Yeah, I'm running Pertronix in both the float engines (per Tournament recommendations) and in my "slanted" daily (for over a year now) as well. We were quite surprised and quite irritated at the failure. I'm not too worried about the two in the float but I do believe I'll epoxy the one in my car, I do spin it from time to time. We'll stick to points for the Barn Job anyway, as we'd fully intended to go back to'em once we had the carbs sorted out. I've been hoarding an old dual point conversion plate for this distributor for awhile now. Looks to be time to drop it in.
Roy, I spun my stock GMC distributor to 6000 rpm on my distributor machine and it never missed a beat. By the way, have you locked out the advance on your distributor? Ron
Always preferred the basic points and condenser ignition. With minor maintenance they are very reliable and if it does take a poop they are pretty easy to troubleshoot in the field. Than again I like aircraft that need to be started by pulling on the propeller and motorcycles that you have to kick start. Something about the stuff you don't need a computer degree to work on appeals to me.
Got this from the Famoso site, video from T&T Friday evening. Barn Job's run's at 4:18 minutes on the video's clock. Very slow load due to re-posting (be patient) but plays good. http://videos.streetfire.net/video/14-Mile-Drag-Racing-at-in_179945.htm
To answer Ron Golden's question there is no advance in my distributor, I locked it out. Back in 1957 when I had my first flathead rail, John Bradley running Gene's Brake shop flathead rail was the top runner in flatheads. I wanted to get rid of the battery and so I went to a Harmon and Collins Mag for my 3/8 X 3/8 flathead. I noticed when John Bradley fired up the engine sounded very docile and as he pulled up Gene would come up and set the Mag and the engine really came alive. I asked Gene why and he said with Nitro you can't have a lot of advance when you fire it up but with gas you could and don't run any mechanical advance. He said that was strictly for the street. I have never ran mechanical or for sure vacuum advance in any race motor. Set it at what is your maximum advance and run it there. The less movement you get out of the plate that the points are on the more accurate your spark is. If we could run crank triggers you could really have a steady and accurate spark. But they for sure didn't have crank triggers in 1957 or 1960. Roy
It was me that posted that video. If anyone wants the full resolution footage let me know. Brad 323 896-3281
OK, I added a better "nose art" picture and a couple shots from our pit at the "Hot August Nights" meet showing the new second loop, making the roll bar into a cage. How appropriate for a "HAMBster".
Damn, I lost 13". Or rather the car did. We FINALLY got the short gearbox done and fitted into the car. Pulled the rear end forward and adjusted all the other pertinent things. At long last it looks the way it's always looked in my head. Definitely stumpier, and much improved on its weight transfer. Also knocked off 35 lbs, that certainly won't hurt. Actual wheelbase change after all the bits and pieces were put back together is down 14" for a final result of 124", only 2" over our original target of 122" (the extra 2" is in the front end). Added a selection of photos to the build album of course. Should have some from next weekend at Bakersfield shortly as well.
Lookin' good!! The aft shift of CG shouldn't hurt either, and leaving the extra weight in the scrap metal bin always helps!!
Yea,,, Next it will be a Fab 9" rear with spool and pro gears... Then god only knows after that...ha ha ha hehe...
Hadn't thought of those yet, you buying? Actually we did score an old "sure grip" (Chrysler's posi) for the 7 1/4" but it needs rather a bit of work to say the least. It'll reside on the shelf 'til such time as we encounter one-wheel slippage problems (so far not evident).
Well, we got the new needles in the SUs so we'll give'em a try Saturday. Doesn't sound like much improvement yet but can't open'er up on our streets, far too vertical here and far too lumpy. That's the next to last item on our "top end crap possibilities" list, only thing left is valve springs. We won't do that 'til we build a proper head, maybe early next year. We expect to make it Friday afternoon and will be there for the weekend. Come on by, cold DPs of course. See ya there ........
We'll be there on Saturday to help with the pit details, our parts ain't assembled enough to bring along yet, but we'll be takin' notes.
Well, I pulled the tarp and flamed'er this evening, painted the street in a couple places just for giggles. Certainly was nice to tap the pedal again after the last few months of having to settle for only looking at'er as I walked by. Still has the crap over 4500 (I have a couple more ideas why and'll test for'em this week) but it sure felt good to smoke'er right off the street crown again. Li'l Dickie LIKES driving sideways ..... If you've seen the pictures of the hill I live on you know it gets interesting in rather a hurry when you light up the hides around here. Getting ready to start this year's fixes and upgrades. I swear by Odin's brats I'll get these damn carbs right this year.
Yes, albeit a distinctly slow one. At this time we're included in existing bracket classes at the three different venues that run us. Most of the tech guys at these (Historic and Nostalgia) venues understand the concept and fit us into a bracket reflecting our actual performance rather than hammer us with tech for cars three times faster and a third our ets. We haven't attended an NHRA owned venue (nor are we likely to) as they make no provisions for HA/GR type cars, even in their own so-called "Nostalgia" classes. Nor are they likely to. Such time as we manage enough cars to initiate an HA/GR class it'll actually be slower than the classes we now run ............. but finally it'll no longer be bracket racing.
Could you tell me the length of just the frame. I have a model t type frame and it measures about 107 inches, don't know if that will work to make a dragster like yours...thanks
I have a question for all you chevy guys. Was the 1962 chevy nova engine, the 153 cubic inche four cyl. the same as the later Monza and s-10 pickup motor??
Our frame's 117.5". That allows for 29" of engine (pulley to bell flange) and 30" from there to rear axle centerline with the shortened gearbox. A couple inches to the firewall and that leaves 56.5" for the driver. The front end's beyond the frame of course. In that a banger's inherently shorter you just might make it on 107".
We're using T rails in our construction, came out with a 112" wheelbase. could have built it shorter but stretched the nose a bit. Go for it!
Monza maybe, depends on what S-10 you mean, the earlier ones were Isuzu motors IIRC (and not one of their better designs IIRC).
Old six I notice that a few posts ago you said you were still crapping out above 4500. I know you have spent hours on the carbs but have you looked at the valve springs. I know either a broken or weak valve spring will sure make you think you have carb or ignition problems. Roy
The Chevy 153 was nothing more than a Chevy six with two cylinders lopped off, shareing the same 3.875 bore and 3.25 stroke with the 230 six. The Monza 151 engine that replaced the Vega engine greatly resembled the earlier 153 externaly, but was a new casting, with a 4.00 bore and 3.00 stroke. These engines weren't as stout as the early 153, and had only limited rpm potential due to thinner block castings and lighter weaker cranks. These engines got a cross flow head in 1980, and found their way into many GM cars and trucks including the early S-10, and AMC cars and Jeeps. The front wheel drive cars got a different version of this engine, with a different block. These had the small 2.8 V-6 bell housing flange in place of the earlier V-8 style, and a side mounted water pump to shorten the engine enough to fit in a transverse application. If you want to race a Chevy four, the old 153 is the one you want. These were widely used in Midget racing for years, and are very light, strong and respond well to modifications. If memory serves me, they were available from 62 through 70, although the newer ones were probably fairly low production. The 153s are great because of the parts interchangability...230 rods and bearings, and pistons (283 V-8s too!), water pumps, etc. All valve train parts, bell housings, starters, and mounts are also the same. Gee, I'm starting to salivate just thinking about these little powerhouses!
Yeah, that's been on the list for some time now. I've been procrastinating on testing the valve springs, wanting to settle the carb and advance problems before I pop the head but I may have to break into that schedule and do it. I'm persistantly getting less slide opening at idle and more standing wave at the top end at the rear two carbs. I'll finish matching the slide springs this week, switch the carb positions to double check and then likely look into the valve springs finally. One of the "things" on slants is the rear valves. Perhaps I can devise a way to check'em in place, cobble up a lever and torque wrench thingie or such. Simple reference test should do it, there should be at least one good one for a benchmark. I also plan on adding some stack to the carbs to keep the standing wave in the system. Hate to give up the pretty filter covers though.
Extremely embarassing update on our persistent crapping around 4500. It looks like I've been beating my head against the wrong end of the problem, perhaps why my results've been less than effective. I recently had occasion to clip an old box tach/dwell that a friend loaned me onto the Toad for a baselining run on the new 3.23 gears. She was smooth and almost exactly 4500 @ 100 mph as expected, and I noticed the pitch of the engine during the run. Sounded happy and not dangerously tight. Back to the Barn Job and while I was fiddling I read the tach, crapping at 4500 but noticed the pitch was all wrong for those revs. Curiosity up, I popped the box tach on and lo & behold the two didn't agree, car said 4500 ...... box said 3000! WTF Pulled the car's tach and checked the setting, yeah, six cyls. Put it back together, same results. Damn. Apart again, this time I took a screwdriver and switched the setting back & forth. The detents didn't feel quite right so I tried and sure enough, it went past the eight cyl mark to yet another detent (twelve?). The light finally dawned and I set it on eight, put it back together and oyez, oyez, it was now reading correctly for six ..... and the exact same damn crap was now officially at 3000. Mid-range. All this time I've been going nuts studiously futzing with the top end timing and carb settings and the damn thing hadn't even been getting up that high in the first ************* place. But the tach said ......... Stupid, thy name is Dick! Well, it didn't rain Friday so I went through the carbs and the timing with some quick approximate changes and lo & behold I got 4400 (with the tach now reading correctly). Shouldn't take too much more diddling to get a usable 5000 out of'er (the car's geared for 4700). Likely need to order yet another set of needles once we get some track time in this year but at least they should finally be the right ones this time. What can I say?
The Jalopy Journal
