Technical ***February 2022 Banger Meet Thread - Heart Has 4 Chambers***

Checking in from Scotland ,still house building so i am parts collecting! got a Pacific Quick Change centre casting coming from Australia to build my A axle with change gears and contemplating paying a hot rod and restoration shop to chop my coupe....

 

Hoping to see mine mid-summer.

 

Ummmm...Ship it to me???

 

That is correct. Two barrel carbs were measured at 3.0" Hg and the 4bbl carbs at 1.5"Hg

Those old Holley "500 CFM" two barrels (essentially half a four barrel) flow more in the 340-350 CFM rating comparing apples to apples on measured vacuum. The mathematical technical number is 333 CFM (500 / 1.5 = 333).

I had a C&S Carb Shop "890 CFM" Holley 4412, 2bbl carb I ran on a class restricted car (modern V-8). It flowed a true 625cfm compared apples to apples of a 4 bbl carb. That was a wicked little carb, it had 2" venturies and throttle bores. They put 2" ID sleeves in the carb because they bored right through the sides of the casting. (normal throttle blade was 1-11/16"), The blades themselves where siamesed.

 

How does that phrase go? "If you ain't got photos it didn't happen."
I'd really like to see that.

 

So, I was prompted by a friend to balance my crank since I already have my banger apart and doing some top end work and cam upgrade.
Questions: How necessary is it? Is this something a local machine shop could do? How much should I expect to pay?
Thanks for your advice and recommendations. TM

 

question : do heim joint tie rod ends have more play than ball joints ? ............. steve

 

I switched to heim joints when I replaced the front friction shocks on the Zipper. Didn’t notice any difference. There are some neat plastic caps that keep out the dirt.

 

i misstated . tie rod ends .
thank you denis4x4

 

Pardon my ignorance - but this setup was in 32 coupe at the GNRS.

Never seen it before - does anyone have any information on it?

 

Did you get a pic of the other side? I'd like to figure out the flow on that head!

R/ Roger.

 

check last months meet, there are some links

J

 

Here’s some more pics of it… very cool OHV

 

Are you referring to my post about the C&S carb? I don't have photos of it, it was 22 years ago, probably on one of my old destroyed hard drives. The $900 I spent on the carb was very real.

 

Bang bang! Checking in.finally vacuumed the cat hair out and went for a drive.got some roadster (cabriolet) hair at 50mph and 60 degrees out

 

Haha, guitar guy, I was just teasing about no pictures it didn't happen. Didn't doubt it was real but I did get you to come up with pictures. Looks pretty strange without boost venturis.

 

@Fabber McGee You'd think it would work like absolute garbage with straight venturis and no boosters....truth be told it blew the normal Holley away and was super responsive. I tried messing with squirter nozzles and jets and always ended up back to what they installed. Well worth the 4 months eating Ramen soup.

 

That is cool, thanks!! Any idea who made it or how it perform(ed)?!!

 

Any one have a comment on balance of crank? How about flywheel weight. Pros or cons

 

I am a big proponent of balancing, But I also have a guy that does an outstanding job. You need the pistons, rods, piston pins, piston pin retainers if applicable, piston ring set, crankshaft, and preferably the flywheel with bolts and the crank pulley. They weigh the piston and accessories, match all of them, weigh the rods on the small end and match them and on the big end and match them. That all creates a bob weight they attach to the crank throws to balance the crank. It's preferred if you can do it with the flywheel and pulley, but not necessary.

I like a lighter flywheel, I whittled my A flywheel down to 44.5 lbs from the original 63 lbs. I did have it re balanced by itself afterwards. I did it that way because it can go on 180 degrees from each position. So this way I don't have to worry about which way it goes on. It would be better to match mark it to the crank and balanced as an assembly, but really by this point you've well surpassed anything Henry has done.

This is my balance sheet from my Fronty headed Model T engine. It'll give you an idea of what happens for measurements......Disclaimer Edit, The second page measurements don't match the figures on page 1. We had to rebalance the assembly again after I discovered I had to do some clearance grinding on the rods to clear the cam lobes, so we reused the piston weights from the first time.

.

 

Thank you guitarguy! I really appreciate the response. However, I think that is a bit beyond my current effort/budget. I’m doing some of these basic upgrades for the first time. I am learning a lot from you guys as I go and will probably eventually be that deep in the rabbit hole.
For now here is my basic question. I am putting a higher compression head, Jim Brierley C grind cam, lightened (balanced) flywheel, and 39 trans in my old rusty roadster. “How important is it that I also get a balanced crank (or have my crank balanced) with this set up?”

 

You will not benefit from a balance job such as Guitarguy is showing. If you do a little research on ISO balancing standards you will learn about what amount of imbalance you can live with. On the inline 4 cyl engine, due to the effects of non-symetrical acceleration of the pistons, you can never achieve a pure balance of rotating parts. The crankshaft can be balanced, bob weights are not necessary to start. After that, the piston assembly weights should be matched and the rods the same. To minimize the non-symetrical acceleration forces, the pistons and rods should be as light as possible.
With your proposed modifications, I doubt you will spend much time above 4000 rpm so all of this work is not going to pay as large a dividend as say a motor that runs 8000 rpm.
A non-counterweighted crank will be more responsive, a "C" crank will be smoother and a "BB" crank the smoothest but have the most weight and MOI.
On the flywheel, the total weight is not as important as the moment of inertia. I see pictures of lightened flywheels where the inner material is removed. That is exactly wrong, the OD should be cut away to lower the MOI and can be left thicker where it counts for rigidity on the clutch surface.
OK, enough for tonight, one last thought, do not use the stock nuts with cotter pin slots, too weak. You can use 12pt. ARP nuts, fairly good insurance and inexpensive.

John

 

Thanks John,

Great inform. It sounds like these waters are a bit too deep for the messing around I am doing with this rusty old roadster. I’m just trying to squeeze out a few more horses and have some fun when the weather warms back up. TM

 

John - At the end of your post you mention "12 pt, ARP nuts" Do you use just the nuts, or do you get bolts as well? Do you have the part numbers? I'm assuming you are talking about the rod bolts & nuts. What about the mains bolts/nuts? Are there ARP bolts/nuts for them?

Thanks, Matt

 

This is the big issue I see, folks just dont understand the difference between racing and hotrodding..some things are shared, some things only pertain to one or the other, some things are deadly for one and acceptable for the other. The biggest way to avoid confusion is have a clear vision of what you want when done...a street car that's hopped up and stays together is way different than a Bonneville runner that lasts a few passes.. and way cheaper to build.

You dont need to balance for a car that you run around in once and a while, spend the dough on the correct combination of speed parts for the engine you are building. A hopped up flathead build is not fast, its torque band is fun and you can play a little in traffic but that Kia will gap you..

 

I used phosphate coated tall nuts and blue loctite on the mains (I know its a coarse nut in the picture)..and Ill probably get shit for this.. but aircraft quality grade 8 high heat nylok nuts on the rods. Castle nuts and cotter pins do not hold torque, they just keep the assembly together.. anaerobic sealant (loctite) if used properly will effectively hold torque.

 

Model A and B rods have the rod studs machined directly from the parent material, so only nuts are needed. I use the 12 point nuts when using an A crank and rods in a T block as they are much lower profile and require much less crankcase fitting. They are also much lighter, and can be strategically used for balancing purposes

 

Long time since I chimed in here, but I'm still in the planning stages. So I gots me some questions...

What I have:
*circa 1930 stocker, reportedly rebuilt in the 90's and might have 200 miles on it (never registered)
*police (B) head
*Mallory Distributor (surely needs tuning)
*newly rebuilt Marvel Schebler Carburetor
*single pot Ansen intake
*slew of Model 94 carbs/cores
*stock flywheel/clutch/transmission
*early V8 top shift transmission case and '50 side shift transmission for gears/internals
*stock 1940 banjo (needs a rebuild)
*early Halibrand (Culver City) 201 case/rear cover

Plan:
*run the Marvel Schebler for a while as this would not require a fuel pump (keeping the cowl tank)
*eventually upgrade to the Ansen/94 setup

Do I lighten the flywheel and use V8 clutch/pressure plate?

Do I rebuild the V8 transmission using the early case and '50 guts?

I've already started the installation of the '40 juice brakes up front, but will need to either install '40 rear juice parts on my A banjo or just upgrade the whole rear setup to '40 banjo. If I have to rebuild the '40 banjo, do I go ahead and build the QC (thinking that I can tune the rear gear ratio to optimize to how I will be driving)?

Do you recommend omitting the torque tube and fabricating/installing a torque arm, especially if I build the QC?

Am I overlooking anything?

 

Agreed, build to your purpose.
FWIW, I do not bother balancing the B'Vill motors. The components as designed and supplied are very close in weight. I just pulled the crank out after 5 years, mainly to check the bearings and cam. Bearings look great, cam is buggered up and needs rings.
My preference on 3 bearing motors are McEachern main caps and main bolts.

J