I've got some pics also...of this block as I work on it every day with mark at shadow rods....threw in a pic of the sr392...we are doing a few things to it before we take it to GNRS in pomona........
We should be all w****d up with our test motors by spring.....We have then in test cars right now and are pulling them in and out ever so many miles checking them putting them back in..puttin miles on them......they sould be offered to the public by mid to late summer....Mark just statred the list of the first customers to recieve tem on the 1st of jan....I'll keep ya posted of the details and get some more pics up before we leave for Pomona.. goose
I thought if might be kinda fun to resurrect this old thread! "They should be offered to the public by mid to late summer", eh? This post is over a year old and the OP started the thread over 2 years ago! And, yet, Shadow Rods continues to tease and jerk everyone around with their little aluminum flathead blurb in the corner of their ads in all the rodding rags...........what a joke! Like many of y'all, I've seen this motor in person at various Goodguys events - but it's gone nowhere. I suspect it woulda been on the market long ago if it weren't for their insistance on using unsupported steel/iron "thread-in sleeves". I wrote a fairly lengthy letter to Mark long ago detailing my beliefs on why this wouldn't work - but, all in vain. You can't just thread unsupported ferrous sleeves into an aluminum block and expect 'em to hold the decks and crankcase together adequately. The cylinders are one of the main structural components of any block - and to expect these threaded-in pieces to hold everything together is a joke. They need to remake their molds and cast a conventional block with integral aluminum cylinders - then line 'em like everyone else does, with flanged iron sleeves. If that ends up reducing their target bore size a little bit......................oh well!! At least they'd have a product they can actually sell. Just my 2¢. C'ya - RAY
Well, I still remember this in Hot Rod Magazine yrs ago. Dont think its the same engine. To much late teck stuff in yours. But it got a lot of attention. Iceman
----------------- The Ford Tri-motor did not use Ford engines and certainly not V8s and/or flatheads of any kind. The engines used were mostly standard production Pratt & Whitney or Wright 7 and 9 cylinder radial aircraft engines. The only exceptions to the P&W and Wright engines were a couple of experimental Tri-motors built - one using experimental Packard diesel radial aircaft engines and another built with 3 1000 hp Hispano Suiza radials. No Ford Tri-motor ever used an automotive engine. The engine breakdown for the various Trimotor models is as follows: <dl><dt>Ford 4-AT -Pre-production prototype, </dt><dt>powered by three 200 hp (149 kW) </dt><dt>Wright J-4 radial piston engines, </dt><dd>.</dd><dt>Ford 4-AT-B -Improved version, </dt><dt>powered by three 220 hp (177 kW) </dt><dt>Wright J-5 Whirlwind radial piston </dt><dt>engines,</dt><dd> </dd><dt>Ford 4-AT-C -Similar to the Ford 4-AT-B, </dt><dt>equipped with a 400 hp (298 kW) Pratt </dt><dt>& Whitney Wasp radial piston engine,</dt><dt> fitted in the nose of the aircraft; </dt><dd> </dd><dt>Ford 4-AT-E - Similar to the Ford 4-AT-B,</dt><dt> powered by three 300 hp (224 kW) </dt><dt>Wright J-6-9 Whirlwind radial piston </dt><dt>engines; 24 built.</dt><dd> </dd><dt>Ford 5-AT-A - Enlarged version, powered </dt><dt>by three 420 hp (313 kW) Pratt & Whitney </dt><dt>Wasp radial piston engines, three built.</dt><dd> </dd><dt>Ford 5-AT-B - Similar to the Ford 5-AT-A, </dt><dt>powered by 420 hp (313 kW) Pratt & </dt><dt>Whitney Wasp C-1 or SC-1 radial piston </dt><dt>engines, 41 built.</dt><dd> </dd><dt>Ford 5-AT-D - Increased-weight version, </dt><dt>powered by three 450 hp (336 kW) Pratt </dt><dt>& Whitney Wasp SC radial piston engines. </dt><dt> </dt><dt>Ford 6-AT-A - Similar to the Ford 5-AT-A, </dt><dt>powered by three 300 hp (224 kW) </dt><dt>Wright J-6-9 radial piston engines; three </dt><dt>built.</dt><dd> </dd><dt>Ford 7-AT-A - Resignation of a single </dt><dt>Ford 6-AT-A, equipped with a 420 hp </dt><dt>(313 kW) Pratt & Whitney Wasp radial </dt><dt>piston engine, fitted in the nose of the </dt><dt>aircraft.</dt><dt> </dt><dt>Ford 9-AT - Redesignation of a single Ford </dt><dt>4-AT-B, fitted with three 300 hp (224 kW) </dt><dt>Pratt & Whitney Wasp radial piston engines.</dt><dt> </dt><dt>Ford 11-AT - three 225 hp (168 kW) Packard </dt><dt>DR-980 diesel engines.</dt><dd> </dd><dt>Ford 13-A - Redesignation of a single Ford </dt><dt>5-AT-D, fitted with two 300 hp (224 kW) </dt><dt>Wright J-6-9 radial piston engines, and a </dt><dt>575 hp (429 kW) Wright Cyclone radial</dt><dt> piston engine fitted in the nose of the </dt><dt>aircraft.</dt><dd> </dd><dt>Ford 14-A - Large three-engined version, </dt><dt>powered by three 1,000 hp (715 kW) </dt><dt>Hispano-Suiza piston engines, accommodation </dt><dt>for two pilots and 40 p***engers.</dt><dt> </dt><dt>Ford C-3 - Military transport version for </dt><dt>the US Army Air Corps, based on the Ford </dt><dt>4-AT-B, powered by three 220 hp (177 kW)</dt><dt> Wright J-5 Whirlwind radial piston engines; </dt><dt>one built.</dt><dd> </dd><dt>Ford C-3A - Military transport version, </dt><dt>powered by three 235 hp (175 kW) </dt><dt>Wright R-790-3 Whirlwind radial piston </dt><dt>engines; seven built.</dt><dd> </dd><dt>Ford C-4A - Military transport version, </dt><dt>based on the Ford 5-AT-D, powered by </dt><dt>three 450 hp (336 kW) Pratt & Whitney </dt><dt>R-1340-11 Wasp piston engines;</dt><dt> </dt><dt>Ford C-9 - Redesignation of all four </dt><dt>C-3As fitted with 300 hp (224 Kw) </dt><dt>Wright R-975-1 radial piston engines.</dt><dt> </dt><dt>========================= </dt><dt> </dt></dl>
We are not using Ferrous Sleeves oh King of all Flatheads......Don't like it don't read it.....It's ****in ***HOLES like you that just spread ******** on the Hamb.....By the way we got the Ductile SLEEVES to work......And Mark Kirby took the extra time Build a Pan with built in girdle....higher flow water pumps and and complete roller lifter from scratch....and 4 bolt aluminum mains.......Just because of the quality we want to give to the customer........Because and *** like you would by one and *****,*****,*****....because nothing is ever good enough for you.......YOU DON"T KNOW **** ABOUT WHAT WE DO>>>SO DON"T COMMENT ON IT.
gooseta2, Man, you've got to quit keeping everything inside! The stress is going to kill you if you don't start expressing yourself and letting stuff out. By the way that is one cool looking flat motor. Hang in there, Thor
Great to see this thread revived. Anyone who doesn't know Jon Hall or Mark Kirby personally should not comment on this subject. Neither one of them would put a product on the market that wasn't proven and of the best quality. Can you imagine what would hapen if they were to release this thing and have the public ruin a few and publish/broadcast the results? Some of you guys would have a field day ripping them to shreds. I do wish they would have waited to anounce the thing and not have so many upset with the delayed release but like anything else that has come out of this business when it's ready it will meet expectations. Frank
Sorry thor.......I'm just sick of the people who ruin the Hamb....Makes no one want to post or offer tech....because they are just dragged through the mudd...This man does not knowus or what we do....so no reason to comment....sorry
All aboard everyone....it seems the ego's are out now and didn't bring any popcorn for the rest of us...... To the 'haters'.....get over yourselves....your just mad you're not building them. As it was stated, they are running them in test vehicles and pulling them to check them out. That my friends is real R & D.
Give them credit for not developing it on deposit money from over eager buyers. It's been done in other hobbies, and it do get tense.
I am one that would just like to see an original 8ba recast (no french blocks). I know that I have been through six original blocks and would probably have paid a decent amount for a new cast iron flathead.
Ray, do you realize how long these have been in testing. They are taking their time and perfecting them as they go so they won't lose their ***es. As for me, I've built more than my share of flatheads, probably yours too! I know int inherent problems that most flatheads have. And they have good reason to be doing all of the testing to cure all of the old problems, and all of the new. As for anyone using screw in cylinders and sleeves, the aircraft industry has been doing it for over 40 years. And also foreign Mitsubishi's and Isuzu diesels are known to have then du to the fact that it's cheaper to rebuild the engine, and can be done in a matter of hours. I'm not gonna blast anyone on here for their opinions. But take into account, it's their money and their time involved. And I do believe it's around 12K for a long block. Which to me, isn't bad. Go try to buy and build a Merc or Dart, all aluminum motor for that. You won't. And if you pay a good builder to build you one, you'll have even more in it. There are very few all aluminum crate motors out there you can go purchase. The one's that are, are made by the 'Big Three' so they're gonna cost less as they are already setup for the researching, casting, and building and have all of the tools to do it. But remember this, "It ain't no Flathead" This is my $.07 cents, cause that's how many fingers I've got left, and have learned where to and not to put them.
"The purpose for injecting my input was that of constructive criticism and not to insult the collective intelligence of their design group". ********....That's the only reason you spoke up! You Know nothing about this project so keep you mouth shut. take your 2 cents and use them as supposatories(sp)....He He... Yes and I know The definition of Ferrous....DO You know the expansion rates of Ductile and Auminium...10 millionths and 12 millionths.per degree......So when I told mark about how Caterpiller ( who I work for) does sleeves...The 2 metels chase each other on a oven heated fit...YOU HAVE NO TIME INVESTED IN THIS PROJECT>>SO SHUT THE F@$% UP..You know nothing about it..and Mark Laughed at me when I brought up you letters.....If the World only had people like you we would have not Technology....We would just be stuck in 1932 because you didn't want to try it....And I do think Your pissed YOU didn't think of doing it.....And OEM would have 100 million invested into this... we have under 1 million..because we are doing it ourselfs....So when A putz like you comes along and talks **** about the last 2 years of R&D(=Learning) and my work....your damb right I'm gonna tell ya off.... Just my 2cent
P.S Ray...I have one of the Aluminum test blocks in my Shoe.....and it dyno'd at 300 HP....seem like it's working to me....
If no one would care to try something different and leave the beaten path, we'd all still be on hands and knees pickin at each others ***. We'd be nothing but monkees (Heck, most of us still are anyway) Just another 2c
Ahh... Thompson, Summers Bros., Breedlove, Arfons, Richard Noble etc,etc..surely proved an expensive privately funded excercise was anything but futile. Ray, while i do believe that your comments are valid to some degree and were of an attempt to voice an opinion of your own belief or knowledge about something you admitted not researching previously, you need to, in the future, seriously think before punching the keyboard. There is no emotion on a discussion board when one is critical of another, whether the criticism is constructive or not. Do you understand? We all wish to have an opportunity to embark on something that we desire in life. Leave these guys be. They obviously have a p***ion in something that might one day fulfill the p***ion or ego of a future customer. I say good luck to them.
It does not have screw in sleeves and it has a middle deck.... You saw the first block.... The one we cast a bunch of iron blocks out of and out first aluminum blocks out of..... Since then we have done two more blocks... With various updates.....that is what r&d is for.....please don't sell us short. Until you have all the info... Because that is how rumors are spread....by people who mock what the do not understand and who are missinformed... If ya need pics of the new block and sleeve configuration I would me more than happy to send them to you for your approval.... As for my ferrious metal screw up.. Sorry I'm sure someone of you caliber has never made a mistake while typing and thinking of the rumors you were spreading ...I did not know I ws back in the 3 rd grade again... Being picked on for my mistakes....any ways stop by the shop take my shoe for a ride... With 6000 miles on it and see what ya think of the ferrious sleeved, aluminum blocked, non- homogenious engine is doing.
I think i've said enough. I'm only 35, but been doing it a long time already. Long enough for me to know the tricks that make them right. I put my opinion in when i think it can help another hot rodder. But at this point, it's futile. I believe in what they're doing as I've seen it first hand. And I will buy one. If it does break down, I'll do the same thing I do to all of the flatheads I've owned, and still own......I'll fix it.
The concept is good but for most of us the predicted original cost of $12,000 up price tag would make it out of reach for the normal guy. Shop owners with the bucks would be likely clients and limited at that. The questioned durability would have to be proven for that kind of money invested I would think for any one wanting to experiment with new combinations for the flatty's. I have built many modern Aluminum race car motors and found them very durable and without any engineering problems. Currently doing a full house flatty using old fashion block but up dated internals and the cost is way up there for 300 + hp. Will it be worth it? I will have to see the bottom line results first to answer that one but this New aluminum flatty sure has my interest as to bottom line results and I say good luck to those who dare to be different.
Glad we got back to a somewhat civil conversation -- we should really try to keep it at that. Seems like both sides of the dispute have cooled it down a bit and offered some olive branches . . . good work. With that said, if MCF wants to update us on progress, share some design details and let the HAMB know where you're headed and if you actually have a SOLID production/ship date, then share it . . . that would be cool. Facts go a long way in dispelling myth - give us the facts, details, performance figures, pictures, problems, etc . . . we'll work with them. Or tell us that you can't share info now and you'll let us know when -- just be clear and accurate as possible. Part of the reason that rumors and opinions start is because of the fact that this block/idea was introduced (with approximate ship dates) before it was really ready (probably 2 years early). Believe me, I know the temptation to tell the secret and get people excited -- I've fallen into the trap myself (I'm in new product development, did a similar thing a couple years ago). It is very hard to keep the cat in the bag - especially when you believe there is a market for this new cat, people will want it and be excited. The problem is that once the secret is let out, then people naturally want to know when, how much, etc. --- and we want them happy, so we give them optimistic answers. It is hard to say "I'll let you know when we have solid answers -- but not before". I'm sure ShadowRods and MCF have learned a few lessons on this themselves . . . it is how we all learn, the hard way. Looking forward to seeing this MCF dream realized . . . hope it is soon. Give us answers when you can - just make sure they're carefully thought out and as realistic as possible. Dale
I rarely chime in on a flame-fest but flatheads are my deepest love so.... Anyone who has also built non-HAMB-friendly machinery knows there are a lot of aluminum blocks out there and many of them have the cylinders floating with no upper support at all, looking at them at a glance. I respectfully submit many of the engine designs from the Honda corporation. While not HAMB friendly, they are very good at what they do. This is represented by their clear and indisputable record of reliability and performance on and off the track. Do not flame me, this is just an example of good engineering and a clear thought process to a desired result. Case in point is my beloved Blackbird, whose design has been on the road since 1997 and stopped production in 2003. Many sport motorcycles follow similar designs, as well as some auto manufacturers. the engine schematic is here. http://www.bikebandit.com/***ets/schematics/Honda/HJ290029.gif If you look closely at the pic, there are 4 Siamese cylinders with their tops floating in the air. They mate to the heads and coolant flows around the whole surface. While I understand *someones* argument about coefficient of expansion, this engine works. I am on the downward slope of 100K miles on this motor and the only thing I do to it is change the oil. NEVER had a leak and NEVER had a problem with anything else. On a motorcycle, this is unheard of. Power? For roughly 67 cubic inches, this engine produces 164 horsepower from the factory and it is a well modded engine that has had its share of turbos and nitrous plumbed into it and this engine is bulletproof in its design. A well engineered product takes 2 things mostly... time and money. If these guys are doing their best to make sure whiners don't destroy all they have worked to achieve, so be it. I will be in line with my checkbook in hand when they hit the market.
The Jalopy Journal
