Guys: Im new to the HAMB web site (specifically the HA/GR forum) and had a couple of general rules questions. Ive read the official rules and a number of threads relating to them, and have tried to take the advice several have given that the rules should be taken as they are no more and no less. That being said, I have the following questions and would appreciate any advice more knowledgeable racers can give: 1. Would a quick change rear end (i.e. Winters or ???) be considered legal if the axle bells and tubes resulted in a stock width for the period and in keeping with the spirit of the Bug? 2. Am I correct in assuming that all HA/GRs compete as a single class with no sub-class for flathead V8s, inline sixes, and inline 4-bangers? Its heads up, run what ya brung? 3. If I were to run a Ford or Merc flathead, would Sharp, Offy, or Edelbrock aluminum heads (as used back in the day) be legal and not considered an exotic aftermarket head like the Wayne for the GMCs as stated in the rules? 4. I believe the Pontiac Tempest 195ci slant 4-bangers were introduced in 1961. I am assuming that would be a legal inline power plant under the rules? 5. Are single-barrel motorcycle carbs from the period (prior to 62) a legal option? I remember going to Lions back in 1958 or 59 and seeing a roadster running a GMC inline six with multiple side draft cycle carbs mounted on a homemade log manifold. Thanks for any advice. Regards, Russ
Sodbuster: If by KC you mean the Kansas City area, sorry, no. I've always lived on the west coast. Southern Cal, Medford OR, Woodinville WA (Seattle area), and now north of Klamath Falls in Chiloquin OR on Agency Lake. Regards, Russ
YES! Yep you got it right, all of those are correct and OK by the rules. Welcome to the HAMB and the HA/GR thread, you will find the West Coast guys are mostly at Eagle Field this weekend, but I am sure they will chime in when they get home.... Build build, it's not all that far from Klamath Falls to Bakersfield. Klamath Falls ? Do you know Doug and Gloria Storey ? He was a fire chief there, and a consumate petrol head , when I last saw them they owned a couple of hot rods, early corvettes and dragsters....
97: Thanks for the quick (and positive) response. Since I'm new to this form of racing (at least as a potential participant - I've been a drag racing fan for more than 50 years, so while I missed the "Bug" era, it was not by that much!), I'll need to learn a bit and then really think about the chassis, engine, and trans combination. Regarding Doug and Gloria Storey; no, I'm affraid I don't know them. We actually live about 25 miles north of Klamath Falls on Agency Lake and only go into "town" to shop and such. So we tend to interact with our few neighbors out our direction. Again, I appreciate your response and encouragement. Regards, Russ
If you are in town you should see if you can look Doug up, he would be a prime candidate for HA/GR, he knows his way around the local tracks too, from memory they used to run at Medford and/or Grants Pass a lot. You may be able to get a bunch of local building and racing happening. Tell him Craig from NZ sent you. In fact you should probably tell them to check out the HAMB, I don't know if they already know about it???? I've lost touch with them.
That'd be five yesses, as 97 noted. So far no one's done a banger but many of us're looking forward to the first one.
Old6rodder: That's now two members indicating I'm reading (and more important, understanding) the rules correctly. Thanks for your feedback. To be honest, I'm at the early stage and just trying to get the "lay of the land". My experience has been with later power plants, specifically inlines that are just a bit newer than the '62 cutoff. So I'm not absolutely sure what direction to go but then that's a big part of the fun of the HA/GR: figuring out what chassis, trans, engine, and gearing combination might work best given the 6-inch street tire rule. I'm assuming the tire limitation is the "great equalizer". Not much point in generating big power and torque if you can't hook it up. Like most things, it seems that achieving just the right balance between all the components is the real trick. I'm also guessing that weight (as usual with race cars) is a big part of the equation. In any event, having built several Pontiacs V8s in the years gone by, the Tempest 195 slant 4-banger seems like an interesting play. Being essentially half a 389 with the same cylinder head that has [relatively] good flow potential just might be competitive. There is a fair amount of common parts between the 389 and the 195 but there are some significant differences too - particularly with the rotating assembly. I'm thinking that half of an early V8 8x2 log manifold (Offy, Edelbrock, or ???) with four 97s might be just the ticket. Lots of possibilities . . . Anyway, thanks for your expert help. Russ
Russ.. I run a 194 Chev. inline 6. And like you said, Keep the weight down and you will be fine.. Remember Mickeys 4 banger Pontiac.?? Hauled tail.. You were hanging around Lions the same time I was.. I had a Crosley Wagon with a 347 Pontiac in it..Also helped Glen Stokey with the dual Chev set up.. These things are a real kick in the butt. Have fun.. Dick M...
RussKing, I gave a good deal of thought to the Tempest Four as well. I've owned and driven a couple of these, and I am a big fan, despite their shortcomings. The big thing is to remember that they have a lot of rotating mass, and are a realy rough running little beast. You won't be able to reliably spin one much over 5500 rpm or so, so think TORQUE. Long narrow (high velocity) intake runners will work very well, along with a try y type single collecter header. Lots of compression would be good, too. Untimately, I think if you see 200 hp, you'll be doing well, so consider that against the projected weight of your finished car. Some of the Mopar Slant Sixes, and big Jimmys are already seeing well over 300 hp, although the GMC powered cars are fairly heavy because of the engines themselves. The Tempest is no light weight either, however. I believe they come in around 470 pounds. I've often thought that given its compact length and hefty weight, it would be an ideal candidate for a mid engine application. By building a short drive shaft/coupler, you could bolt it directly to a Tempest transaxle, and have everything sitting right at the rear wheels, for maximun traction. A guy could build a very cool dragster useing these parts! For me, my project got put on hold due to health issues, a death in the family, and the fact that my engine (Chevy 194), turned out to actualy be a 250, therefore unusable. I'm looking at some other options presently, trying to figure out if I'm pushing the rules too far. Certain precidents have already been set however, that strongly favor my line of thought. We'll see.....My plan is to build my chassis with the idea that most any powerplant can be installed in the future, should my controversial choices become a problem later on down the road. When we end up with 25 or 30 cars on the West coast, and are able to get a bunch of us together in one place for a proper shindig, then we will need to all be agreeably on the same page. The struggle continues....lol!
Another big yes on your thoughts. Keep it simple...keep it light...be creative and have fun. That's what the class is all about. Welcome to the insanity. Don't worry about building different...that's the beauty of the class...building to your imagination and using your choice of components within the rules.
ThingyM: I do remember Mickey's /4 in the "Attempt I" (looked like it was based on a modified Dragmaster chassis). He set a number of records with that (and other) Pontiacs back in the day. I went to high school in Rolling Hills, Est. and was a year behind Danny Thompson. Sig Erson's daughter was a year behind me and one of my friends lived a couple of doors down from the Edelbrocks. Lots of racing influence in, and around, that area of SoCal. FourBanger: Thanks for your insights into the Pontiac /4. I've never actually been inside one but I've read what I can find and the rotating assembly is "interesting" to say the least. Of course you're right that they are not feather-weights but I was thinking (hoping?) that there would be a fair amount of 389 HiPerf parts that might be interchangable - particularly a [comparatively] good flowing head. I've noted that there are several Mopar /6s and a few Falcon I6s in the mix. Both are probably good choices. I've been an "inline" fan since I was a kid with my first engine rebuild being a neighbor's 302 GMC, then work on my dad's 292 Chevy. Certainly many options to consider and that's a big part of the challenge and fun. 64Dodge440: KISS is always a smart design strategy. Not only less to go wrong and less to maintain, but it probably results in lower weight, which I suspect is key - particularly with HA/GRs and those skinny tires. Thanks to all for your insights and encouragement. Regards, Russ
RussKing.....You are correct concerning the parts interchange between the 389 V-8s and the Tempest Four. Viewing the engine as exactly what it is (the right half of a 389) anything and everything you could do to a 389 will translate directly to the Tempest. Cam lift, duration and overlap, valve size, port work, bore size and compression ratio.....what's good for the V-8 is half as good for the Four. They made a 10.5 compression version of this engine, with a four barrel AFB carb, that put out 166 hp. A couple more points of compression, a bit more cam, and an open exhaust could very easily get you 200 hp, and not have to go over 5500 rpm to get it. How about this: The manual transmission cars had the clutch hanging on the back of the engine as per normal, but the automatic cars had the torque converter hanging off the rear of the transaxle. Sooo....how about using a two speed auto transaxle, and replace the torque converter with a solid drive coupler. Then use the standard clutch on the engine....The car would be a clutch launched two speed that could be shifted manualy without the clutch! This could be fun.....I dearly LOVE this sort of thing!
Four Banger: Sorry it took me this long to respond but lots on my plate these days. Thanks so much for your valuable insite on the Tempest /4. I was aware there were many parts (both factory and aftermarket) that were interchangeable with the 389 V8. The interesting part will be understanding the rotating assembly and what modifications might be possible there - probably not so much of an issue with pistons and rods but with the crank and the bob-weights [?] that act as "placeholders" for the missing driver side stuff. I had originally thought the /4 crank was a 389 item also (maybe it was when the Pontiac engineers built the initial test mule?) but became a special /4 crank when the engine finally got into production. Is that true? Apparently, the /4 had a unique timing chain set that was much better than the basic 389 version due to the need to deal with the vibrations and such. I guess the V8 guys covetted those timing sets. I also wonder about finding much in the way of cam choices at this point. That may be a challenge . . . Anyway, thanks again for your thoughts. Regards, Russ
Yeah, they built a hell of a crank in that engine, trying to compensate for it's general tendency to jump up and leave the car when revved up! You should see one at idle.....they flop around like a blind mans dink!!! The crank became it's own piece early on in development, as I understand it. All I know is it's heavy as all hell, and has counterweights that defy description! As far as cams go, I'm not certain that anything was ever available in the after market. The 166hp Indy cam would be the hottest thing going, but good luck locating one. I think regrinding is the obvious answer, as you could get about any profile you could feasably use, from a stock shaft. In reality, these engines are a bit of a turd.......but I love them! I've often entertained the idea of an International Scout Slant Four also. Those things have good rods, forged pistons, hi nickel blocks, just built tough as all hell. All the other problems apply though. Heavy, slow revving, tanks. The COOL factor is WAAYY up there, though!
Old6rodder and ThingyM (and any others that would like to chime in): On another (but rules related) topic, I understand that the 194ci Chevy I6 is considered a legal engine for the class. My research indicated that the 194 was originally introduced in the 1962 Chevy-II. Since rule #12 states that inline engines must be pre-62 (I read that as 1961 or earlier), why is the Chevy 194ci I6 considered legal? Is it because the model year 1962 Chevy-II with that engine was actually for sale in the dealer's showrooms in the later part of 1961 (as was typical) and therefore is considered pre-62 and legal? And if the 194ci I6 is legal, what about the 230ci and 250ci Chevy (or the Pontiac 215ci) inline sixes that came shortly after the pre-62 cut off. All these I6 engines used the same (standard deck) block with the only differences being the bore and stroke changes. These engines share nearly all the same components, including the siamese port head. There are some differences in the later heads having mainly to do with the combustion chamber size. But all are based on the same engineering design that really didn't change over the life of the engine family. Obviously, the 292ci I6 (introduced for trucks in the '63 model year) would NOT be legal because it doesn't share the same block with the 194/230/250 and it clearly missed the pre-62 cut off. So am I to conclude (from the various posts on the subject of engines) that, because the 194ci engine is apparently legal, that a case can be made that the 230ci and 250ci are also legal? I'm sure not attempting to "game" the rules, but merely trying to understand what options I can legitimately consider. Regards, Russ PS: Assuming that any (or all) of the 194ci Chevy I6 family are legal, what limitations do you see on selecting one of the several years of interchangeable siamese port heads? Would I be correct in assuming typical port and polish work (as was certainly done back in the day) would be legal? Would I also be correct that "lump ports" would probably NOT be legal since I don't think Kay Sissell had developed that technology until some time after 1961?
Hi Russking, the reason for the cutout date ending with 1961, was that newer motors could possibly turn more rpm with seven mains. and the 194 was small enough that nobody objected. These rules are a nice guide. I think that you will find out that you are the one to check yourself. The little falcon motor started out with an auto, that is what was available at the time and then when convenient he changed to standard trans and went quicker. This is not yet checked like NHRA would for a class, it is to have fun. The fun is when you create one of these, you will just grin when you look at it. It is a lot like a rat rod. People will enjoy looking at it and grining. A couple of years ago I took mine to a large race, it was a pinewood derby race with a lot of cub scouts. about a hundred of them, not an exageration, got in the car one at a time and had there picture taken by there parents.
Hey Russ...what Joe said. This whole class is really about the "time machine" factor these cars bring. It's more about experiencing the early style of drag racing and building than trying to be the "fastest gun in town". Sure, we all want to go as quick as possible, but the guys with the slowest cars in the class still have huge grins after making a pass and it's just plain fun going out and seeing what you can do with a bunch of old parts assembled in your garage. A 14 second pass in one of these is far better than a 12 second run in a door slammer.
Joe Hamby and 64 Dodge 440: Thanks for your response. Your insights are greatly appreciated. I fully understand what the intent (the spirit?) of the class is. My dad took me to my first drag race in 1958 at Lions and I was hooked and have been a fan for more than 50 years. Even so, I missed the era of "The Bug" by a few years but I certainly appreciate the roll such cars played in the scheme of things. Of course this class is not so much about the ET and speed as it is about having fun with like-minded racers. Ever since my son [!] pointed me to this site, I've been grinning like the proverbal Cheshire Cat. So I'm fully on board the rules as they stand. I'm just trying to understand what options I have within the scope of the rules for the following reasons: 1) Of course, performance potential is a consideration. To say otherwise would be lying. 2) Availability. As you well know, certain engines that would fit the rules are relatively easy to locate while others are as "rare as hen's teeth". And related to availability is cost - something most of us must necessarily pay attention to. 3) Parts - both stock (like replacement bearings, gaskets, pistons, rings, etc.) and period-correct performance (intakes, cams, carbs, ignitions, etc.) items. Some HA/GR legal engines have considerable parts available while others ... not so much. 4) Machining. Depending on the engine of choice, finding a machine shop that can properly perform basic operations (boring, decking, and such) can be problematic - particularly in rural localities like mine. I'm a rule follower by nature (something that seems to be out of fashion these days) so I'm not trying to "push the envelope". I just want to be sure I have a safe and legal car in the spirit and character of the class to have fun with regardless of the performance. I want to play by the rules, not change them. So if the Ford 200ci and Chevy 194ci I6s are considered legal for the class and variants of those are not, I'm perfectly good with that interpretation of the rules and will analyse my engine options accordingly. Regards, Russ
250/292 Chevrolet 6 and 240/300 Fords are legal for SDRA racing, as are automatic transmissions. I raced the 230/250 type block with the 292 Chev crank back in '66-'67. Most of the racers around here use what ever engine is easy to find and cost effective. I'm using things I've accumulated over the years.
I'll work backwards on your points. Please bear in mind these are my conclusions and resulting opinions only, and regarding HA/GR only. Others have differing points of view regarding HA/GR, and of course other groups have differing rules (in fact I'll need to refer to some to make my points). You're right about lump ports, too late indeed. Porting & polishing, definitely (and fun to do yourself). Although not mentioned, bigger valves were a common build as well. As to the 194, 230 & 250 ........ First, a short explanation (just to recap for new readers, most of us know this). Most other inliner groups do the early vs late cut-off at 1960, because they seperate into two classes based on it. We run only one class, so wished to make later equipment available (cost & availability and fun, as you noted). Our inherent problem comes in trying to concede that, yet maintain the engineering equivalencies wanted (obviously). To that end the originators of the class tried to hit a specific set of engineering points, but many folks wanted a given date so as to have a simplified reference (and a few wanted a gaming target ). So they did their best to pick a representative date to use. The simple fact that in real life those engineering points were spread out well around that date is what yields the dichotomy, and subsequent confusion. Other (no less valid) definitions of the concept not withstanding, this is where our class is at present, still sorting out specifics in light of the intent. Not unlike the supreme court, eh? So, using these guidelines, it seems to me that those engines & components and their like descendants that were engineered prior to our '62 cut-off are within the spirit (of course), while technically past the specific date by their introduction time. Their subsequent engineering descendants would be out of the spirit as later improvements were incorporated. I guess the short version is that in my view it's about the engineering level of the period, with the cut-off date as a guide to that. So then, back to your question ........ I think you're right in your assesments, you're application should follow what you've said yourself. To my mind, the 194/230/250 series (with the first issue heads only) would be good, as they were still engineered to the period we're allowing as representative of the period we're enamored of. The bore and stroke changes would be no different than boring and stroking a 194, something a rodder would've done as quick as he could afford it. The later engineered head changes would be a horse of a different color. I'm not familiar with Ford history but the concept can be applied to whatever you're interested in running. To pick an example; roller rockers and roller lifters would be nearly unheard of outside of aircraft in '50 and though available prior to '62, in no way represent '50 automotive engineering nor drag racing of that year. As I apply it to our car; the slanted equivalents are using any slant block (the later changes were cost, not performance, related), but only the early heads ('67 & later heads had engineered performance advancements). The advantages of '67 & up slant heads are actually quite minor but the concept is there just the same, those later changes just weren't in use in the period represented. OK kiddies, all this's given me a brain flash; perhaps a way to state it simply? "HA/GR is 1950 drag racing, represented in relevant pre-'62 technologies."
Old6, IMHO your view of the way these rules should be interpreted is right on the money. There are mile wide loopholes, but the true spirit lies just as you stated. The letter of the law, and the true intent, are often different. Your points are well thought out. Of course that's just MY opinion, and you know what they say about those....
Guys: Thanks for clearing up aspects of the rules that apply to engine selection and modifications. I think I'm on the same page now. So, in the case of the Chevy 194ci I6 family, an engine build roughly as follows would be in keeping with the rules and spirit of the class: * 194ci Chevy I6 (bored and/or stroked to 230ci or 250ci) * 194ci head with the following mods: > Port and polish intake and exhaust (no bolt removal or lumps) > Install larger intake and exhaust valves with appropriate springs > Rework combustion chambers (cc match and unshroud valves) > Pinned rocker arm studs (screw in studs not era correct?) > Stock "ball" rocker arm assemblies (no roller rockers) * Basic machine work on crank to clean it up * Reworked stock connecting rods (ARP bolts? polish beams, etc.) * Forged pistons (raise C/R to ??? to take advantage of race gas rule) * Solid flat tappet cam and lifters. * Performance push rods (would CM be legal or ???) * Stock oil pump, appropriate pan and pickup * Era available points type ignition system * Era correct induction system Maybe 3 side draft '50s Jag (or similar) carbs on a home made manifold? * New replacement rings, bearings, and gaskets * Typical "bling" stuff (valve and side covers, etc.) * Assemble with ARP main and head studs (if considered legal) Does this sound like a viable and legal combination? If I'm understanding the rules (as written) and all the good advice already given on this forum, I think this should be acceptable. Any thoughts? Regards, Russ
In principal, yep, go your hardest, I'm not super familiar with the chev family, however, all the other stuff is good, tripple SU's, compression, porting, etc, good to go.....now get it done. If doing all of the above brings a smile to your dial, and if you're doing so because you love this kinda thing, then go your hardest, remember, we're doing it because we love it, KISS, and you're on your way. Cheers, Drewfus
I think you should maybe look back through some of the build threads, Especially the engines, as that seems to be your concern. There have been roller rockers used, and other serious race type modifications , they are all accepted so far and no one will be bothered if you use screw in studs etc which are hidden from view. The important things are the profile of the car, the engine and the style....the car needs to LOOK like it came from the mid 50s... the make model and year of the ( stick shift) trans , rear end, don't matter and nor do the internals of the engine as long as the basic engine is era correct...........and no 4 bbl carbs or blowers etc obviously......... I think most people have built the car around a stock or mild engine, and gone out to have some fun,for a start, then modified things as they go, as would an aspiring drag racer have done in the mid fifties..... I think the ultimate engine search is over thinking the spirit of HA/GR and is counter productive to actually getting one built and out there.... Modify the engine or build a "race" engine once you are running and have competition...be that the time clock or others whom you have excited enough to build a car. The rules say pump gas/race gas , but also say no alcohol, as E 85 is a pump gas that is what I would be building a "race" motor to run ..... it has been discussed here before and I believe declared HA/GR legal. In essence I say keep it simple, don't over think it . Build a car and modify it over time to the level of performance/reliability you are comfortable with.
Ooh, more SUs. Looks pretty good to me. Good points, 97 (though we are giving Thingy some good natured lip over his rollers ). There were several aftermarket SU manifolds from the time, some still around to be had. With that given, a 194 suitable repro (if they're around) would be acceptable as well, as it'd represent the originals correctly. Should you cobble your own there're a couple design features particular to slide carbs that you'll want to research. ARPs, absolutely. Any modern safety equipment not effecting performance is not only acceptable, it's wisdom. I'd say that'd include screwed in rocker studs as well, they're safer than pinned ones and the rocker won't know the difference. I know they allow more spring but you won't be using as much tach as a roller set-up so over springing'll just be a HP loss. Better pushrods are also an acceptable item, as they should be. Again, they really don't give you much below 6000 and are safer than stockers. Aftermarket stuff not mentioned, but included; Safer clutch, flywheel, T/O, etc. Safer balancer. Safer gears (both gearbox and rearend), u-joints. Safer wire wheels if you sport'em. Etc, etc, etc. (with apologies to Yul Bryner) On our rear hides we recently went from original A-bone rims, welded spoke, to aftermarket rims, nippled spoke. They look very nearly the same and are several times as strong, just a good idea. Besides, younger techs sometimes have reservations about the way you true welded spokes, and require patient, time consuming, explanations. Just a leftover thought ....... Question; Are the 230 & 250 simply factory bored & stroked 194 castings or are they newer castings with larger holes to begin with? If the former, then I'd see no problem in using'em (with an early head). That'd be no different than boring & stroking a 194 yourself, just cheaper, easier and quicker (all attributes). If the latter, then that'd be tantamount to a full sleeve job, a different horse altogether in '50.
97 and Old6Rodder: Thanks again for your wisdom and encouragement. Your point about items that are safety related (that don't really affect performance) and look the part makes a lot of sense. Ditto the list of other drivetrain related items. Good question regarding the 194 vs 230/250. As far as I know, the blocks (all known as standard or short deck blocks) are all the same. But perhaps there may be some difference in the cylinder wall thickness as cast such that you really couldn't bore the 194ci block out from its standard 3.563" bore to the bore shared by both the 230 and 250 of 3.875". I'll do some checking with some of the knowledgeable Chevy I6 folks to clear that up one way or the other. I don't believe there is any problem in dropping a 250 crank into the 194 block (which would approximate stroking the crank in the more traditional way back in the day. But again, I'll check with those in the know to be sure there isn't any difference in the early vs. later block that would prevent what I'm proposing. Obviously, if the 194ci block could not legitimately take the over-bore or the stroker crank and would need either the later 230 or 250 block, then my take is the 194ci is in and the 230/250 variants are out. Them's the rules . . . As for over thinking the engine option, you're probably right. But (and this is just for me personally) that's a big part of the fun. Working out various combinations, trying to achieve a reasonable balance (as long as I'm within the rules and spirit of the class) is an enjoyable challenge. It gets better when you then build to the plan (sounds like the old "A-Team" saying: "I love it when a plan comes together . . .") and the car looks right, and it gets better still when you finally get to the track and the car actually works. This is more fun than mere humans are supposed to have! Again, thanks for keeping me pointed in the right direction. I'll do some further research and will report back on what I find. Regards, Russ
Interesting, +5/16" is an awful lot for a '60s engine (unless it was pre-planned to be bored). Sounds like a different casting. Yeah, I concur. I love facing off at an engineering job with a fistful of possibilities myself.
Russ...just remember, bigger isn't necessarily always better. The shorter stroke will rev better and if you keep the car light could be potentially quicker. Back in the '60s I had a friend with a '64 Chevelle with a built 302 small block that ran slower when he pulled the small block and stuffed a 396 into it.
The Jalopy Journal
