Dick, I gotta say this re: how would a mechanic know how to order parts for a 194 ? He would just look at the block and see that this aint a stove bolt....... and that is the issue. 194, 230, 250, & 292 none of them are pre 62 motors. As I said before they share the Bow Tie and number of pistons with the the Stove Bolt. Joe
Not to be stirring more of the stinky stuff....but I have to get this off my chest. First, we have a good and clear cut set of rules to build by. They get complicated when racers are confronted with the possibility of using late model, and clearly superior engines, in a class that by all definitions is supposed to reflect the 1950's era. We do not need to complicate our regulations with protests and tear downs. If you have the correct cast iron then more power to you if you kick ass for you have done it right. I guess I should mention that I'm not impressed that all of these outlaw engines are free,in my neck of the woods they sell them. Joe
Joe,, My engine was bone ass FREE. Ask Joe Barton ( Zero Budget Racing) And when I was building my car there were only 2 other cars already completed. So as to speed things up, Joe offered his engine to me so I could get the car on the track, To help promote the HA/GR class. My original Idea was to use a Chrysler flathead 6. But it would have taken quite a while to get it rebuilt because of the costs involved and parts availability So we planted Joes bone stock 194 in there to get the car on the track..It never was my intent to "Cheat" or "blow everybodys doors off" only to help promote the class.. So if everybody is so worried by my Lil 194. I'll park it till something comes along that I can exchange it with. Which might take awhile.. Have fun.. Dick M
Hey Rocky they putting you in the same boat as me????? Hang in there You ask for it, keep it up. No matter what you do you can't win. It's lonely at the top
Racerb it looks like you are winning to me. Your events are well organized and fun to attend. I'm thinking Rocky has either taken some lessons from you or is a natural. I'll be at both of your events as long as the cast iron holds up. Regards....Joe
Is it really taking the high road if you're the only guy at your track with a car? And if it's ET bracket racing at your track, makes no difference at all what you have under the hood. The battle cry of "it's not fair" only applies if there are a lot of you racing in the same place and it's heads up. After 5 years, there are what, 25 of us globally? "fair and equitable" becomes important if there are a lot of cars racing heads up (we don't have that). And I might add, if you don't have a deep wallet, you ain't got no business in a heads up class where the fastest car wins. Just to play devils advocate for a second on that. To many people complaining about things that TRULY will never effect them in the rules. If you're not going to Mokan, or racing where there is another HA/GR car, my opinion is to build it the best way that GETS THE CAR BUILT, for you. Lot's of sitting around and debating and not a lot of building going on. We're on our second season... still the only car at our track or within perhaps 800 miles. Look at the rules, appreciate them, enjoy them... build a car as close as possible. There's no money, and no trophy, and mostly nobody else doing it. So why debate it endlessly if it keeps a person from building? Build a car. 5 years from now when there are 40 of us, you're gonna be due for an upgrade on the engine anyway. Strap something else in. Get your feet wet, have a good time. Don't worry about what people you'll never see or meet on the internet feel about your build. HAVE FUN!
Vector, you are really right about this. I got to thinking last night though, that doing TWO engines, when I could just do ONE correctly, seems counter productive. I've been looking around for alternative power plants, and the one thing I keep running into is the fact that rebuild parts for these older engines are starting to go through the roof, price wise. Right now my budget is a bit lacking, and it does seem a shame not to use what I have laying around. However, by next spring I'll be okay, and I'd sure like to go hit a couple west coast events. Eagle field would be a hoot, but there's no point going there to race heads up in a dragster class where I'll get pounded in the first round. But, I appreciate Rocky's position. some good things will need to wait, I suppose. We'll see what happens.
Guys: Just a thought on how to deal with the legal vs. illegal (per rule #12) HAMB HA/GR engines. One relatively simple solution would be an extension (to rule #12) document that contains two lists: Those engines that have been considered by the "rules committee" (?) and approved as legal, and those that were considered and deemed NOT legal. A new car builder would simply check both lists to see if his/her proposed engine would be legal or not. If the proposed engine was on neither list, the builder would petition the rules committee as to the status of the engine in question. Having the "Not Approved" list would prevent the rules committee from having to consider the same illegal engine more than once. continued ...
So for example, the 194ci Chevy I6 might be on the "Approved and legal" list but with the stipulation that only the 194 head (and not the later, but compatible, 230/250/292 heads with improved flow) can be used. The related 230/250/292 Chevy I6 engines would appear on the "Not Approved" list. Another example might be the 144/170/200/250 "small" Ford I6. The 144/170/200s would apparently be considered as legal and would appear on the "Approved" list but perhaps with the stipulation that the head must keep the integral log intake manifold in tact (though converting to multiple carbs like the Offy 3x1 kit would be allowed). Removing the log manifold would NOT be legal - though rodders back in the day probably would have done just that ... Ak Miller comes to mind. And the 250ci "small" Ford would be over on the "Not Approved" list. continued ...
Finally, the "Approved" list would obviously include the Ford and Merc flatheads, the GMC 270/302 I6s, the 225 Mopar /6 (perhaps with some stipulations?), and others already deemed as legal. From there, both lists would grow over time and the bulk of the engine questions would become moot. Maybe something to consider. Russ PS: the post was in three sections because I'm having a technical problem that seems to be related to the amount of text included in a single post. I'm guessing the issue is at my end ...
You can make it as complicated as you want...look at the N(o)H(ot)R(ods)A(llowed) rule book...it's to the point of regulating things in ways that were obviously dreamed up by the legal department. The rules as written were designed to have holes allowing "interpretations" just as they used to be and allow for cars to be built in the back yards and garages of hotrodders as they were in the '40, '50s and '60s. Yes...there are some engines that are "on the fringe" though by the rules as written do technically fit, some that continued into the later years basically unchanged or with minor changes that nobody should really have any problem allowing run and some engines like the 194 Chevy that as they evolved definitely don't fit, (personally, I feel that the 194 fits , but the 230, 250 & 292 versions don't). The 218/230 Dodge/Plymouth flathead sixes were actually manufactured up to 1968 for use in the Military Dodge 3/4 ton M37B1 4X4 truck and probably later than that for use in fork lifts and such, hence the availability of parts isn't as bad as some of the other early engines, but should anyone want to run one from a '68 truck, would anyone really care? We can debate some of this stuff until we are blue in the face, but a small amount of common sense goes a long way. The purpose of the class is to experience drag racing as it was...to consider building a late model killer engine just to have the fastest/quickest HA/GR type car doesn't make any more sense to me than building a tube chassis, independent suspension, fiberglass bodied small block Chevy crate motor powered "1932 Ford Roadster". It's still a fake! I know we won't have the fastest or quickest car in the bunch and I really don't care. Our plan is to have the biggest amount of fun with an old pile of parts as can be imagined and all of our "records" are going to be recorded in our logs against what we have previously done...if by chance we should win some races...the sodas and hot dogs will be on us in the pits at the end of the day. Sorry if I'm long winded...I'll get down off the soap box for now.
Tom , what you are saying is right on the money , I don't give a rats what the other guy runs or how fast he goes , I'm only there for the fun , if that means helping a competitor out , loaning the opposition parts , or drinking his beer , then thats what its all about to me. At the track all us guys are buddies , but as soon as we head out to the start line its all on. To me the whole point of this class is to get back to basics and have fun fun fun. Win loose or draw at the end of the day we are not racing for huge prizes are we. My 2 cents worth.
Could someone help me out on something? I've seen several times on this forum , someone speaking of an early siamese port head on the 194 Chevy. Having never known of this, or never seeing one, I started researching. I talked to several oval racers who ran 194s back in the day, and no one has ever seen this head. While in the parts store a few days back, I asked about this, and we decided the difference would be reflected in the gasket set numbers. They could find no reference to a peculiar exhaust gasket for 1962. They were all the same, 62 through 74 or 75 I think. I started thinking about this, and I don't see how there would be enough space internaly to rout siamesed exhaust ports, ala 235 Chevy. Has anyone actually SEEN one of these, and if so, how were the ports configured? I'd really like to see a picture of this, as I'm begining to wonder if it ever existed... UPDATE....I just looked at my 194 in the garage, and I see now how this COULD have been done. I STILL want to see a picture, though...lol!
I'd thought the siamesed ports to be the intakes but according to BobW's post (#35) they were indeed the exhaust ports, per a Leo Santucci book. Certainly wouldn't be the first time a rare item got lost in the parts lists over the years.
While I respect what you guys are implying, I've never seen any evidence of a non-competitive "spirit" from the early fifties racers. I wasn't there, but if dick kraft was willing to take the body off his race car to win,that's pretty frickin competitive to me. Seems like the were taking advantage of every loophole they could afford.. Much like a lot of us. That's the spirit to me. It is after all, racing,not trying to relive memories that never occured. its fun trying to emulate a period of history,but they were trying very hard to win, so don't be too hard on some of us with a competitive "spirit"
On page 84 in Leo Santucci's book is a pic of the early (1962-1964) head. I don't have a scanner, but here is the caption: "Top-regular head with separate exhausts. Bottom-early STD-LD 194 CID actually had Siamesed exhaust ports as well as intakes (1962-1964). I bought a 194 out of a 1962 Chevy II and it did indeed have a head with siamesed exhaust ports. The level of competitiveness or, desire to win versus the simple desire to have the sensory experience of running an early style rail (especially with another one in the other lane) resides within the heart of each individual. I can't imagine anyone in this class cheating to win. I can imagine someone entering the class and being willing to out spend others to win.
I never meant cheating. I'm no smokey yunick either. I just meant someone choosing the best legal engine to attempt to win. A lot of the rules inqueries about the rules seem to be economic and trying to find the best"horse" for the job. Someone looking for an edge doesn't violate the"spirit",it is the "spirit". To me anyway
UDE, Sorry if I misunderstood the jist of your post. I definitely looked for an engine that would be competitive. Ended up with a slant 6. Seemed like the most bang for the buck. If I could have found a 302 Jimmy, that would be between the frame rails. By being competitive, I'm not even comparing with other HA/GR's too much as it's doubtful I'll ever run against them. I wanted a car that had a chance of running 11's so I could scare the poop out of myself and not put the spectators to sleep waiting for me to cross the finish line. Couldn't agree with you more, finding an edge, a legal one is the "spirit" of drag racing. Otherwise the term "speed secrets" would not have been coined.
You and I are kinda in the same boat. I chose the slant with the automatic too. No one to race with around here, so to race I gotta hit the brackets. I need to build a different chassis though,as the single hoop cage isn't gonna be legal here. It looks cooler,but I like to race too!
Old 6, all the third generation Chevy sixes have siamesed intake ports, spaced in twos at the front, center, and rear of the head. A head bolt goes through the center of each pair. Not all that great a set up, really, especially compared to the twelve ports of the Mopar Slant Six!
Well, Just as this raging debate cools down I would like to throw some gasoline on it. I think it is clearly obvious that Ryan did not want the 195 and up Chevy 6's in this class. What was, undoubtedly, less obvious to him at the time was the high cost of obtaining and adapting the earlier 6's to later model transmissions. After putting an arm and a leg (about $1,800.00, which is a lot for me) into a relativly feeble 235, I was faced with buying a $360.00 adaptor to mate it to a 200R4 transmission. I think this $2,000.00 presents a major hurdle to the growth of the class. The 195 style engine will bolt to later transmissions and has much better availability than the previous generation of engines. I think the cubic inches should be limited to 230.
Butch, How would you equalize the early and later engines? Having said that, SDRA opened the engine rules up to allow later engines run. (see our rules at tulsaracewaypark.com/nostalgia ) Some have stated that "if they break a motor, they will go back with the later motor". The question then becomes which one and how big. The big ones (GMC's) are having problems over powering the six (6) inch tire already. Thus, is it better to go with a smaller motor, maybe, maybe not. Later motors due have some advantages; easer to obtain, easer to get parts, cheaper just to mention a few. But what ever one you choose, it still comes down to what you can do with it.
Crinsp, Here's my take on the whole thing. Keeping competition at a reasonably fair basis is an endless job. It is almost the full time occupation of the NCAA, NASCAR, NHRA, US OLYMPIC COMMITEE, the NFL...ad nauseum. We should not over analyze this. Two guys in replicas of 50 year old dragsters doesn't make sense on any level. I suggest we should bend our efforts towards economy, a higher car-count and having a good time.
Butch,I agree with you on the economy and going faster. I also very much appreciate the more traditional flathead(of various makes) powered cars. Both are pretty neat. It seems what has happened is that two different views in HA/GR have emerged. Its a mistake to try to force these two views into one class. The tension that scares people away is the bickering between us all. Let's just have another group,that isn't a breakaway association and just race and admire what each other is doing,without all the fighting
Thank you Butch, That has been my thoughts on this all along..Never a trhought about cheating or "If I use this engine it will give me the advantage"..Times are tough, And you gotta use what ya got or can get (Preferbably Free). Which I did..As far as the 194 being superior over the other 6s..I don't see it. 120hp out of the box. WOW!!!.. If I had wanted to be the Biggest, Baddest, Most feared HA/GR.. I sure in the hell wouldn't use a lousy 194" motor. And my chassis would be a full Heli-arc welded Cro-Moly piece. Not the stuff miner is made out of..I've said too much about this, So you guys do what ya gotta do, And have fun...Later.. Dick M
A set of rules that do not require policing is certainly the way to go. The present set of rules surely fits that criteria. Clean up that "pre 62" rule, and it's all good. Butch, I agree Ryan never intended for the newer generation of engines to be included....he just slipped slightly on how he wrote it down, that's all. I used to race in a six cylinder modified class on the local ovals back in the 1980's. The engine rule was 1965 or earlier specs, and 270 max cubes. Cam was limited to .441 lift, and we had a spec carb and spec tires. The bulk of the class ran 230 Chevys. There was one slant six, one 240 Ford, and two 229 Buicks. One of the Buicks, the Ford, and about three of the 230 chevys were WAY faster than all the rest. The reason was simple....better chassis, smarter crews, more money. This class had been around since the mid 60's, and the only reason the old Jimmys had died out was the fact that all else being equal, the new generation Chevys were about 200 pounds lighter, and cheaper by far to build. Fast forward to today...the 65 engine specs had become a problem. The stuff is drying up in this area. The class voted to allow the new generation of V-6 engines in, with the same basic rules. Most of the class is now running 4.3 Chevys. They are cheap, tough, and readily available. The track records are still held by a couple savvy guys with a 230 Chev inliner, and the class is more competitive than ever before. The guys are all putting out around 200 horses at the rear wheels. I realize that allowing the newer engines into Ha/Gr would require rules that could potentialy have to be policed. If for instance, you allowed Ford 240s, how would you know it wasn't a 300? If you said 230 Chevy, it could be a 250, etc. But aren't we taking a bit on faith here anyway? For example, the present rules say no nitrouse oxide. Trust me, there could be guys out there right now breaking that rule....easily. We just have faith that someone doesn't have a 2 pound bottle in his top radiator tank, plumbed down through the top hose, through the thermostat housing and into nozzles inside the ports. Eletrctrical wiring can go through the distributer loom into the block and up through a pushrod tube to inside the valve cover. The NASCAR boys have already been caught doing this. Where one has the will, there is always a way. In any case, if people want to look to more economical engines, then rules will need to be added and policed. If not, change about five words to clarify the pr 62 rule, and this long winded discussion will go the way of the Dodo....
Car count was the reason we, the SDRA, opened our engine rules. People said, "if I could use a later model engine, I would build one", I'm still waiting for these cars to show. So far the cars that are being built are using the earlier engines. If it takes a little bending of the rules to get the car count up, I could live with that because we have seen how the 6" tire works against large or high torque motors. Ask Roy Merritt (348) about these bigger engines and tire spin.
There are always lots of ways to cheat if that is what a person wants to do, if that's where their mind is working it is not going to be stopped. That said, it's hard to imagine what their goal would be in a class with no profit or awards to be earned other than the personal satisfaction of winning the race. Add into the factor the 6" tire and the traction it implies and it just seems like that concept is absurd. I know that as long as there is any type of competition some folks will try and gain an unfair advantage...my feeling is if they gain pleasure form their actions what the hell...who am I to judge, they are only fooling themselves. Point taken here is that the old engines still get the job done and there must be parts out there for those who care to build them. As earlier has been posted..."if it was easy, everyone would be doing it" and that covers the debate well...some folks like to say "well, if I could use some different parts, I'd build one", but never will regardless of how easy it could be done. It seems like there are lots of opinions on where this should go and many factions and concepts developed from the basic class. Let the local groups decide what direction they wish to go and have their own dream. This will never be a "National Class" with meets all over the country, so lets stop flogging the horse, it ain't gonna move without a forklift. For those of us who wish to build with "old engines", it's more about how it was than what can be done with newer technology...otherwise we would be building Toyota or Honda engines and running 12" slicks. After all, if a newer engine was OK...why not newer carburetors...HEI ignitions...fuel injection...where do you draw the line? Somebody always wants to "just change one rule" to make it easier...better...cheaper, whatever. If they are that damn smart, why didn't they come up with the idea in the beginning. Sorry.......I'll get off my soapbox now. Have a nice day, after all, it is Friday.
Relax, it was just an idea so people would quit getting bent out of shape over the rules. That clearly didn't work! Besides,the bottle goes in the oil pan.
No, the bottles go in an oversized aftermarket bell housing, in the space around the flywheel & clutch. Small bottles, lots of'em.
The Jalopy Journal
