64 Dodge 440: Of course you're right that bigger is not always better and a short stroke, high winding engine might be just the ticket. I've heard back regarding the ability to bore the 194ci block out to the 250ci bore size. Apparently the 194ci block IS different than the 230/250 blocks, at least as it relates to the cylinder wall placement and/or thickness. The short answer is that, taking the 194ci block out to the 3.875 bore would probably leave the pistons flopping around in the water jacket. So by that, my take is the 194ci block would be legal while the later 230/250 blocks with altered cylinder casting necessary to support the larger bore would not. However, the 230 or 250 cranks are completely interchangeable in the 194 block so the stroking side of the question seems to result in a legal combination. Is it worth the additional 20 or so cubic inches? Not really sure about that. Russ
On the Dodge flathead sixes, the difference between the 218 and the 230 is 1/4" increased stroke. I figure that the shorter stroke is worth the 12 cu.in. less in displacement. We're just doing everything we can to keep the car light to make up for the difference. Don't think 12 cu.in would make that much horsepower advantage and the 230s are not known as a high rpm engine. Just my $0.02, always liked the idea of getting the most out of a small oddball package anyway.
Particularly in light of the 6" tire. 194 cubes should smoke'em out of the hole either way, so the next concern is pulling on the top end. What do you prefer there? I'm working the torque side of our slant, and Tom's looking for more than stock tach for his flattie. Lee, Joe and Dick are all winding their cars, and that neat Poncho flattie up-state's still stock.
Hey Dick, I always fancied building a twin crank V12 from a pair of slopers (slant 6's) !! That would sort out the torque issue!! Might need dual rear wheels on the barn job to accommodate the power ??
According to my Leo Santucci book on Chevy 6's, early 194's (1962-64) used a head with siamesed exhaust ports. This head has a decided power disadvantage compared to all the other 194-230-250-292 heads. All the other heads have individual exhaust ports and only siamesed intake ports. There are a few different combustion chamber volumes. but except for that, they are identical. I was looking for a 194 head for a 292 (smaller combustion chamber, more compression, same port sizes, and bought a 194 out of a '62 Chevy II. It had siamesed exhaust ports. and it made a quick trip to the scrap metal yard. Now for a bit of philosophical exposition: I like the engine choices that are now seen in HA/GR. But, I do think the intent was to have old, obsolete engines in old, obsolete dragsters. Flatheads, whether straight or bent, in-line overheads leading up to but not including "modern" designs such as slant sixes, the 194 and up Chevy's and the Falcon-type Fords. The unavailability of the old engines and the high cost to rebuild/hop up those engines necessitated including more modern designs. Otherwise the number of HA/GR's would be much smaller than it is. The changes to the cars (and to the apparel worn by the drivers) required by sanctioning bodies also takes away from the ability to recreate the early days of "rail" racing. While I think all of us have the same overriding objective of building/running an early style rail job, the secondary objectives go in a few different directions. Someone might want to run a particular engine that is intriguing but probably doesn't have the potential to win many races. Another builder will survey the options and make selections based on what provides the best liklihood of winning races. Someone else, lacking the opportunity to run against other HA/GR's might look for consistent ET's in order to be competitive in local bracket races. The scientist could simply keep striving for personal best performance. It's all good, in my opinion, when done in an HA/GR (or HA/GRa, in my case).
Actually Bob, you hit the nail on the head with those three words... It's all good!! Everyone has a slightly different reason for what they build, how they build it and what they are trying to do with it, but the bottom line is, these cars are hotrodding at it's best...they bring out the true reason for our being involved with cars, fun by the bushel basket.
Part "a", On the button. Part "b", Truth. 97, Yep, counter-rotating. Bolt the pair together kiester to kisser at the bottom lip with "motor plates" at the ends, cobble up a drive connection (no gears, just clutch right into the third) and design "Frankenpan". Crossing intake stacks and bundle-o-snakes exhaust with pea-shooters like a '60s formula car. Of course I'd just have to put it into a "Midnight Oil" layout. Already have dual (two) rear wheels , would need four of the things. Lessee now; four hides, two engines and me wide. No sweat on the full width rear end rule, how 'bout fuller width? Not that I've given it any thought before ...........
as a guy who stuffed all his budget into building an engine, and who now can't afford to finish (work on at all) the rest of the car, I'd caution anybody to start out with a running stocker, get the thing on the track, and THEN build the hopped up mill later.
Amen to that one Sled, you can have an amazing amount of fun running the car while you take your time sorting it out and collect parts for the "race engine" and if you are on a tight budget, spread the expenses out over time as you can afford it while still being able to get "seat time". Just need to get ours to the running part. Retirement has it's advantages, unfortunately, excess cash doesn't seem to be one of them.
Hell yes. We ran our "set-up" engine the whole '08 (first running) season, stock cam, head, etc. '09 season was half over before we got a medium cam, some valves and I got time to port & polish'er. Our first 12 sec (just barely) run was the last '09 season run and the last run on that set-up, when I finally got the carbs (manifold actually) figured out. Didn't get decent tires on'er or a good cam 'til this year. If we can quit breaking things she'll finally be the mid 12 car we designed (back in '07), in '10. In the mean time we sorted out the chassis, shifter, steering, and most importantly, the weight transfer both for & aft and latterally. We lay down nearly equal stripes with our open rear, seldom more than a foot difference.
From the looks of the late postings I'm going to be on the wrong side of the legality of the 1962 194 c.i. Chevy I-6. Is the rule pre 62 or not? If not then why do we even mention flatheads or limits on after market heads, HEI ignitions, and etc. I have done the work and have a really good running early Chevy six so yes, I have a dog in this fight. If you are considering the later engines you are missing the point of what, at least I thought, this whole deal was about. Joe Roseberry
What engine are you proposing ? I don't think building a HA/GR dragster with a proper vintage engine will put you on the wrong side, The rules are still the rules Joe, but pure (and unadulterated) HA/GR is presently only raced once a year at Mokan. The Aussie cars and Californian cars have had to "bend" the rules to fit in with sanctioning rules ... at the same time it would appear that it isn't easy to find suitable engines in the country of their birth!! I guess a lot of those, that until now have been deemed not worthy of race or restoration, have been scrapped.Survivors demand high prices and even more expense for rebuilding. In an effort to get cars built, borderline engines have been accepted by the guys who are the competition.......... those who have built a car and have it running ...... Just remember it isn't hard to change the engine a bit further along the path ...for one that follows the original intent of HA/GR...... This is one of the good reasons to build the car with a stock engine and get it running, then decide on a path of action from there on in. Stuff you need has a miraculous way of showing up once other people know what you are up to, and this really involves getting the cars out in the public eye.... if this ever evolves into something bigger than the six or seven cars on the West Coast... Elsewhere I suspect similar arrangements will be made and in time those with outlaw engines will be asked to find a suitable replacement to bring the cars into line with the original intent. There is nothing that can be done about the safety rules , unless a different sanctioning body is prepared to revisit them and renegotiate with their insurers..... unlikely for a group of six or seven cars????
Sadly, too true. We're not the only class pretty much stuck with NHRA's excessive equipment rules, most of their slower open car classes are getting bent over the same "rail". Thus looking like there'll be no car count that'll bring'em to rational. It'll take exactly that, some other sanctioning body (with a more realistic, and less greedy, outlook).
Thanks for the response 97. What I was attempting to do was shine the light of day on the apparent wink wink at the rules concerning post 1961 Chevy engines in HA/GR drag racing. The 1962 and later Chevy 6 is not of the same design as the 1961 and earlier "stove bolt". The if you have any doubts about this check and see how many parts interchange. I'm afraid that this is just another sign of the just buy it and avoid the nasty and dirty work of building something out old technology. Oh, and while I'm stiring this stuff.... does anyone really want to research the date that a particular design was engineered. Joe
I wrote another long reply then canned it. We are not here to argue semantics we are here to have fun. No nobody wants to get into ANY involved discussions/arguments about HA/GR, the whole point is to have fun. Obviously people will want to win, but it is a hollow victory if you KNOW yourself that you blatantly cheated. It is up to the individual what they build, and how much they spend , if the engine is not era correct they have to know at some stage it will be getting canned if they want to join in the fun.
Joe, I believe you are correct. The 194 was not intended to be included in the HA/GR rules. As far as I know, there is one car with that engine. The owner/builder is a friend of the guys he runs with and against. They have accepted him and his car. Since they run ANRA races, they are in an "Open Wheel" class, not an HA/GR class. As I understand it. They are allowed to race against each other as a "race within a race" and as a result, pass their own trophy among themselves. This group is at liberty to alter the requirements as they see fit as there is no formal class at the races they attend. The only time & place that a HA/GR class exists is at the HAMB Drags at MoKan, once a year. If you are intenting to run the "race within the race" at the ANRA events, I guess you could protest the one car with a 194 in it. At that point, the other competitors would have to decide if the 194 equipped car was "in" or "out". If they decided to let the 194 equipped car remain in the game, then you have the decision to opt in or not. In terms of winning, it's not the 194 car you need to worry about, it's any full-tilt 302 Jimmy. I just put an automatic in my HA/GR and now have a HA/GRa, which isn't a class. If I showed up at an ANRA race, I could run the open wheel class. And, if my car exhibited no advantage because of the automatic, it's possible the guys with real HA/GR's would let me run with them. I think it is this logic that has embraced the 194 equipped car into the fold. Also, it's hard to turn a car away when there are so few... Here's my disclaimer: I'm not in So. Cal. so all my observations and conclusions are based solely on my interpretation of the information on this forum. I could be way off base.
This thread has been great, and has made me decide to re-visit using an AMC/JeeP 6. I can get a couple for free. 2 232's and a 258. Thanks, ScottV
Joe.. I'am the owner of the 194 cu in HA/GR. For number one reason I have a 194. Because a good friend GAVE it to me, Like FREE..I built my car without knowing what engine I would put in it. So I ended up with that one..And everyone in the HAMBster Herd. Said "Go For It" There is another with a 200 cu in Ford. Again "Go For It"..Are we running away with the class.?? Hardly.Personally I don't give a Rats butt about who has what in their car as long as we have fun. I expect to see a 322 in Buick straight 8 in one someday. "Go For It".
Yeah well Barney Navarro got over 600hp from a 199 in his Indy Car deal. 232 , bored to 4.060 and with 258 crank =303 cubes However don't count my opinion as the rules, just observation and opinion..... I think the Aussie Ford 200 motor was an emergency provision to get the class up and running and viable in the eyes of ANDRA......... Several others in the USA have been "allowed" on the basis that they will grow the numbers........but remember Ryan's edict.... the SDRA cars don't belong here ( in this thread) anymore, they have strayed too far from the original idea!! http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=407167 post # 12 FWIW there is already more than one Hamb Gas Rail being built in NZ with a Rambler motor.
ScottV: I had considered the AMC/Jeep inline sixes also since they are great engines. But after doing a little checking, I found the following: 232ci inline six was manufactured between 1964 and 1979 258ci inline six was manufactured between 1971 and 1990 Due to their wide popularity over in the off-road and rock crawling world, there is a lot of good parts available, at least for the 4.0 and 4.2 liter engines. But it sure looked to be that these engines were too recent and well beyound the "pre-62" rules to be legal choices so I didn't look at them further. Russ
Yes Russ, by my thinking ( askew as it may be ) was that the 232 made it's debut in the 1964 models the autumn of 1963. To me that means the engine had to have been designed, developed and tested as early as 1960ish ??!!?? Is it picking nits ? Yes. Is it bending the rules ? Definitely ! Would it be fun, and "In the Spirit" ? With out a doubt !!! and lastly, Would it be competitive and beat all comers and destroy the HA/GR records ? I highly doubt that ! Oh and did I mention that I can get them free ??? My friend even said he may be able to scrounge up a trans of two. Like many have said here before, I just want to get it on the track and have fun. Faster, competiveness may or may not come later. After my fiasco with the IRS (a friends problem, not mine) that seized all my previously purchased parts, my budget is incredibly slim.
ScottV: Truth be told: There is no such thing as "free" in any endevour. At least not in my experience. Sooner or later, a bill comes due . . . Russ
And if you read about his build you'll find it was not all that exotic. I spent a few hours today reading about Rambler 6 builds, it seems that the combo you mention is easily built with off the shelf Chevy pistons and the 232 block is rather stout to accept that bore size. Also the later 4.0 High Output head is a bolt on that is worth about 40 hp. I have also been thinking about it with the stock 232 stroke of 3" as not to overwhelm the 6" tire. With a 4" bore that would still put it at 264cid.
Thanks for the response Bob, What I'm trying to do is get some dialog going about the the the growing number of 1962 (and later) Chevy I-6 engines that are either in process or aready attempting to worm into HA/GR Drag Racing. I'm aware of how it works in ANRA and also that this will be our lot until we can field a class of our own. I know for a fact that at least one new car in my area is under construction with a scatch built 194/250/292 (or larger) I-6 and not because they couldn't find 1961 or earlier motor, (I donated a 235 and a 261 to the project). The later motor (1962 and up) shares nothing with the "Stove Bolt" and if we allow them into HA/GR we can kiss the concept good bye. Joe
Gentlemen, once again ....... The 194 is a seperate block, cylinder wise, from the later 230/250 etc, it's a different casting internally. They are NOT the same. It is also the ONLY one under question regarding the '62 cut-off. In addition the ONLY head under consideration for it is the early, siamese exhaust head, as that's the ONLY head it had in '61/'62. Trying to use the external & bottom end block design similarities as an EXCUSE to run later bores and heads isn't going to hold water folks, it's an invalid argument due to the different bore casting. The later stuff'd make terrific SDRA engines but they aren't HA/GR, and you KNOW it. The very same issue has already been addressed with the slant. Later slant block/crank/rod/head combos are up to 40 lbs lighter and have better combustion chambers. These are NOT acceptable to anyone wanting the experience of building an actual HA/GR. I can certainly understand Joe's reluctance to admit the early 194, talk about "foot in the door"! Hell, it ALREADY has the FULLY EXPECTED gaggle of folks trying to say it's no different than the later, larger bore blocks. But the fact is that it IS different and cannot be bored out to those dimensions. Which is why it alone is being supported by some, myself included. It'll allow yet another engine in the mix, more cars to be built, and at 194 ci and with the original head is right in the range of the rest, with no appreciable advantage. I'd also like to address another argument I've heard regarding the amount of money spent at speed shops rather than sweat and effort in one's own garage. Well kiddies, that's the nature of the sport today, and frankly has been since the late '50s/early '60s. I'm actually a bit tired of the carping about it. While it's nowhere near the ideals of HA/GR and isn't to my own tastes, it IS just as unavoidable as yuppieputts, yuppierods, bowels and politicians (and their too similar products). There will be those who do it that way and they will likely go faster (hey, at least it'll help propogate the class). It's also why we wish to emulate the EARLY '50s. At some future point it may well become useful to distinguish between the two for a variety of reasons, but 'til then we need to be "one for all and all for one". Please understand gentlemen, that they're not stupid. They do know within themselves that they ducked the point, and have their reasons. In point of fact, simply by building an HA/GR in a '60s way they've admitted they can't do it the early '50s way. This could be for any number of reasons but the result is the same, they missed out on that part of the experience. Their loss, actually. Good grief, I certainly ran on a bit, eh? Blood sugar must be low again. Well, they're my opinions (and we all know the saw regarding that ), over stated or not. It stands.
I haven't been around for a while and am just catching up. My 2 cents, Joe has a valid point and by the rules (pre-62) the 194 is not a legal HA/GR engine. I just searched and it was introduced in '62, that being said I welcome ThingyM to join us in the fun but a car built around his engine combo just to be the "baddest in the land" (not Dick's/Thingy's intention) and "clean our clock" has nothing to brag about and that's all we're racing for Now as far as our Falcon 170 (yes it is a 170) goes the Ford 170 was available as early as '60 (http://classicinlines.com/SmallSixSpecs.asp#SSgeneral http://classicinlines.com/history.asp ) and I was under the assumption (my fault) that if the engine family originated before '62 it was legal. So now my question, is it legal and would a 200 be legal? All the exterior parts interchange, I think it and the 200 build are legal myself Rocky Now for something you'll really like, my friends from Clovis sent me a picture of their latest mods to the Pontiac Straight 8 of theirs, wish the picture was larger...............
Holy crap, that's beautiful! We're likely going back to an iron exhaust manifold at some point (for several reasons). Damn, I'm gonna miss the stacks.
The Jalopy Journal
