History Can anybody tell me what is going on here?

Mickey was ever the mad speed scientist...

 

Long before all that stuff had safety blankets. bob

 

Already said. but def. not a SBC, my first guess before reading comments was a Pontiac...

 

Wow, that's some crazy stuff! Thanks Tnomoldw! The HAMB comes thru again!

 

Like the one man quotes :im here to help ! Here is another Mickey Thomson

 

Dammit man! What else do you have to post? That's cool as Hell!

 

Have seen this picture pop up on several sites, glad you posted it up here to find out
What the Hell is going on with this?
Looks like a very experimental work in progress to me.

Mickey Engineering.

 

Kinda looks to me like Mickey was working w/a way to get a straighter shot into the cyl. Look at the angle of the "intake manifold" compared to the cyl angle. Almost the same. That's a lot of work. Ford did something similar w/their DOHC Indy heads, but they didn't mod the originals, like MT did. The low mounted blowers would reduce overall height, but it increased the width. & of course, added the weight of another blower & drive. &, I suppose, the blower face should've been mounted 90* (perpendicular) to the intake, instead of ~ 45* as they are, if the straight shot theory is correct. But that would've added a lot of height. Guessing a swoopy body was to come, maybe covering out past the slicks. He must have considered that a really straight shot, w/very little curvature in the ports, was well worth going to a non-crossflow head. & as mentioned, no pushrod constriction/restrictions to deal with. I'd bet that hanging the blowers out like that, would've given him fits - or more accurately - lots of breakage problems. Now I'm wondering just how successful the heads were. Never mind the practical aspect of things. I'm guessing not as much as hoped, or he could've cast some (more) up, &/or used the idea in his other head(s).

Marcus...

 

There is a reason all engines are cross-flow nowadays, intake one side, exhaust the other, so I'd find it hard to believe somebody went to those 'side flow' type heads to improve performance. With a blower you don't really need a straight shot at the cylinders or any of that stuff, pressure overcomes all obstacles.

Obviously the idea never caught on, else everybody would have been doing it, but it is cool to see that people were happy to experiment with wild and crazy stuff back then to try and get an advantage. You rarely see this sort of innovation nowadays.

 

Actually it FIXES the turn in the intake port, as NRG mentioned above. Crossflow isn't necessarily better, especially with inline valves. Probably built to satisfy some rule about stock valve angle...

That little 2 cylinder is pretty awesome as well! I'm guessing it's a "class" engine for Bonneville?

 

One of the reasons real engineers and scientists of the day considered Thomas Edison to be an idiot is that he applied no understanding of science or physics to his work. Rather, he just tried everything until something worked. He could have saved lots of time and money by using a little brainpower, in other words, when seeking a solution.

 

I'm with toxic waste and goatroper02...looks like one of MT Pontiacs.......the guy built so many of them creations!...

 

Do not assemble in the dark or after alcohol consumption ... Was clearly written on the instruction sheet... Possible they used the foreign language portion of said instruction sheet....

 

Moving all the ports to the non pushrod side was done on other race engines too.

Here are some pics of SBC's.

It was a proven concept that worked.

 

This thread really took me back. Remembering all the Mickey T. stuff - from the Pontiacs & Mustangs to the murders... I was a big fan in the day.

 

Ok Tweety....

 

you're missing the best part-take a look at the offset quick change in the background!From one of Micky's indy projects maybe?

 

And although not exactly the same thing, another head to look at is the Pre-Crossflow Downdraft, done by Cosworth and others.
( not the same because they didnt change it from crossflow to non crossflow, but they did bove the ports up to straighten them out and improve the flow )

 

Didn't GM try to use a "stock block" sbc sometime in '70's (I think) for an indy car motor????... Got pictures???...

 

Yep, the 3rd pic is of a Bruce Crower built engine in a Indy Racecar.

 

Ok, thanks!....

 

According to the newspapers article it DID increase flow and performance by 30% at 3500rpm.

I could see it working in a naturally aspirated motor, but not in a blown one. Mysterious.

 

Or a 4WD drag car like Ivo's 4 engined deal?

 

Now this is pretty interesting...


I think I'd want hydraulic lifters on that one, though!

 

The Challenger

 

Yeah, there is a lot going on in that pic.

The moved intakes, an early turbo setup ( no wastegate, but a boost pressure controlled flap in the intake), mech injection with extra piping to the turbo intake ( maybe the boost enrichment ), the drive system on the front of the block for the dry sump pump, injection pump, waterpump, and ignition.

I'd love to know what that engine was built for.

I'm guessing Indy or Can Am...

 

^^^ This was a Bruce Crower piece. Was written up in Hot Rod or Car Craft in detail (think it was on the magazine cover as well). Pretty sure it was intended for Indy. I'll see if I can find that issue in the pile.

 

My guess is that its a two stroke.

 

I doubt that.

I'm pretty sure I've read Crower experimented with a ( triumph?) bike that he converted to 2 stroke.
By cutting intake ports in the sides of the cylinders and a low pressure roots blower to get the charge in.

This looks like a different kind of deal to me...

And also, I think 2 stroke and turbocharging was considdered to be to volatile of a combination in the earlier days.
( except for big lazy diesels )

 

Isn't this basically the idea the Fontana head for Chevy II's used for so many years in the midgets is?