I've been stalking the HA/GR forum for about two weeks now, and I'm really interested in putting together a car. Here's my dillema, the six cylinder I have on the floor in my garage came from my '63 Comet. It is a 170 cu in motor, and as far as I know is identical to the '60-'62 motors, it just happens to be a '63. I just want to ask if it would be ok for me to run this motor or do I need to save some money and try to find an older motor? It's in no way a ringer, I'm in it just for fun, and since I'm pretty short on cash it would be a lot more fun if I didn't have to go looking for another motor just because mine is a year too new. If the rules are the rules I'll understand, but it would be appreciated if I could just grind off the casting number. Ryan?
Run it.. It is in the same family as all the rest of the Falcon/Comet motors..It was probably built in 62 anyhow....jmo
Ok cool, I just wanted to make sure. It needs rebuilt and hopped up first, but it means I have all the drivetrain laying around. Thanks a lot guys.
Build it, but don't get carried away with the engine. Keep it reliable, keep the car light and you'll have a ball. That's what it's all about, seeing how much you can get out of how little machinery. It's not the miles per hour.......It's the smiles per run that makes these cars work.
I'm running a '68 200cid and have been accepted by the ********s out here, just brace yourself when you step on the loud pedal
No problem, my vote as another car owner is run it! Thats what the slant six guys are doing as well. I dont think anyone cares as long as its the same family engine and the look stays pre 1962.
Hell, they built the Mopar flatheads for the military M37s up into the late 60s and later for fork lifts and such.
With 320 inch gmc's and 350 inch hudsons. Why not a corvair? I would vote for a corvair, they came out in 1960, Just like the 170 in. falcon and the slant 6. I would say that they should be welcome, as long as the engine is in front of the rear axle. Let's keep this interesting. These motors only made 180 horses with a turbo. This would be a better rule than "no rev limiter" . I guess that one is personal because I just broke an engine when I missed second gear about a month ago. Joe
The Corvair engine sounds fine to me. If you think about it the 50 & 60's was the height of innovation and there were few, if any, "cookie cutter" cars. I'm sure all of you ol-timers remember some of the screwy combinations that ran down the strip. Chrysler Hemi with a SB Chevy in a twin engine dragster. Who can forget the "Bustle Bomb"...an Olds and a Cadillac if I remember right. One in front and one hung out behind the rear axle. I say build it to the rules and run it. Hell, we're just doing this for fun anyway. I'm also in favor of a rev limiter to save our engines. We personally have too much time and money in our engine to waste it because of being "period perfect". And how the hell is a rev-limiter going to give anyone an advantage...it's just insurance against a blown engine. When our shop builds an engine that will be connected to a manual ****** I always recommend they install a rev-limiter. Personally, I haven't seen a HA/GR dragster that even remotely resembles the original "The Bug". We're a long way from "period perfect". Joe, I'm sorry to hear you broke a motor on a gear change. That ****s. Ron
Ron, I have a thought on the rev limiter. IIRC the air cooled VW crowd had a rev limiting Dizzy Rotor. I remember it being for low RPM apps (Zambonis, driving schools, ???). I understand the reason for the rules not alowing rev limiters (delay boxes, timers, traction control, etc) as they can be used as a performance advantage. I have never driven a vehicle equipped with the limiter I am talking about, but I have met people that have. I recall them having two primary gripes: 1) It wasn't adjustable (and as an industrial / fleet piece it was set fairly low). 2) It was slow to reset. To the tune of a second or more from initial shutdown to relight (or so I'm told and I can't see having the engine cut out at a fixed RPM for an extended period being a performance advantage). I was also told it was very abrupt (potentially hard on the engine compared to a 'soft touch' type) and sometimes failed to the 'kill' position. I don't recall for sure how it shut down the engine, I want to say it either shorted out the rotor (to ground) or it re indexed the rotor to where it was firing on the exhaust stroke of the previous cylinder (that would be one hell of a show for the spectators if it's the latter ). It doesn't meet the letter of the rules, but I figure one built like that would meet the spirit of the rules (ingenuity instead of denero).
I just wanted to know what happened to it,because in the day they used any thing that they thought would work everything including airplane, boat,car engines I remember that had a drone engine.Rev limiters are find as long as they are not used on the starting line as a control.
I found out that the valve springs in a "period correct" flathead mopar are an effective rev limiter. Another advantage the flathead has over an ohv, we don't break things when the springs get rubbery. 6000 rpms when new, after about 2 years of high winding - they back down to 5500. Chances are I won't get to race alot, so I may back down to an "all Hudson" 262 engine or something of the nature for this outfit. I'm more about fun than winning all the time. I'm certainly not above building a small mopar either, because I love those engines and have a few strewn about. The "big" Hudson is just seeming more and more excessive all the time when I think about this cl***. I'm all for different types of engines of the era as well. I'm wishing you'd open the door for different transmissions of the same era. Wouldn't you think a hydramatic would be okay? Just consider the weight penalty! - LOL. Mark
Tom.. Yea I thought I'd use a Chrysler 6 that a friend had.. But then along came this Chev 6 that another friend had. IT WAS FREE.. so 6 cyl. Chev it is.. And it's much lighter....I had a Corvair motor sitting on the floor ready to go..This was a couple of years ago.. Everyone thought that the VW and Corvair motors were a No No.. Soooooooooo....
The rev-limiter on the MSD 6AL (or similar system) is a soft touch and would fill the bill nicely. Now I know I'm going to catch hell for even suggesting it but I hate to see engines blown from a missed shift. The MSD won't make a nickles worth of power over a stock ignition system. Believe me, running one on low performance engines doesn't help the HP or TQ. I've tried it on the dyno several times and the MSD doesn't change a thing. The only time was when I had a 1430 HP, 15:1 alcohol engine on the dyno that needed an MSD 10 Plus to fire the plugs. I think the basic idea of the HA/GR is perfect; old school style and looks, simplicity, low cost, and above all, fun. But, lets not shoot ourself in the foot by having rules that promote "period perfect" above safety and common sense. We're a long way from "period perfect" anyway. It's a new cl*** that promotes the "concept" of The Bug but it's already completely different. Ron
Don't want to start a controversy here but I would like to make an observation regarding the rev limiter. The points about them saving engine damage is valid. I'd like to bring up the nostalgia top fuel cl*** that started 15 years ago with old ch***is, iron motors and 3 amp magnetos. Now it is modern ch***is(still front engine), MSD 44amp magnetos, data loggers, billet blocks and heads and on and on. How do you get here from there? one simple rule allowance at a time, all in the name of safety and cost reduction -all valid and justifiable- but I can ***ure you that the cost has gone way up and the cars of 15 years ago are not compe***ive any longer in the cl***. I am not taking a side here, just making an observation. Brad
Part of racing "back int the day" WAS blowing stuff up. If you missed a shift at balls-to-the-walls stuff usually broke. Putting the driver back in the car is the main idea here, I thought. Yes, I am probably gonna be the first guy to lunch an engine, but that element of caution needed to perhaps prevent that is part of the limiting factor in my minds eye. The guys with these $20k engines and roller cams and stuff are risking more to go faster. That's cool. To me the cl*** needs that risk to make the big $$ guys think twice about it. They are probably gonna do it anyway, but at least us poor guys will feel a little better about it. LOL. My cheapie replacement flathead at $1K-2K will hurt my wallet proportionally. Glenn
I feel bad for my friend Joe and anybody else that would blow an engine. I'm going to have to agree with Bird Guy. Anything that levels the playing field is an important consideration. Anything that keeps costs down is equally important. The post that started this thread asked if a 170 cube, 63 Merc could join in the fun. I say hell yes. It would be pretty damn sweet to see it beat a monster of twice the cubes, if the driver had the skill.
Yep, I'm gonna have to side with the above opinion as well. Which is why I'm rethinking my situation. I've already been down this road in another motorsport. Antique tractor pulling. I started way back when you couldn't even compete if you had a points distributor and an electric starter. Not only was the nostalgic aspect preserved, but the limits imposed guaranteed a large variety of tractor types showed up. You could build a modest engine, get into your weight cl***, be fairly compe***ive - and have low buck fun. It made for way more smiles back then and alot less hard feelings. Now, most would pee their pants to know how much some of those guys have in their engines. If you don't have bucks now, you don't play. When a low buck guy sneaks up on them - the endowed majority change the rules so their money can play again. I just grew sick of it, which is how I wound up here. I kinda see this whole thing going around again in rapid fashion. I kinda gather that is the general avenue of most any motorsport. It starts out fun, then money ruins it. I'm kinda ashamed I even brought up the subject of the stroker Hudson - because the more I think of it, it doesn't fit here. My original intent with that engine was to push a dyno and finally put it in a full bodied vehicle. Most of the tech used in it is circa '65, but post '62 anyhow. The original intent of the HA/GR cars seemed to be very similiar to early antique pulling - get out there and have some fun with what ya got. Keep it simple, affordable, with just enough room for backyard ingenuity to make it interesting. I say no electronics of any kind, not even pertronix units or the like. Do it old style - or build a bracket racer with gadgets and gismos. I would like to see any pre '62 transmission option however. Y'all seem to be eating up 3 speeds like there is no tomorrow. That is probably the most destructive link in the vehicles and has to be pricey. I seem to have trouble getting a 3 speed to live behind a mild Hudson on the road with no shenanagans going on. I'm afriad as the hp bar inevitably gets raised, even in more limited engines, somebody's nutsack is going to be trimmed off by a blocker ring. Or, you're going to have to adopt later model, aftermarket, race only gearboxes that can take the pressure. It wouldn't hurt to breed up some interest in early automatics, as we seem to be running short on folks knowing any tech about them at all. I certainly don't, which is a huge equalizer not in my favor. I may be losing some allys here, but that's my thoughts on it. Mark
I hate to piss some people off, but here goes. READ the rules that were put out three years ago. No electronics, that includes a rev-limiter! Also there is a rule that states NO automatics. If you are building a motor that costs a couple of thousand, run it with the SDRA group that allows automatics also. If I miss a shift with mine and blow an engine, yes it will hurt, but that is part of the game. I will rebuild and start over. The rules also state that you can run an under the cap electronic system which pretty well limits everyone to a Pertronix and that is about it. Let's all agree to stay with the rules that were put in place three years ago and run and be happy. I hate logging on here and seeing someone wanting to change the rules every time that I do. As far as running a 170ci motor, I have no problem with that as they were out in the early 60's. They changed very little over the next couple of years as did all the inlines in that period. That is my 02 worth and now I will go back in my corner and get ready for the HAMB drags. Hope to see some real "new" HA/GR cars there this year. Robert
A simple AMEN from this corner. As long as people have been drag racing, there have been broken parts manufactured. Destroyed quite a few ***orted transmissions myself, back when. It's all part of the game and if you don't want to break something, build a bracket racer with a mild motor, a strong automatic trans, and a rev limiter and any other electronic **** you want to add. That ain't what this game is about. It's about run whatcha brung, heads up racing in home built cars of early 60s and older technology, making friends in the process while you try for the best runs ya can squeeze out of the old stuff and generate the biggest smiles you ever had in the process, nothing else.
I'll undoubtedly stick my foot in my mouth on occasion, but I usually pull it back out with a good lesson learned. I'm hoping I can see some of these cars run. I'm rootin' for you mopar guys. Hud
Post '62 production gearboxes & rears are already acceptable for the most part. Let's face it, gears are pretty much gears and the ONE & ONLY point of the '62 rule is to make more equipment available as long as it's the same sort of equipment that was typically around in the early '50s when drag racing was still largely a "poor second cousin" form of racing. Thus, an under-square inliner 170 and a tipsy under-square inliner 225 are cool while a boxer isn't, not exactly a hard one to understand. As to the electronics, it was a foregone conclusion that someone'd spend a bunch of coin on an HA/GR sooner or later. Some folks have it, and whether or not it represents the foundations of drag racing there's not one damn reason they shouldn't spend it the way they want. There's also not one damn thing wrong with a reticence to wasting it (likely one of the very reasons they have it). Still, the rules say no electronics, and for good reasons. So what to do? Just devise a rev limiter that isn't electronic. Cobble up a mechanical one that works and is fully adjustable. Talk about being in the spirit of the turn of the fifties. You do know the origin of the phrase "balls to the walls"? Hell, far and away the majority of speed equipment of any kind then was made, not purchased. Oh yeah, as our HA/GRs are intended to be.
I agree 100 percent with your observations. I guess I'd best learn how to watch a tach and shift a manual box. LOL. I think that's why I like automatic transmissions....I don't look as dumb with the automatic as I do when I try to shift a 4 speed. Fortunately theres only one shift to make. Keep me on the right track. I'm not the brightest bulb on the tree, but I can be taught. Ron
Thats alright Ron, I was straightened out on the later model gear boxes too. It wasn't printed in the rules, and I'm fresh out of T-86 and T-90 3 speed stuff from just normal running and tearing up. Heck of it is, I have not a clue regarding modern gearboxes! Oh well, its all about the discovery isn't it?
The Jalopy Journal
