1964 H-Balancer & Double Roller Timing Set

[Jeff B.]

After rebuilding my 1964 327-300HP and installing a Cloyes 3023X double roller timing set, it appears that the balancer bottoms out deeper into the timing cover by approx 1/8". This causes a pully alignment problem. I'm actually not sure of this at this point becaue I also rebuilt the water pump and pressed the fan hub on and off and it could be different than original. But when the fan hub is set to 5-5/8" to the face (as the instructions say) the pully is 1/8" too far forward compared to the crankshaft pulley. I also have before and after pictures and the timing tab on the timing cover is now overlapping the HB by 1/16" where there was a 1/16" gap before the rebuild.

At this point I assume that the crank gear on the Cloyes timing set is thinner than the stock one, allowing the HB to be deeper, but I have not taken it apart to check (and don't want to). I noticed the Cloyes set says it will also fit the earlier years. Any chance I would need the 1/8" spacer from the pre-62 cars to run with this timing set? Anyone have any experience with the Cloyes 3023X?

[Clem Z.]

Re: 1964 H-Balancer & Double Roller Timing Set

After rebuilding my 1964 327-300HP and installing a Cloyes 3023X double roller timing set, it appears that the balancer bottoms out deeper into the timing cover by approx 1/8". This causes a pully alignment problem. I'm actually not sure of this at this point becaue I also rebuilt the water pump and pressed the fan hub on and off and it could be different than original. But when the fan hub is set to 5-5/8" to the face (as the instructions say) the pully is 1/8" too far forward compared to the crankshaft pulley. I also have before and after pictures and the timing tab on the timing cover is now overlapping the HB by 1/16" where there was a 1/16" gap before the rebuild.

At this point I assume that the crank gear on the Cloyes timing set is thinner than the stock one, allowing the HB to be deeper, but I have not taken it apart to check (and don't want to). I noticed the Cloyes set says it will also fit the earlier years. Any chance I would need the 1/8" spacer from the pre-62 cars to run with this timing set? Anyone have any experience with the Cloyes 3023X?

just check the thickness of the crank gear for a cloyes true roller and it is .615 but i do not have a stock gear to check

[Jeff B.]

Re: 1964 H-Balancer & Double Roller Timing Set

Thanks, that helps in that I won't have to take it apart to find out. The machine shop does not have my original any longer. Maybe someone will have one and post it.

[Wayne L.]

Re: 1964 H-Balancer & Double Roller Timing Set

I just checked two originals and they both measured 0.53"

[Jeff B.]

Re: 1964 H-Balancer & Double Roller Timing Set

Thanks Wayne. I just took mine apart and the Cloyes 3023X I have is .56, even closer to your stock ones then Clem's .615. Only thing is, I expeced the stock one to be thicker to push the balancer out. Do you know what year the ones you measured were off of? Maybe this is what to do about nothing.

[Joe L.]

Re: 1964 H-Balancer & Double Roller Timing Set

I just checked two originals and they both measured 0.53"

Wayne and Jeff-----


That's right at what they should measure. The crank timing sprockets for 55-66 small blocks used different SPROCKET TEETH width than 67 and later. However, the thickness of the sprocket's harmonic balancer seating surface was the same. 55-66 use a sprocket which is the same width over it entire diameter. 67 and later have a sprocket with reduced width at the teeth but have a raised "flange" section at the crankshaft snout hole that makes its thickness there the same as the 55-66 sprocket.

There is no Cloyes timing set that I can find of C-3023X. However, there is a set of C-3023K and I assume that's what Jeff has. It is a set that should work for any 55 and later small block. I do not understand why the crank sprocket of this set would be thinner than the stock sprocket. As a double roller set, I would expect it to be the same thickness as stock or, perhaps, even a bit thicker.

In any event, if the harmonic balancer seats 1/8" too deep with the use of this timing set, then I would say that using the spacer used for some early small block applications is the solution. It was not originally used for the 1964 L-75 application but I think it will solve the problem.

[Jeff B.]

Re: 1964 H-Balancer & Double Roller Timing Set

Thanks Joe. I'm thinking at this point the I'm chasing a problem that does not exist. To get it to line up, I have to set my water pump fan hub at 5-1/2 instead of the "book" 5-9/16. I don't think that 1/16" inch is going to make any difference up at the alternator pulley. I bet the pictures I have of the HB out a bit more was because during the quickie rebuild that was done before I bought the car they did not get the HB driven all the way back. I'm putting it back together and moving on. Thanks all.

[Timothy B.]

Re: 1964 H-Balancer & Double Roller Timing Set

Jeff, I just looked at my 63 300 HP motor and the tab on the timing cover extends over the damper by approx. 1/16" so I think your thinking is correct regarding the previous installation.

This is a old pic of the motor and it shows if you look close.

[Jeff B.]

Re: 1964 H-Balancer & Double Roller Timing Set

Jeff, I just looked at my 63 300 HP motor and the tab on the timing cover extends over the damper by approx. 1/16" so I think your thinking is correct regarding the previous installation.

This is a old pic of the motor and it shows if you look close.

Thanks alot for doing that, it really helps put this to bed in my mind. Also, that's a beautful engine compartment and motor. I'm in the middle of a full resto and I'm getting close to done with the chassis. Hope mine turns out that nice!

[John L.]

Re: 1964 H-Balancer & Double Roller Timing Set

Jeff.
I have a '65 250 HP which should have been the same as your orginal '64 300 gear , along with it's press on damper. The orginal gear measures .525" thk, and shows "GM" on the front.