Turning the head around on a pusrod engine wont work because of the pusrods ( already mentioned ) Reversing the ports on a twincam will give you mis matched ports and valve sizes. Turning the head around on a twincam will give you problems with the camdrive Turning any head around might give you problems with waterjackets lining up, etc... I'd just turn the whole engine around...
Absolutely! Different is cool as heck, even if it a PITA. I love doing stuff that the nay sayers won't work. I had lots of folks telling me my v-belt blower drive wasn't worth the time and it works great. Forget the naysayers and build what you want!!!
I had contenplated this myself, but the thought of another 650-700 #'s in the front to steer around seemed a bit much. That said, it would be *****in to see someone else do it!
I am all for trying something that you have not seen before but you feel will work. That is why I have a Packard V8 in my vega and why I ran a Y block head on my '32 Plymouth four. Yes I have had some experiance, enough to know that you can't just put a head on backwards and to know that a person who dosen't know that isn't going to build any such devise.
Wasting alot of time, and even more money has become smart yet again. Man, I feal stupid for thinking anything rational. Lets all devote money and time into taking a V-12 and turning it into two engines, then we can develop a trans to run them both in one car, then develop a backwards head, then develope an intake, and on and on. SMART.
Twin engine cars are cool... Why are people getting hostile over this? Maybe the guy is on the wrong track in the way that he'd like to do it. But if he is, help him out with some Info...
Those people who continue to lead this guy along by advising him that he has a doable idea, please explane just how you would turn a head around and make two inline six cylinder motors look like a V12. Just one reasonable example that could possably be done. That's all I ask. Otherwise just tell the guy it's a bad idea. Forget it.
I was speaking conceptualy, not to the specifics of this particular idea. Where there is a will there is a way. Also, it seems like a lot of folks only care about the end product. The build of something completely different is way more fun than just the end product. If the goal is just to have 12 cylinders, sure go with the v12. What if the goal was a twin engine car? If two engines float his boat, he should go for it. Will it be frustrating ,probasbly, but if that's his vision...
DO you have ant pictures of this idea, or sketches? You said it better and typed it quicker than me. If any of you want to start a twin inline discussion count me in every time. I know some truck pullers that may have been called stupid but know one is laughing at this: Jeff
Rich, I respect what your doing and saying here about the head, but **** how many people told you there were eaiser ways to build a land speed car? Honestly I love your banger stuff but if no one told you there was an easier way, you must not have talked about your ideas befor you finished. Were just talking here anyway
Maybe instead of calling someone or their idea stupid, we could rationally talk it out, allowing the person to come to a positive conclusion on their own. If, then informed, they do not understand, why not just let it go, on our part? Of course, how silly of me, it wouldn't be the internet then, would it?
I wonder if Burt Monroe would have been greeted with the same derision had he posted about wanting to cast his own engine parts in a shed behind his house with coffee cans and sand? How about Edison? He had hundreds, thousands, of unworkable, "stupid" ideas to one lightbulb...but hey, he was a ***** for even thinking about some of them, right? Right.
As I previously stated, Kent Fuller built one using two 6 cylinder Rolls Royce engines. Now, I realize that the car building prowess of this unknown hack, who certainly doesn't know anywhere near as much about building cars as some of the experts on this board, is probably meaningless. It has been done. Fuller, as you know, also built the ch***is' for Ivo's twin and quad engined cars. It seems to me, from the short time that I've been here that the traditional idea of building something different, fast, cool or whatever is being squelched by those that think traditional rodding is all about nothing but Hemis, Nailheads, early Ford parts only, No center bolt SBCs and the like. Anytime someone steps out of the box, here come the naysayers (ever notice that naysayers seldom say "nay"?) Pretty soon, the traditional rods will all have to follow a formula, prescribed by the whiners. If it had never been done and I decided to build a "Bustle Bomb", How many would tell me it's stupid or it won't work or worse yet, "It ain't trad, Man". The idea of flipping the head may not have been given enough, initial, thought, but so what? That really wasn't the question, just a random thought. I say, build it. It's your time, your money. If you fail, so what. You'll be a member of one of the biggest clubs on earth. The only bigger club is the one where no one ever failed...........'cause they never did Jack **** except piss and moan and discourage other people who have the capacity for abstact thought that they lack.
So if you turned both engines end for end and ran a long shaft thru between them to clutch and ****** the rotation would be correct. Getting water to and from the radiator might be more difficult but..... For some reason 'dentprones' diagram didnt show up???
If now the idea is simply to put two inline six cylinder engines into one car. great. Go for it. been done before. Look up Twin engine dragsters or something like that in the arcives. Gear the flywheels togeather, run one backwards, or use an ideler gear, suit yourself. Nothing really new here. The backwards head idea is what got me. I'm still waiting for someone to explain that deal. Concepualy or any other way. Don't know about Fullers car. I remember when he was in Belmont I couldn't help notice just how talented the man is. Unreal.
If everyone who wanted to go fast just did the sensible and logical thing, we would all be driving a Lotus Exige. Lots of speed and great handling for relatively little money, time and effort.
Gearing the flywheel together is always brought up in any twin engine discussion. It works in drag cars, but it won't live on the street without a lot of engineering. You need some sort of enclosed, oil tight case to provide lube for the gear train. Also, I don't know if the gear pattern on a ring gear is intended for continuous work (I ain't no gear cutter). I would lead towards gearing them together at the front with some sort of chain lie the Toros or Eldorados used and build a custom timing case to enclose and connect the whole ****aree.
Why not go full out and put two Hudson straight 8's side by side?? (and tubcharge the heck out of em while you're at it)
The truth of this deal is that when I was about 15 i went to half Moon bay to see Jazzy nelson run his twin flathead rail. Side by side with twin drivetrains. I came home and told my dad we should build a twin GMC rail along those same lines. But not as wide. Maybe lean the blocks out something like a V12. But no backwards head. My dad said "If you want to do something like that I know a guy with a Cad 16 for sale for $150." I jumped on that idea, but the guy never did come through with the Cad. I have always wanted a Cad 16 since then. How about a Packard inline twelve?...........Ps I am still waiting for someone to come up with a way to actually do what this started about.
Gearing the flywheels togeather dosn't necessarrly mean using OEM ring gears or even OEM flywheels. Aproched properly I believe it might work
Ok maybe this was mentioned but why is everyone striving for the V configuration? I look at the pics of the Alfa and it looks like they are just parallel 6's. No need for head reversal or other feats of engineering just put 'em next to eachother. The drive system would be a challenge if this is intended for street use but hey there isn't a problem that can't be solved with a lot of head scratchin' and experimenting.
I'm building a twin engine Fuel Altered with the engines in-line, but I've also thought about building a side by side street oriented twin. Best method for coupling I could come up with for the side by side deal, is to use a 3 inch blower pulley on snout of each engine and tie them together with a belt...run a trans off the back of just one engine. Hooking them this way would dampen all of the evil harmonics, and negate the need for exact phasing. The belt set-up would be much more than up tot he job...remember that a modern T/F car is putting better than a thousand horsepower through the blower drive.
If you don't use a ring gear with an OEM pattern, how will the starter mesh? Also, it doesn't matter what the pattern, you're only going to run those gears dry for a few miles before there are fewer teeth than an Antelope Valley family reunion.
The Jalopy Journal
