#1  
Old 07-24-2020, 06:41 PM
Roycroft's Avatar
Roycroft Roycroft is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Colorado
Posts: 18
Default 1959 Cylinder Head Questions

I'm new to the forum and am researching before jumping into my first 389 build. I could use some help regarding the cylinder heads, and a forum search doesn't provide answers. Sorry for all the details below, but I'd rather be specific than vague.

Background:
I have a virgin factory 1959 389 four-barrel engine and hydramatic that I rescued from someone advertising it as scrap metal. It's going in a 1927 Ford Model T roadster late 50's build, so hopefully you'll forgive me for not having a Pontiac to put it in.

My intent is to build a mildly hopped up engine since the 1,800 lb roadster doesn't need much to fly, nor can it plant much torque to the ground. The cylinders should clean up at .030. So far I'm leaning toward running a 3x2 intake setup, 068 cam (around 5K redline), bump up the compression to 10.5:1, replace the factory rods with either aftermarket or later OEM (I've read the factory rods are a weakness on the '59 - '60), port-match the intake and exhaust manifolds, and run 1-1/2" headers, 2-1/4" pipe, good mufflers. I'm up at 5,400' elevation where engines lose about 15% compression versus sea level, hence why I'd like the 10.5:1 which runs fine on 91 octane up here. Still debating transmissions, so the cam might change.

The engine has a pair of '59 531395 heads. I notice multiple forum posts by people here and on other sites discussing using later heads. I'd like to run the '59 heads if possible since I have them, they look very period with the reverse-flow cooling, and because they are smaller 62cc chamber.

My Questions:
1) Will the '59 heads be adequate for the engine build described above.

2) Do '59 heads require hardened seats, or is the iron alloy strong enough for unleaded gas to where new valves and a valve job will do. Keep in mind this is not a commuter car and will be driven for fun around town and occasional 1/4 mile runs at the strip where I'd use leaded fuel. It might see 1K miles a year.

3) If the heads do require hardened seats, are there issues with installing hardened seats in these '59 heads, such as hitting water jackets, heat cycles cracking the casting due to lack of casting material, etc.

4) Are the factory hollow press-in studs sturdy enough to withstand a 068 cam's required seat pressure, or are they known to pull?

I know this is a long post, and I appreciate any feedback.

  #2  
Old 07-24-2020, 07:50 PM
694.1 694.1 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SE WI
Posts: 1,366
Default

I suspect you are going to fit in around here just fine.

__________________
"At no time did we exceed 175 mph.”
Dan Gurney's truthful response to his and Brock Yate's winning of the first ever Cannonball Baker Sea-to-Shining Sea...

Still have my 1st Firebird
7th Firebird
57 Starchief
  #3  
Old 07-24-2020, 08:16 PM
389 389 is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 561
Default

The closed chamber 389 heads are some of the best for a street machine. You have to watch around here. People get street and strip mixed up and end up with a street car with drag racing parts that runs like hell.. Keep the heads stock, I would have threaded rocker studs installed but the valve seats will be fine with the new gas.. They did have unleaded gas back then, remember Ammco Gold? It was unleaded and one of the best gasolines going. I liked it better then Sunoco 260..
Dont let them talk you into porting the heads you need velocity for street performance since you will be looking for power off idle to 3500 rpm..
The 068 cam is one of the best. The Summit 2801 is also an excellent cam.. The Crower 60918 is almost an exact copy of the 068 but a little better...
Another thing, just use the Melling 3/4" wide Morse chain timing chain. Don't get sucked in to those double roller deals you don't need and will neeed replaced in five years..
I would keep the compression around 9:1 and run regular gas. That way you can crank up the initial timing and really have snappy performance.. You won't be going through starters like crazy, you will be able to keep the stock Pontiac starter and hot start will be an issue for those with high compression motors..
I would go with modern rods and forged pistons, stay away from the hypereutectic pistons..

I would keep the stock single points system use the iron distributor and connect a CD box, the points will last forever and you will have an ignition that will leave the HEI in the dust.. All that ignition did was last 50,000 without a tune up to comply with the new 1975 EPA standards.

  #4  
Old 07-24-2020, 08:24 PM
389 389 is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 561
Default

The hydra-matic..
One of the most complicated transmissions ever made. It starts with a 3.97 first gear with four speeds and ends in fourth with 1:1.. Its a no brainer to see you will want a rear end ratio around 3:08 or 2:73, that way you have tremendous pull out power and car cruise at 100 all day in fourth.. The really cool thing about the hydro is its grounded in third and fourth like a stick transmission giving you excellent economy and a really cool lugging sound while cruising at low speeds..
I had one of these transmission behind a healthy 462 once and it handled that motor better then the th400 that replaced it. The just rebuilt turbo blew after 8000 miles!!!!

The 59 Pontiac has all the right parts to make an excellent cruiser.. Enjoy the excellent engineering that went into these cars. A old time GM engineer told my brother the 58 up Bonneville was designed to cruise the desert at 100 without stopping..

  #5  
Old 07-24-2020, 08:26 PM
389 389 is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 561
Default

I would try to pick up a set of 8 lug wheels now that Diamond Back makes the tires that fit there 14"x 7" wheels... Those 8 lugs stop like a dream the ones on my 64 stopped better then the disc conversion I mistakenly did to it..

The Following User Says Thank You to 389 For This Useful Post:
  #6  
Old 07-24-2020, 08:34 PM
tom s tom s is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: long beach ca usa
Posts: 18,764
Default

Can you even put 8 lugs on the front of a roadster?Tom

  #7  
Old 07-24-2020, 09:31 PM
Bill Hanlon's Avatar
Bill Hanlon Bill Hanlon is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Fredericksburg, TX
Posts: 2,349
Default

One reason to dump the hollow studs is that finding matching rocker arms and balls is really getting tough.

__________________
My Pontiac is a '57 GMC with its original 347" Pontiac V8 and dual-range Hydra-Matic.
  #8  
Old 07-25-2020, 12:39 AM
Roycroft's Avatar
Roycroft Roycroft is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Colorado
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 389 View Post
I would keep the compression around 9:1 and run regular gas.
Thanks for the feedback, 389. I agree on no porting for my setup since I don't plan on building the engine to twist enough to flow that much air. I intend on a simple port-matching to smooth out the runners. Regarding the compression, the 10.5:1 static will act like around 9:1 when computing the dynamic ratio up here at 5,400' elevation (I haven't calculated dynamic yet).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Hanlon View Post
One reason to dump the hollow studs is that finding matching rocker arms and balls is really getting tough.
I just briefly searched the forum for specifics on converting '56 - '64 studs, but can you provide specifics about the components for converting? Would I use 7/16 studs similar to these with Perma-Loc nuts, stamped rockers similar to these, and hollow pushrods similar to these. Then it sounds like I'd tap and plug the oil feed holes in the block with 1/8" NPT?

  #9  
Old 07-25-2020, 01:38 AM
Jack Gifford's Avatar
Jack Gifford Jack Gifford is offline
formerly 'Pontiac Jack'
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Phelps, NY 14532
Posts: 10,176
Default

Welcome! Sounds like a neat project.
1> Yes.
2> No. One of the reasons for reverse cooling was longevity of the non-insert valve seats, with coolest coolant directed at them.
3> No issues installing steel seats, if desired.
4> Hollow stud strength is okay, but press-fit is not reliable (even back in '59). If you keep them, pinning them is advised.

As Bill Hanlon said, early rocker hardware is getting scarce. And be advised that '59 rocker arms are a different profile from later ones- they are closer to SBC profile than to later Pontiac. So changing to all-pushrod-oiling has problems- the worst of which is almost zero availability of early-profile rockers with oil holes.
Note1: if you do somehow manage to convert the oiling, there's no need to plug any of the stud-feeding passages.
Note2: GM stamped rockers can not be drilled; they could be done via EDM (not inexpensive though).

__________________
Anybody else on this planet campaign a M/T hemi Pontiac for eleven seasons?
... or has built a record breaking DOHC hemi four cylinder Pontiac?
... or has driven a couple laps of Nuerburgring with Tri-Power Pontiac power?(back in 1967)

Last edited by Jack Gifford; 07-25-2020 at 01:45 AM.
  #10  
Old 07-25-2020, 02:39 AM
Roycroft's Avatar
Roycroft Roycroft is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Colorado
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Gifford View Post
Welcome! Sounds like a neat project. . . .
Thanks for the additional feedback and confirmation, Jack. I won't be disassembling and inspecting the heads any time soon, but hopefully the seats look good enough and have enough meat for a valve job, the studs look solid, and the rockers don't have much wear. Pinning the studs sounds like the way to go if I'll be keeping the '59 heads.

Question about valve guides: brass or iron? Machine them for positive seals or run the factory seals?

  #11  
Old 07-25-2020, 06:15 AM
Bill Hanlon's Avatar
Bill Hanlon Bill Hanlon is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Fredericksburg, TX
Posts: 2,349
Default

Jack is the expert on valve geometry on these early V8 engines. Go with what he says.

Another thing to consider is the front crank seal, This http://www.pontiacsafari.com/L1Garag...ealUpgrade.pdf has all the info you need. My alignment tool is on the left coast. being used on its 10th engine right now, but you are welcome to borrow it if you'd like.

__________________
My Pontiac is a '57 GMC with its original 347" Pontiac V8 and dual-range Hydra-Matic.
  #12  
Old 07-26-2020, 02:36 AM
Jack Gifford's Avatar
Jack Gifford Jack Gifford is offline
formerly 'Pontiac Jack'
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Phelps, NY 14532
Posts: 10,176
Default

I've had no problems with either brass or iron guides, both street and competition. Each machinist seems to prefer dealing with one or the other, so I go with their choice.
I like cutting the guides for modern seals, but many people are happy with Pontiac's OEM stuff.

P.S.- If you should find yourself wishing you could create oil holes in your rocker arms, give me a shout. If my EDM mill happens to not be buried in clutter, I might be talked into setting it up to "burn" some oil holes.

__________________
Anybody else on this planet campaign a M/T hemi Pontiac for eleven seasons?
... or has built a record breaking DOHC hemi four cylinder Pontiac?
... or has driven a couple laps of Nuerburgring with Tri-Power Pontiac power?(back in 1967)

Last edited by Jack Gifford; 07-26-2020 at 02:42 AM.
  #13  
Old 07-26-2020, 02:43 AM
Roycroft's Avatar
Roycroft Roycroft is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Colorado
Posts: 18
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Gifford View Post
I've had no problems with either brass or iron guides, both street and competition. Each machinist seems to prefer dealing with one or the other, so I go with their choice.
I like cutting the guides for modern seals, but many people are happy with Pontiac's OEM stuff.
Thanks. I, too, prefer the positive seals and will go that route and let my machinist choose brass or iron when I get there.

  #14  
Old 07-26-2020, 09:36 AM
buds56's Avatar
buds56 buds56 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: manassas va
Posts: 181
Default

I rebuilt a 59 389 for my 56 Pontiac several yrs ago, so I'll offer my observations and opinion. Sounds like your looking for a street build with the occasional flogging

I did a stock rebuild with the exception of an "068 camshaft.

.030 389 pistons you can find easily will be cast flat tops unless you order a custom set of forged ones for big money, so the compression should be fine.

All the 59 parts are pretty durable and should be fine. The stock rods will be fine as long as you keep the rpms under 5500. ( Heck, 30 yrs ago we were pulling the 58-62 rods and getting $75-100 a set for them as they were desirable then). A quality timing chain set is a must

I would rebuild the heads stock and if the valve springs check out use them over and keep the valve train stock ( they will still wind up to 5200 rpm's easily) and you'll have no problems. You start mismatching stuff you are creating potential problems.

A good free flowing exhaust is a must and a Tripower is a good choice

Make sure you get a water pump with a cast impeller and have a good radiator.

I would get an adapter and run a TH350, should be plenty for a 1800lb T bucket. Maybe a 3.08 geared rear to take advantage of the Pontiac torque.

This should be a pretty quick ride when you get done and the old 389 is pretty cool looking engine.

Yes there are better parts out there now and if your going racing you would need to upgrade for that purpose.

I'm thrifty and try to be realistic in what I need and the expected usage, these Pontiacs are pretty tough engines.
This is just my opinion and I wish you the best of luck.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	56 pontiac 9-7-2013 2-4's.jpg
Views:	174
Size:	57.2 KB
ID:	545828   Click image for larger version

Name:	56 002.jpg
Views:	179
Size:	58.1 KB
ID:	545829  

  #15  
Old 07-26-2020, 01:04 PM
Roycroft's Avatar
Roycroft Roycroft is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Colorado
Posts: 18
Default

Thanks, buds56. I'm not sure about reusing the valve springs unless this is a common approach with older 389s. I planned on running new springs and having my machinist check their pressure before intal. I'd then mic the installed valve heights and shim the springs accordingly if necessary for proper height/pressure. But if the factory springs are considered better than modern aftermarket and are usually reused in 389s, I'm fine with that. Maybe some other opinion here?

How do you like the dual quad setup? I'm not necessarily chained to running 3x2 and have been kicking around the idea of finding a dual quad intake (like an Offy 360) and running some smaller Carter AFB carbs, maybe around 600 cfm if that isn't too much for a 389. What intake and carbs are you running? Tripower look really cool on an open-hood roadster, but dual quads are mean looking too.

The transmission is the most difficult aspect of this build so far. The task I've given myself is to build the car as close to early 60's period correct as possible. The more research I do, the more I'm finding it difficult to make a transmission work with that date limit. I thought of running a '55 - '65 Muncie 318 3-speed manual, but synchros are pretty well impossible to find from what I've researched. The same goes for a T86 or T89 Borg Warner. Rebuild kits are out there, but they don't include synchros. I'm leaning toward finding a '58 - '60 manual bellhousing and breaking my period-correct rule slightly to run a 1966+ Saginaw 4 speed. The Saginaws have four different first-gear ratio combinations I can play with, parts are and will be available for likely a long time, and they are cheap compared to a Muncie 4 speed. I have a line on a running one for $150. If I were to go with an automatic, I'd likely rebuild a pre-'59 dc hydra-matic unless a B&M hydro stick falls out of the sky. But, similarly, rebuild parts for the hydra-matic (especially pumps) are getting harder to find and expensive.

  #16  
Old 07-26-2020, 03:23 PM
buds56's Avatar
buds56 buds56 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: manassas va
Posts: 181
Default

I'm sure the factory springs are not better than whats out there now, for me they were adequate and I'm cheap. If your'e upgrading the springs the studs will need pinned.

The dual quad setup was a 56 unit. It ran ok, but the ports were small compared to the 389,

If your going Dual Quad I would keep a lookout for an Edelbrock P22 and a couple old AFB's off a Pontiac. I ran one years ago and it worked well.

Here's a good site for old Pontiac info worth looking into

http://www.pontiacsafari.com/

  #17  
Old 07-27-2020, 04:16 PM
Roycroft's Avatar
Roycroft Roycroft is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Colorado
Posts: 18
Default

I spent the weekend reading a lot about 389 heads and valvetrain and have a few more questions. Jack G., #4 is specifically for you.

1) Does anyone have experience using these hollow screw-in studs? I haven't contacted the seller to find out the alloy, but they are supposedly made in the USA.

2) Can '57 - '60 heads be machined to accept later 1.92/1.66 valves without issue to either the heads or valves interfering with the cylinder walls or flattop pistons using a 068 cam profile? According to Wallace Racing, some 389s from '61 through '66 used the 1.92/1.66 configuration, and some HP '59 and '60 used a 1.92/1.60 configuration.

3a) Whose 1.88/1.60 valves are people using, and where are you getting them? Spotts Performance doesn't appear to have a listing for the 1.60/1.88 valve. I see a listing in an SI Valves catalogue but have no idea what they cost or where to buy. Summit and Jegs don't have a listing in their search function at least.

3b) Whose post-1960 1.92/1.66 valves are people using, and where are you getting them?

4) Jack, your earlier comment about the '59 having unique rocker arms and geometry got me thinking, and I found another post claiming that the '59 valves are shorter than later valves. Is the valve height and rocker arms the factors that make the '59 geometry unique, or is the angle of the valves in relationship to the rocker studs different in the '59 head? What I'm getting at is if I used the '57 - '60 head, installed solid studs, '65 - '66 1.88/1.60 or 1.92/1.66 valves (whichever will fit in a '59 head), and '65 - '66 hollow pushrods, would the geometry work out?

While I relish in figuring out conundrums like these questions and putting the theory into practice, having said all this makes me think that simply runnining some '65 or '66 heads might be the better solution and either converting them to reverse flow or ditching the reverse flow system.

  #18  
Old 07-27-2020, 08:38 PM
Safari Larry's Avatar
Safari Larry Safari Larry is offline
Chief Ponti-yacker
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Lancaster, CA
Posts: 508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roycroft View Post
... ditching the reverse flow system.
Interesting project! Great to see you thinking it out and getting advice from the "experts". Interesting thread.

Regarding ditching the reverse flow system, the '59 block is a reverse flow block. '60 block is not reverse flow and the water passages are not the same, most notably in the deck. The '60 block water passages cause more cooling water to flow to the back of the engine and up into the heads. The '59 block distributes water evenly into the block from front to back. That makes the water passages different in the deck. I think the '59 block could be converted by plugging up water passages in the deck and making some passages smaller. You should be well aware of what you're doing and know how it is different than the conventional flow blocks.

I considered converting my '60 block to reverse flow but decided against it after learning about the differences.

__________________
Larry Gorden
POCI 1956 Tech Adviser
www.PontiacSafari.com
  #19  
Old 07-28-2020, 02:29 AM
Jack Gifford's Avatar
Jack Gifford Jack Gifford is offline
formerly 'Pontiac Jack'
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Phelps, NY 14532
Posts: 10,176
Default

I don't have lateral-plane drawings of early (nor of late) Pontiac valve trains. I only know that setting the two rockers side-by-side it's obvious they are significantly different (needle-bearing rockers are easier to compare, since their center-of-pivot is visible). I don't recall the angle between valves and studs being different, but I'm not sure. The valves are at 20 degrees in both, but the studs may be angled a little bit differently. As for using later (longer) valves, I don't believe that would get you anywhere.
Yes, using later heads is (I think) a good move. It allows you to shop for "normal Pontiac" valvetrain stuff and a wider choice of intake manifolds- and of course many better performing heads.
Note: if you wind up wanting to tap [any] heads for rocker studs (e.g., if you bought those 7/16' bottom thread hollow studs) It's a good idea to have a machine shop do it so they are perfectly true and parallel.

__________________
Anybody else on this planet campaign a M/T hemi Pontiac for eleven seasons?
... or has built a record breaking DOHC hemi four cylinder Pontiac?
... or has driven a couple laps of Nuerburgring with Tri-Power Pontiac power?(back in 1967)
  #20  
Old 07-27-2020, 05:13 PM
694.1 694.1 is offline
Ultimate Warrior
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: SE WI
Posts: 1,366
Default

Great questions! And that is a great price on those oiling studs.

__________________
"At no time did we exceed 175 mph.”
Dan Gurney's truthful response to his and Brock Yate's winning of the first ever Cannonball Baker Sea-to-Shining Sea...

Still have my 1st Firebird
7th Firebird
57 Starchief
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:31 AM.

 

About Us

The PY Online Forums is the largest online gathering of Pontiac enthusiasts anywhere in the world. Founded in 1991, it was also the first online forum for people to gather and talk about their Pontiacs. Since then, it has become the mecca of Pontiac technical data and knowledge that no other place can surpass.

 




Copyright © 2017