I bet they would let him run it just as it is, Because of the engine size.. I sure in the hell would..
Not to stir the **** any, but it does seem to me that the advantage a slingshot type ch***is might have over a HAMB style, would be completely moot with small displacement four cylinder engines. Something around a hundred cubes or smaller isn't likely to have any traction issues to speak of anyway, regardless of ch***is configuration. There just isn't any real torque there at the bottom end. I've been giving a great deal of thought to running a small, light, four banger since my Chevy Six didn't pan out right. I have raced these things on ovals for years, and the one thing we always ran into was that building more power with these little beasties, always ended up moving the torque way up the rpm curve. Heavy flywheels kill the snap in the acceleration, and light ones kill the engine's ability to move the car's m*** away from a dead stop. Of course on an oval, a hole shot was not important, but at the drag strip it's damn near everything. Some brave soul is going to have to build a rolling research lab to play with the little motors. I wonder who might be the first to take the plunge....?
Hey Four Banger ... First off I love the OHC Ford you are building and wish I could run one in my HA/GR. Anyhow to my understanding the rules not allowing the slingshot style dragsters are not to eliminate advantage but to keep the "theme" or as you will "The Spirit" of the original dragsters (ie: The Bug) intact in the cl***. Maybe there should be a new cl*** ... Hmmmm .... A dragmaster ch***is with a Lincoln Y-block ???!!!??? A boy can dream, can't he ??
There was some very serious discussion about a slingshot/digger style cl*** some years ago. It didn't result in a cl*** like the HA/GR but that's fine by me. I'm free to build whatever I want! There are quite a few of us building FED's. Here's mine. http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=477911
Hi Kerry, have you heard of the www.southwestjrfuelers.com/ . There is three in the Tulsa area and more around this area. They run 410 in, iron heads, Hilborn style injectors, zoomie exhaust, alcohal, powerglide's. and they run about 170 mph.
I hadn't but that's pretty cool! I'm sure my car wouldn't fit though. I'm not giving up the blower! ;-) Beside that there are a number of things nhra tracks might frown on. She's a pig too, built with .120 mild steel and the big old hemi to boot. I didn't really build her to race and be competative but instead to get some 1963 seat time.
ScottV, you must have me confused with someone else....I'm not building a OHC Ford Four. My car was designed around a 194 Chevy, but the engine I bought turned out to be a .030 over bore 250! I'm weighing my options now to decide what direction to go. The thing is, I'm an old oval track racer, and we always had to "scam the rules" (in the words of Old Six Rodder). My theory is this: Precedents have already been set in motion to run newer engines (post 62) under the idea that the design of said engine origonated pre 62. Based on that precedent, I have researched a great many engines, and found a whole new world of powerplants out there. Fact is, I could make an air tight arguement that my Chevy 250 is pefectly legal....because it is! The design origonated in 62 as the 194. There are absolutely no differences between a 194 and a 250, except bore and stroke. There are no rules in the HA/GR rulebook against boring and stroking an engine. So there it is. As fate played out, I ended up needing the 250 for my chevy pickup, so I'll carry that arguement no further. However, here are some to consider: The Datsun first series pushrod fours were based on the Austin A series fours. Many improvements and changes were made, but the design origin was there. The Toyota T series engines are a descendant of the Peugeot 404. The Toyota Land Cruiser Six was a knock off of the GM 235 Stovebolt. The Datsun L series Fours and Sixes came from early Mercedes stock. I guess my whole point is this: This set of rules is so very vague, and many people are "scamming" said rules already, that soon it will turn into a virtual quagmire. My intent when my car is finished, is not to gain the "unfair advantage", but to have something different. I've always marched to the beat of my very own drum, and it's too late to stop now! However, I'm trying to tread lightly, so as not to piss off some or all of the very nice folks who already have these cars out west. We will doubtless race one another in the not too distant future, and I want no hard feelings to exist at the start. The little Chevy fell out of the sky at an unbelievably cheap price, or I wouldn't have even considered it to begin with. But now that it's transplanted into my pickup, I'm looking "outside the box" once again, and my search keeps bringing me back to my first love, the four cylinder powerplant. I welcome any comments, opinions, or ****hing remarks, concerning my previous thoughts.
If you want to march to the beat of a different drum and get outside of the box use one of the big Ford truck or Lincoln 337 flatties. It's just a little heavier. ;-)
Cool engines, but scarce. Rebuild parts are a bit pricey, too! A Caddy flathead would be way cool, but ...same deal. I love all these old engines, but the ones that can still be found around here at reasonable prices are the ones that have been done to death....Stovebolts, Jimmys, flathead Fords, ect. Actualy, I've got a line on a Ford 262 six.....supposed to run good, too. We'll see where it all goes, I guess!
Never looked it up, but I think that's about right. As it happens, this particular engine turns out to be a 223! That's twice I found an engine that was mis identified.....guess that happens. The 223 wouldn't be too bad an old turd, I suppose. It does run really solid.
The 223 has some potential. What I like, it's a near perfectly square engine with 3.62 bore and a 3.60 stoke. Compaired to other engines that's a fairly short stroke for a six of that era. Short track racers ran them around here, when rules allowed sixes only.
The Jalopy Journal
