Just curious, why the pre-1962 for inlines?

[vectorsolid]

I spent the weekend scrounging for engines. Man, there's a lot of Ford 200's in my area. 1963+ though.

When the rules were organized for pre-1962 there must have been somebody that said, we should cut it off here... and this is why.

I'd just like to here the story behind it so I better understand the inline 6 stuff.

Not knowing jack shit about in-line 6's, I'm curious about that. Also, will make it easier to explain to my buddies that are on-board with build stuff.

Most of the fun is the build. I'll find what fits, just curious, that's all. :o

Appreciate your taking the time to write.
-Vector

[64 DODGE 440]

I spent the weekend scrounging for engines. Man, there's a lot of Ford 200's in my area. 1963+ though.

When the rules were organized for pre-1962 there must have been somebody that said, we should cut it off here... and this is why.

I'd just like to here the story behind it so I better understand the inline 6 stuff.

Not knowing jack shit about in-line 6's, I'm curious about that. Also, will make it easier to explain to my buddies that are on-board with build stuff.

Most of the fun is the build. I'll find what fits, just curious, that's all. :o

Appreciate your taking the time to write.
-Vector

The basic concept is to keep with the older technology. That said, if the basic engine was originally manufactured before '62 as in the 200" engines, Mopar slant 6s and such, if the design fits there doesn't seem to be a problem with actual year of manufacture.

I don't really have a problem with a later 60s 200" ford running, although my engine is a '34 Dodge they built the flathead 6s through the late 60s for use in military trucks and in forklifts and such. The date of the block may vary but the design still goes back to the thirties.

With that said, don't be concerned about year of manufacture for the trans and rear axle, they are not as year sensitive and nobody seems to have a problem with newer parts in that area as again the basic components can trace their design back, and newer axles and transmissions have a better availability and reliability factor.

Keep asking questions, we have a lot of information to share and it's great to see more of these cars being built. Hell, someday we may even get a chance to race each other.

See ya in the staging lanes.:cool:

[mudflap261]

these cars are susposed represent cars of the mid 40 s to mid 50s just before slingshot rail .that why no ohv v8s ,flatheads,v8s inline 6s,inline8s engines of that time frame.but if you if you want know you will haveto pm ryan /samiam/or kevin lee it was thier idea

[vectorsolid]

these cars are susposed represent cars of the mid 40 s to mid 50s just before slingshot rail .that why no ohv v8s ,flatheads,v8s inline 6s,inline8s engines of that time frame.but if you if you want know you will haveto pm ryan /samiam/or kevin lee it was thier idea

I'm just curious, nothing more. :) I understand completely what the HA/GR is trying to be.

I'm not this smart, so I don't know, I had a buddy tell me the ford 200's are like 200 pounds lighter than the GMC 235, and more compact. As the 200 looks like it came in, in about 1963, that would "technically" rule it out, and seems like as good a basis as any for an engine rule.

I suspect that given the distance of us to others, if our guys found the build easier with the 200's (and we all did it, that would be cool.) But cooler yet to have everybody on the same page, all over the world. :) So I'd rather not run the 200's unless the HA/GR rule writers feel it's fine. Or if I'm off on my 1963 date for that engine. maybe it is 1962. I truly do not know or have an opinion.

I've only been looking hard for a few days. I'll find something and I'm leaning toward the 235. :) with this engine, the valve cover seems to be more in line with the top of the cowl of the body, I find that pleasing to the eye.

[Old6rodder]

Actually it's more about the engineering than the physical date, as Tom mentioned.

Basically, the inliner's break point is when technology changed away from under-square engines. These "tractor motors" had bore diameters smaller than their strokes (hence "under-square") and were "design grandfathered" through the early '60s in several models and well into the '70s in a couple. They were mostly eventually replaced with over-square designs that also advanced combustion technology as well.

In some engines the technology remained the same for awhile, those engines are allowed out of hand. Thus an under-square 225 slant designed originally in the late fifties using essentially early '50s tech and unchanged in essence until '67 isn't a problem. The same for any other engine in the same circumstances. I believe the 200 falls into that catagory, does it not?

ps. The rule "approvers" are the builders themselves, it's sort of a concensus thing that Ryan's graciously agreed to help guide and mediate (in addition to providing this forum for).

[vectorsolid]

The same for any other engine in the same circumstances. I believe the 200 falls into that catagory, does it not?

I have no earthly idea.

And when you say "those engines are allowed out of hand". I don't know what that means.

<---dumbass :D

[Toymaker]

As I understand and agree with........ Pre '63 and later model engine that's 'engine family' originated before '63. The Ford 200 is a perfect example, looks like a '62 144. Don't run much better:rolleyes::D:D

[vectorsolid]

Apparently I am the worlds worst "read between the lines" kind of guy.

From what I read (could be incorrect data) the 200's are not legal.

Are the ford 200's legal?

[Toymaker]

12. Flathead v8 or inlines, pre-1962 inline engines with stock cylinder blocks only. No exotic aftermarket inline six overhead valve heads (Wayne). No OHV V8s or V6s. (If you are looking to run a straight 6 with exotic heads or a flathead with an o/h conversion, contact Ryan (http://www.jalopyjournal.com/?page_id=348) for some good news.)

Are the ford 200's legal?

ps. The rule "approvers" are the builders themselves, it's sort of a concensus thing that Ryan's graciously agreed to help guide and mediate (in addition to providing this forum for).


I vote yes:D

[vectorsolid]

swell...

...lol...

say, Is that a blue valve cover on your car?...

[97]

With that theory you could use a 1998 Ford six and still be legal!!


How much would you pay for a 250 cubic inch factory production version of the same motor ?(1970-1976) A dead ringer for the 144....
What about one with a crossflow head and separate bolt up intake manifold?
or maybe a later Alloy crossflow head ?
Note these are factory production not aftermarket exotic.....
The latest (yes still in production) version is OHC ,variable valve timing blah blah over 240 hp stock.

http://www.fordsix.com/tech/misc/aussie_sixes.php



12. Flathead v8 or inlines, pre-1962 inline engines with stock cylinder blocks only. No exotic aftermarket inline six overhead valve heads (Wayne). No OHV V8s or V6s. (If you are looking to run a straight 6 with exotic heads or a flathead with an o/h conversion, contact Ryan (http://www.jalopyjournal.com/?page_id=348) for some good news.)


I vote yes:D

[64 DODGE 440]

With that theory you could use a 1998 Ford six and still be legal!!


How much would you pay for a 250 cubic inch factory production version of the same motor ?(1970-1976) A dead ringer for the 144....
What about one with a crossflow head and separate bolt up intake manifold?
or maybe a later Alloy crossflow head ?
Note these are factory production not aftermarket exotic.....
The latest (yes still in production) version is OHC ,variable valve timing blah blah over 240 hp stock.

http://www.fordsix.com/tech/misc/aussie_sixes.php

Common sense says that is over the top.......the idea is that the later date manufacture should contain the original design parameters, and that would include the basic design of cylinder head etc. The crossflow head and OHC versions are not in the original engine design, and just because they are factory production doesn't mean they aren't new technology. The design changes remove them from the options.

[Jim Marlett]

Until Ryan weighs in on this, all I can say is, you've got to pick something. If I was doing it, I would have picked an earlier cutoff date, like '53 or '54 in the interest of keeping flatheads competitive. But I'm not. Inliners International (http://www.inliners.org/) picked '60 as their early engine cutoff. They even went to the trouble of putting up a chart of early engines. But as I've said, you have to pick something.

[97]

Common sense says that is over the top.......the idea is that the later date manufacture should contain the original design parameters, and that would include the basic design of cylinder head etc. The crossflow head and OHC versions are not in the original engine design, and just because they are factory production doesn't mean they aren't new technology. The design changes remove them from the options.

My tongue was firmly planted in my cheek when I mentioned the OHC and crossflows , but the 200 and 250 from 70 to 76 motor is common as muck here and in Aussie . The only real external difference from the older motors, is the height of the block, which is not that easy to eyeball.

I think the 62 cutoff is in line with other areas of the HAMB in terms of what is acceptable and not....

[Ron Golden]

A few thoughts why I picked the 302 GMC engine:

1: As mentioned the "under square engines" got their displacement from a long stroke with a small bore. That limits the size of the intake and exhaust valves that will fit. That limits the airflow, therefore limiting the HP potential.

2: The cylinder head design (combustion chamber/ports) limits the porting potential.

3: The 302 GMC has a 4 inch bore with a 4 inch stroke. SB Chevy 2.02 & 1.60 valves fit perfectly.

4: With limited porting I was able to get 264 cfm @ 0.600" lift on the intake.

5: Any flathead engine is limited on compression ratio due to the combustion chamber configuration...therefore limiting HP.

If I had my druthers, and the rules allowed it, I would have picked the 300 cid Ford.

Ron

[Toymaker]

swell...

...lol...

say, Is that a blue valve cover on your car?...
No it's FORD Red NOW:D

[vectorsolid]

Since we're likely only going to be ET bracket racing ours, engine isn't "REALLY" as critical. We don't need the best and biggest to win. We're just trying to match up with the build criteria and have a good time.

Turns out I have decent access to a bunch of 235 chev stuff. Likely all needs to be rebuilt though. I like the cool offenhuaser stuff you can get for the 235, and COOL is important. :)

[nexxussian]

FWIW, as I understood it the whole 1962 cutoff date was to keep the 292 I6 Chev and 300 I6 Ford out.

[LaGrasta]

classicinlines.com

[vectorsolid]

what's with all the posts during the day? Don't any of us have jobs? :D

[vectorsolid]

classicinlines.com

Sweet link.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i101/paintballqmaster/smiley-thumbsup.jpg

[mudflap261]

Since we're likely only going to be ET bracket racing ours, engine isn't "REALLY" as critical. We don't need the best and biggest to win. We're just trying to match up with the build criteria and have a good time.

Turns out I have decent access to a bunch of 235 chev stuff. Likely all needs to be rebuilt though. I like the cool offenhuaser stuff you can get for the 235, and COOL is important. :)you might want find a 261 chevy truck engine 235 equipment will work ,came in 1tons and school buses

[Joe Hamby]

You might find a 223 ford six or it's rare big brother the 262 ford, that was made from 1960 to 1964, some old hay hauler trucks had them. and they look like the 223.

[nexxussian]

what's with all the posts during the day? Don't any of us have jobs? :D


I work at night :D. Oh and this one, I'm on break (2 15's and 1 30 min lunch, unless we're bussy:rolleyes:).

[recycler]

If anybody is interested I have a straight six that I would sell. I was planning on using it for a new HAGR but I need to sell it. It is a 1960 model and has 210 hp bone stock from the factory. PM me for more details.
Brad

[panic]

Not sure I agree on the date.
SCTA uses 1959 for XO class to exclude 12-port engines (slant 6), and the Gen-3 194/215/230/250/292 Chevy, Ford 144/170/200/250 and 240/300.
The Ford 144/170/200 are all big-bore, short-stroke (only the 250 isn't).

"Era specific carbs" is way too elastic for my taste - it allows serious parts clearly made & used in the day like Weber DCOE, 2" SU, Rochester 2G & 4G, WCFB - but not "modern Holley" (the 4150 was stock on 1957 Ford 312).

I would suggest adding to 12. the following: "or hybrids made by adapting a production head from another engine type"

[Joe Hamby]

Hi Panic where are you located? And can you post pictures of your car?

[vertible59]

ford 144 debut was in the 1960 falcon and comet lines.

[Joe Hamby]

That cute little falcon motor really came out in sept. 1959, it was a 1960 model, like the slant 6 also came out at the same time. I don't think that at this time we want to make the rules more restrictive, that could remove a few cars from the lineup, that has already happened once. Joe

[panic]

No chassis at the moment, just accumulating parts for a project.
I'm on Long Island.

[panic]

No, definitely don't want to penalize any projects already underway!!

However: since it says "original block", the Ford 250 is actually disqualified on 2 counts: too many main bearings (as is the late 200), and different deck height.