Sounds like a fun build.......no substitute for cubic inches and it would have a truck load of torque.
Hey esfoder, how much torque does that thing make? I can't find diddly squat for info on these things, other than some cool factory brochures showing engine features. These things have forged rods, four ring pistons with full floating pins, stellite valves, cross drilled crank throws, etc. They were built to last! Check out these pics. The darn thing doesn't look all that huge when it's sitting out on the ground. It sure does in the engine compartment of a late 50s truck, though! I'll bet it doesn't weigh more than maybe a thousand pounds....perhaps less. http://www.redpowermagazine.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=56928 http://www.redpowermagazine.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=56929
The only thing I could find for power ratings is 161 to 202 hp and 358 lbs pounds. This does not sound to impressive but I think the max rpm was somethong like 3500. Torque is around 2000 rpm. Mine does not have the split exhaust though. The pics look like a stationary power unit. For a pump or something like that?The intake looks like mine. I would like to know what it might do with 2 or 3 two barrels on it instead on one. Exhaust headers would be easy to fab up. The only thing would be to have some one regrind a cam for it? The big bummer is the 6.3 to one compression ratio and four main caps. But could run it on the crappiest gas around? I don't know what cam and lifters can even be found but a healthy gain in power could be had I'm sure of that. I mean 358 times a 40% gain would be 500 lbs pounds!!! Your right it was made to last and lug around 50000 pounds of truck and load!!! I'll keep looking for some more info. I'm thinking a dana 60 and a 1 ton axle form old chevy truck would be in order? Dusty
Don't be too concerned with the torque specs...think in terms of flywheel inertia. If you can supply a decent core, Chet Herbert will grind you a cam for any purpose. Since the regrind would lower the base circle of the cam, making the pushrods too short, I'd consider decking the head by the same amount. Kills two birds with one stone...you get the valve train geometry back to correct, and you get some additional compression too! I'd guess there is a ton of meat on that head deck surface. I wouldn't sweat the four main bearing issue. That block is rigid as hell, I'd think. I'd be more concerned about the main bearing diameter. The things must be huge, and that means the bearing speed will be very high. Whatever IHC designed that engine to red line, shouldn't be exceeded by more than maybe 500 rpm, in my opinion. Maybe less. I'll bet large gains could be made in induction and exhaust. At over 500 cubes, it has to be somewhat restricted by the single carb, and exhaust. I'd build a tubular intake with long fairly small diameter runners, and use about three or four Rochester two barrels with small bores. Those huge displacement cylinders will pull a ton of air through the small runners at a wicked velocity, and that makes a ton of torque down low....the only place that engine will work. Still, we're back to weight. If you used a Dana 3/4 ton rear with floating axles, the engine and rear end will weigh more than the total weight of a "normal" HAMB Dragster. Add a chassis stout enough to hold all that together, plus a driver, and I'm thinking 25-2600 pounds easily. Tommy Ivo figured out that even with four wheel drive, a heavy car wouldn't et for shit....and I know he must have had at least 2000 horsepower pulling and pushing that 3500 pound "ShowBoat". Yet through it all...I still want to see it done. Even lifes collossal failures look cool as hell in museums and car shows!!! Hey, by the way, where do you go to drag race? You're near Hermiston, right? I can't think of anything near there....
you'd think they would update the site a bit as well.....so000ooo last year. For a stocker, I think that he was running in the 15's, will find out. Irregardless of their times, or lack of speed or 'performance' parts, these guys are doing it.....beats watching from the sidelines, all day, every day. Cheers, Drewfus
Thanks drewfus for the pics .your comment about getting out on the track and doing it is dead nuts on .a big oklahoma atta boy to all you guys down under . The car is to the point, no messing around, nice job
I've been contemplating a build for a while now. I'm still undecided on auto vs. stick, but if auto was an option for HA/GRI would build an auto for sure. It's not, and isn't going to be. Tulsa is closer than the HAMB drags and has more races. I'll more than likely build my car to meet the SDRA rules because of that.
racer32, As far as I know there are two places on the planet where a stick shift is a requirement in a HA/GR-style car. They are MoKan for the HAMB drags and Australia. If the car count gets high enough somewhere, then maybe a sanctioning body (ANRA, NHRA, IHRA) will formalize the HA/GR class. Until that happens, the race cars that are built to the HAMB rules are being done that way purely because a bunch of guys WANT to build them that way. I wrestled with the same issue especially because I might never line up against another HA/GR. I decided on a stick shift merely to capture more of that "old time feeling", which is a good part of what the HA/GR deal is all about. I can tell you that when I helped run a competitive C/Gas Willys in the 60's, if it would have been an automatic instead of a 4 speed, a great deal of the excitement of racing would have been lost. Back then, the driver was a big factor in winning or losing. A slower car could win because of driver skill and not just reaction time. For me that is one of the attractions of these race cars.
I'm still trying to get some info on the ol girl from the guy that used to drive it for us. More info to come when I get it.
The Jalopy Journal
