s. if one goes that route should they buy 2 primary bases or a primary and a secondary.
Should have qualified that as being on 3x2 set ups with progressive linkage. With 2x2 I would run them as primaries with idle circuits as said ^^^
I've been back and forth talking to people about this. The difference between a 2x2 into 4 barrel adapter and my intake is the big spacing between the two carb. They say if you run progressive linkage, you want your primary carb as close to the center of the intake as possible. This is not a problem on tri power setup, or when you have a single 4 bbl intake and just put an adapter on. But on my Edmunds the carb spacing is around 9.25 inches. So when I talked to the carb guy, he said that the front 4 cylinders will run lean on progressive linkage, because the primary carb basically "only" supplies the rear 4 cylinders. After talking to Tony, he suggested using idle circuit on both carbs, like it's been done on 2x4 setups. So here is what I'll be running: Rear, primary carb with idle circuit, choke, power valve, basically a stock carb. Front, secondary carb with idle circuit, no choke, no power valve. And progressive linkage.
The longer rocker shafts explain why these VCs were modified for extra clearance on the ends when I got them they were only drilled for the Olds. I later drilled mine for the early Stude. It gets some old timers scratching their heads at the shows. I run my dual 97s as a pair and not a progressive linkage. You will need to synchronize the carbs to flow the same amount at idle but it is very simple to do and a lot less complicated to hook up. Each carb only flows 1/2 of the required air for the engine at any speed. If you look closely at the end of the VC you can see where the VC was modified for the longer rocker shafts. I now understand why it was modified. These VCs were first produced in about 1951. Sorry for the trek into Studebaker country but the information is applicable to your Olds engines.
Very cool, tommy! I've just seen a set of these valve covers on ebay go for $741.55 Also I thought this was pretty cool: Bubba's Rod Shop rebuilding the distributor for this engine: http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=686742
Stopped by the machine shop yesterday. They got everything cleaned and started checking the block and heads. Everything looks good so far. Hope to get some measurements next week, so I can start to order parts!
Trying to put the carbs back together. Painted the bases and started to install the new hardware. Why are the extended shafts so long? Is it normal, that the linkage is spaced away so far from the base? The link on the rear carb is not on the shaft all the way, but even the front one is off pretty far... Should I scrape the top surface of the base? Or should it not matter?
I just took it to work and put it in our sand blaster. Not exactly sure what media it is , but I'm pretty sure it's some kind of sand. Then I'll stick it in our ultrasonic cleaner and see how it turns out. I'm still torn if I should get the intake polished, or leave it the matte finish. Would be nice if it matched the breathers... I did some measurements, and it should fit under the hood. The original oil baffle air cleaner was kinda tall too. Worst case, I can always get the shorter filter elements if I had to, but I dig it the way it is now!
Your going to be sorely disappointed when you go to put that manifold on your 324. I don't know if you missed F & G's thread or not, but it won't cover the ports ! However, there is a fix. You can make the adapters like he did, or you can add tabs (weld) to the edges of the manifold like I did. I was looking at my Wiend dual four manifold and realized that thats what they did when they changed their 303 dual four to the newer 324 dual four. Why do you want to run 2-2 barrels on your 56? It seems your going backwards. You and your buddies would be more impressed with dual four barrels than those 2-2s, especially an a 56 car. eh ?
Here's a link to the thread, if it helps. It's actually member F&J who posted it. It looks like the height of the port flange on the 303 intake is too short to cover the top of the ports. I'm learning about these early Olds engines, too, so I've been following your build. Good luck. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=248582&highlight=303+324+intake
The intake fit issue has been covered in this thread, post #16, #18, #19 and #20. And the cover plate is already in the works, but I don't know the required thickness yet. As far as carbs are concerned, the engine in the car right now is a '55 with a single 2 barrel. The engine I'm rebuilding is a '55 with single 2 barrel. So I'm thinking going to a 2x2 setup is an upgrade. You could say putting a '55 engine into a '56 car is going backwards. Of course I would have liked to put a '57 J2 in there, but sometimes you have to work with what you got. And I don't think the outcome will look too bad:
The shafts are made longer to give more room for progressive linkage styles. Like on a tri-power, you would have more pieces of linkage, that need more room to clear each other. Plate thickness: The plate only needs to be thick enough to prevent it from bending at the spots at the outsides where the gap was. As you squish down the intake manifold, you dont want those plate edges that stick out, to bend upwards as the larger embossed sheetmetal 324 gasket gets crushed to seal. If you make them too thick, now the right to left side manifold bolts will not be aligned with the holes in the manifold. That's because we are talking angles of the bolts and center port studs. The higher up you go with the plate, the bolt pattern from left to right gets narrower. You may have to file the holes in the intake, inwards, in that case. Hope I worded that clear enough. Also, the best way to keep the gaskets and plates lined up during install, it to screw in the 4 center stock Olds studs. Now you may run into a problem of the intake rubbing on the tops of the studs as you try to get the intake manifold to start to fit over the studs, What I chose to do, was to file the insides of those spots on the intake on one side, to get it to slide dowm over the studs. I did one side because I then started the intake over the other side first. Then just filed as needed on the opposite side where the two studs hit. I suppose if you don't want to file, you need to find a adhesive sealer to hold all the gaskets and plates aligned, during install. Or, at least on one head; leave studs in one head, then use adhesive on the other head.
The long shafts and thick throttle plates are for 3 deuces and not necessary for a 2 deuce system. The only thing different from one carb is that the 2 carbs need to be synced to flow exactly 1/2 of the required air. The thick throttle plates get a better seal for the dumper end carbs. Since a 2 deuce system uses no dumper carbs they are not needed. The throttle plates are both partially open at idle unlike 3 deuces
Frank, I know what you're saying about the angle. But for some reason I thought, the intake also wasn't wide enough, in addition to the port-covering issue. In your other thread you mentioned using 1/8 plate for the spacers. So I guess I'll start there too. But I want to wait for my parts to come back from the machine shop and put it together, so I can get a feeling for the fit. Now if I got the gasket surface on the intake machined down a bit, that should help, right? Tommy, that means I would just cot the remaining shaft off after I got everything sorted out, right? And what's that device you are showing in the picture? Does it measure air flow?
Yes I did a post on balancing or synchronizing two deuces with this tool many years ago now. I'm not sure if it is still available but there are other types of synchronizers available. The post may still be able to be located with the search function. The shaft can be cut off after the length is determined.
I can't think of any reason to do that. The fit is good with the .120 aluminum I used. Because the 324 ports being longer, there is no problem with port mismatch at the inner side of the ports. But I get what you are wondering. If a spacer was used on any V engine with perfectly matched ports, then yes, a spacer would cause a mismatch.
The Jalopy Journal
