Dr. Mayfield; It has been farily common to see Flatheads with the # 1-2 &
7-8 exhaust ports boared through the ends of the block to give them a
shorter and strighter route. The next deal was to weld a divider in the
center exhaust port to route one exhaust valve down the existingting port
and the other into the heat riser port. The heat riser port being so small
it was necessary to cut and weld to allow the volume of gas flow needed. Ron
Main saw that all this welding was pretty flimsly and used the existing
intake ports for exhaust and formed new intake ports to the existing exhaust
valves. This allows for the use of JB Weld and all kinds of materials that
would not work for exhaust ports. Pretty smart I think. Many of the cars in
V4, which I am running have converted there blocks to 5 main bearings and
had billitt cranks made to fit. Not an easy deal and not one I wish to do.
But I know the rules and they are the same for everyone so I have no
complaint. Except for my spell checker. Rich Fox
-----Original Message-----
From: DrMayf <drmayf@teknett.com>
To: Richard Fox <v4gr@rcn.com>; land-speed@autox.team.net
<land-speed@autox.team.net>
Date: Monday, August 20, 2001 06:41 PM
Subject: Re: An Odd Question...
>See, I knew there was an answer! Has been done before is always a good
>starting point. How did some of the old tries work out? Were they done back
>in the days of the flathead production or recently? Just curious is all.
>Flatheads are not my bag. So I be done now...
>
>mayf
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Richard Fox" <v4gr@rcn.com>
>To: "DrMayf" <drmayf@teknett.com>; <land-speed@autox.team.net>
>Sent: Monday, August 20, 2001 11:39 AM
>Subject: Re: An Odd Question...
>
>
>> Dr. Mayfield; I don't speak for the SCTA and anything I say is only my
>> thoughts. In 1978 I started running a twin turbo 270 GMC in a 32 five
>> window. At that time, as now, superchargers were defined as either engine
>or
>> exhaust driven. Some established competiters in the altered class felt
>this
>> was unfair and the no turbos in X and XX in a vintage body rule came to
>be.
>> Then Ron Main came out with electronic injectors and data recording
>> equipment in a roadster simular cries went up in the roadster classes.
And
>> it came to pass that these things were called modern technology and cast
>out
>> of the X and XX roadster classes. The welding and reverse port cam had
>been
>> seen off and on for years just not as well done, and so was not
considered
>> unfair. Rich Fox
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DrMayf <drmayf@teknett.com>
>> To: Richard Fox <v4gr@rcn.com>; land-speed@autox.team.net
>> <land-speed@autox.team.net>
>> Date: Monday, August 20, 2001 10:34 AM
>> Subject: Re: An Odd Question...
>>
>>
>> >Sure. Here is where I am coming from.
>> >
>> >Section II-1
>> >right after the engine displacement table
>> >
>> >" for reasons of ECONOMY and HISTORICAL authenticity, vintage engine
>> >modifications are restricted to older technology levels.....so far as
>> >practical."
>> >
>> >Now it seems to me that hogging out the blocks' valley and rewelding in
a
>> >new and very sophisticated valley that lets the exhaust exit through the
>> top
>> >of the block, use of fuel injection and big honking new blower is
bending
>> >the rules a bit to much. Even Jacls use of turbos' seem to me to be a
>> >stretch. And according to the program guide, both were in the same
>XF/BGS.
>> >Now none of this affects me in any way possible and I really do not care
>> one
>> >way or another. It was just a curious question to me.
>> >
>> >mayf, the red necked, ignorant desert rat in Pahrump.
>> >-----
///
/// land-speed@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe land-speed
///
///
|