Projects The bucket of ugly! A de-uglifying thread...

Anybody know a good timing curve for a blown 392 street motor on crappy 91 octane Ca gas? I had picked up a new running kinda warm issue, and finally realized the distributor hold down had come loose, and the distributor had retarded significantly. The blower pulley only has one mark on it, and I have NO idea what that actually is if I line them up. I do have a dial type timing light, so once I go in and find exactly where 0 is, I can set it whereever. Search only brought up one result, and the advice wasn't bad, but it sounded like what I've heard the blown fuel guys running, so I wanted to get some other opinions.

Sent from my SM-S902L using The H.A.M.B. mobile app

 

I don't have hands on experience on an early blown hemi timing, but I'll give you a bump and share what I've heard.
Early hemis don't like a bunch of total timing. Add in a blower, and you will need even less, especially with today's fuel.
They DO respond to a good amount of initial timing depending on the cam overlap and static compression.
Do you have anything that pulls out timing related to boost? Are you running vacuum advance?

If it were mine, I'd start at around 8-12 initial, have the mechanical advance max out at near max torque converter stall speed.
Then scope out vacuum advance above the blower and boost referenced retard.
An old friend Larry Hofer runs the Corvette Shop in San Diego and has tuned many blown applications over the years.
I see that you have that as one of your locations. He would be my go to for this application.
http://www.corvetteshopsandiego.com/

He spent a bit of time tuning this one back in the 80s...

 

Yeah, if I'm doing a long distance run in the roadster I bring a full 5 gallon jug in the trailer. Haven't needed it yet, but my Dad taught me the thing you need on a road trip is what you didn't bring.

Bad decisions make good stories.

 

POSER: a person who pretends to be a member of a group that they are not actually a member of; "wannabe". For example, by adopting the mode of dress, mannerisms, speech patterns, etc. of the group.

Changing the theme of my build. I've decided NOT to build a car that "looks" like a salt/dry lakes car. I'm going to build a cruiser. Which is what I sat out to do in the beginning.

 

Lighten up Fred.

When I wear my Bowler nobody "gets it" but I get a lot of complements as I do on my roadster.

Sorry for the multiple photos.

Gary

 

Rebel, I think you're keying in on the examples that definition listed. I'm referencing build "styles". Maybe I should have said, "fake".

 

Fred, build what will make you happy! Forget about the people that want to talk you into building what they would want!

 

I am. I just had a slight change of direction. It'll all come together.

 

I got you Fred. Yeah the "fad T' with www's. Dick is right build what you like Fred and I'll keep waring my Derby.

 

Hey Gary, you will have to explain the hat thing to us guys living upside down under so that we get it too. I have a suede cheese cutter cap I like wearing as it makes me fit into the vintage restoration guys camp when needed but refuse to wear the long socks and walk shorts that they wear as thatis too bloody screwed up in my book. Your hat reminds me of the Led Zepplin benefit concert with Heart etc. with Obama in the crowd, you can find it on YouTube if you need under Heart singing " Stairway To Heaven" , a damn good version of the song too.

 

I'm fairly sure his Derby is in homage to Norm G. To me, that's an awesome thing. If that's the case.

 

Whip

In the '50 U.S. (and probably around the world) the Derby hadn't been stylish for quite a few years so they were pretty easy to find in second hand and used clothing stores. A lot of the hot rod clubs members started using them as a club symbol. As were top hats but for the same reason Bowlers were introduced to replace Stove Pipe hats in fox hunting (they stayed on better) the Bowlers were more popular with Hot Rodders.

I found mine at a while back in a second hand store. It's a Stetson. I had to have it. I had never seen an old original one for sale before, and I am a scrounger.

Big Daddy Roth when told he was dressed to scroungy to sell at a car show he went out and bought a top hat and tails. I'm sure he found it a used clothing store.

Von Franko or Pat Gahnol would "get it" right off.

A guy at the T Bucket Nationals couple of weeks ago in Carson City Nevada was sporting a top hat. I "got it".

You know I got maybe my best complement ever there. Goober here John (T Bucket Plans) said seeing my roadster was worth his trip out from Chicago.

Okay I am rambling again.

More later, Much more,

 

Back in the late 60's to the mid 70 in New Zealand Hot Rodder's wore a lot of top hats and well as musicians. Yours suits you Gary and I got it.
Fred, good on you for changing now instead of having a finished car you are not completely happy with. JW

 

Thanks! I probably shouldn't have used THAT definition and used something more specific. But when you all see the tires and wheels together, I'm positive that you'll agree that trying to pass my T off as a "dry lakes or salt flat" car would have been a joke in the mildest sense of the word. True, some cars can pull it off and I dig seeing them, but it just wouldn't have worked for me and my car. Makes me think of the "Gasser" thread. It's a great look, but for a street car, that will never see the strip, it's a bad joke.

Also, I'm probably going to use beauty rings on my wheels. So, IMO, the "dry lake" look definitely would have been out of place.

 

Fred just build a clean uncluttered no frills street rod. Paint the body red and you will have people flocking to it. Just kidding paint it whatever color you want to. Or maybe not kidding.

More on the '50s teen hot rodder's. I'm sure the Bowler and Stove Pipe hats was a protest to their up tight parents. Also we started wearing our Levies on our hips as opposed to our fathers pants up around the belly. We got as much shit for that as the kids get now wearing their pants below their butt. "Pull your pants up I can see your butt crack".

 

I built mine out of stainless, 15 gals. Shortened bed is small enough.

 

I plan on it. I just like to post what's floating around in my head. Good or bad. Or...... maybe even boring or stupid. It's just another part of my journey. I think, at one time or another, each of us has strayed away from a set plan. Only later to find your way back. I just happen to post about it.

 

Fred you wouldn't have recognized my roadster when I first drove it in '89. Wide tires in back, Mustang engine. In the ten years building it I went through the 16" Ford spoke wheels with motorcycle tires in front and a whole lot of other things.

 

Something else I noticed today. Have you ever noticed how BIG tires are, when you actually see them not installed on a car? See, I'm used to seeing "normal" sized car tires. Say..... 195-whatever-15's, etc. You just get used to that size tire on a car. So, I'm looking to get a pair of 235/75/15's . They're 28.9" tall. That's a little shy of a 30" and was on my list of 3 possible sizes. I thought about 30"+, but don't want the ass end of my car sitting too high. So, at my first stop today, the guy only has one 235/75/15 and it's got raised white letters. Not an option. But when he pulled it from the rack, it looked HUGE for some reason. Like, I had to look and make sure he grabbed the right one!

Then, I started thinking, "Did I measure right? Am I really looking for maybe a 26" or 28" tall tire? WTF!?". I recheck my notes 3 or 4 times.... nope, I've got 235's as my first choice. Now, I start second guessing myself. Which for me ALWAYS means trouble. It took a few minutes to convince myself that this was the size I needed. Whew.....

Well, I just got back from a guy I hadn't dealt with in a LONG time. I think he sold the set of tires for Miss Behavin'. He swore he remembered me. Anyway, he says he can have two matching tires for me Friday. The kicker to that was the WAY he said it. Kinda like, someone's gonna be missing a set of tires in a couple days! I REALLY hope that's not the case.

 

Procrastination......I just measured and considering how tall that tire looked, I'm gonna drop my rear shocks to the lowest setting. About 1.5" lower. I have the clearance for the rear end housing and that will lower my car a bit, which is what I really want. Plus, I'll sleep better tonight.

 

Measure the tire on and off a rim. In inflated height is likely different, right? Not sure how much different but it's more for radials than bias ply tires.

 

Yup, I'd think so. That's why I didn't want 30" tires in the rear. I'm probably putting the "cart before the horse" in all this because there are other things to consider. Full weight after the engine, trans, body, etc. Plus, I liked running about 28 lbs. in the rear tires of my last car. That should get me low like I want with more of a tire rake, than a shock rake. And that's what's making me ponder all this, is my quest for a nice 3 degree rake. I'm definitely over thinking this, but when I look at pics of my old car, the rake just looks wrong. Take a look at this pic:



You ARE looking at the rake, right? IMO, the ass end... (of the CAR) is just a tad too high. I was using QA-1 shocks at their lowest setting. I think I had them at 14". There were no provisions on the lower mount to drop the car any more. The rear shocks I have on my build are set at 12.625", but there are 3 provisions for adjustment on the lower mount. I have them mounted in the 2nd hole on the mount. Tonight, I'm going to drop the shocks to the lowest setting. I'm figuring the final weight of body, engine, etc. will get me where I want to be.

Of course, I could wait until I get everything on the chassis and THEN adjust as needed, but my mind just doesn't work that way. Plus, I just like wrenching on the damn thing.

 

Doesn't look too high to me.............. the ass end of the car doesn't look bad either!

 

Another thing I want to eliminate is that "break" that a lot of T Buckets have. By that I mean, how the radiator and engine are some what level, then right where the firewall is, the rest of the car seems to CRANK up a few degrees, looking like the car is broken or something. It's like the rake is being "forced", using the body as a sight line. I want the line/rake to be set by the frame angle and the wheel/tire combo.

So, my idea was to find out what initiates the break and it seemed to be the radiator. In the blue prints I've looked at (Total Performance, CCR and Speedway), the radiator mount, engine mount and trans mount are set at a 3 degree angle. Which forces the rake. My plan was to mount the radiator almost level. I think that will force your eyes to concentrate on the frame and tire/wheel rake, rather than that break at the fire wall.

 

They are a lot alike. Your last bucket had a nice look as well as your girlfriend. Both cars have a little to much rake. On mine purposely.

Funny you should mention 235x75x15s I just picked up one at a garage sale to try on the back of my Plymouth. Photo above it is sitting beside my 8x20x15s. Depending on how wide a rim you use that's probably about the difference. I checked on I think Tire Rack .com and you can still get inch walls as this one is. I'v already got small inch wall radials on the front of the Plymouth. If you are going for a mid. "60s look you might think of that. I think it would be a good look. They would have made your last roadster pop. But then what do I know.
My 235 measures about 28" while my 820 is about 30" high. If you put it on maybe an eight inch rim it would probably grow taller.

I think you should let the grill sit a little forward at the top. Just let it sit flat with the frame. Lower the back a little more than your last one and you will barely notice the broke back look. The engine set nice too. Finally getting through the obstruction to look at the car.

Wow the grill height was nice on your last roadster. The engine sat nice too. I'll say it again. Inch walls would have been perfect on your last roadster.

But then I would never think of telling somebody else how to build their car. NOT!

 

Fred, in order for my bucket to achieve a 3* rake, I had to raise the rear suspension and switch from a 28.5" tire to 30"+.... most of that is due to my spring being behind the axle instead of on top (and vise versa in front), and I know you're doing coil overs, so that doesn't apply, but what I'm saying is I think you'll be good going the way you're heading. I'm not completely sure on the exact era, but in the late 60's and early 70's a lot of buckets had pretty low profile steam rollers on the back that looked not so good in my opinion....stay away from that lol. It will be sweet to get your tires/wheels mounted up!

 

Fred
Pay no attention to the man in the Derby, behind the vertical steering. He has delusions of granger. Likes to run off at the fingers. Although don't expect it to stop. Highlight of his miserable, pathetic little life.
Gary

 

Thanks. I lowered my coil overs last night and I think it's going to give me the look I want, even after it's complete. I took a guess and accounted for the additional weight of engine, trans, body, etc. If it pans out, my frame should be some what level. Then, going with the 25" tall tires in front and the 28.9"s in the rear, I'm hoping I'll achieve the slight rake I'm visualizing for the completed car. My goal is for the "big and little's" to do their job.

While the T Buckets with "steam rollers" were the look I first feel in love with, when I was 16, I ditched that when I got older.

 

Who wants to go back to the late '60s, early 70s?

Fred My last post was supposed to be humor not sarcasm. Just as this one is.

Gary

 

Well, there's no love for the shirts, but I'll always have a little love for Andy's T Buckets.