The 170 is legit. You shouldn't let the fact that exterior parts interchange confuse you. The argument for the first version only 194 is that it was on the street in '61, labelled as '62 model (standard practice for new models). The only engines grandfathered by this would be those unchanged from that. The argument against later, larger bore versions (230 etc) is that these were changes (performance improvements) in the castings, not something you could do with the original parts. Where does the 200 fall in that context? Was it a later casting, changed internally, or the 170 casting, bored & stroked like a '50s rodder would've done. The way I read the rule is that any "grandfathering" only includes those engines not factory re-engineered in any performance manner from what was on the street in '61. Seems quite straightforward to me.
WOW!! that Pontiac 8 is beautiful...can't wait to hear it run with the stacks. As for the engine debate I'll agree with Old6 that the 194 though technically a '62 model year was available in '61 and should be OK. Personally I'm going with older technology and don't really worry if any of the MOPAR flathead sixes are pushing the limits. Even though they were built for the military M37B1 up to '68 and for commercial use in fork lifts and such probably later than that, the stone age technology remained the same...our block dates to 1934 so we should be well within the parameters, and yes I will be running points and condenser ignition...I like things that can be field repaired without a computer. As for those out there who wish to build later machinery...go ahead and mount 12" slicks and have fun in your own class.
I just picked up a later model slant six last week. I had the impression that as long as I put the older style head on,I was ok. So the rule is now that the block/crank/rods must be pre62 or at least be pre-what? That's getting a little harder to find. I'll comply,but not really a fan of that rule.
I am getting ready to give up ... the idea of this whole thing (at least I thought it was) is to have fun for cheap. Yes I understand there are guidelines ... but ....
SCOTT...... Don't pull the plug, Just build what you want with what you have and go give it a shot at having some fun..Screw the technicalities. Go Racing. This is the funnest(new word) part of this deal.....
This isn't the NHRA.. Build a good safe car, with all the needed safety equiptment. Show up at the race track, I'm sure they WILL NOT tell ya to go home...Go Racing..
What he said. You are the only judge of what you build. I have a later slant and nobody cares, It's still a slant. I hope nobody shows up with a French flathead V8. That would cause some to worry. The look is the main thing, along with safety. If I show up at the H.A.M.B. drags, I don't think Ryan would check my block numbers. I have been a spectator there, every year since 2005. And helped to build one of the first three HA/GR's, Just build and...Go Racing..
There's a big swap meet coming up in a few weeks in this area. Maybe I can find an old essex engine or maybe one from jack benny's maxwell. At least no one would fuss about it and the tires would last forever! Jeez I hope they didn't have automatic trannys! Leather belt drives legal?
Gentlemen, relax please. What we're discussing is just for those of us manic (or stupid ) enough to be that perverse about it. I, myself, am also a rabid model railroader. FULLY capable of enjoying an hour long "discussion" regarding just when and how a particular water tender rivet head was broken off in 1894. The guys are right. Build'em, run'em and enjoy'em, that's what we're doing. We still have an effing Pertronix on the Barn Job, and we will 'til I can get the car to where we want it even though I personally don't like it (I want points). Just one less thing needing attention at this time so that we can race'er while we continue to sort'er out. Underdog, the head change was in late '67 if it's important to you. If not, don't sweat it, it made little real difference in HP anyway. Same for the cast crank engine (late '76), 40 lbs isn't worth bruising your brain over (although I'd personally limit HP on a cast crank to around 250, just paranoid of cast iron lately for some reason ). Also ....... In '72 they started induction hardening the valve seats. In '75 they dropped the leaky "drool tubes" and went to BL (peanut) plug heads. In '80 they went to slush lifters. All these are currently racing. The true '60 & '61 cranks had heavier counterweights (none racing that I know of). Scott, don't let rivet counters like me get you down (we can be our own worst enemy ), it's only another way to enjoy the game. I try to bear in mind that on the internet the whole world (of idiots) is free to kibbitz. It's always definitely "pinch of salt" time in this medium. At the strip it's a whole 'nother attitude for the most part, think about it, you'll see. Everybody, we go on tangents just like this from time to time on every forum I've ever seen. Don't let it lead you to miss out on the fun. I sure as hell haven't, toys are for fun. Eagle Field, gentlemen, Eagle Field.
But I guess if you were picking nits, the 200 wouldn't be legal because the cooling passage/casting change put 2 more freeze plugs in the block ??!!??
You know my ex-Brother-in-Law has a bunch of those. One he says is 501cid and I am pretty sure it far surpasses the pre '62 requirements ... hmmmm ....
Might be some trouble with the gearbox. Unless we run it direct. Ha ha,that could be wild! Those antique tractor pullers are probably exceeding the HP of most HA/GR's!
If it wasn't so heavy,a snowmobile clutch/drive would work sweet. Might be considered an automatic though.
underdog...don't get your knickers in such a tight knot...we'll race your Essex or Maxwell with our '34 Dodge Flathead Six. It would be great to have some more true vintage powered cars out there...meanwhile build what ya want, just try and keep the concept within some realistic range of the rules and there really isn't a problem. The problems seem to be with the folks who always seem to want to alter the rules to fit their ideas, the concept of gee, if it's got an inline six made by (fill in the blank) and they made an inline six before '62, "how different could it be". Sure, it is a bit harder finding parts for some of the older engines and "speed parts" are either non-existent or very expensive, but you can build your own intake and exhaust, there are shops that still regrind cams if you so desire and there is something to be said for building something different. That "be the only one on your block to have a full race Henway" satisfaction can't be purchased. Build it and have fun with it...that is what it is all about. Rabid model railroader?? Hell you are rabid about more than that. As for counting rivets, freeze plugs, lug nuts...whatever, I don't think we ever really gave a fat rat's ass about the details. It's always been more fun to have the purists say "what model did they build that for". Eagle Field is what the concept is about to those of us who are building in the '50s. Flag starts, no tree, no time slips, run it as hard as you can and get cramps in your cheeks from all of the smiling. It's like Street Racing without having to worry about the cops.
O/T but I have a friend whom is one of these, each car (about 400 ?) has a different and unique number and he runs everthing on a specific schedule with a engineer and conductor on each train. He works for UP, and runs his model rail pretty much the same way.
If you are in a remote location, Minnesota for instance, or if you are not likely to mix it up with other HAMB dragsters, then deviations from the rules are strictly a personal choice. If I would have had a 303 Olds engine or a 241 inch Dodge Hemi laying around, it's very possible I'd have used it. It would be more faithful to early-mid 50's drag racing than the slant 6 I'm currently using. No problems at the strip either because my chassis is legal to 9.99 seconds. I'm quite sure there will never be a collection of true Hambsters in my area unless I build them all.
For more than likely the only "event" I would go to would be the H.A.M.B. drags. I would try to run at the local track, but time and .....
The only person who can truly rule on this is Ryan, would he let a 194, 3rd generation Chevy 6 that was introduced in 1962 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Straight-6_engine) run in the HA/GR Class at Mokan. I'll send him a pm. Rocky
Sounds pretty normal by our standards at the Slim Gauge Guild. We're three-footers and card order is a way of life on the Sn3 side, train orders on the HOn3 side of the room, what can I say. One of our old members still runs his RGS stock cars on original orders on his layout. He has all the cars, most of the mainline and many of the orders. Yeah, he's as nuts as the rest of us.
Dick, external demisions and design is the simplist way to identify an engine. All we need to settle the issue is a 1961 model Chevrolet with a 194 cid. When we run at Eagle Field this October we'll need to have a rule or a way decide who runs HAMB Dragster and who runs with the C/GD. I think the Legal HA/GR cars could vote on accepting a non-complying car event to event. Some of us might like a shot at the "Big Boys" Rocky
You know Rocky, this could be a good thing all around, how does this sound?........ At "The Field" (I do believe your meet has a proper nickname now, ) the HAMBie competition was a side issue anyway, so ...... Match up the HA/GRs and the "outlaws" seperately at first, then each HA/GR can join the grudge racing as they're eliminated from HAMBie competition. After all, the HAMBie's really the only difference competition-wise, right? Come to think of it, that's pretty much how it worked out when the Poncho was slush at the first meet anyway, wasn't it? Further, I see no reason the same concept couldn't be used in ANRA Competition as well. Anyway, it's an idea.
A little off topic but can somebody give me some information regarding what Russ is talking about here? What kind of cycle carbs? Any body got any pics of something like this? I get the general idea but I would love to see an example. thanks in advance, Andy L. Kaempfer St. Louis, MO
Andy: I wish I could give you more details about the cycle carbs I saw on a GMC (270?) six back in '58 or '59 at Lions (I was only 7 or 8 at the time and VERY new to racing and such so details really didn't register). I can tell you that the intake manifold was home made (welded tubing and flanges) with each intake port having its own carb. I believe there was some sort of a balance tube between adjacent carbs and the linkage was interesting because the carbs used a cable (of course) mechanism to activate them (I'm guessing they were slide type throttles). They looked like the carbs I saw on BSAs or Nortons back in the day, only they seemed to be bigger. Russ
Andy: I have a 1967 "Complete Book Of Engines" published by Perterson (Hot Rod Magazine folks) that has an article by the late, great Ak Miller (page 114) where he affixes 4 Keihin (stock on Honda 450s) side draft carbs to the cast-in log manifold on a small Ford 177 ci inline six. You might check that out since the article has a number of great photos. Russ
I recall a few that ran Amals, and one that ran Bings but I haven't found any pictures of any of'em. Most of'em I remember ran a torsional shaft & arms set-up that lifted very shortened cables right at the carbs. Not sure where but I vaguely recall seeing something or other running multiple brass bowl Carters (HD 45 flattie stuff) I think (might've been a pizza dream ).
Great! Thanks for the direction. I've never seen anything like that before so it peaked my interest. thanks again! Andy L. Kaempfer St. Louis, MO
The Jalopy Journal
