From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May  1 11:23:47 1992
Subject: Re: higher CR possible with H20 injection?
To: hotrod@dixie.com

> Date: Thu, 30 Apr 92 19:45 EDT
> Subject: higher CR possible with H20 injection?
> From: hotrod%dixie.com@mathcs.emory.edu (The Hotrod List)
> 
> So if H20 injection helps reduce detonation, can I use it to run
> a higher CR on my motor with the same gas?  If so how much higher can I go.

Yes.  How much higher is a difficult question, though.

> My motor came stock with 10.5 :: 1  and I was thinking of reducing that to
> 9.5 :: 1 or so to be able to run on pump gas. But I would certainly want to
> keep it stock or go even higher if all I needed was to get a water injector
> going.  
> ----------
> Posted by: hiss@fionn.lbl.gov (Eric Hiss)

I ran a '65 GTO 389 with ~10.75:1 compression, and the water injection helped
me continue to run that compression, although I still attempted to use the
best gas in it that I could.  It still wouldn't have helped if I ran a tank of
87 octane in it, it can only do so much.

And referring to whether the systems have an engine temp sensor in them,
I bought the Holley unit (I think) for about $30 on sale around 1984.
It sensed vacuum, engine temp, and whether the engine was running or
not.  That way it only activated after the engine had warmed up (simple
sensor strapped on upper radiator hose) and when the vacuum was right.
I could give it plenty of throttle at 35mph in 4th gear, and it was smooth
as silk.

----------
Posted by: brownr@dg-rtp.dg.com (Randy Brown)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May  1 14:48:47 1992
Subject: Re: higher CR possible with H20 injection?
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>> So if H20 injection helps reduce detonation, can I use it to run
>> a higher CR on my motor with the same gas?  If so how much higher can I go.
>
>Yes.  How much higher is a difficult question, though.
>
>> My motor came stock with 10.5 :: 1  and I was thinking of reducing that to
>> 9.5 :: 1 or so to be able to run on pump gas. But I would certainly want to
>> keep it stock or go even higher if all I needed was to get a water injector
>> going.  
>> ----------
>> Posted by: hiss@fionn.lbl.gov (Eric Hiss)
>
>I ran a '65 GTO 389 with ~10.75:1 compression, and the water injection helped
>me continue to run that compression, although I still attempted to use the
>best gas in it that I could.  It still wouldn't have helped if I ran a tank of
>87 octane in it, it can only do so much.

The book Performance with Economy by David Vizard has a chapter on
water injection, in which he states, "with properly metered water
injection, it is possible to successfully use fuel with a measured
octane as low as 70-75 in an engine with a compression ratio as high
as 17:1."

I suppose you might want a very large water tank tho. :-)

>And referring to whether the systems have an engine temp sensor in them,
>I bought the Holley unit (I think) for about $30 on sale around 1984.
>It sensed vacuum, engine temp, and whether the engine was running or
>not.  That way it only activated after the engine had warmed up (simple
>sensor strapped on upper radiator hose) and when the vacuum was right.
>I could give it plenty of throttle at 35mph in 4th gear, and it was smooth
>as silk.

I think sensing engine RPMs would be a bit more important than engine
temp.

pc

-- 
      -m---------    Patrick Connor           Pyramid Technology   
    ---mmm-------    (408) 428-8819           3860 North 1st St.
  -----mmmmm-----    pc@pyramid.com -or-      San Jose, CA           
-------mmmmmmm---    uunet!pyramid!pc         95134              

----------
Posted by: pc@pyramid.com



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May  1 16:49:40 1992
Subject: Re: higher CR possible with H20 injection? 
To: hotrod@dixie.com


>The book Performance with Economy by David Vizard has a chapter on
>water injection, in which he states, "with properly metered water
>injection, it is possible to successfully use fuel with a measured
>octane as low as 70-75 in an engine with a compression ratio as high
>as 17:1."
>I suppose you might want a very large water tank tho. :-)
>I think sensing engine RPMs would be a bit more important than engine
>temp.
>----------
>Posted by: pc@pyramid.com

The purpose of sensing engine temp is just to allow it to come up to
normal operating temp before the system activates. With the Holley
system that I used it just sorta dribled the water into the carb at a
constant rate. Even with this crued set up the system worked great! My
9.5:1 Chevy 350 ran just fine on reg gas and sure let you know when the
water ran out! As for rpm's, it seems to me that the engine needs more
help when its loaded at the lower rpm range. As the rpm's increase the
need for the injection is reduced, and since the pump provides water at
a constant rate compared to the ratio of air at a higher rpm, the thing
more or less regulates its self. The idea works for me.

----------
Posted by: markj@tekig5.pen.tek.com



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May  1 14:25:04 1992
Subject: Re: Hotrodder's Creed
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>THE HOTRODDERS CREED (author unknown)
>
>A hotrodder is someone who:
>

Oh my Gawd, How did they find out?  Now my neighboors, and my relatives
will know.  I'm ruined...

One minor correction..

>Thinks the perfect home would be a three bedroom apartment built
>atop a huge, completely outfitted multi-car garage.

Too much non-shop space plus it involves stairs.  My plans are 
already being prepared in this regard (no joke).  My wife said it
has to look something like a house.  Ok.  I'll give her that.
Nice white roof on a Butler Building :-)

Here's the plans.  Sell this house and acrage here in
Yuppieland. It's almost paid for so a bunch o cash will result. 
Liquidate other real estate holdings.   Head out to either 
North Carolina or Tennessee and buy ~100 acres of good flat land
on a mortgage, preferably butting up against a mountain.  
(important for the shooting range backstop.)  Such land in
Tennessee goes for 5-700 bux an acre. At the prime location on
the property, plant a 10 bay garage such that if we really ever
want to, we could connect a house onto it and it would look
right.  Two bays are the bedroom and the kitchen/great room. 
Another one or two goes to my wife's stained glass studio.  The
rest is MINE!  The way we figure it, there should  be enough
money left over to put in a decent machine shop buying used
mills and lathes, and maybe enough to put the single lane
dragstrip down behind the shop.  

So how's that for a plan?

John

----------
Posted by: jgd (John De Armond)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May  1 18:55:34 1992
Subject: cooling systems
To: hotrod@dixie.com


With all of this talk of detonation and water injection, I'm surprised to not be seeing
some reports on the MECA/Evans cooling systems. The system uses Propylene glycol
insted of Ethylene glycol.
  Propylene glycol boils at +370 degrees F  Eth.gly./water  at +225 Deg. F
			 at 0 PSIG                           at 17 PISG        


They claim to be running 12:1 compression with pump gas. 
They also have a circle track car at 16.5:1 running with 108 oct. racing fuel, with no
detionation problems.

Any body got any experience with it? Makes me real curious.

all of this info is right out of their info packet. not from me.

Their Phone number is 203 364-5130.  They are in Sharon Connecticut.

I had a nice long chat with them, they were very helpful.  He said I could get away
with 10:1 on regular.

The other nice benefit is the stuff is non toxic and it's good for >100,000 miles.

Brian

----------
Posted by: brianpi@tekig6.pen.tek.com



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May  1 21:52:52 1992
Subject: Re: While we're injecting things...
To: hotrod@dixie.com

There seems to be a bit of confusion about hydrogen peroxide (H2O2).

The stuff that you can buy at a drug store (USP) is only 2 or 3 percent
concentration when it is new.  Time, heat, and agitation (vibration)
all cause it to lose potency.

You can get higher concentrations but be advised that they are DANGEROUS.
Hydrogen peroxide is a STRONG oxidizer.  If you were to spill concentrated
H2O2 on your skin it would probably eat your flesh until it reached the
bone.

If you were to use H2O2 in a water injection system you should also have
the means to richen the mixture at the same time so that you don't end
up too lean.

Bob Hale                                      ...!ucsd!btree!hale
...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu                       ...!ucsd!btree!hale@uunet.uu.net


----------
Posted by: btree!hale@ucsd.edu (Bob Hale)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Sat May  2 00:41:45 1992
Subject: ENGINE PROJECT
To: hotrod@dixie.com


 I just started building my Ultimate 351 project motor.  Don't even have
a car to put it in.  Don't care.

 A few months ago a the guy who bought my old A/MOD 302 called (from
England) and wanted a second, similar motor for his second Cobra
replica.  The first one does street and some sort of weird circuit
racing they do over there; he'll be using the second one for faster
courses and hillclimbs.  He wanted something with more top end than the
autocross engine I sold him, "just move some of the bottom end up top,
the car is so light I don't really need the torque."

 The 302 he has is 12.5:1, ported '68 351W 4V small-chamber heads (C8OZ
part numbers, yet!), BOSS springs, Shelby aluminum retainers, polished
rockers, no guide plates since the heads have close-tolerance slots,
polished rods, SPS rod bolts, Edelbrock dual plane highrise, 600 vacuum
secondary Holley, Chevy HEI (grafted the GM top to a Ford base), BOSS
balancer, screen windage tray, Crower 288 Baron hydraulic cam, and all
the main, head, and other bolts are grade 8 Allen capscrews with
hardened washers.

 Duplicating the motor would be difficult, since I haven't been able to
find another set of the heads, though I do have a set of C9OZ heads in
the shed.  I thought it might be simpler to either run a 351W and a
slightly taller axle, or run Dart II heads on a 302.

 Turns out the Dart II heads are bloody expensive.  It'd be more
reasonable to build a 351.  Hmm... it's been years and years since I
built an engine, so I ordered some new catalogs, got out the service
manuals, and thought a while.

 I'll be merciful and skip all the intermediate planning.

 The final plan is:  lots of Ford parts *almost* interchange.  Picking
through those that do, we can match a Windsor block and crank with 351M
rods, giving us a 3.5 inch stroke and 6.56 rods.  It'll take custom
Arias pistons with high pins to make it work.  Atop this, a pair of Ford
351C-2V heads, which are identical to 351M and 400 heads.  The "two
barrel" term is highly misleading - valve sizes are 2.11/1.71, they have
1.73 rockers, the exhausts are similar to aftermarket "high port" 4V
heads (that is, no kink) and yes, the intakes are smaller - still larger
than most - and instead of just making them smaller, Ford raised the
bottom and increased the shortside radius.  You know how Chevy ports
make that abrupt shortside turn, and they drop the floor to help make
the radius a little larger?  The 2V ports curve neatly down with maybe a
1 inch radius on the shortside, and over 1/2 inch of straight shot from
the bowl to the valve.  Yeah, they're open chamber heads, but big deal.
I can remedy that too if necessary.
 This collection of parts won't accept either a Windsor or Cleveland
intake manifold.  I was planning on redrilling the heads to take one of
the new Victor Jr intakes and doing some port matching.  Turns out the
boys up in Fort Smith (near here) at B&A Ford already make a manifold
for the swap, a highrise dual plane good for 6500 and a single plane
good for 8500.

 There are other details, like custom pushrods, custom cam, etc.  Steve
Danzy at Sig Erson designed a cam with 246/246 @ .050, .600 lift, solid
lifter, 108 lobe centers.

 Once all the planning was done, I saved the file and figured Paul would
wire me the money some day.  To heck with it.  I just found a 351W short
block for $50, I'm picking it up tomorrow.  I gotta build this thing.
I'll find something to do with it eventually...
                                                                                            

----------
Posted by: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Sat May  2 08:51:06 1992
Subject: hotrodder's creed
To: hotrod@dixie.com

   I posted what has been labeled the "Hotrodder's Creed" to the net
a few months ago (it was subsequently re-posted by some fraternity
kid).  It's author was Jeff Smith and it was published in Car Craft
magazine in 1989.  A few of the better one's omitted from the most
recent post are:

a hotrodder is someone who ...

- cringes at the thought of "potential restoration projects" going
  to the crusher.

- thinks a vacation is a junkyard tour through six states

- thinks a REAL hot rod is a '32 Ford, with a flathead and no fenders,
  on its way to the dry lakes.

- thinks a REAL hot rod is a high-tech, electronic fuel-injected, turbo-
  charged late-model street machine of the next century.

- is completely baffled by people who are not into cars.

In short, a hot rodder is anyone who revels in the art and sheer
exhilaration of high-performance automobiles.

-tom

----------
Posted by: tom@msc.edu (Tom Kroeten)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Sun May  3 00:35:13 1992
Subject: ENGINE PROJECT
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> Once all the planning was done, I saved the file and figured Paul
-> would wire me the money some day.  To heck with it.  I just found a
-> 351W short block for $50, I'm picking it up tomorrow.  I gotta build
-> this thing. I'll find something to do with it eventually...

 I went down to pick the short block up today.  "Who told you we had any
351Ws?  We haven't seen any for six months."  Arrrr.  Went out through
Junkyard Row; found one (1) unit with a rebuild tag riveted to the front
saying it was .030 over/.010 under already.  I bought it for $75, drug
it home, and ripped it apart.  The crank might work with a polish job.
I don't have a mike big enough for the mains, so I'll have it checked.
I'll probably go .020 under anyway to make sure it's not "under" .010.
Local rebuilders (like the one who riveted his tag to it) like to build
engines loose, and I like tolerances on the minimum.  With 3 inch
journals, it's not like I can't spare some metal.

 The bores, unfortunately, aren't so nice.  There's at least a .010
ridge around the top.  I have serious doubts it will clean up at .040.
Ford doesn't recommend going over .040, though .060 pistons are common.

 Since Arias will make the pistons any way I want, I can go with an
oddball bore.  A stock 390 uses a 4.050 bore; they can make a set of
.050 pistons and cut them for FE series rings.  I'll talk with Arias
about that again later.  The $615 price they quoted for the pistons
puckers my wallet, but they're for custom high-pin stroker forgings with
bridged oil rings.  Not all *that* bad, but...   If I stay with
the stock 6.0 inch 351W rod I can run B&A's $169 hyper-eutectic jobs
which are made for the conversion.  Do I want a 6.56 rod this bad?  I
dunno.  We'll see.

 The core didn't have a balancer, though I was invited to pick through
their pile of old ones in the back of a Caprice station wagon.  I got a
lightweight one that was degreed for 30 degrees each side of TDC.  I
have no idea what it's for (C5OZ part number) and it has only a small
counterweight instead of the huge mass most small Fords use.  It's
probably from a big block.  I'd already talked to Lunati about balancing
and dampers, they said the long rod engine should be no problem.  I'll
see what they say about the balancer; if they don't like it I will track
one down from somewhere.

 This '74 block looks like it was cast in used kitty litter.  The '68 I
scavenged the heads for the 302 from (the block I hauled to the dump
last year... ) was smooth.

 The going rate for 351M-400 heads is $35 each.  I'll pick up a pair
next week.  I would have got them today, but this was a "you pull it"
place, and I was already getting sunburned.
                                                                                          

----------
Posted by: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Sun May  3 23:52:50 1992
Subject: Q: GM REAR AXLE
To: hotrod@dixie.com

     I just bought a '62 Chevy II convert and I want to start turning it into
a little street stormer.  I've sorted out some of the details in engine 
selection and decided on a SB that puts out around 375hp. Right now the car is
totally stock (194CID 6L).  My question regards installing an 8.5" GM 10-bolt
(the beefiest one, I guess) rear axle in place of the wimpy one already in 
place.  Is swapping diffs as easy as dropping the old one and bolting in the 
new, bigger one, or does the procedure require some imaginative fabrication?
     I've read that some of the guys featured in the hotrod mags use a 
Chrysler 8 3/4 diff.  Is this a better idea in terms of installation, parts,
and strength?  
     Will the aforementioned 10-bolt be strong enough for the engine and 
weight (3100 lbs. I figure) combination?
     Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.  You can e-mail
me if desired (rmc58125@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu).  
     If there's anyone out there with some early Nova building/modification 
experience I'd like to ask them a few questions too.
     Thanks again.
 
                                                          Sincerely,
                               
                                                          Rich Chin

----------
Posted by: Richard Matthew Chin 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Mon May  4 06:46:25 1992
Subject: ODDITY
To: hotrod@dixie.com


TITLE: leather and speed

 JC Whitney goes punk:

 Their "Motorcycle Sale Catalog" came in this morning.  There were
the usual items - pages of cheap chromed tin trash to "dress up"
your Gold Wing, some ATV stuff, leather jackets, leather bib overalls,
leather chaps, fairing bras (get real!), etc.

HOWEVER:

 Whitney now carries leather gloves with the fingers cut off Terminator
style, chrome chains that snap around your boots, leather choker
collars with spikes or skulls, leather wristbands with spikes, leather
skirts, leather belts with studs, leather shirts, leather bras and
halter tops, "soft-hook" positive-latch tiedown straps, and real
horrorshow biker boots, good for kicking.

 Nifty, eh?  And packages from JC Whitney don't interest the neighbors
like the ones from Fredericks'.
                                                                              

----------
Posted by: dave.williams@chaos.lrk.ar.us (Dave Williams)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Mon May  4 13:25:07 1992
Subject: Re: Water injection
To: hotrod@dixie.com

Just a note on Edelbrock vara-jection:
  The unit is adjustable as to when it kicks in w/ respect to vacuum
AND RPM. You can really get it to behave how you want with a little
fiddling. A sour note, mine worked well for 2 years before starting to go
insane. It decided that turning thew ignition key on Equals infinite
RPM and zero vacuum, it was injecting furiously till the car started.
had to put a disarm switch on it to get around that. Otherwise, it's fine.

Has anyone tried the Ping sensor/ignition control units marketed?
Do these things work as advertised?

Randy N.

----------
Posted by: TWLN5@ISUVAX.IASTATE.EDU



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Mon May  4 15:50:35 1992
Subject: Re: Weird problem
To: hotrod@dixie.com

For the Hot, hot herley...
An acquaintance of mine had a GS550 which had one float needle become 
obstructed, enough to restrict fuel flow at highway speeds. At full throttle
that cylinder would run out of gas and basically die, but at a fast cruise
it kept running, although lean enough to turn that pipe red hot.
  If you had 2 carbs I'd guess there was a restriction to the pilot circuit
of the affected cylinder. Is there just ONE carb feeding both cylinders?
Through some sort of "Y" intake? I guess we can forget the carb, if that's the
case.
  One lean cylinder on my RG500 was enough to melt Mr. plug right off...

Randy N.

----------
Posted by: TWLN5@ISUVAX.IASTATE.EDU



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Mon May  4 17:47:44 1992
Subject: Re: Weird problem
To: hotrod@dixie.com

Well get this....!!

	I gave myself a generous 2 degrees of total advance in  
addition to what I already had and the problem "appears" to have  
mellowed. Looks like I was flaming in the pipe due to lack of  
advance. Geez, does this mean that combustion should be happening in  
the chamber vs. the exhaust pipe??? Oh well, I'm going to give it  
another degree tonight and see what happens. Thanks for the tips.

				Scott (no leaks) Colbath

----------
Posted by: scol@scottsdale.az.stratus.com (Scott Colbath)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May  5 00:02:04 1992
Subject: Re: hydraulic teeth?
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>I want to build some nasty face teeth to put on the front of Frankentruck
>that will chomp away at pedestrians crossing against lights and slow people
>in the fast lane, etc.  I need these teeth to move up and down with violent
>action.  I was thinking of attaching one set to the hood lid and another to
>the front bumper and raising the whole hood up and down with hydraulics so
>if I ever did catch anything it would really have a bulldog grip.  So does
>anyone have any experience with hydraulic stuff or do I have to post to
>alt.lowriding.soc    or even better ... does anyone have a real slick
>idea?

Hmmm.  Hotrod teeth.  And I thought I was wierd.  Northern hydraulics
has everything you need.  I'd suggest an electric pump pack, an
appropriately sized for the weight and speed cylinder, a spool
valves and the necessary hoses.  You can arrange the spool valve 
with some linkages so that it will automatically reverse when the limits
are hit.  

Hey, I'll even help you do it if I get to see it work the first time :-)

John

----------
Posted by: jgd (John De Armond)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May  5 10:25:00 1992
Subject: Re: hydraulic teeth?
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>
>I want to build some nasty face teeth to put on the front of Frankentruck
>that will chomp away at pedestrians crossing against lights and slow people
>in the fast lane, etc.  I need these teeth to move up and down with violent
>action.  I was thinking of attaching one set to the hood lid and another to
>the front bumper and raising the whole hood up and down with hydraulics so
>if I ever did catch anything it would really have a bulldog grip.  So does
>anyone have any experience with hydraulic stuff or do I have to post to
>alt.lowriding.soc    or even better ... does anyone have a real slick
>idea?
>

You need:
A hydraulic pump - probabally driven off the fan belt. This circulates the 
fluid.

Oil cooler - a radiator for hyd. fluid

Regulator - to control the flow and motion of your teeth

either:  Hydraulic motor (rotates)
         Hydraulic piston (goes back and forth - looks like a shock absorber)

To design the system, pick a max speed for the jaws (get the flowrate) then 
determine the weight load the motor or piston has to lift (get the pressure)  
then choose your motor to work just like you'd pick a car motor; known input 
rpm from accessories with an acceptable input torque load that gives you the 
desired outputs.  Note:  at least in my experiences, ordering from an 
industrial supplier in quantities of 1 or 2 can result in big bucks.

>thanks
>eric.
>
>----------
>Posted by: hiss@fionn.lbl.gov (Eric Hiss)
>
>

The time is gone, the song is over, thought I'd something more to say...
---
Even on my favorite table, he can beat my best.  His disciples lead him in, and 
he just does the rest.  He's got crazy flipper fingers, never seen him fall; 
that deaf, dumb and blind kid, SURE PLAYS A MEAN PINBALL!
---
Matt Walsh
matt@walsh.dme.battelle.org
alias Noah Quidding

----------
Posted by: MTM 'Matt the Man' Walsh 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May  5 14:55:19 1992
Subject: Re: Suggestions for good automotive text 
To: hotrod@dixie.com

    
    Could somebody please recommend a good book on the subject of
    4 cycle engines?  

One good place to start is with David Vizard's Tuning for Power and
Economy, or something like that.  Vizard is one of the best writers
in the technical side of the automotive press, and his expertise 
covers a pretty wide range of vehicles.  He's also written a book or
two specifically on the small-block Chevy, which should interest you.
He's also written specific books on VW and BMC A-Series engines, so
that qualifies him as having a pretty broad base...  It was from 
reading Vizard's books that I finally understood things like cam
timing and how it affects carburetion, exhaust, and compression, 
as well as simple-but-obvious details such as the more power it
takes to make an engine turn over, the less there is to spin the
pilot bushing.

    I was an auto shop tech head in high school,
    but that was 13 years ago!  Not until the recent purchase of
    my '63 Vette have I started to try and remember everything
    I learned in auto shop.  Oh yeah, dwell affects timing,
    timing does not affect dwell, etc, etc, etc.  

Probably the most important thing to learn about building engines is
that there are three factors in an engine builder's control: power,
reliability, and price.  Optimizing for any one factor is easy.
Optimizing for any two factors is significantly harder.  Optimizing
for all three is virtually impossible.

    I must admit
    that there was alot I never understood, for example, I
    never really understood what "Balanced and blueprinted"
    meant.  

Been there, done that, so I can answer that one...

B&B (no, not that cute little place in the wine country where you and
your sweetums stayed last summer) is a fairly basic hotrodding/racing 
technique.  The principle is to compare all the components of an engine
to their specified dimensions, and then bring them from their condition
as manufactured into much more precise tolerances.

There are several components to B&B.  One typical part of this is to
have the connecting rods balanced end-for-end.  This means that first
you weigh all the rods and see which one is lightest.  But rather than
indiscriminately hacking metal off the rods wherever you can, a good
end-for-end balancing will make sure that the rods not only weigh the
same (down to whatever tolerance you want; half a gram is a good place
to start for a high-performance motor), but balance at the same point
between the big and little ends.

The goal of balancing is to get the entire rotating mass of the engine --
crank, rods, pistons, flywheel, clutch, pulley -- so that there are no
imbalances that can make the engine vibrate.  Balancing per se isn't much
of a performance advantage, except that your engine will last longer and
rev higher before shaking itself apart.  The only real performance advantage
is that balancing is done by removing metal rather than by adding it, so
there is less mass inside the engine to get spinning.  This means that
while the engine might not make any more power just from the rods all 
weighing the same or the crank being in perfect balance, the power it does
make will have less trouble getting out the back end of the engine.

Blueprinting, on the other hand, can have a performance advantage.  By
carefully measuring all the dimensions of the combustion chambers, cam
lobe lift, cylinder bore size, valve face and seat dimensions, and the
like, you can typically pick up a few horsepower.  One sad thing
that blueprinting does is tell you how much tolerance skew there was
in your engine as delivered from the factory.  On the plus side, by 
choosing the right values for all the components, you can get a little
more power out of a "stock" engine, typically at no cost in reliability
(and often, due to the improved balance, with even better overall life --
assuming you don't blow up the engine when the light turns green, of course).

B&B is sort of a basic place to start for a high-performance engine
rebuild.  The EP car, for example, has a B&B'ed engine with a moderate
cam and compression around 11:1, just enough for one bhp per inch,
which works out to about a 15% improvement over stock.  (I optimized
for reliability and price... :-)

Magnafluxing, since you mention it, is a technique for locating cracks
in metal; I haven't done that, though it's often recommended for old
suspension pieces as well as for engine and driveline bits.  Think about
it: a cracked rod will be expensive, while a cracked lower front A-arm
at the outside wheel on a fast turn might be fatal.

To put things into perspective: you'd typically magnalflux a part before
you decided whether it was worth balancing and blueprinting that part.
For example, if you want to make a resto-rod out of your '63 'Vette, you
could do a lot worse than to tear down the engine and measure (or have
measured; I had a reputable race shop do the machine work on the EP car,
then I put the motor together myself) all the components.  Weigh them,
see whether they're round or straight or shaped the way they should be,
and then make them all as close to the ideal as you can get them.  Given
the state of the art in Tonawanda in the early Sixties, you might get as
much as 30 to 50 bhp just by balancing everything and making sure that
the things that should be big are big and the things that should be little
are little.  And you'll have an engine that runs so smoothly you can 
balance a nickel on edge on the air filter cover at idle.

    There was alot of ignorance in high school, and
    everybody had there own ideas which were all different.

Sounds just like the net! :-)

Anywy, welcome to the list!

----------
Posted by: Captain Capsaicine 



From z-car@Dixie.Com Tue May  5 14:57:07 1992
Subject: Rear Bearings.
To: z-car@Dixie.Com

Weenie question:

   I recently noticed a very slight ticking coming from the rear on
turns.   So, the other day, I jacked up the rear, pulled off the drums
and played with the hub;  sure enough, a little play.
  Just replace the bearings, no biggy.
To get a preview and avoid having it apart and missing parts or tools, I
checked out the shop manual.  Simple enough, unbolt the half-shaft and
remove the lock nut in the center, hub pulls out, inner bearing probably
comes out loose, outer bearing pressed on.  No problem.

Hmm, wonder if I've got a socket large enough for that lock nut  ...
What's this? 180-220 foot pounds torque!  Whoa.   Well, yes, that one
nut is basically what holds the wheel on; I dont want it coming off!
But still!

OK, so my budget torque wrench from my college days wont do.  Time to
buy a real one, sears got one for $90 that goes all the way to
250 foot-pounds.  The `clicky' type.  That's good, 'cause I wouldn't be
able to see the pointer while jumping up & down on the end of the
handle, anyway :> 

Seriously; The shop manual shows a cute stand that bolts on to the hub
so it doesn't turn while you loosen/tighten the nut.  Shade tree
alternative: Put the tire back on and drop the car!  

   But it's going to be a pain in the ass getting that nut off and
torqued back up with the little clearance I have w/ it on the ground!

Any handy alternative tricks or other gotchas that yall can think of
before I dive in?

bruce
miller@cam.nist.gov


From z-car@Dixie.Com Tue May  5 15:04:46 1992
Subject: Rear Bearings.

Weenie question:

>OK, so my budget torque wrench from my college days wont do.  Time to
>buy a real one, sears got one for $90 that goes all the way to
>250 foot-pounds.  The `clicky' type.  That's good, 'cause I wouldn't be
>able to see the pointer while jumping up & down on the end of the
>handle, anyway :> 

I don't like the click torque wrenches.  When I worked in a metrology
lab, way too many came in out of calibration.  Instead of getting a
large wrench and busting a gut on it, use your smaller torque wrench
with a torque multiplier.  This is a planetary gear tool designed to fit
between the wrench and socket and produce an accurate torque multiplication.
It has a lever arm that is wedged against something that absorbes the 
high torque.  Usual ratios are 2:1 and 10:1.  I don't know if Sears has 'em 
but all the ripoff merchants (Snap-on, Mac, etc) do.

>Seriously; The shop manual shows a cute stand that bolts on to the hub
>so it doesn't turn while you loosen/tighten the nut.  Shade tree
>alternative: Put the tire back on and drop the car!  
>
   >But it's going to be a pain in the ass getting that nut off and
>torqued back up with the little clearance I have w/ it on the ground!
>
>Any handy alternative tricks or other gotchas that yall can think of
>before I dive in?


Real simply home-made tool.  get a handly length of 1" angle iron, say
6 feet long.  Drill a hole in one end large enough to fit over a wheel stud.  
Place this over a stud and lay the angle iron out on the ground against the 
rotation so that when the hub is rotated another stud will interefer with it.
Bolt down a lugnut to hold it in place and twist away.  As long as 
you don't deliver enough torque to the end of the angle iron to lift 
the car off the jacks ( :-),  you'll be OK.  If you want to take the 
tool from being a general purpose torque arm to a Z-specific tool,
simply drill a second hole so that the arm will fit over two studs.
A bit more secure but not useful on other vehicles.

John


From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May  5 16:50:02 1992
Subject: Roller Rockers
To: hotrod@dixie.com


>When I took my heads into be worked over the guy suggested I use 
>stainless roller rocker arms rather than the typical aluminum ones. I think
>the brand he was selling was Norris. He said that the aluminum rockers did
>not last long because small bearings and also due to fatigue induced by 
>heat cycling.   Well I've never seen anything but aluminum rockers so I
>was wondering what the group thought. They cost about the same ... should
>I go for them?

I never heard of Norris, but:
A friend of mine runs a set of Crower stainless rockers on his 383 Chevelle.
They run about $100 more than typical aluminum ones ($300 vs $200 or so) but
have a few advantages. The bearings (seem bigger than for most aluminum
rockers) can be removed without a press, and are available seperately. Also
the stainless rockers are smaller so if you have some wierd geometry and
pushrod lengths, they are less likely to hit the rocker stud or the spring.
And remember, Smokey Yunick claims to have tested these things, and only
weights after the rocker arm (valve side) effect the RPM limit.

As an aside, I don't think the temps reached are enough for any thermal 
fatigue problems. Of course Aluminum is far more likely to stress fatigue
than steel. (Anyone have any durability observations on the aluminum ones?)
Also, take into account the previous roller rocker discussion. Unless you 
are converting from a non-adjustable setup, or building a serious RPM 
engine, they are of questionable value.

Greg

----------
Posted by: Gregory J Perantoni 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May  5 20:27:27 1992
Subject: Re: Rear end swap 
To: hotrod@dixie.com

    Howdy folks! :)

    	I was wondering if someone could give me an estimate of how long it
    would take me to swap out a rear-end. 

It's a fairly simple job but it'd be almost impossible without an
assistant.  Basically, you'll want one person to work the jack, 
put the car in and out of gear, line things up for you, and keep
an eye on whether the car is going to fall off the stands and
flatten you (not a good thing). 

I presume you're leaving the driveshaft in place and undoing the
nuts that hold the rear U-joint to the input flange of the diff.
That's where it's nice to have someone else to put the car in and
out of gear (or of park if it's a slushbox).  The idea is to put
the car in neutral, then rotate the driveshaft so you can get a
wrench on it easily.  Then your lovely assistant puts the car in
gear and you start hammering on the nuts.  Then repeat till you
run out of driveshaft nuts.

What I seem to remember doing (I've lucked out and gotten to do
the installation part of the rear axle swap the last couple of
times :-) is undoing the U-bolts and the driveshaft while the
springs are still in the car.  Then you support the axle with a
jack, unhook the rear spring mounts, and lower the whole thing
in one piece.  When you get to that part you'll be glad the car
has leaf springs; yeah, they have geometry problems and windup
problems compared to coils, but they're a LOT easier to R&R.

    	On a related question, How hard are the u-bolts torqued down? Am I
    going to have to get a 5 foot cheater pipe on my ratchet wrench, or will my
    roommate's 18-inch breaker bar work fine? 

Liquid Wrench!  And lots of it!

The trick probably won't be that it's torqued down all that hard, but
that the nuts are rusted onto the bolts.  Never underestimate the
power of a propane torch -- just keep it away from the gas tank. Use
the torch to heat the nuts enough that they expand, not so much to
make them loose as to break the rust seal in the threads.  Then they
should come off.

----------
Posted by: Captain Capsaicine 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May  5 20:48:19 1992
Subject: Re: Suggestions for good automotive text 
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>
>One good place to start is with David Vizard's Tuning for Power and
>Economy, or something like that.

I went out today at lunch and bought the book.  It looks great.  Exactly
the kind of information I was looking for!  Thank you for the suggestion.

>Probably the most important thing to learn about building engines is
>that there are three factors in an engine builder's control: power,
>reliability, and price.

I might add one more thing: Originality.  This is something that
some take very seriously with older classics. 
I think I might have more fun with my car at shows
if I enter it into the "Custom" class instead of "Stock". 

>Magnafluxing, since you mention it, is a technique for locating cracks
>in metal; I haven't done that, though it's often recommended for old
>suspension pieces as well as for engine and driveline bits.  Think about
>it: a cracked rod will be expensive, while a cracked lower front A-arm
>at the outside wheel on a fast turn might be fatal.

Someone I met in another Corvette car club had put thousands of dollars
rebuilding his big block.  After rebuilding, he installed it, fired it up,
and a few minutes later, POW, threw a rod.  Turns out a connecting rod bolt
broke (yikes!).  I wonder if magnafluxing could have prevented this.


--------
Dave Arnold - KD6IFY
Internet: darnold@filenet.com
UUCP: uunet!felix!darnold

----------
Posted by: emory!felix.filenet.com!darnold (Dave Arnold)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May  6 00:03:24 1992
Subject: Re: Rear end swap
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>Are you swapping an identical rear end? What kind of garage and tool setup do
>you have? With this information, there will be plenty of advice forthcoming.

I will be installing a 12-bolt in place of a 10-bolt, but I have been told 
that the axle will bolt right in.  I have no garage.  I'm going to be doing 
this in the parking lot of the apartment complex.  I have a tool box full 
of wrenches, as does my roommate, and we can buy enough liquid 
wrench/ to float the city.

need anything else? :)


-blaine

----------
Posted by: emory!RIGEL.TAMU.EDU!BNH5940 (The Midnight Shadow)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May  6 00:26:17 1992
Subject: Re: Rear end swap
To: hotrod@dixie.com

> > 
> >     Howdy folks! :)
> > 
> >     	I was wondering if someone could give me an estimate of how long it
> >     would take me to swap out a rear-end. 
> > 
> It's a fairly simple job but it'd be almost impossible without an
> assistant. 
> 
> 
>     	On a related question, How hard are the u-bolts torqued down? Am I
>     going to have to get a 5 foot cheater pipe on my ratchet wrench, or will my
>     roommate's 18-inch breaker bar work fine? 
> 
> Liquid Wrench!  And lots of it!
> 
> The trick probably won't be that it's torqued down all that hard, but
> that the nuts are rusted onto the bolts.  Never underestimate the
> power of a propane torch -- just keep it away from the gas tank. Use
> the torch to heat the nuts enough that they expand, not so much to
> make them loose as to break the rust seal in the threads.  Then they
> should come off.
> 
	Rather than use Liquid Wrench, I would whole heartedly recommend
   product made by WALKER (like mufflers) called "Super Kwick"
 	(their part number 35995).  It loosens rusted bolts in 10
 	to 20 minutes.  I was removing the shocks off
 	my 82 van and fighting them all the way (Liquid Wrench/4 ft
 	extension on the breaker bar, lots of muscle, etc) and they
 	resisted all the way.  My neighbor brought over his "Super
 	Kwick".  We squirted them and waited 10 minutes and they rest
 	came off like a breese.  I ordered 3 cans for myself and 
 	a case and a half for my father-in-law (for on the farm).
 
 	It doesn't seem to be readily available.  I had to order
 	it thru my local NAPA store.
 
 	Sure saves a lot of knuckles. 
 
 	Mike
 
 
> 
> 

----------
Posted by: uunet!rosevax.rosemount.com!mikef (Michael Foerster)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May  6 09:48:41 1992
Subject: Re: Rear end swap (fwd)
To: hotrod@dixie.com

->From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May  5 23:09:23 1992
->Subject: Re: Rear end swap
->
->I will be installing a 12-bolt in place of a 10-bolt, but I have been told 
->that the axle will bolt right in.  I have no garage.  I'm going to be doing 
->this in the parking lot of the apartment complex.  I have a tool box full 
->of wrenches, as does my roommate, and we can buy enough liquid 
->wrench/ to float the city.
->
->need anything else? :)
->
A floor jack (or 2) and a couple of frame stands.  If you have to work alone
you could lower and lift the rear end into place with the floor jacks.

-----
Posted by: emory!msc.edu!tom (Tom Kroeten)
----------
Posted by: emory!msc.edu!tom (Tom Kroeten)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May  6 09:48:41 1992
Subject: Re: Rear end swap (fwd)
To: hotrod@dixie.com

->From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May  5 19:33:35 1992
->Subject: Re: Rear end swap 
->
->    	I was wondering if someone could give me an estimate of how long it
->    would take me to swap out a rear-end. 
->
->    	On a related question, How hard are the u-bolts torqued down? Am I
->    going to have to get a 5 foot cheater pipe on my ratchet wrench, or will my
->    roommate's 18-inch breaker bar work fine? 
->
->Liquid Wrench!  And lots of it!
->
->The trick probably won't be that it's torqued down all that hard, but
->that the nuts are rusted onto the bolts.  Never underestimate the
->power of a propane torch -- just keep it away from the gas tank. Use
->the torch to heat the nuts enough that they expand, not so much to
->make them loose as to break the rust seal in the threads.  Then they
->should come off.
->
If its a straight swap;

This would be an ideal opportunity to kind of over-haul some of the rear
spring hardware etc.  I would replace the u-bolts that hold the spring
to the differential.  This would give you some peace of mind as far as
reliability and would allow you to save some time by just cutting them off
with a hacksaw/airtool/torch.  Look for broken center bolts on each spring,
broken leaf segments and worn insulators that go between the spring and
the metal plate that the shock mounts to (better yet, replace the rubber
insulators too).  There are shops that specialize in suspensions that can
supply you with parts (bring the old ones with you) or a very well stocked
auto parts place might have them.

Would also be a good idea to assess the condition of brake lines and shocks.
Even if you end up doing most of this you should still be able to finish
with the time you have.

-tom 

-----
Posted by: emory!msc.edu!tom (Tom Kroeten)
----------
Posted by: emory!msc.edu!tom (Tom Kroeten)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May  6 10:48:25 1992
Subject: Re: Re: Rear end swap
To: hotrod@dixie.com

You will need a good floor jack, several quality jack stands and possibly
a hack saw and new u bolts.  Sometimes the u bolts are tough.  New u bolts
from your local spring shop are very inexpensive.  When you re install them,
put a little anti seize on the threads.  This may help the next guy who has
to remove that rear end.  Don't forget a quantity of brake fuild and a bottle
and clear plastic tube fit for your bleeder valves as the brakes need to be 
bleed.  Have you looked at the flexible brake line connection between the 
old and the new?  Is it in the same location and will the same flexible hose
work.  If not you need to track it down ahead of time if you want to do 
this in one day, especially in a parking lot.  Actually, having two people
is a luxury.  I have pulled rear ends all by my lonesome.  Have fun.
Mike brattland

-----
Posted by: emory!nprdc.navy.mil!brattlan (CDR Michael Brattland)
----------
Posted by: emory!nprdc.navy.mil!brattlan (CDR Michael Brattland)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May  6 11:49:55 1992
Subject: ROLLER ROCKERS
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> I never heard of Norris

 Norris is an old-line cam grinder.  They moved from the mainstream into
the VW and motorcycle market back in the late '60s, and only maintain a
toehold in the market now.  They're in the ranks of Clay Smith, Racer
Brown, Wolverine, General Kinetics, and (until recently) Chet Herbert,
who seem to be making a comeback.

 Crane/Cam Dynamics and Competition Cams are the biggest grinders now.
Ultradyne specializes in circle track and marine applications.
Iskenderian seems to be fading away, probably because of their high
prices and old-style profiles.  Sig Erson was virtually dead until Super
Shops bought them, developed some new profiles, and put them into the
mainstream.  Lunati's range of profiles is limited, but they're pretty
good at matching them to engines.  Huggins Cams is gone.  Lazer Cams is
run by some ex-Competition-Cams people; they're still relatively
unknown.  Edelbrock, Weiand, and B&M have jumped into the cam market
too.

 Crane, Ultradyne, etc. don't grind all their own cams.  Lots are farmed
out to be big commercial grinders - people like Alliance or SIS, who do
cams for people like Ford and GM.  If you find an Alliance cam with
specs identical to, say, a Crane - it probably is the same cam.

 The cam industry is widely varied, but maybe a third of the industry is
interbred.  General Kinetics' chief designer went to work for
Competition Cams, moonlighted other places, and founded Ultradyne.  When
Crane bought Cam Dynamics, their contract called for the previous owner
to stay out of the cam field for several years, so he founded HyperTech.
Lazer, Ultradyne, Lunati, Comp Cams, and formerly Cam Dynamics were all
just a few miles from each other in the Memphis area, hellangone from
the usual SoCal region.

 Anyway, that's the history lesson for today.  
                                                                     

-----
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May  6 11:50:02 1992
Subject: STAINLESS STEEL ROLLER RO
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> the brand he was selling was Norris. He said that the aluminum
-> rockers did not last long because small bearings and also due to
-> fatigue induced by heat cycling.   Well I've never seen anything but
-> aluminum rockers so I was wondering what the group thought. They cost
-> about the same

 Eric, I've never heard of an aluminum roller rocker failing.  They're
plenty beefy and the loads just aren't that high.  Maybe back long ago a
few cheapies could've failed, but modern ones are extrusions or die
castings that seem plenty tough.

 Why load the valvetrain moving a big steel honker around?
               

-----
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May  6 12:47:50 1992
Subject: RE: roller rockers
To: hotrod@dixie.com

if the aluminum rockers really need to be swapped out, i would definetly go
for the stainless ones. due to material strength and design, they actually
weigh LESS than typical aluminum rockers and are FAR stronger.

BTW: there was someone talking about building a 351W stroker motor,
i have a set of eight 351BOSS rods and pistons that i would like to get out
of my garage. leftovers from a race motor that i never built.
sale or trade(ford stuff).
email met@naucse.cse.nau.cse

-----
Posted by: emory!naucse.cse.nau.edu!met (Millam Tackitt)
----------
Posted by: emory!naucse.cse.nau.edu!met (Millam Tackitt)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May  6 14:24:08 1992
Subject: Re: Suggestions for good automotive text 
To: hotrod@dixie.com

    >One good place to start is with David Vizard's Tuning for Power and
    >Economy, or something like that.

    I went out today at lunch and bought the book.  It looks great.  Exactly
    the kind of information I was looking for!  Thank you for the suggestion.

Glad to be of service!  His books are clear and helpful.

    >Probably the most important thing to learn about building engines is
    >that there are three factors in an engine builder's control: power,
    >reliability, and price.

    I might add one more thing: Originality.  This is something that
    some take very seriously with older classics. 

Of course.  The last engine I built was for a race car, so it was a 
combination of mix-n-match parts from a number of years to get the
good rods in the better block with the best head and pistons, and the
cam was nothing like stock... But when we do the '65 Malibu SS, I will 
surely pay close attention to originality.  After all, the only non-
original things on the car now are the air filter and the oil filler 
cap, and I've still got the original air filter.  (The oil cap is long 
gone, sad to say...)

    I think I might have more fun with my car at shows
    if I enter it into the "Custom" class instead of "Stock". 

It does allow you a lot more latitude to build the car the way you
want it.  That's one argument in favor of owning the less valuable
classics: if what you really want is something the factory never
made, it's probably cheaper to start with something other than a 
first-year Sting Ray. :-)

If what you want, though, is stock appearance with a tad more oomph,
B&B is definitely the way to go, because you'll use all the original
equipment (keeping those all-important date codes intact) but you'll
pick up a little more zip just from the synergistic effect of getting
all the clearances, weights, and dimensions right on the money.  My
contacts in the Showroom Stock racing world say that it's not uncommon
for a Corvette in particular to pick up an easy 40 to 50 bhp over the
stock powerplant just by matching the parts.  At that rate, you will
probably have to rejet the carbs, though, and I don't know whether
that will take points away for originality. :-)

Here's a hot-rod tip from another of Vizard's books:  You can get most
of the benefits of an anti-reversionary header in a stock exhaust manifold
simply by grinding the inside of the manifold a little larger (say 1/16")
than the port.  The step causes no impedance to forward flow, but gas 
that comes in backwards (say due to lots of backpressure in a stock system,
or lots of overlap in a wild cam) causes a vortex when it meets the step.
Free except for the bits for the Dremel, and it looks 100% original (and
smog legal, I might add) from everywhere but inside the exhaust port.

    Someone I met in another Corvette car club had put thousands of dollars
    rebuilding his big block.  After rebuilding, he installed it, fired it up,
    and a few minutes later, POW, threw a rod.  Turns out a connecting rod bolt
    broke (yikes!).  I wonder if magnafluxing could have prevented this.

I hope not.  Rebuilding an engine and then reusing rod bolts is asking
for trouble.  Talk about penny wise and pound foolish -- it's like the
story about the guy whose Maserati required an engine rebuild in 
a ludicrously low amount of time, like 8,000 miles.  When the shop
asked him how often he changed the oil, he blew his top.  "This car
takes 12 quarts of oil in the dry-sump!" he shouted.  "Do you have
any idea how much 12 quarts of oil COST?"

Of course, I'm talking exclusively from the point of view of someone 
who wears string-backed gloves -- though in my case it IS to cover the
oil stains in my knuckles.  Reusing rod bolts is a definite no-no on
most imported engines I know of; VW in particular stresses that the
rod bolts on the GTI are designed to stretch ONCE when you torque 
them, and they cannot be reused.  When I finally remove the L77 from
my '65 SS and run its bits through the parts washer, I plan to use
new hardware even if I put it back together in stock configuration
(well, more or less stock; this IS the hot-rod list after all).  So
are domestic rod bolts meant to be re-used?  And if so, are they more
expensive than throwing away a newly machined engine?

--
 "Do you ever wish you had a joystick with a big red button on it so 
  you could just nuke the person when you send a reply?" -- Kim

Scott Fisher/sfisher@wsl.pa.dec.com/DEC Western Software Labs/Palo Alto, CA

-----
Posted by: Captain Capsaicine 
----------
Posted by: Captain Capsaicine 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May  6 19:24:21 1992
Subject: Re: Magnefluxing Rod Bolts
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>     Someone I met in another Corvette car club had put thousands of dollars
>     rebuilding his big block.  After rebuilding, he installed it, fired it up,
>     and a few minutes later, POW, threw a rod.  Turns out a connecting rod bolt
>     broke (yikes!).  I wonder if magnafluxing could have prevented this.
> 
> I hope not.  Rebuilding an engine and then reusing rod bolts is asking
> for trouble.  Talk about penny wise and pound foolish -
> 
  Reusing rod bolts is a definite no-no on
> most imported engines I know of; VW in particular stresses that the
> rod bolts on the GTI are designed to stretch ONCE when you torque 
> them, and they cannot be reused.  When I finally remove the L77 from
> my '65 SS and run its bits through the parts washer, I plan to use
> new hardware even if I put it back together in stock configuration
> are domestic rod bolts meant to be re-used?  And if so, are they more
> expensive than throwing away a newly machined engine?
> 
> Posted by: Captain Capsaicine 


 I don't think you understand what is going on. I'm sure the person
 who rebuilt the big block in the Vette didn't rely on used rod bolts.
 The suggestion was: would magnefluxing have prevented the mishap?
 The answer is YES!  If you think that just because you have nice new
 rod bolts, they can't be devective, YOU ARE GRAVELY MISTAKEN.  Even
 NEW rod bolts can be defective, and as most racers know, they should
 be magnefluxed to insure that they are free from any defects such as
 cracks, etc.

 Nobody would be stupid enough to reuse rod bolts. 

 Would they?

 DAVE (johnson@wrs.com)



-----
Posted by: emory!yuba.wrs.com!johnson (David Johnson)
----------
Posted by: emory!yuba.wrs.com!johnson (David Johnson)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May  6 19:47:23 1992
Subject: Re: Suggestions for good automotive text 
To: hotrod@dixie.com


I just bought another book, but have not read it.  I don't know
how good it is, but it looked interesting to me.  Comments?

Title: Understanding Automotive Electronics (Fourth Edition)
Author: William B. Ribbens
Publisher: SAMS
ISBN: 0-672-27358-6
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 91-78139
$24.95

Microprocessor Instrumentation and Control,
The Basics of Electronic Engine Control, Digital Engine Control
systems, Diagnostics.  And the future of automotive electronics.


--------
Dave Arnold - KD6IFY
Internet: darnold@filenet.com
UUCP: uunet!felix!darnold

-----
Posted by: emory!felix.filenet.com!darnold (Dave Arnold)
----------
Posted by: emory!felix.filenet.com!darnold (Dave Arnold)



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Thu May  7 12:47:48 1992
Subject: Re: propane power (again!)
To: hotrod@dixie.com

Derek mentions that propane conversions can be hard on valves.  When
propane kits were installed 20 years ago it was standard practice to
install sodium-filled valves to help remove the heat.

I was looking in a catalog (Summit, I believe) where sodium filled
valves were offered.  They were about $60 per valve.

Bob Hale                                      ...!ucsd!btree!hale
...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu                       ...!ucsd!btree!hale@uunet.uu.net

----------
Posted by: emory!ucsd.edu!btree!hale (Bob Hale)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Thu May  7 16:53:07 1992
Subject: Re: Magnefluxing Rod Bolts
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>
>Well, call me stupid!!!
>Anyone ever heard of Joe Sherman?  Call him stupid too! Of course
>his small blocks are probably all on the verge of loosing rod bolts.
>Rod bolt failure is quite uncommon. I suppose you hate cast cranks too!
>And god forbid, 2 bolt mains!
>Gee, how can I sleep tonight knowing my rod bolts are used!!

Now put a smiley on that so no one will mistake it for a flame :-)

I'm in the same boat here.  I've never ever replaced Datsun rod bolts
unless they're just worn out from being removed so many times.  
Never blown a bottom end either.  Hmm, must be how I talk to 'em
as I twist their little heads down :-)

John

----------
Posted by: jgd (John De Armond)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May  8 00:12:18 1992
Subject: Re: Magnefluxing Rod Bolts
To: hotrod@dixie.com

> I'm in the same boat here.  I've never ever replaced Datsun rod bolts
> unless they're just worn out from being removed so many times.  
> Never blown a bottom end either.  Hmm, must be how I talk to 'em
> as I twist their little heads down :-)


	ACK!  I was thinking that there must be something different about
all these american engines that made the rod bolts reusable, so I was
keeping my mouth shut, but I have seen some ugly Datsun rods that I don't
want to duplicate with my engine!  I'm not sure about L series engines, but
roadster rod bolts are designed to stretch when torqued!  The correct way to
tighten the rod bolts is actually to measure how much they stretch, not to
measure the torque!
	A friend picked up a dead L-18 that supposedly had broken rings on
one piston.  He tore it apart and found this rod with a very interesting
shape to it.  The cap was bent around until it was up against the side of
the rod, and the whole rod looked like it was made of some soft plastic.
The broken bolt that caused all of this was not broken due to a crack.  The
bolt had stretched almost to a piont before breaking!  Given the relative
cost of rod bolts versus engine blocks, rods, and cranks, it seems like
cheap insurance!  Of course, I don't talk to my bolts.  What do you say
John?  Maybe I'll try that too, can't be too careful!
	I don't know about with a slower spinning engine, but when I am
turning 7000 rpm, I want NEW parts down there!  I even go to the point of
bashing the threads on the old bolts when I pull them out just so I don't
accidently reuse them (a trick learned from someone who accidently reused
the rod bolts on his race engine, bad move!)
	I'm wondering what kind of a rebuild could cost $200?  My L-18 cost
just under $1000 to build, and I used an old cam and valvetrain!

	-Dave

----------
Posted by: Datsun Dave Coleman 
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May  8 01:23:24 1992
Subject: Re: Magnefluxing Rod Bolts
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>	ACK!  I was thinking that there must be something different about
>all these american engines that made the rod bolts reusable, so I was
>keeping my mouth shut, but I have seen some ugly Datsun rods that I don't
>want to duplicate with my engine!  I'm not sure about L series engines, but
>roadster rod bolts are designed to stretch when torqued!  The correct way to
>tighten the rod bolts is actually to measure how much they stretch, not to
>measure the torque!

I've not had the occasion to work on a Roadster engine, though it's on my
list of Important Things To Do.  I tighten L engine rod bolts by enlogation
too.  We have to use more precise terms than "stretch" to make sure
we're talking about the same thing.  L engine bolts are not tightened
to the strain limit.  In other words, they are not stressed past their
elastic limit.  Some other fasteners ARE deformed when tightened to
the specified.  The easy way to tell is to measure the fastener
before tightening and after being tightened and loosened again.  
Carol Smith in "Engineer to win" makes a convincing argument, backed
by metallurgical evidence, that a fastener achieves its ultimate
strength when tensioned to about 85% of its yield strength.  For the
rest of this article only, I'll use the term "stretch" to mean 
deformation.

It is my *opinion* that except for a few applications where weight is
the overriding concern, using fasteners that that must be stretched
is at best bad engineering and at worst a patchup to cover other 
mistakes.  I suspect that in the case of the Roadster engine, it is 
simply an attempt to salvage an overstressed forklift engine.
It apparently worked, though as the discussion on the roadster list
has shown, getting bolts is sometimes, um, challenging, shall we say.

>Given the relative
>cost of rod bolts versus engine blocks, rods, and cranks, it seems like
>cheap insurance!  

Let me make an equally valid counterargument.  Assuming we're not dealing
with stretch parts, unless you're willing to do pretty extensive NDT
including X-ray (remember magnaflux only handles surface and just
subsurface flaws), a fastener that has not been overstressed and 
have been proven in service are more reliable than new, unproven parts.
This is just a corallary to the old racer's maxim, "never start a 
race with a new sparkplug".  Been bitten on that one myself :-)

These tradeoffs are why we have to rely so much on qualified historical
evidence in deciding practices.  I've never heard of anyone having 
L engine rod or head bolt problems (other than the very first non-ridged
head bolts) and have never seen a recommendation to replace them in
any of the buildup books.  Since I've never had any problems either,
I don't change them.  On the other hand, were I doing Roadster engines,
damn right I would based on what I've heard.  But I'd do some serious
NDT including X-ray.


>Of course, I don't talk to my bolts.  What do you say John?   

Hey!  That's between me and them :-)  Got to have a few privates :-)

>Maybe I'll try that too, can't be too careful!

Highly recommended.  A little Led Zeppelin in the background helps too.
Ooops, that's to help ME.  Sorry.


John

----------
Posted by: jgd (John De Armond)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May  8 13:31:30 1992
Subject: Re: Edelbrock stuff 
To: hotrod@dixie.com


>Hey fellow rodders,
>I was just wondering if anyones had any experience with
>the Performer RPM set-up that Edelbrock is selling?
>Right now I have the Performer manifold and Performer
>carb (600 cfm) but like so many of my fellow rodders I WANT MORE 
>POWER!! 8^)
>This does mean that I'll have to buy a new carb, manifold,
>and cam so what I'm really asking is, is it worth it?
>BTW the engine is a 350, 9.5:1 , 4:11
>rear, 4-speed.

Why not just try a cam change first? The Edelbrock performer manifold is
a good manifold and can flow to around 6000 rpms with ease. A 600 cfm
carb is about right for a 350 unless you really want to gain a few
tenths in the quarter mile 8^) You do have headers and dual exhaust
don't you? I would suggest that you stay with the 9.5:1 unless you want
to buy octain booster by the gallon. I think your money would be better
spent on other mods.
 ______________________________________________________________________
|           _______________       OLD CHEVYS NEVER DIE... THEY JUST GO |
|         /                 \          F A S T E R !!                  |
|     __/_____________________\__    OLD JAPANESE CARS NEVER DIE...    |
|    '--:---------------------:--`    THEY TURN BACK INTO BEER CANS!!  |
|   / (_)(_)    _______    (_)(_) \                                    |
|  '===========|_______|===========`  MARK JENSEN     (503) 627-3115   |
|  \_______________________________/  TEKTRONIX METROLOGY LAB.         |
|  |\___/O-O\_____________/O-O\___/|  BEAVERTON OREGON   MS. 39-732    |
|  |       |     `---'     |       |      markj@tekig5.pen.tek.com     |
|__|_______|_______________|_______|___________________________________|

----------
Posted by: emory!tekig5.pen.tek.com!markj
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May  8 17:48:02 1992
Subject: RETROFITTING SEATBELTS
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> One question I have along these lines though is this:
-> Having been a fanatic about wearing both a lap/shoulder
-> belt for at least the last 20 years, how hard is it to
-> retrofit a shoulder belt into, say, a '62-'67 model.
-> Granted, a convertible or hardtop is nigh impossible
-> unless you go to something like a 5-point harness.

 Au contraire!  It's a common problem with the drag race crowd.

 A shoulder belt conversion normally loops over the shoulder and down to
the floor, where it bolts to something (hopefully) solid.  The closer
the belt is to horizontal, the more effective it will be for
constraining forward movement of the torso.  Practically, you're limited
to just ahead of the rear seat or between the rear seat squab and back.

 You'll need to scavenge or make some retaining clips to keep the belt
from falling to the floor when you disconnect; it's a pain to fish it
around again.

 You could impress your
friends with a set of Deist, Simpson, TRW, or Britax five or six point
harness in your choice of colors.   Frankly, the submarine straps are a
pain to use all the time; if you go for the fancy belts make sure their
buckle arrangement will let you run without them if you wish.  Er... you
should be able to get them for $125 per side or less.  Three inch belts
look racier, but unless you get the angle of the bottom belt right it'll
saw you in half.

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May  8 18:02:46 1992
Subject: RE: MAGNEFLUXING ROD BOLT
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> Nobody would be stupid enough to reuse rod bolts.
-> Would they?

 The only factory references I have for replacing rod bolts on every
teardown are for the SOHC 427, BOSS 429, and one of the 390 Fords.  I
have various GM, Chrysler, and AMC, service manuals.  All the Chilton's
manuals are pretty much the same.  

 If there is a rebuilder around here who regularly replaces rod bolts I
haven't seen him.  It seems to be a safe bet; if there was a problem the
engines would be coming back.

 I always put new rod bolts in the engines I build to sell, but not
always in my own.  (always in 289/302 Fords, never anything else)
I've never had a rod bolt failure.  Never had a rod failure, for that
matter.

 I can't dispute the fact that new rods bolts are a very good idea, but
an engine isn't necessarily going to fall apart if they aren't replaced.
                

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May  8 18:53:06 1992
Subject: re: Edelbrock stuff
To: hotrod@dixie.com



>>I was just wondering if anyones had any experience with
>>the Performer RPM set-up that Edelbrock is selling?
>>
>>
>>Right now I have the Performer manifold and Performer
>>carb (600 cfm) but like so many of my fellow rodders I WANT MORE 
>>POWER!! 8^)
>>
>>
>>This does mean that I'll have to buy a new carb, manifold,
>>and cam so what I'm really asking is, is it worth it?
 
I looked into the same setup for my small-block Ford.  With all the
advertising it's confusing to make out what the intended usage is for
the Performer RPM.  I finally called Edelbrocks technical advice line
and asked them.

Basically what they said was that the Performer RPM setup is intended for
higher flow rates, and thus higher power.  However, the configuration
they designed it to be used with is: a 750 CFM carb, better flowing heads,
such as the Dart II (or theirs, now that they make their own) and the
Performer RPM cam.  It gives a pretty wide power bandwidth, from 1500 to
6500 RPM, and the horsepower increase is significant (I can't remember how 
much, offhand).  Dunno if its worth it, since the heads are nearly $1000
by themselves.  If you were just to update the manifold, you would probably be 
disappointed with low end response.

I decided to stay with the regular Performer setup; I'm looking to add a
turbo in the somewhat nebulous future.

-- 
Derek Deeter                           derek_deeter@mentorg.com
Mentor Graphics Corp.
8005 S.W. Boeckman Rd.
Wilsonville, OR 97070-7777

----------
Posted by: emory!apd.MENTORG.COM!derekd (Derek Deeter)
 



From fcmk@watson.ibm.com Mon May 11 09:33:19 1992
To: bmw@balltown.cma.com
Subject: How often do you service your beemer?

>                                     ... I got the 1200 mile service done,
>but am now waiting for the oil and/or major service lights to come on. The car
>now shows about 8700 miles and still no service lights. The little service
>indicator bar is down to one green light, and so I'm thinking its going to
>want service soon.

That is roughly the same interval I see on my service indicator, 7500-8500
miles between indicated services.  Talking to my dealer that is well within
the normal range.  I find there are miles enough left when the yellow light
comes on to make a service appointment then.

>                    How are other folks getting their BMW's serviced. Do you
>wait for the service light or do you just follow your own service routines?

My routine is to change the oil about halfway thru the green lights, giving
me a 3-4k mile interval.  Then when the yellow comes on, if it's an oil
change, I'll do it myself, if it's an inspection 1 I'll do it myself, if
it's an inspection 2, I'll have the dealer do all or part of it.  I like
having a pro give the car a good look once in a while.  (by the manual,
every other inspection is an inspection 1 (2)).  I like using the computed
interval as a guide, because that takes into account how you have been
using the car.  If you look at the circuit diagram, it has inputs for
engine speed, engine temp and car speed, so it's not just a simple timer.
I guess I like to think that the guys who designed it did as good a
job as the engineers who did the rest of the car, so it should have
some validity!

rick



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 12 12:21:27 1992
Subject: MOTOR IDENTIFICATION
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> Straight 6 cyl engine
-> Overhead cam engine
-> Bore = 3.31"
-> Stroke = 4.5"
-> Domed pistons, but not quite hemi, and no valve reliefs.
-> Approximate displacement = 233 cid.

 3.8 liter Jaguar?  I don't have a Jag manual, but that bore and stroke
don't correspond to the Pontiac OHC six.

 I believe there was an OHC six available in some AMC/Jeep products, but
I don't have anything on that either.  I dunno if it's the same engine
they got when they bought Nash or not.
            

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 12 12:25:10 1992
Subject: Re:  Motor Identification
To: hotrod@dixie.com

Pontiac had a performance OHC 6-cyl somewhere near the end of the Golden Age.
I remember seeing a Firebird (I think; could've been a LeMans, it's been a
while) with the overhead cam six badgework. 

It's probably worth something to the Pontiac restoration crowd (if it's the
engine I think and if you can hook up with them). Not likely to interest the
RustoleumRedCamaroWithMagsInBackAndMorosoSnorkelInFront types. But I think
that engine did have some fans.

----------
Posted by: emory!mlb.semi.harris.com!jws (James W. Swonger)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 12 14:48:16 1992
Subject: Re:  Building a hotrod
To: hotrod@dixie.com

I'd go with the Chevelle; it's the smallest you can find with a real frame.
Stripped, you're probably looking at 3000 lb; overstuffed Skylarks ran about
3500. It'll take a big block (there were factory 396 and 454 Chevelles) and
not require tinsnips. Convertibles are very nice looking, esp. 68-69s. 

----------
Posted by: emory!mlb.semi.harris.com!jws (James W. Swonger)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 12 14:54:16 1992
Subject: Re: Switch Pitch TH400's
To: hotrod@dixie.com

I dunno about ultimate torque capability but they came stock behind the 430
Buick motor I got; that was rated 360HP@5000RPM. I expect the engine was good
for about 400 to 450 lb-ft (given that its kid brother, the 455, was 
measured at 510lb-ft in GS trim).

So if you're hooking it up to a small block I wouldn't worry. If you are
chasing wild ponies then maybe the folks at Poston can give you some
numbers. They're into taking GS455 engines and making them put out some
-real- power :)
s

----------
Posted by: emory!mlb.semi.harris.com!jws (James W. Swonger)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 12 16:24:13 1992
Subject: Re: Building a hotrod 
To: hotrod@dixie.com

    The need for speed is gnawing at me again lately, s[. . .]
    So I'm thinking about buying a smaller, lighter car.  

Excellent choice.  If you pick the right car and make the right
mods, you could also end up with something that will turn corners
and stop in a reasonable distance, too.  

    The cars I have considered are:

    Ford Maverick:  small, cheap.  How are the frames on these?  I want
      to build a 300+ HP engine, would this car take that kind of abuse?

Maybe.  You might want to consider adding frame stiffeners, either in
the form of a partial cage or in the form of something like the subframe
connectors that a friend (hi, Chucko!) just welded onto his late-model
Mustang.  The Maverick came with a V8 in its last few years, but I
can't recall whether those cars had the same kind of chassis upgrades
that early Falcon V8s had.

There's also an early Falcon if you're into Q-ships.  If you get a 
Falcon, be sure to get one that had a V-8 in it to begin with (either
the Sprint or the Futura V-8); these will all be made after 1963-1/2
(the first V8 Falcons were made in March 1963).  Neat cars: 2600 lb
and a small-block will bolt right in, as will suspension and brake
bits from first-generation Mustangs.  The Falcon Sprint will handle
300 bhp, though you might want to consider adding radius rods to the
rear end to avoid the axle hop I got on mine.  

    Ford Mustang:  small, not so cheap.  I've owned 2 '68 Mustangs, and
      they were a bit squirrely.  Didn't really like the way they handled.
      Besides, a Mustang in decent condition costs too much. :-(

Yup.  Mustangs have already appreciated a good deal.  They can be made
to handle well with sufficient attention to the Global West suspension
catalog, but they do suffer a little bit from unsprung weight syndrome
at the rear and Ford's odd "big-car-ride-in-small-car-size" front
suspension. 

    Chevy Nova: small, cheap.  I owned a '74 and loved it.  Built like a 
      tank.  Has lots of potential as a hotrod.

Nova:Camaro::Falcon:Mustang.  Be sure you get one that came with a V8
unless you plan on reengineering the chassis and replacing all the 
running gear.  (Sixes had four-bolt wheels, for instance, and some had
the monoleaf rear suspension.)

    Chevy Corvette: I wish. :-)

Heh.  Actually, the mid-year coupes are fairly inexpensive compared to
the early or late cars -- that is, anything from about 1970 to 1978 or
so.  They're heavy for the size, though, and prove that stiff springs
don't do you much good in a flexible chassis.

    Chevy Malibu/Chevelle: maybe, but a bit large.

The very early ones are only about 3300-3500 lb.  I actually prefer
driving my '65 Chevelle to the feel of the '70 Camaro I almost bought
a few years ago.  I'm always surprised at how much I like driving
my '65 SS; it's a wonderful around-town car, even if I don't kick it
down and get into the secondaries.  But it does take up more room in
the parking lot than a Nova.  On the other hand, I got a knockdown
engine hoist in the trunk two weekends ago.  And again, Global West
makes a tremendous selection of A-body suspension pieces if you want
a car that handles well.  And if you're a real hot-rodder, you'll pull
the front clip and install fiberglass, right? :-)

    Well, I could go on, but right now, I think a Nova is the best bet.
    The pre-68 models seem to be fetching a pretty good price these
    days.  I kind of like the '68 and 69 design, and their prices seem
    to be a bit lower, so maybe I'll go with that.  Anybody familiar with 
    all the model years want to let me know what I should look for?  What 
    extra features were on the SS models?

As the proud owner of a completely original SS, I don't recommend getting
one as a cheap starter hotrod.  You're paying extra money for stuff you
are probably going to rip out anyway, unless you're looking to build a
resto-rod.  They're great for someone who wants a factory musclecar,
but why pay extra for an engine you're going to scrap?

    As far as engines, I'll probably look for a 350.  I understand there
    are some problems with the 400 having cylinder walls that are too
    thin?  Besides, 350 blocks are much cheaper than 400 blocks. :-)

The 350 is certainly the easiest route to torque/power in a small block,
if only because it's a bolt-it-together premise.

    Any help you guys can offer is appreciated.   

What about the early Capri route, like Dave Williams suggested?  The
Capri has a lot of advantages -- light weight, lots of suspension
goodies, an active club here in the Bay Area -- don't knock them,
car clubs can be a fantastic source of technical information on what
does and doesn't work.  (Also the Bay Area Capri Club hosts the
cheapest racetrack driving sessions I know of, usually about $140 
a day, using tracks like Sears Point and Laguna Seca.  Imagine the
same g-forces you feel in a 9-second quarter mile, only pushing
you into the sides of the car 11 times a lap for 20 minutes at a
time...)  They're also amazingly cheap, or used to be; it seems I
used to see a bunch of early '70s Capris selling for a couple hundred
bucks and less.  And if you're going to dump the engine anyway, you
can pick one up with a blown motor for practically nothing.

Or if you're confirmed on a GM product (hey, whatever your loyalties,
the small-block Chevy usually has the lowest parts costs), there's
the Vega and its sucessors, the Monza/Firenza/etc.  The problems
of fitting a small-block (or even a big block) into that chassis have 
all been solved many times, and the trailing-arm suspension with coil 
springs avoids leaf-spring windup at least.  And since you're writing
from San Jose, you won't have to worry about rust.  

On the other hand, I know where you might be able to pick up a nice,
rust-free MGB body and frame with no engine, and I know who to talk
to about the kit to put an Olds/Buick/Rover/TR aluminum 215 V8 into
the car with no cutting or welding...  quick, name two other English
convertibles with American V8s. :-)

--Scott "Okay, okay, I'll go back in my hole now" FIsher

----------
Posted by: Scott Fisher 
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 12 16:49:01 1992
Subject: Re:  Building a hotrod
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>
>I'd go with the Chevelle; it's the smallest you can find with a real frame.
>Stripped, you're probably looking at 3000 lb; overstuffed Skylarks ran about
>3500. It'll take a big block (there were factory 396 and 454 Chevelles) and
>not require tinsnips. Convertibles are very nice looking, esp. 68-69s. 

I'd like to go with something lighter than 3000 lbs.  Didn't the Novas
have real frames?  I'd like to go with a big block, but everything 
costs more with a big block.  Seems that anything you can bolt to 
a small block Chevy is dirt cheap. :-)

Does anyone have a list of approximate weights of cars? 

pc

-- 
      -m---------    Patrick Connor           Pyramid Technology   
    ---mmm-------    (408) 428-8819           3860 North 1st St.
  -----mmmmm-----    pc@pyramid.com -or-      San Jose, CA           
-------mmmmmmm---    uunet!pyramid!pc         95134              

----------
Posted by: emory!pyramid.com!pc
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 12 18:25:14 1992
Subject: Re: Building a hotrod 
To: hotrod@dixie.com


    I'd like to go with something lighter than 3000 lbs.  Didn't the Novas
    have real frames?  

Nope.  The Nova was Chevy's first unibody car, as the answer to Ford's 
Falcon.  Believe it or not, the Falcon was the highest-selling new car
introduction in US history, with over 400,000 sold in 1959.  Chevy had
tried to tap the import/compact market with the Corvair but it never
caught on the way the Falcon did, so they decided to fight fire with
fire and introduced the Nova along about 1962, with conventional drive-
train layout.

That being said, you can stiffen the Nova chassis quite a bit with a 
few judiciously welded frame stiffeners.  Talk to Orb Engineering in
the Santa Cruz area; Paul has built roll cages for most of my friends
who have had roll cages built, and he's done some interesting custom
work for a friend who's building a rotary-powered Sprite.

    Seems that anything you can bolt to a small block Chevy is dirt cheap. :-)

The beauty of economy-of-scale...

    Does anyone have a list of approximate weights of cars? 

That's something I'd love to see, too.  My personal goal for the next
car I build for the street is to get the weight as close to 2000 pounds
as I can and get the power as close to 200 bhp as I can.  I'll probably
compromise at 150 bhp (at the dyno, not at the brochure :-) and about
2500 pounds, if I can get a properly articulated suspension to make the
car go where I point it.  10 lb/bhp will be quite adequate for my commute,
with appropriate gearing, and the way I like to change directions, it's
well worth keeping the mass down.

What about a mini-pickup, Patrick?  I watched someone put a 350 into
an Isuzu pickup a few years ago, it fit with a little shoehorning.
For that matter, you could put a SHO motor in the bed... :-)

----------
Posted by: Scott Fisher 
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 12 18:48:22 1992
Subject: Re: Building a hotrod
To: hotrod@dixie.com

I'm told (and seen in print) that the Vega was meant to take a small block, 
but Chevy got cold feet at the last minute.  Supposedly the trans bolts right up to the SB.

A guy I worked with at a Mobil station while I was in high school told me 
some things about this swap, including some facts on a car that came
into the station often.  He said a friend of his had done a similar swap
with a strong 350.  The car took on a permanent twist from the torque, since
the frame had not beed upgraded as well.  The car that came in to the station
used to run badly.  He said it had the exhaust valves destroyed from an overly restrictive exhaust.  The guy was running the _stock_ Vega single exhaust
with a glass-pack.  No wonder.

My friend insisted that he had a Falcon convert. with a 406 FE motor in it.  
He said it had a Shelby FE series 8V intake.  So much power with such
poor suspension that he rolled the car, and sold it.  (For the price that 
just the manifold would get today)


Ed "Just tellin' ya what I heard" Mulligan

----------
Posted by: emory!coral.bucknell.edu!MULLIGAN
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 13 00:36:42 1992
Subject: RE:  BUILDING A HOTROD
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> I'd like to go with something lighter than 3000 lbs.  Didn't the
-> Novas have real frames?  I'd like to go with a big block, but
-> everything costs more with a big block.  Seems that anything you can
-> bolt to a small block Chevy is dirt cheap. :-)

 Novas and Camaros used a stub frame to hold the front suspension.
They're unit bodies.  Chevelles used a full length chassis.

 The "everything is cheaper for a small Chevy" isn't really a good
argument.  Sure, you can pick up an el cheapo aluminum intake for $80 on
sale, but a *good* intake will cost you $200, same as for anything else.
On a $2000 engine build, you might save $200 overall; not a valid sum.

 My brother was a die hard smallblock Chevy fanatic until I sat him down
with some catalogs and proved to him he could build twice as much motor
for his money by starting with a big block.  ANY big block.  He had a
350 Chevy in his '70 Nova, tunnel ram, big cam, high compression, the
works.  Dixie cup motors - use them a couple of times, throw them away.
He replaced it with a 455 Pontiac with a hot hydraulic cam, 10:1
compression, a pair of quickie-ported heads, and an Offy dual quad
manifold.  It sure made a believer out of Kevin.  As far as I know the
current owner is still running it.
                                                                                                                          

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 13 00:58:38 1992
Subject: RE: BUILDING A HOTROD
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> That's something I'd love to see, too.  My personal goal for the next
-> car I build for the street is to get the weight as close to 2000
-> pounds as I can and get the power as close to 200 bhp as I can.

 Jay and I built a '75 Monza some years ago.  High compression 350, T350
trans (later 4-speed), 2.56 posi, custom built 13x8 wheels, autocross
suspension, etc.  We took the Solo II Divisionals with it in '85.  Jay
called it Monzilla.

 Monzilla was serious bad fast, as you would expect from a 2.56 final
drive.  It was clocked at over 150mph on certified radar on the long
straight at Almyra.  On that particular occasion Jay missed the apex for
the next turn and plowed up a hundred yards of soybeans when he left the
course, but that's beside the point.  

 One afternoon we were screaming down some back road, just driving
around, reminescing about high school.  Jay had had a Vega From Hell, a
rot bucket which used oil and gasoline in nearly equal quantities, tires
with cord showing, and no muffler.  The same basic L-body car as the
Monza.

 "You know," Jay screams over the noise, "I had a lot of fun in that old
Vega.  I drove the #(#*@ out of it.  I could get in that car, plant my
right foot on the floor, and leave it there.  It didn't have any shocks
or front end bushings left.  It took real WORK to drive that Vega."

 "Uh huh," says I, concentrating on not spilling my 64-ounce 7-11 Coke
while Jay pulls a few .8-g, 120mph turns.

 "This Monza is BORING, you know?  I just turn the wheel and it turns,
I give it some gas and it goes.  No drama.  No *excitement*.  I think I
liked that old Vega better than Monzilla."

 "Get real.  That Vega didn't even *start* half the time."


 What does all this have to do with anything?  Beats me.  Premature
senility?
                                                                                                             

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 13 01:11:36 1992
Subject: RE: BUILDING A HOTROD
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> I'm told (and seen in print) that the Vega was meant to take a small
-> block, but Chevy got cold feet at the last minute.  Supposedly the
-> trans bolts right up

 Nope.  The Vega used a unique bolt bellhousing bolt pattern.  If you
have the Saginaw manual you can bolt it up to a normal SB bellhousing,
but if you have the Opel box you're out of luck.

 According to De Lorean's "On a Clear Day You Can See General Motors,"
the Vega was never intended for a V8.  It was intended for the GM Rotary
Engine.  The original chassis design was Buick's.  Chevy was to do the
GMRE, and the car would be marketed in Buick and Chevrolet versions.
The GMRE was canceled and the plant put to work making power seat
assemblies (I'm not kidding) and Buick managed to convince upper
management that a subcompact model did not go with their premium-car
image.  Chevrolet Division wound up with the car.  They didn't want it
much.  They intended to put as little work as possible into it, so they
used a Pontiac-designed four cylinder engine, the infamous aluminum
block, iron head Vega motor.  According to De Lorean, the first time he
got to drive the prototype on the GM Proving Grounds, the car collapsed
at the firewall and had to be towed back.

 The Borg/Warner T-50 five speed was designed expressly for the GM
Rotary Engine, which is why the torque rating is so low and the gear
ratios were so funky.  I got that from one of the design engineers at
Borg/Warner.

 Anyway, Chevy managed to get the cars to hold together well enough to
sell, though their innovative anticorrosion process didn't appear to
work too well.  Lots of them developed rust spots around the hatch
before they left the dealers' lots.  Later the car spread throughout
the Buick, Pontiac, and Olds divisions under badges like Astre, etc.

 Later on, Chevy came out with a variant called the Monza.  Same car, a
little extra bracing here and there.  The Monza was available with the
262 V8, and 1975-only, California-only, automatic-only, with the 350.
This factory V8 L-body (Vega, Monza) conversion consisted of:

        special block with dipstick on opposite side
        special oil pan
        special short water pump
        appropriately offset pulleys
        special bellhousing (cable clutch)
        small-diameter flywheel and clutch for ground clearance
        special exhaust manifolds to clear the steering, upswept on
           one side, downswept on the other.  They look a lot like
           '55 Chevy manifolds.
        special engine stands
        special rubber mounts
        thicker K-member crossmember
        self-adjusting back brakes with wider shoes
        vented discs
        larger radiator
        flex fan (no room for clutch fan) and electric booster fan
        thicker front sway bar
        stiffer front springs
        28-pound pressure cap for the radiator

 The engine sits pretty far forward; further than most home swaps,
probably because Chevy used the HEI distributor and needed the
clearance.

 Jay and I heard a lot of stories about a Canadian model of the Vega
with a factory V8, but none of the GM service information mentions any
such critter, no we ever saw magazine ever showed a picture of one, and
we're pretty sure they're just folklore.

 Incidentally, the owner's manual for Jay's '75 shows the oil change
intervals and service recommendations for the various engines.  2300 OHC
four.  231 V6.  262 V8.  350 V8.  260 cubic inch OLDSMOBILE DIESEL V8,
with (get this!) Borg/Warner T-50 manual transmission.

 As far as we could determine the T-50 was available only in the
Cosworth Vega and Buick V6 powered cars.  I'm pretty sure there never
was such a critter as a 260 Diesel, and if so, it was never put in a
Monza!  Looks like they printed the manuals up, changed their minds, and
used the manuals anyway.  After all, nobody reads the owner's manual...
                                                           

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 13 01:13:48 1992
Subject: RE: BUILDING A HOTROD
To: hotrod@dixie.com


reply to: emory!BrandonU.CA!BRYCERW

-> I can get a late-model Beretta fairly cheap here right now.  This is
-> with a decent body and interior, but the drivetrain is shot.  So I
-> began thinking 350...454...350...454...350...454...  I realize a
-> smallblock would be better for cornering.

 Oooh!  Oooooh!  DO IT!

-> I feel I am competent enough to get the engine-trans combination
-> build correctly.  I know I will need to build (or get built) some
-> sort of sub-frame to hold the car together.  What I am wondering, is
-> how much work and difficulties would it be to build a SAFE subframe
-> or tube frame, with rear axle drive, and a reasonably powerful
-> powerplant in the front.

 You will have to do some measuring before you start.  How far back can
you get the engine?  Will you be able to pull the distributor if you
have to notch the firewall?  If you can't get the engine back to at
least centered over the front wheels, I wouldn't do it.

 You shouldn't have any troubles left-to-right since the FWD powertrain
was pretty wide.  You will probably have to do some tinwork on the core
support to fit a larger radiator.  The firewall and floorboard will have
to be cut to clear the transmission and bellhousing.  Do this a little
bit at a time; one inch of clearance is plenty.  If you're good with
tinwork you can build the new transmission hump out of sheet metal.  I'm
not good at that, so when I put a smallblock 400 and Powerglide into a
Triumph Spitfire I covered the transmission with about an inch of
wet newspaper papier-mache and laid fiberglass over it.  When it had set
up I pulled it up, trimmed the edges, and dug the paper out.

 The driveshaft tunnel shouldn't be a major deal.  Remember to leave
enough vertical clearance at the rear - the rear end moves up and down,
y' know.  

 You may have to relocate the accelerator pedal.  Neal Products and the
street rod people have kits if you need them.

 I'd consider a narrowed 10-bolt using the original rear end's mounting
points.  If you want to go to a four link, tubs, or whatever, now's the
time.  The stock rear springs should be fine.

 Up front, a lot will depend on where the steering box or rack is.  If
it's on the firewall, it'll probably have to go.  This is the only hairy
part.  You'll have to decide if you want to fabricate new steering arms
for the struts, replace the struts with new ones of the same approximate
height with the steering arms already low and in front, run a Lamb strut
setup, or whatever.  You probably *don't* want to fabricate a subframe
unless you absolutely have to, as this will lower ground clearance
unless you recess it into the body, which can cause structural and
corrosion problems.  I'd try to match up from leading-knuckle struts if
I were you.  I'd also recommend you use a conventional steering box and
tierod layout, as it's a more efficient use of space and will be much
simpler to adjust your bump steer characteristics.  The "Race Car
Suspension Design" book from Steve Smith isn't pretty but it will show
you how.

 You'll want to increase the chassis stiffness, particularly after
notching the firewall and slicing the driveshaft tunnel in the floorpan.
The most reasonable solution is to purchase an NHRA or SCCA spec roll
cage and install it.  They go from $300 to $500, or you can build your
own.  Now you can run additional tubes to the strut towers, front
crossmember, and rear suspension pickups, essentially using the roll
cage as a space frame.  Besides, the cage will look cool and impress the
tech inspectors at the strip.    The cage can make it a pain to
get in and out of the car, and you usually have to do butchery on the
interior to get it in.  If you want the "race car look" it's fine, but
you may have to do some detail work to keep the stock interior.

-> Please keep in mind this is still very much a strictly hypothetical
-> car.  But is this job do-able without breaking the bank?

 I don't see that it would be that much more expensive than a generic
Camaro, and the power to weight ratio ought to be-a verr'a nahss.
  You're talking about a LOT less
work than a T-bucket or Deuce.
         

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 13 01:16:56 1992
Subject: UNDELIVERABLE MAIL
To: hotrod@dixie.com


>    Ford Maverick:  small, cheap.  How are the frames on these?  I
> want to build a 300+ HP engine, would this car take that kind
> of abuse?

 The Maverick and Falcon are Mustangs; all the underpinnings
 interchange.  You can even swap front clips, though it'll look funny.
 The last couple of years the Falcon name migrated up to the Torino
 body; it's much bigger than a Mustang.  The Maverick basically stayed
 the same as a '68 Mustang all the way through.  It was then reskinned
 and called the Granada.

 I've had several early Mustangs and a couple of Mavericks.  The
 engine compartments are awfully tight and the front suspensions are
 sorta flimsy.  In my humble opinion the Maverick was a better looking
 body than the overscuplted Mustang.

    Chevy Corvette: I wish. :-)

 I've seen '84-'87 Corvettes go for $10,000-$13,000 in Memphis.
 You're looking at something with bald tires, bad bushings in the rear
 suspension (they *still* have that trouble...), and it usually looks
 like wild animals were held captive in the passenger compartment.
 The electronic dashboards are also a problem; they die and they're
 quite expensive.  Still, that's in the late model used Camaro price
 range, most places.

 I seriously tried to talk Jay into buying one of these, ordering a
 new interior and stuff from the dealer, and stuffing a big block in.
 He didn't want to do the work, eventually found a clean '90 model
 with the six speed and ragtop.

 Before anybody has a stroke, remember car prices tend to be quite
 regional, and you tend to get what you pay for.

> What about the early Capri route, like Dave Williams suggested?  The
> Capri has a lot of advantages -- light weight, lots of suspension

 You would have to start the project with new strut inserts, front
 springs, sway bar bushings (bar forms the lower control arms), rack
 bushings and bearings, steering coupler, and probably wheel bearings.
 No problem at all, but Ford's OEM components were on the spit and
 chewing gum level.  Ford also doesn't stock Capri parts any more, so
 you'll have to track 'em down from places like Racer Walsh, or make
 your own.

 Putting large rear tires under a Capri is a galloping pain as well.
 The brain-dead engineer who designed it made the wheel arches
 STRUCTURAL, that is, the inner wheelwell and the fender skin are
 welded together and bent under to form the lip.  Cut on the fender
 and the body will start flexing.

 You can make an early Capri into a killer ride, but it's not easy now
 that parts have become so scarce.  And if some freeway fruit hits it,
 you're pretty much out of luck for body parts.  As neat as they are,
 I wouldn't recommend a Capri for a hot rod.
                                                                                                

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 13 04:50:07 1992
Subject: Re: Building a hotrod
To: hotrod@dixie.com

In article  hotrod@dixie.com writes:
>
>P.S.  I've got a 327 small-main-bearing engine at home, with 2-barrel intake.
>What years were these produced, and in what vehicles?  And what are they
>worth in reasonable condition?

The 1968 model year was the transistion year from small journal to large
journal. It's early 68 or older. The 327 was put in about everything 
Chevy made from heavy C60 trucks to family Sedans. About the only cars
a *2-barrel* 327 wasn't available in was the Corvette and the Corvair.

Gary

----------
Posted by: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 13 04:52:58 1992
Subject: Re: BUILDING A HOTROD
To: hotrod@dixie.com

In article  hotrod@dixie.com writes:
>
> Later on, Chevy came out with a variant called the Monza.  Same car, a
>little extra bracing here and there.  The Monza was available with the
>262 V8, and 1975-only, California-only, automatic-only, with the 350.
>This factory V8 L-body (Vega, Monza) conversion consisted of:

The Monza was also available in 1976 with the 305 and an automatic, I
had one in red, white, and blue stripes and IMSA fiberglass trim. I
also had an orange 1975 with the 262 and four speed. It was a horrible
dog. The 76 was a limited edition with lots of the right pieces direct
from the factory. I kept it until 1983 when I got a third generation
Camaro. While I wish I had kept it for it's collector value, the Camaro
is a much nicer ride. It handles much better, has a strong 350, and
has enough room in the engine compartment that you don't have to pull
the engine to change the spark plugs! The story about that in Monzas
is really true. You had to unbolt the motor mounts and jack up the
engine to get to a couple of the plugs.

>        special block with dipstick on opposite side

Both of mine had the dipstick in the normal position.

>        special oil pan
>        special short water pump
>        appropriately offset pulleys
>        special bellhousing (cable clutch)
>        small-diameter flywheel and clutch for ground clearance
>        special exhaust manifolds to clear the steering, upswept on
>           one side, downswept on the other.  They look a lot like
>           '55 Chevy manifolds.
>        special engine stands
>        special rubber mounts
>        thicker K-member crossmember

All true.

>        self-adjusting back brakes with wider shoes
>        vented discs

The brakes still sucked. The front rotors weren't up to the job of
repeated maximum effort stops. My 75 had solid Vega rotors and warped 
them twice in 20,000 miles. The 76 had different pads and larger ventilated
rotors, but still didn't stop worth a damn. It's hard to fit decent brakes
in a 13 inch wheel.

>        larger radiator
>        flex fan (no room for clutch fan) and electric booster fan
>        thicker front sway bar
>        stiffer front springs
>        28-pound pressure cap for the radiator

True.

I liked my second Monza, but it was a pain to hotrod. *Everything* including
the tires was a shoehorn fit. A third generation Camaro is a much nicer
hotrod platform.

Gary

----------
Posted by: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 13 08:48:08 1992
Subject: Re: Building a hotrod
To: hotrod@dixie.com

 For building a mini-rod, have you considered the 60-degree Chevy V-6? There
are a number of sources for good parts. Get one out of an S-10 P/U so you
can install it front-to-back, the way nature intended. It's pretty small and
skinny (from my point of view). Get one of those Paxton or Vortec blowers 
that run off the crank with a fan belt and look like an alternator. 
Ought to be able to coax 250HP out of that setup, and most of the parts are
cheap. 

----------
Posted by: emory!mlb.semi.harris.com!jws (James W. Swonger)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 13 11:22:59 1992
Subject:      Re: Building a hotrod
To: hotrod@dixie.com

Scott Fisher writes:

    Does anyone have a list of approximate weights of cars?

That's something I'd love to see, too.  My personal goal for the next
car I build for the street is to get the weight as close to 2000 pounds
as I can and get the power as close to 200 bhp as I can.  I'll probably
compromise at 150 bhp (at the dyno, not at the brochure :-) and about
2500 pounds, if I can get a properly articulated suspension to make the
car go where I point it.  10 lb/bhp will be quite adequate for my commute,
with appropriate gearing, and the way I like to change directions, it's
well worth keeping the mass down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, the weight and power you will accept is just in the 240 Z range:
2300 lbs., 150 bhp, and about 150 lb-ft of torque.  Besides, it handles
well - you don't have to force it to do so, and it is beautiful.  Sounds
perfect to me; the only issue is personal creativity: it is not your
own "design".

             ...Reid Kaplan

----------
Posted by: Reid Kaplan 
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 13 11:31:50 1992
Subject: RE:  BUILDING A HOTROD
To: hotrod@dixie.com

> My brother was a die hard smallblock Chevy fanatic until I sat him down
>with some catalogs and proved to him he could build twice as much motor
>for his money by starting with a big block.  ANY big block.

Just out of curiousity. Has anyone out there ever put a 428 into a
Mavrick or Fairmont. I am curious because for my first project I plan
to start with one of these (they are cheap sleepers). I had thought
that the best bet would probably be a 351W but I am open to suggestions.

Actually the above would be my second project. My first is to get my
Chicago (Camry Diesel) car running (turbo is shot) Then maybe I will add
an aftercooler, a little porting, bump up the fuel delivery...
I know I am a nut case but I like CI. Anyway if anyone has any sources
of info on rodding CI engines I would be grateful. I know it has been
done. They do race semis and there are the tractor pulls...

				mike

----------
Posted by: emory!hamlet.ctd.anl.gov!shaffer
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 13 14:23:41 1992
Subject: Re: Building a hotrod
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>
>>>How are you going to handle the smog requirements and recent federal clean 
>>>air standards for such a swap?  In California you would basically need two
>>>complete drivetrains or need to pick a pre 1966.  Good luck.
>>
>>That was probably going to be my next question. :-)
>>
>>I plan to buy a car built before 1972 or so before they had much smog
>>stuff on the car (PVC only?).  Has anyone on this list had problems
>>getting a hotrod smogged in California?  
>>

Well, nothing insurmountable.  I Installed a 302 into my Pinto in 1976 -
back then, there weren't any smog inspections, so you could pretty much
do what you pleased, except for the occasional CHP spot checks.  When they
started the inspection program, I thought I was in for big trouble.
Luckily, the engine I installed was the same year as the car, 1971. 

The inspection station called the ARB about the situation when I brought
the car to be inspected.  Basically, the engine had to be same year or
newer than the chassis.  It had to be in the same configuration that it
would be in any car it was offered in CA that year.  For example, my 302 was
only offered in 2 barrel form in 1971; therefore, it had to have all the
smog stuff on it as the car which had the engine in the first place. In
1971, this wasn't much - I had to go get a 2 barrel stock manifold, carb and 
aircleaner, and meet the tailpipe emissions for 1971.  The tailpipe 
emission limits are the same for all engines of the year, so it doesn't
matter if the engine is a monster big block, or small four.  The limits
were pretty generous especially so that the v-8's could pass, so you could
have some pretty dirty four cylinders and still pass.  And then, in '71
(or before) you only have to meet the idle limits, since they didn't have
any cruise limits set back then. Of course, the later the car/engine 
combination, the more restrictions you'll have to meet.

Hopefully, this information isn't too dated, since I've moved from California
in 1988, and Oregon has a better (to a hotrodder) system.  Here, any car
before 1974 can have any engine, any setup, as long as it passes the
tailpipe emission limits for the year of the car.  And that's only in the
city.  So I got my four-barrel manifold setup back, and even put in a 
mild cam, and still pass emissions!

Basically, you can go down or call any inspection station, and ask the 
guys there for a number to call to get the basic smog information before
you start - the California ARB has referees who will tell you exactly
what will pass and what won't.

Good luck with your project.

By the way, I also looked into some of the kit cars a couple years ago,
and Classics Limited (right name?) in North Dakota makes a Healey replica
with a chassis that accepts Mustang II running gear, and any engine-
trans-rear drivetrain.  The weight of the completed project with a
small block Ford was about 2600 lb's, with a balance weight distribution.
They were supposed to come out with a Cobra kit also.  The prices weren't 
too bad, either - between $5000 to $8000, depending on the options ordered,
less the running gear and drivetrain.  At the time, financing was a problem, 
since banks do not like to make loans on unbuilt cars. Classics have since 
found a solution for that, so this could be a viable option for a real stormer.

-- 
Derek Deeter                           derek_deeter@mentorg.com
Mentor Graphics Corp.
8005 S.W. Boeckman Rd.
Wilsonville, OR 97070-7777


----------
Posted by: emory!apd.MENTORG.COM!derekd (Derek Deeter)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 13 14:48:08 1992
Subject: Re: Re: Building a hotrod
To: hotrod@dixie.com

Smog inspections in California can be rather interesting.  Patrick Connor
wrote:

>I plan to buy a car built before 1972 or so before they had much smog
>stuff on the car (PVC only?).  Has anyone on this list had problems
>getting a hotrod smogged in California?  I figure that if all factory
>smog equipment is in place they shouldn't mind as long as emmissions
>are below spec.  Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

California does allow swaps but the entire car has to meet specs for
whatever is NEWEST.  The visual portion of the test involves the
inspector looking up in a Mitchell book the configuration of the
engine for that car and making sure that all the pieces are there
(AIR pump, PCV system, fuel evaporation cannister, exhaust heat
diverter valve, EFE (the hot air from the exhaust to the air cleaner
inlet), etc.  On a pre-72 you probably won't have EGR.  Then the
inspector does simple functional tests to see if all of these things
operate - in other words, vacuum motors move when vacuum is applied
and removed, the engine changes idle speed when the PCV is blocked,
etc.  After all of this then the inspector puts a sniffer in the
tailpipe and runs the engine at idle and at about 2500 RPM and takes
readings under both conditions.

I had an interesting run-in with a local inspection place.  I have
a 1970 Nova which has a different engine than it was built with;
they are both 350s but the engine in it now has a Holley carb and
an Edelbrock manifold as the visible exterior changes.  The local
place failed it because "the carburetor isn't in the book" and
"it has an Edelbrock manifold".  I was rather incensed because
the Holley carb *IS* CARB approved (Holley spent a lot of money doing
that, back before the 1990 Clean Air Act made things reasonable)
and ALL Edelbrock manifolds are approved.  They refused to budge
so I paid them their $29.95 ripoff fee and called the Bureau of
Auto Repair to make an appointment for them to inspect it.  That
inspection went off without a hitch; I paid my $6 for the certificate
and left.

The BAR inspection is handled by a process known as "the referee
board".  You take your car to a state-run (actually contracted)
station where they have the authority to approve or reject your
modifications.  My experience is that these guys are on our side.
Anything that is approved and meets the emission standards will
pass; things that can't be inspected (such as compression ratio)
are ignored.  It is a nuisance to have to go to a commercial
outfit first, get failed, and then go through it all over again
at the referee station to pass.

I have noticed that ARCO is advertising that they have "smog pros"
and that you will either pass or pay nothing.  Their inspection
fee is supposed to be $19.95.  I wonder if this deal applies to
modified cars?  Has anyone tried it yet?

BTW, I plan to file a lawsuit against the first outfit that rejected
me; I have to get to the law library to find out just how far they
are obligated by the law but I am sure that I can get at least $125
in damages and possibly twice that.  Maybe they will think twice
about trying to hose customers after I win this one.

Bob Hale                                      ...!ucsd!btree!hale
...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu                       ...!ucsd!btree!hale@uunet.uu.net


----------
Posted by: emory!ucsd.edu!btree!hale (Bob Hale)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 13 15:22:24 1992
Subject: Re: Building a hotrod 
To: hotrod@dixie.com

    Thats why I'm working on a project involving the original low-buck racer
    Datsun 510.

Since you mention Charlie Rockwell, you must be local to me... Have you
ever seen the 510 with aluminum 215 that occasionally shows up at the
Mt. View Firestone shop?  The engine is a happy fit in the bay.  The 
current Rover version of this engine is factory rated at 190 bhp with
a 3.9L bore job; surely it ought to be easy to get an additional 40 or
50 bhp through the usual means.

    Botton line is, I want the car light and a power monster. Is there any   
    hope for this bug that i have? 

Wait a few months.  Some dentist is bound to buy his kid a new RX7 for his
high-school graduation.  When said kid stuffs it into a bridge abutment, you
can buy the engine cheap.  255 smog-legal, approved-in-California horsepower,
and when you put that in a 2200-pound car you'll do better than 9 lb/hp.

--Scott 

----------
Posted by: Scott Fisher 
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 13 15:34:24 1992
Subject: RE: BUILDING A HOTROD
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> >        special block with dipstick on opposite side
->
-> Both of mine had the dipstick in the normal position.

 Er... the Monza *did * have the stick on the opposite side from normal
Chevys.  Remember, Chevy switched 'em all over to the "wrong" side in
1979, so it would have looked normal compared to your '83 Camaro.
I don't remember which side was the "correct" one any more.


-> I liked my second Monza, but it was a pain to hotrod. *Everything*
-> including the tires was a shoehorn fit. A third generation Camaro is
-> a much nicer hotrod platform.

 Did you ever notice how much the underpinnings of a late Camaro
resemble a 1-1/4 scale Monza?  Except for the front suspension, anyway.
                                             

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 13 15:40:34 1992
Subject: STUFF
To: hotrod@dixie.com


 Hey, all this Monza talk reminded me I still have a set of wheels left
from Monzilla.  13x8 spun aluminum Saber wheels (look like early Center
Lines), 4 inch backspace (zero offset), 4-on-4 bolt pattern, and a
complete set of 7/16 RH anti-theft lug nuts, the kind where every lug
is a lock.  The wheels have some well-worn 235/50 tires on them.
215/50 tires will also fit.

 These will *just barely* fit inside the fenderwells of a Monza without
rubbing.  They'd probably poke past the fenders of a Vega.  They'll also
fit a Chevette, some Opels, and the MG Midget, though you'd probably
need some tin snips to clear some sheetmetal.  They will NOT fit Ford
products, which usually use a 4-on-4.25 pattern.

 I won't bore you with how much these suckers cost new, since nobody
cares anyway.    Make me an offer - money, trade, whatever.
                              

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Thu May 14 09:26:42 1992
Subject: Building a little car with a big engine
To: hotrod@dixie.com


 I did a project about 6 years ago which did not end successfully. I took the
engine out of my Fiat Spider convertible and stuffed in a Buick V-6/BW T-5
combination. Made up a custom driveshaft (the fiat yoke actually was a press
fit into the Monza driveshaft end after cut), put in front springs also off
a Monza and also a straight replacement.
 
 Where the thing went bad was the steering and crossmember. I had to cut
and lower a bunch of stuff. The crossmember under the engine is removable
and I cut and dropped the middle. Unfortunately, the rewelded areas were too
mild, and the thing kept stretching/bending. The lower A-arms were tied to
the "frame" (sheetmetal box) right there, and so as the car went down the
road the wheels kept creeping out camber-wise. Also had to relocate the
steering box and cobble up on the tie rods, etc.

 I only took it out on the road a couple of times. The Fiat rear end is
very low numerically and they have a trans final drive of less than 1:1.
When I switched in the T5 transmission, this car was very tall. I had no
speedo and followed a buddy in his truck at 50MPH for a run to my new
apartment. I kept on shifting up/down between first and second gear -
with a 5-speed transmission!

 This project kind of soured me on shoehorn jobs. I kept the motor and junked
the car eventually. The experience taught me -

- Sure, anything will fit given enough time, tools, and viciousness
- You're better off starting with a hole big enough for the peg
- If you're going to put time and $ into a project engine, go for the max
  (I could've put in a SB Ford or maybe even a Chevy with the same grief
  expended on that fat little V-6. The Buick 6 is not small; it's wider,
  if anything, than the Chevy V-8 and that stupid aluminum nosepiece makes
  it about 4" longer than necessary. I could've probably made the 2.8 V-6
  Chevy fit nicely, but you know I needed MORE)
- Steering geometry does matter after all...

 That project is why I decided to go with the GM A-body for the next time
(my Skylark convertible project). Just slide in what you want, buy pieces
from the junkyard, no cutting... sure, it's 3000 instead of 1800 lb but
I'm looking at 400HP -easy- rather than 200 the hard way...

----------
Posted by: emory!mlb.semi.harris.com!jws (James W. Swonger)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Thu May 14 00:24:45 1992
Subject: RE: BUILDING A HOTROD
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> Well, the weight and power you will accept is just in the 240 Z
-> range: 2300 lbs., 150 bhp, and about 150 lb-ft of torque.  Besides,
-> it handles well - you don't have to force it to do so, and it is
-> beautiful.

 Don't forget the Triumph Spitfire and GT6 coupe.  They weigh just under
2000 pounds and have an e-normious engine compartment with the engine
placed well back.  I swapped a 400 Chevy and Powerglide into one once,
though I wound up doing some surgery.  Like on the chassis.  Urgh.

 A Buick V6 would be impressive in a GT6.  Turbocharged to GNX specs,
it'd be frightening.
                        

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Thu May 14 00:24:46 1992
Subject: RE:  BUILDING A HOTROD
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> Just out of curiousity. Has anyone out there ever put a 428 into a
-> Mavrick or Fairmont. I am curious because for my first project I plan
-> to start with one of these (they are cheap sleepers). I had thought
-> that the best bet would probably be a 351W but I am open to
-> suggestions.

 The 351W is a drop-in on the 302 mounts.  You *can* get a 428 into the
Maverick with the '67-'68 Mustang mounts, but you'll also need the
correct cylinder heads with the Mustang exhaust bolt pattern (different
from the big car pattern) and a set of Mustang manifolds or headers.
The FE-series bellhousing pattern is different from the 302/351W, and
even the manual transmissions don't quite interchange.  (different input
shafts).  The 428 would be awesome, but I wouldn't recommend it unless
you already happen to have one.

 The 351W is a very strong motor with crummy heads.  The B&A Cleveland
conversion would be *very* tight if you could get it in, or you could
pop for a set of the Dart II heads.  The 351W already has six inch rods,
a good oiling system, and a nearly indestructible reciprocating
assembly.

 The Fairmont is an entirely different car.  It is the "Fox" platform.
The late Mustangs are shortened versions of this.  Jack Roush sells 351
Cleveland and 460 kits for it, I've never seen an FE motor in one.
                                                                  

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May 15 18:19:57 1992
Subject: RE: TRANS ADAPTERS
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> What is a toploader?  Is it a Borg-Warner T-10?

 No.  It's a somewhat newer design.  Ford designed it to replace the
T-10, which was basically the first 4-speed, and not a bad one either.
The TopLoader gets its name from the shape of the case, which is
basically a cast iron bucket with a sheet metal lid.  You put the gears
in from the top instead of the side, hence the name.  Other
transmissions, such as the British Ford "Rocket" and some Opels, use
much the same arrangement.

 The TopLoader (as Ford called it) is one of the strongest transmissions
ever offered in a passenger car.  The newest revision of the Super T-10
is rated at 450 ft-lbs of torque.  Ford's Muscle Parts documentation
claimed the TopLoader would handle about 1000 ft-lbs of torque.

 The nearest comparable box was probably the later design New Process
four speed as used behind the Street Hemi in various Chrysler products.

 According to my Motor Manual, the TopLoader was available in some GM
cars as well as Fords; I've never seen a listing of just what.

 FYI:  Early Ford GT40s used Italian-made Coletti transaxles.  There
were some nasty quality control problems, so after Carroll Shelby took
over as GT40 team manager he found someone to cast up a casing to hold a
TopLoader gearset and a Ford 9 inch differential.  The Ford people don't
know who made the castings, and I've never been interested enough to try
to track Shelby's address down.  It was 25 years ago, he might not
remember anyway.  The Broadley GT40s normally use the Zahnradfabrik
Zeppelinwerke (ZF) transaxle the Panteras used.  That's the same company
that built the Hindenburg, BTW.
 

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May 15 18:26:30 1992
Subject: HOTRODDING A BERETTA
To: hotrod@dixie.com


reply to: emory!BrandonU.CA!BRYCERW

-> I have no bodywork experience, but I do have sheetmetal experience
-> (but next to none.)  Is it difficult to attach the fibreglass (or
-> sheetmetal) to the body, for a good, permanent connection?  And what
-> about corrosion?

 I used silicone sealer and sheetmetal screws on the Spitfire.  You
could use rivets if you wanted.  Any place you get to bare metal - cuts,
welds, whatever - use Rustoleum or some other corrosion-inhibiting
primer.  Also don't forget to use a buff knife or file to remove all
sharp edges.  Filleting your arm as you reach up to adjust the shifter
linkage is Not Cool.

-> Wouldn't any factory narrow 10-bolts do?  I'm sure there must have
-> been some cars with a narrow 10- or 12-bolt rear end that would
-> suffice.  I could always let the rims take up any little difference.

 The narrowest 10-bolts came under '67-'68 Camaros and Novas.  I'd bet
money they're too wide.  You could get away with custom built,
radically negative offset wheels, but you're going to have to figure
what sort of "look" you want and equivalent costs.  It might be a bunch
cheaper to go to the narrowed rear.

-> brakes???  I'd go with an automatic trans.  Would the brakes have to
-> be beefed up at all?

 You'll be getting bigger, beefier brakes on the rear.  Up front you've
got discs.  They're probably OK.  If you get fade you can go to metallic
pads.

 Point:  The Beretta has POWER discs.  You probably won't be able to
stop the car without the power assist.  You can go to a larger master
cylinder (which would let you switch to a normal front/rear system
instead of a left/right system), use a HydroBoost unit from a GM
passenger car with the Diesel 350, or just make sure you don't build an
engine with too little vacuum for the booster.

-> myself.  You're right about wanting to increase chassis stiffness.
-> That's why I was considering a subframe.  I don't want the car to be
-> ripped apart, simply because I've added more horsepower than what it
-> was designed for.  I like the idea of additional tubes better than a
-> subframe.  Are there any good books that describe this technique?  I
-> don't want to add in one where it's not needed or shouldn't be, and I
-> don't want to miss a spot where one is needed.  Did you do this on
-> your Triumph?

 It's unlikely it'd get ripped apart.  Modern cars have to pass the DOT
barrier and side impact tests, so they tend to be a bit stronger than
older cars.

 The Steve Smith book I mentioned in the first message has some stuff on
cages, space frames, and tube positioning.  It's cheap and has lots of
information even if it does look like someone wrote it on a typewriter
and printed it on a copy machine.

 I didn't bother with reinforcements on the Spitfire.  We stayed with
195-series, 13 inch tires.  There was no way to get enough hookup to
stress things.
                                           

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May 15 23:35:21 1992
Subject: Re: Building a hotrod
To: hotrod@dixie.com


Ok, I've sat in the corner long enough.

Nobody has mentioned the hotrod/sleeper combination that I see fit.
A light car with lots of horses can be had by combining an early
70s Dodge Dart and any of the Mopar big blocks.  Without much
difficulty, a person can get an old Dart for almost next to nothing.
I have even seen some ads for 68 - 72 Darts where the owner was
actually giving the car away to anyone that was willing to haul it
off.  (Ok body, drive train shot)

The engine is a different story.  The Mopar big blocks are not on the
dirt cheap side.  In order of increasing $$, are 400's, 383's and 440's.
We won't even consider the Hemi.  All three are based on similar
blocks, with differing internals.  A workable motor can be bought for
anywhere between $200 - $500.  A total rebuild with lots of high perf.
stuff can cost around $2k.  

The best part of this combination is that the 440 can produce near 400
horses without a huge amount of modifications.  A good cam, 9.5:1 comp 
and a good 4 bbl carb will get you most of the way there.  The combination
will give you a car in the 3000 lb weight range with 7.5 lbs/HP!  

There are some drawbacks though.  You will need to either buy a big block
K frame or build one yourself.  Your project car will most likely be
a slant six or 318 powered Dart.  If you find an *original* big block Dart
for free or under $500, call me.  I want it! :-)  The second drawback is
that a big block will *barely* fit in the engine compartment of a Dart.
Dodge did offer factory big block Darts in the late 60s, so the engine
will fit.  Once in the engine compartment, there is not much room for
anything else.  Headers are available for this setup, and can be had in
two flavors: under chassis and fenderwell.  They usually run about $350
a pair.  The final drawback is handling.  Figure that 440 will account for
almost 1/3 of the car's total weight.  The car will be lightning quick
in a straight line, (if you ever get the tires to hook up!) but will be 
*real* happy to remain traveling in a straight line when you turn the 
steering wheel. :-(  There are probably some things you could do to increase 
the handling characteristics to overcome some of this, but it will add 
considerably to the cost of the project.  Sway bars, beefier torsion bars
and *serious* shocks come to mind.

As you might have guessed by now, I have given this some thought.  As
a matter of fact, I have a spare 440 in my garage right now.  After I'm
done polishing up the final details on my 71 Challenger, I will probably
go Dart hunting.

Happy hotrodding!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gene Fusco        | (303) 223-5100 x404	     Gene.Fusco@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM
S/W Development	  |
NCR MPD		  |      Life's too short to drive slow, ugly cars.
Fort Collins CO.  |	    1971 440 powered Challenger ragtop

----------
Posted by: Gene Fusco 
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Sat May 16 14:29:58 1992
Subject: RE: BUILDING A HOTROD
To: hotrod@dixie.com


reply to: emory!coral.bucknell.edu!MULLIGAN

-> difference is supposed to be only a few inches, but different
-> for each side.  4 or 5 years ago, HOT ROD ran an engine swap guide
-> that talked about this swap, and gave a few stories about the motor
-> build,etc.

 I've read all sorts of stuff about special mounts, special K-members,
special everything else to fit a big block into a Dart.  Considering the
hassle and expense of tracking these parts down it looks like it'd be
more reasonable to treat the conversion as a basic swap and just
fabricate your own bracketry.

 I've done some strange swaps.  The Swap From Hell was a '68 Ford pickup
with a 240 six.  I put a 302 in it.  I figured, "Yeah, I'll just run
down to the junkyard and pick up the parts", and *everything* turned out
bad.  By the time I realized what I'd gotten myself into, I was already
in so deep it was just as reasonable to fight it out to the bitter end.

 This was a full-size pickup truck.  It came with a 390 or a six; 390s
were common.  The 302 was small.  It was already set up for a manual
transmission.  What could go wrong?

 The truck uses tall engine "stands" coming up from the crossmember.
The 390 and six were different.  So were those for a 302.  Took a week
to find a set.  Then found the rubber pads - the same for practically
all Ford - were special for a pickup.  Had to order those from the Ford
dealer.  The three speed trans was only about a foot long.  I had to
move the crossmember back and drill holes through the (thick) frame to
remount it.  The rubber mounts were different between the three speed
and four speed.  More drilling.  The clutch arm wouldn't connect between
the ball on the block and the frame bracket; it sat at about a 15 degree
angle.  The 302's clutch ball was evidently higher than that of the six.
Looked like 3/8 inch rivets holding the other end of the bracket, which
was tucked behind the steering box.  I got a longer ball and lived with
it.  The V8 had an entirely different throttle linkage than the six; the
six could not be adapted because it couldn't clear the cylinder head.
Quest for linkage - apparently a rare and valuable part.  Tried to put
the manifolds on.  No way the late model manifolds would fit.  Tried a
set of early log manifolds.  Nope.  Turns out the truck manifolds were
*special* to tuck around the steering.  Not available from any local
junkyard.  Ordered a set of headers for a 302 in the same chassis.
Collectors came down to the crossmember.  TO the crossmember - like 2
inches away.  The V8 had a different crossmember.  Wound up modifying
the headers.

 If I'd taken the time to actually research the swap, rather than
blandly assuming everything would fit, I'd have saved a lot of grief.
I'd have just built the brackets, positioned the engine where I wanted,
and that would have been that.  
                                                             

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Sat May 16 17:21:53 1992
Subject: Differentials
To: hotrod@dixie.com


 I went to a local "car show and swap meet" today; in quotes because there
were about 60 cars and about 6 swappers, 5 of them pros (actually the 5
were interested in selling not swapping).

 I had the chance to look over a number of differential center sections
which were lying on the pavement. It appears mine is akin to the Olds
type (coil springs for preload, plate clutch). I saw another GM type,
from a 10-bolt I presume, with the preload springs made from an S-shaped
stamping; looked pretty cheesy.

 I then examined the Chevy truck 12-bolts for quite some time, likely 
looking the fool. These are odd. They have disc clutches but no preload
spring; the compression is done by mated ramp disks (like crowns) which
apply clamping pressure under torque. This I understand. There was also a
centrifugal weight mechanism with a pawl and ratchet, which I do not
fathom. I guess maybe it backs off or increases clamping at higher axle
RPM or something.

 It appears that I may have some difficulty finding replacement parts for
my diff. One of the places I sent to didn't deal witn non-Chevy rears.
The guts of mine -look- like the innards of 12-bolts I see in Car Craft
etc. but I guess I'll have to go piece by piece through the books. I
mainly want to redo the seals and bearings; the gears and plates look pretty
nice but the other stuff is slightly rusty from exposure.

 I'm thinking maybe instead of converting the rear end to match the stock 
4-link arrangement I should go with a ladder bar/panhard setup. Anybody
know of success/failure stories? At what torque level do I need to be
concerned about welding the tubes to the pumpkin and having the pumpkin
secured to the chassis (axle tube flex)? Leaf spring rears seem to do 
OK without any consideration for the pumpkin, although I dunno if their
wrap-up hopping is due to that in part or just spring compliance.
Suggestions? Ladder bars sure would be more straightforward (no cast iron
welding for starts).

----------
Posted by: emory!mlb.semi.harris.com!jws (James W. Swonger)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Sat May 16 23:21:38 1992
Subject: Re: Rotory 510
To: hotrod@dixie.com

> So how do you adapt the rotory engine to the datsun tranny?
> 
> I have one of the "direct-drive" units with the racing shift pattern
> (though i guess they all have the same engine mating surfaces).	

	You don't.  We used a mazda transmission.  There are two different
sizes of trannies that fit rotaries (so I hear).  The smaller one fits right
in to the 510 tranny tunnel, the larger one is a real pain in the ass (guess
which one I dealt with).

	The Datsun tranny you are talking about is from a early 200SX.  I
would bet that a modestly built rotary could blow that tranny to bits.  The
Mazda trannies are very strong.

	I don't know if it ever got through, but I tried to quit the list
(summertime) a few days ago.  If I'm still on (don't remember which day I
quit), I need to get off.  If you have any more questions about the rotary
510, send me some e-mail (dcoleman@jarthur.claremont.edu)

	-Dave

----------
Posted by: Datsun Dave Coleman 
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Mon May 18 11:22:35 1992
Subject: Re: Building a hotrod
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>
>Nobody has mentioned the hotrod/sleeper combination that I see fit.
>A light car with lots of horses can be had by combining an early
>70s Dodge Dart and any of the Mopar big blocks.  Without much
>difficulty, a person can get an old Dart for almost next to nothing.
>I have even seen some ads for 68 - 72 Darts where the owner was
>actually giving the car away to anyone that was willing to haul it
>off.  (Ok body, drive train shot)

This is a good strategy, in terms of price/performance, I think.

To cut to the chase, however, I tend to think a B body car is a better
place to start, simply because of parts of room.

On the A body/B engine, you won't have power steering, and you will
have serious weight distribution problems.  The suspension travel on
the A body already limited, so heaven help you if you should put in
fenderwell headers.  My 66 Dart with 340 has fenderwell headers,
and they are a constant problem - enough so that I really regret
cutting up the car to put them in (66 is smaller than 67 and later
A body).  Even without the fenderwell headers, however, my rubber
bumpers on the suspension pieces were well used.

All in all, I honestly think the B body is a better place to
start all the way around.  A stripped B body car will be only
a few hundred pounds heavier than a A engine A body anyhow.
Plus, there is more room to deal with as far as moving weight
around.

Another minor consideration is that the A body is a bit harder
(in my opinion) to make handle safely at high speeds.  The narrow
track makes the condition of the suspension more critical, and
the quality of available stock brakes leaves a bit to be desired.

If you do go for a project like this, you might as well go all
the way and get one of the featherweight Dusters (72 or 73, if
I recall) that were really stripped down w/slant six.  Then, replace
the entire driveline and suspension with good parts (maybe from
a 73-74 dart sport).  Many of the 318 cars were still on the order
of 3000 lbs, so their relative advantage over B body 318 cars
at around 3300-3500 pounds isn't that great (given the difficulties
involved).

Just my two cents worth...

Paul Anderson
pha@hri.com

----------
Posted by: emory!hri.com!pha (Paul Anderson)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 19 11:47:39 1992
Subject: RE: BUILDING A HOTROD
To: hotrod@dixie.com

O.K. All of this big motor/small car talk got me to reminiscing.
So...Heres a story.

I was working at a service station while in high school (early 80's).  One
night a piece of junk looking Toyota truck pulls in (5-10 years old, bed
hasn't been cleaned out in at least that long, and it has dull red paint
that turns your hand red when you touch it).  Anyway the driver and I are
bs'n about nothing in particular when this hotrod Camaro pulls up to the
light, I comment on what a nice car it is, and he says its too flashy and
money should be spent on speed, not looks.  I'm thinking what a pitiful guy
this is; when he pops the hood.  HOLY SH*T !! theres a chevy small block
stuffed (very stuffed) in there.  I forget the #s but I remember
balanced/blueprinted, Holly 4, wrapped headers, and 4 mufflers.  He was
very much into it remaining a sleeper so unless you listened real hard you
wouldn't notice the idle.  The stock rear wheels where modified to put max
rubber under it w/o changing the stock tubs.

I don't know if this mutation could be called a hotrod but I did see him
put hotrods to shame a couple of times. 

I can hear the conversation now:  "Hey Joe your not gonna let that little
truck pass you?"  "Bob, It's to the floor!?!?!?"  "Come on Joe quit messin
with me." "Really man, thats it!!!"

Damon van Dam

----------
Posted by: emory!eng.ufl.edu!dvd
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 19 15:28:29 1992
Subject: Re: Rear suspension mods
To: hotrod@dixie.com

 Well, the reason I'm looking at alternatives is that I have a posi rear which 
doesn't exactly match my car and I figure if I'm going to be modifying anyway
I might as well check out these things. I'm not sure if I have my terms exactly
right. The setup that looks most likely is a triangular deal with a pair of
flanges which weld to the axle, and upper and lower arms which meet at the old
lower 4-link mounting point. They appear to be adjustable for whatever reason.
They seem to be intended as hop-stoppers, which is fine by me. I have a 
panhard mount on this axle to maintain lateral position and will also have 
rear sway bar. I want to maintain normal suspension travel and this will be
a street car; I want to improve handling over the standard squeal-and-wallow
as well as improve launch. 

----------
Posted by: emory!mlb.semi.harris.com!jws (James W. Swonger)
 



From rsiatl!hotrod Wed May 20 06:54:48 1992
Subject: '71 302 Mustang Info Wanted
To: hotrod@dixie.com


OK folks, heres your chance to help out a hotrod-wanna-be and overwhelm him
with lots and lots of information...

I've recently seen a 1971 302 Mustang, Mach 1 style for sale in my neighbor-
hood.  Being a good little rod-head, I went and asked about it, and lo!, got
some answers...  Tell me if this is a deal or not... Pros and cons...

1971 302 Mustang
  Seller is second owner, and a mechanic for Penske
    Impressions good, didn't try to hide anything
    Pointed out one or two things I missed
  Automatic transmissions
  Airco, I thinks its all there, doesn't work
  Fair paint, had a vinyl top, all gone now.
  Interior OK, but a little rough.  Front seats ragged.
  Engine mostly original.
    Original water pump
    Original power steering pump
    Alternator has been replaced
    Valve covers has never been off
    Right bank smokes slightly
  New upper & lower ball joints, both sides
  Transmission and rear end filters and juice changed yearly  
  A few minor sheet metal dings
    Never had a major crunch

  This guy wants $1200 negotiable on it.  My plans would be to restore it,
  drive it, sell it, not worried about making big bucks on it.  No plans
  to super-trick it, blow it, or get it near a track.  Looking for something
  that does have some zoooooommmm to it, for now and then.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Wren (kd4dts)			|  Word Prefect 5.0:  The choice of
jcw@kd4dts.dixie.com			|    religious scribes everywhere.
..!emory!rsiatl!kd4dts!jcw		|

----------
Posted by: jcw@kd4dts.uucp (John C. Wren)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 20 03:34:11 1992
Subject: POSSIBLE HOT ROD IN THE M
To: hotrod@dixie.com


reply to: emory!chromavac.esd.sgi.com!miq

-> My next door neighbor is the original owner on a 1963 Rambler
-> American 2 door.
...
-> Is this car worth anything as a potential Hot Rod?  Its in
-> the Bay Area, and is a 1963 registered vehicle which means that its
-> smog exempt.

 It could be a *bad* ride.  They're light, relatively strong, and the
engine compartments are roomy.  However, the enclosed driveshaft
arrangement means you have to ditch the entire driveline to do any
serious work.

 I had a '60 Rambler Classic.  I swapped in a '73 Maverick rear axle,
which was the correct width and even the right bolt pattern, and used a
194 CID Chevy six, a turbo 400 auto, and an Airesearch turbo from a 301
Trans Am.  There was no particular magic reason for using the oddball
194 and the big T400; I just happened to have them laying around.  It
was a good clean swap.  I don't know how well it runs since I sold it
before it was licensed.

 The American is a slightly smaller car, but the basic layout is the
same.  If your car has the *aluminum* flathead six you'll need to swap
in the front springs from a car with the *iron* flathead six.  A 5.0
Ford or small block Chevy would be real nice, but if you intend to
seriously drag race the car the chassis might need some reinforcement.
                                                                         

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 20 13:47:31 1992
Subject: 1970 MUSTANG GT500
To: hotrod@dixie.com

I just came across a possible good deal. It's a 1970 mustang GT500.
I don't know much about these but I think these were Shelbys.

They are asking $5000.00. I haven't seen it yet but that dosen't sound
to unreasonable. 

What are these cars worth?

Should I look at it?

Is that price to high?

Brian

----------
Posted by: emory!tekig6.pen.tek.com!brianpi
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 20 19:46:29 1992
Subject: CARBS
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> i have a falcon ranchero with a 170 six.  it is the one
-> where the head and intake manifold are cast integrally.
-> i had holes machined in the manifold and plates welded on
-> to mount 2 extra carbs.  now i am asking which carbs i could
-> put on it.  i want single barrels that are available used

 I did that with a 250 six, but I used SU side draft carbs instead.
Offenhauser and Clifford Research recommend simply using two more of the
170 carbs in your case; Offy sells a progressive linkage kit.

 If you're very, very nice to someone from Australia, you might talk
them into sending you an Aussie head.  Theirs are aluminum, crossflow,
with real detachable intakes.  Ak Miller gets a few in every now and
then.
                      

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May 22 07:47:06 1992
Subject: CARBS
To: hotrod@dixie.com


reply to: emory!csn.org!julietbnc!dxs

-> who is Ak Miller and how can he be contacted?

 Miller does turbo conversions.  He's a real old timer, likes to do odd
stuff like running the Carrera Panamericana in a souped-up Buick or
running a turbocharged, propane burning Ford inline six at the Pike's
Peak hillclimb.  Since he doesn't cater to yuppies or suck up to the car
magazines, few people have heard much of him.

 Take a look in the little ads in back of Car Crap or whatever; you'll
usually see one of Miller's ads.
                                                                                               

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 09:24:48 1992
Subject: Re:  hydraulic vrs. mechanical vrs. roller hydraulic tappets
To: hotrod@dixie.com

 Mechanical (solid) lifters only really benefit you at higher RPMs. Up to 5K (mebbe to 7K with
a good style of anti-pump-up design) the hydraulics are plenty close enough. Thing is, an auto
tranny without specific mods is going to upshift you before you get to the point where you
will see any benefit from the solid lifters.

 You can of course make some mods such as stiffer governor springs, manual valve body etc. to
give you more control but then again you could just drive a stick... a slightly looser torque
converter is probably a necessity if you're contemplating a cam wild enough to need solid
lifters.

 If you're primary use is on the street, I'd be more inclined to go with a slightly over-big
cam and then mellow out the bottom end with some type of variable-duration hydraulic lifter
(Rhoads et al). You end up with something driveable but with a decent top end (out to about 6K
if your heads are good). You also don't have to keep pulling off the valve covers to set the
valve lash every thousand miles. If your stock valvetrain is nonadjustable (i.e. if your
rockers are on a rail rather than individual studs) you will also end up needing a set of
adjustable [roller, 1.6:1] rockers to use the solid lifters. 

----------
Posted by: emory!mlb.semi.harris.com!jws (James W. Swonger)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 11:07:46 1992
Subject: RE: Summer vacation is a bitch!
To: hotrod@dixie.com

Greetings,

First let me preface this with the following information: The car is a '86
Buick Grand National that typically runs 12.5 @ 108 in the 1/4 mile. Stock
tires are 26" tall. Engine is basically stock, with automatic trans, and stock
3.42 rear gears.

Well I've worn down one of my slicks to the point where the seams are starting
to show. So I guess it's time to replace it! What I'm wondering is this, does
anyone have opinions/experiences with some of the DOT tires?

I'm seriously thinking about getting a set instead of new slicks. The advantage
for me is that I drive the car to and from the track and am getting a little
tired of changing tires everytime. And since I'm going to be running the car on
a 13.00 index for brackets, I don't need to leave with any boost. Just need
enough traction to keep the tires from spinning when the turbo spools up.

These are the brands I'm considering:

Hoosier - Heard many good things about them. I'd be looking at the P275/50R15
in the Quick Time compound. Only questions are, can I fit them on the stock 7"
rims and are they worth the extra $40 per tire over the McCrearys? And would I
maybe better off getting the P275/60R15's? These are approx 28" tall and as
such I might be less prone to hitting them with too much torque on the line.

McCreary - These would be the G60 versions. Advantage for me is I can get them
for about $80 a tire. Disadvantage is that they are narrower and would be more
prone to wheelspin.

M&H - Price on these seems to be the major disadvantage. I'm also not real wild
about the tread design (or lack there of). I don't think they would be very
good in wet conditions, not that I'd be out in the rain much but sometimes it
can't be avoided.

MT Indy Profile S/S - These seem to be pretty nice. Drawbacks seem to be price
and size (G60).

Others - ?

Thanks for the feedback,
Ron

----------
Posted by: emory!SKYLER.MAVD.HONEYWELL.COM!MELLUM
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 12:26:49 1992
Subject: Re:  hydraulic vrs. mechanical vrs. roller hydraulic tappets
To: hotrod@dixie.com

Another thing solid lifters are good for is throttle response.  Hydraulic
lifters are designed to bleed down at idle to provide a smoother idle, and
they have to pump themselves back up before they provide full cam lift to the
pushrod.  Solid lifters always provide full lift, so they give a better
throttle response.  I just put a hydraulic cam in my car, and it runs great
right up to 6K with stock heads.  It's not a over-sized cam, and fits the
engine reasonably well with the other mods I've done, but the throttle 
response would have been better with a solid cam (as was in my other car.)

Also, if you have non-adjustable rockers, to put in any kind of big cam
you will have to convert to adjustable rockers, whether or not it is a 
hydraulic or solid lifter cam.  You can get away with a slightly larger cam
in some cases, but if you're getting into really radical lifts/durations/etc,
you will have to change it.  I have a 460 ford I am installing a big cam in,
so I have to change it to screw in studs, guide plates and adjustable rockers
(all parts available from Manley for most applications) which is going in
front of an automatic transmission.

Some reasons most people go with manual transmissions with big cams (usually 
solid, as you can usually get bigger grinds in solid/roller combinations)
are that they are stronger and that they keep the engine in the peak powerband
for a longer period of time.  I use automatics, and will use an auto behind
a big engine with a solid cam, but make sure you have a high stall converter
and a bulletproof trans, or you will soon become adept at changing your
tranny in record time.

-- Steve


----------
Posted by: emory!gte.com!stm0 (Steven McClure)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 13:22:53 1992
Subject: Re:  hydraulic vrs. mechanical vrs. roller hydraulic tappets
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>
>Well,
>
>Basically I'm wondering what people think about the different types of cam
>followers.  I understand that the mechanical roller followers are the best for
>all out, but what about the street. Are they suited to a car with an automatic
>trani?  No one seems to want to pair a mechanical cam with a automatic. Why?
>
>thanks,
>eric

Mechanical cams alone aren't that big a deal.  My 65 and 66 chryslers both
came with 273 2bbl v-8 engines, automatics, and mechanical cams.  They also
have adjustable rockers, of course.

I'm not real sure why one would bother with mechanical cams in a small
block chrysler (for street), but other engines may be a little different.

Paul

----------
Posted by: emory!hri.com!pha (Paul Anderson)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 13:28:00 1992
Subject: Re: hydraulic vrs. mechanical vrs. roller hydraulic tappets
To: hotrod@dixie.com

In article  hotrod@dixie.com writes:
>
>Basically I'm wondering what people think about the different types of cam
>followers.  I understand that the mechanical roller followers are the best for
>all out, but what about the street. Are they suited to a car with an automatic
>trani?  No one seems to want to pair a mechanical cam with a automatic. Why?

Why do automatic owners not use mechanical cams? Mainly because mechanical
cams aren't needed unless you want a really wild profile and street driven
automatics don't perform well with wild cams.

Gary

----------
Posted by: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 13:43:04 1992
Subject: Re:  CONVERSION
To: hotrod@dixie.com

(HEI)

I believe GM started using the HEI system around 1975. There are now many producers of HEI 
upgrade, replacement and performance parts and assemblies up through complete distributors.
The low-budget option would to be to find the oldest beater that has the same engine and
swap it in. If it's a 350 then you've got no parts problem; small block pieces are for the
most part interchangeable esp. the accessory type stuff. I'd go for one off a '75 truck or
van myself, since the utility vehicles held out longer without pollution controls (my '77
van has HEI and only a PCV valve for smog). If you use a junker, I'd at least go to the work
ofecking out the pivot pins and cleaning it, maybe recurving for a hot rod profile instead of
a load hauler, etc. Accel for one makes performance curve kits, hotter coils and such. An old
distributor might also use a new set of bushings/bearings/whatever. By the time this is done
you might be looking at the price of a new aftermarket unit, so shop around. OTOH freebies is
freebies.

----------
Posted by: emory!mlb.semi.harris.com!jws (James W. Swonger)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 13:57:18 1992
Subject: Pipes were too loud.
To: hotrod@dixie.com

Hi all,

	I am posting this to my two favorite groups (harley and  
hotrod) because this is the place for quality answers... Here's the  
scoop... I had the 2 inch open drag pipes on the Harley for the last  
seven years. This year being the new Cycle Shack brand my really cool  
neighbor bought for me =:). The bummer here is it took one of my  
neighbors five months to finally complain about the loud pipes. I was  
waking up her six year old daughter at 4:30 in the morning when I  
leave for work. Living in a respectable neighborhood, and not wanting  
to make life any more miserable for them or me, I put on a set of  
real ugly but quiet duals I have had sitting around for years.

	Now I want to quiet down the drag pipes and put them back on,  
but the slip-in baffles won't be enough. Does anyone out there have a  
good idea on quieting down the drag pipes more than what the slip-in  
type will offer?

BTW: The backpressure has made the bike run incredibly better in the  
low to mid RPM range. Like I didn't know that would happen....

**********************************************************
Scott Colbath
Stratus Computer
Phoenix, Az.  (602)852-3106
Internet:
scott_colbath@az.stratus.com
**********************************************************

----------
Posted by: emory!scottsdale.az.stratus.com!scol (Scott Colbath)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 15:48:43 1992
Subject: Re: Pipes are too loud
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>	Now I want to quiet down the drag pipes and put them back on,  
>but the slip-in baffles won't be enough. Does anyone out there have a  
>good idea on quieting down the drag pipes more than what the slip-in  
>type will offer?

	A buddy of mine got some H-D bullet style mufflers and jammed a poker
of some kind through the baffling.  The result is still a loud bike, but I
imagine it's quite a bit less obtrusive than 2" drags.  FYI I run SS pipes with
slip-in baffles.  Quite loud, but I don't usually fire the bike up until 8 or
9 in the morning and I usually have it bedded down by 10 in the evening.
Anybody bitches about that and I don't care--I think it's enough that I push
the bike away from the building before I start her.

>BTW: The backpressure has made the bike run incredibly better in the  
>low to mid RPM range. Like I didn't know that would happen....

	You know, I keep seeing "backpressure this" and "backpressure that."
Backpressure has nothing to do with anything except reducing flow and
decreasing efficiency (and power).  What you're seeing is a lack of reversion
of the pressure wave across the overlap of your cam and into the intake to
screw up your carburetion.  It's wave mechanics (acoustics), not backpressure.
Python supposedly makes pipes with an "antireversion" device to counter
exactly the lowend and midrange loss you experience.  The best power is made
with SuperTrapp 2 into 2 pipes--Branch got 102bhp out of an FXR with 21
diffuser discs on the SuperTrapps (mods:  branch #4 heads, high lift cam,
everything polished/ported/sweet).  More power could be had with fewer
diffuser discs, but the cost was a louder exhaust.

Later,
Chris BeHanna		DoD# 114      1983 Harley-Davidson FXWG Wide Glide
behanna@syl.nj.nec.com	              1984 Dodge Omni GLH (well, almost)

Disclaimer:  Now why would NEC agree with any of this anyway?

----------
Posted by: emory!syl.nj.nec.com!behanna
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 15:54:33 1992
Subject: Re: Pipes were too loud.
To: hotrod@dixie.com

> 	Now I want to quiet down the drag pipes and put them back on,  
> but the slip-in baffles won't be enough. Does anyone out there have a  
> good idea on quieting down the drag pipes more than what the slip-in  
> type will offer?
> 
> BTW: The backpressure has made the bike run incredibly better in the  
> low to mid RPM range. Like I didn't know that would happen....
> 
> Posted by: emory!scottsdale.az.stratus.com!scol (Scott Colbath)
>  
You can get some of those add-on SuperTrapp's that are made to adapt to
over-transom headers on power boats. They don't look bad, the added back
pressure would be tunable, and you could take them off in about 30 seconds
for dragging or what have ya.

----------
Posted by: emory!harirud.wrs.com!johnson (David Johnson)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 16:01:11 1992
Subject: Points to HEI
To: hotrod@dixie.com

The eaisest way to do this would be to just find a small-block Chevy HEI
distributor and drop it in your engine.  You can toss your points dist and
coil, along with the wires (you'll need new ones.)  You will most likely have
to change to a different spark plug as well.  I've done this countless times
before on mostly small-blocks, Olds and Buick engines.  Make sure you have
an ignition on + lead to the BAT terminal on the dist. cap on the HEI and
you should be all set.

-- Steve

----------
Posted by: emory!gte.com!stm0 (Steven McClure)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 16:03:29 1992
Subject: Alcohol and emissions
To: hotrod@dixie.com

Hi all,

	Awhile back, someone on rec.autos.tech mentioned that adding alcohol
to your fuel might get you to squeak through emissions testing if all else
fails.  I posted asking what kind of alcohol, and no one replied.  I figured
someone here would know the answer.

	So:  what alcohol is best:  isopropyl, methyl, or ethyl?  What caveats?
I know the car will run lean on that tank, so what can I do to minimize any
damage that may be caused?  What results can I expect at the tailpipe sniffer?
Of course, I'm going to change the air filter, plugs, and PCV valve and set
the timing.  Beyond that, I don't know what else can be done.

Thanks,
Chris BeHanna		DoD# 114      1983 Harley-Davidson FXWG Wide Glide
behanna@syl.nj.nec.com	              1984 Dodge Omni GLH (well, almost)

Disclaimer:  Now why would NEC agree with any of this anyway?

----------
Posted by: emory!syl.nj.nec.com!behanna
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 16:50:15 1992
Subject: IDENTIFICATION HELP NEEDED
To: hotrod@dixie.com

Sorry for all the questions. I have a 350 chevy that I am trying to tune-up and I would like to know what I need to do for this motor to purr .....

If you were to replace the heads from one motor(small block) to another, would you still use the same type of plugs? 

When the cam, etc. is replaced how is the timing determined?

If you were to use 10.5 pistons, what is the minimum octane rating that can be used? If you can not get fuel rated high enough, what can be done to offset this problem?

Also how would you identify a motor that has had its numbers stamped over?

signed,
confussed!  "maybe I'm thinking to much"  

----------
Posted by: emory!EBay.Sun.COM!Tony.Vasquez (Tony Vasquez)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 17:33:13 1992
Subject: Re: Pipes are too loud
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>BTW: The backpressure has made the bike run incredibly better in the  

>low to mid RPM range. Like I didn't know that would happen....

>	You know, I keep seeing "backpressure this" and "backpressure  
>that." Backpressure has nothing to do with anything except reducing  
>flow and decreasing efficiency (and power).  What you're seeing is a  
>lack of reversion of the pressure wave across the overlap of your  
>cam and into the intake to screw up your carburetion.  It's wave  
>mechanics (acoustics), not backpressure. Python supposedly makes  
>pipes with an "antireversion" device to counter exactly the lowend  
>and midrange loss you experience.  The best power is made with  
>SuperTrapp 2 into 2 pipes--Branch got 102bhp out of an FXR with 21
>diffuser discs on the SuperTrapps (mods:  branch #4 heads, high lift  
>cam, everything polished/ported/sweet).  More power could be had  
>with fewer (NOT!) diffuser discs, but the cost was a louder exhaust.

This all sounds good (I think???) I have a hard enough time with UNIX  
never mind my exhaust's acoustics. My basic impression was that the  
additional "backpressure" of the quiet pipes was hindering the  
reversion due to my hot cam's overlap. Or maybe the huge cam overlap  
in conjunction with the drag pipes caused a sort of scavenging effect 

in the low and mid-range RPM areas actually drawing unburnt fuel and  
air out of the combustion chamber. Am I way off track here? The  
bottom line is the bike does run better with the quiet pipes in the  
low and mid-ange area. Is there any truth to my misunderstanding?


**********************************************************
Scott Colbath
Stratus Computer
Phoenix, Az.  (602)852-3106
Internet:
scott_colbath@az.stratus.com
**********************************************************

----------
Posted by: emory!scottsdale.az.stratus.com!scol (Scott Colbath)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 17:48:00 1992
Subject: Weird Timing
To: hotrod@dixie.com

         							5-26-92

Have an unusual problem occurring with the timing on a 350 chevy.  I put the
engine together last year basically stock except for a Crane blueprint hydraulic
cam/lifters/springs, Edelbrock hi-riser, 600 CFM Holley, and headers.  I
dropped the engine into a handy vehicle (the final destination was still
under construction and I just couldn't wait to see how it ran) and drove it
for a couple of months to work out all the bugs.  It ran fine - I set up the
timing at 10 degrees advance with no problems.

Problem came later when I pulled the engine and dropped it into another vehicle.
The engine sat for a couple of months without being started.  When I did fire
it up, the damdest things started happening with the timing.  The engine is
equipped with a stock GM HEI ignition.  The timing was still set at 10 degrees
advance.  The engine ran fine until I started driving around the neighborhood in
the vehicle.  It started missing and backfiring like crazy - the only way I
could get it to level out was to crank the distributor cap (advance) about
an inch!!!  When I got back to the shop and threw a timing light on it, the
timing mark was way the heck over by the passenger side valve cover.

A couple of days later, the damn thing wouldn't start (sounded like it was
too advanced).  I turned the timing back, set it at 10 degrees with the timing
light, and started down the street.  A couple of blocks later, same story.

The only way I can keep it running now is to leave it bigtime advanced (per the
light) and leave the vacumn line detached.

Anybody have any ideas what the heck is happening?  By the way, I though it
probably was a sticking set of centrifical advance weights, but I pulled the
cap and lubed them up with WD40.  They seemed to be freely moving before I
lubed them.

Appreciate your thoughts....


Stan Shore
'55 1/2 Stepside Chevy



----------
Posted by: emory!ocetca.att.com!sds
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 18:26:18 1992
Subject: Re: Pipes are too loud
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>This all sounds good (I think???) I have a hard enough time with UNIX  
>never mind my exhaust's acoustics. My basic impression was that the  
>additional "backpressure" of the quiet pipes was hindering the  
>reversion due to my hot cam's overlap. Or maybe the huge cam overlap  
>in conjunction with the drag pipes caused a sort of scavenging effect 
>
>in the low and mid-range RPM areas actually drawing unburnt fuel and  
>air out of the combustion chamber. Am I way off track here? The  
>bottom line is the bike does run better with the quiet pipes in the  
>low and mid-ange area. Is there any truth to my misunderstanding?

	Close.  What happens is that the pressure wave is reflected at the
end of the pipe.  At higher rpms, a negative pressure wave washes back through
the intake tract across the cam overlap and draws more fuel/air mixture into
the combustion chamber.  This is known as being "on the pipe."  It is
essentially "acoustic supercharging."  Unfortunately, there is a narrow rpm
band at which this is true (resonance).  At other rpms, the positive wave will
wash through during cam overlap, go through the carburetor and get carbureted,
get sucked back into the carb and get carbureted AGAIN, and be way too rich
to have optimum power.  This is why some engines are peaky in their torque
curves:  at the negative pressure resonances, they get a power spike; at the
other rpms, they are down on power.  You can calculate what rpm is good by
using the speed of sound, the length of your pipe, and your cam timing.  Just
recall that at a nonrigid discontinuity (e.g., the end of the pipe), a wave
will be reflected 180 degrees out of phase (positive becomes negative and vice
versa).

Later,
Chris BeHanna		DoD# 114      1983 Harley-Davidson FXWG Wide Glide
behanna@syl.nj.nec.com	              1984 Dodge Omni GLH (well, almost)

Disclaimer:  Now why would NEC agree with any of this anyway?

P.S.  I stand corrected on the inverse diffuser disc/sound relationship.

----------
Posted by: emory!syl.nj.nec.com!behanna
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 18:51:08 1992
Subject: Re: Radical street tires for a smokin GN!
To: hotrod@dixie.com


>First let me preface this with the following information: The car is a '86
>Buick Grand National that typically runs 12.5 @ 108 in the 1/4 mile. Stock
>tires are 26" tall. Engine is basically stock, with automatic trans, and stock
>3.42 rear gears.
>Well I've worn down one of my slicks to the point where the seams are starting
>to show. So I guess it's time to replace it! What I'm wondering is this, does
>anyone have opinions/experiences with some of the DOT tires?
>I'm seriously thinking about getting a set instead of new slicks. The advantage
>for me is that I drive the car to and from the track and am getting a little
>tired of changing tires everytime. And since I'm going to be running the car on
>a 13.00 index for brackets, I don't need to leave with any boost. Just need
>enough traction to keep the tires from spinning when the turbo spools up.
>Hoosier - Heard many good things about them. I'd be looking at the P275/50R15
>in the Quick Time compound. Only questions are, can I fit them on the stock 7"
>rims and are they worth the extra $40 per tire over the McCrearys? And would I
>maybe better off getting the P275/60R15's? These are approx 28" tall and as
>such I might be less prone to hitting them with too much torque on the line.
>Thanks for the feedback,
>Ron
>----------
>Posted by: emory!SKYLER.MAVD.HONEYWELL.COM!MELLUM

The 275/50/15's don't stand a chance fitting on your 7 inch rims. I have
255/60/15's mounted on 15*8 rims on my S10 truck and they just barely
fit under the huge rear fenders and they max the rim out, on the front,
forget it. The way I under stand tire sizing as a ruel is that the 275
is the width of the tire in milimeters and the 60 or 50 is the ratio of
side wall hight the the width of the tire. Understanding of course that
all brands may differ slightly I have found the formula to be pretty
damn close. With this in mind I look at my yrd-stk and see that 275mm
equals about 11 inches. Quite a bit of tire for a 7 inch rim to deal
with, bummer ha? Now if you can fit these monsters under the fenders
then get your self some 8.5 or 9 inch rims and go for it. BTW, I can't
remember if that car is front or rear wheel drive. Good luck, let us
know how things work out.
 ______________________________________________________________________
|           _______________       OLD CHEVYS NEVER DIE... THEY JUST GO |
|         /                 \          F A S T E R !!                  |
|     __/_____________________\__    OLD JAPANESE CARS NEVER DIE...    |
|    '--:---------------------:--`    THEY TURN BACK INTO BEER CANS!!  |
|   / (_)(_)    _______    (_)(_) \                                    |
|  '===========|_______|===========`  MARK JENSEN     (503) 627-3115   |
|  \_______________________________/  TEKTRONIX METROLOGY LAB.         |
|  |\___/O-O\_____________/O-O\___/|  BEAVERTON OREGON   MS. 39-732    |
|  |       |     `---'     |       |      markj@tekig5.pen.tek.com     |
|__|_______|_______________|_______|___________________________________|

----------
Posted by: emory!tekig5.pen.tek.com!markj
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 23:51:07 1992
Subject: Re: CONVERSION
To: hotrod@dixie.com

Tony Vasquez writes about changing to a pointless ignition in a 69
Camaro.  Using an HEI was suggested.

The HEI uses a larger diameter distributor cap so you need to check
for clearance to the intake manifold and to the firewall.  The HEI
also requires a switched ignition line with no resistor in it; you
will have to arrange new power wiring to the HEI.

If you like, the HEI can run an MSD type of ignition with either the
internal HEI coil or with an external coil.  In the interest of
simplicity I would probably just stick with the factory HEI setup;
Delco designed it to produce a long duration high voltage spark and
it works fairly well.

The only real gripe that I have heard about HEIs is that the weights
and pivot pins tend to wear and either get sloppy about timing advance
or they will stick.  It's worth a careful check in this area if you
pick up a used HEI.  You can't get factory weights and springs to
tailor the advance curve but you can get aftermarket parts.

Note that HEIs have three different modules inside them; they are
usually identified by the number of pins on the module.  They come in
4, 5, and 7 pin types (that I know of).  The 4 pin type seems to be
the simplest and most adaptable to aftermarket ignition items.

To answer a question that I had asked here a while back, the HEI draws
about 4.5 amps peak current while starting the engine.  A 10 amp circuit
is easily adequate for the primary supply.

Bob Hale                                      ...!ucsd!btree!hale
...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu                       ...!ucsd!btree!hale@uunet.uu.net

----------
Posted by: emory!ucsd.edu!btree!hale (Bob Hale)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Tue May 26 23:56:39 1992
Subject: re: Weird Timing
To: hotrod@dixie.com


>>advance.  The engine ran fine until I started driving around the neighborhood in
>>the vehicle.  It started missing and backfiring like crazy - the only way I
>>could get it to level out was to crank the distributor cap (advance) about
>>an inch!!!  When I got back to the shop and threw a timing light on it, the
>>timing mark was way the heck over by the passenger side valve cover.

Sounds to me like your timing chain is slipping.  Did you put a new chain
on when you changed the cam?  The new cam/springs probably put more stress
on the chain/sprockets and if they were marginal to begin with, this could
have done them in.  I would suggest not running the engine till you find
out for sure - either a) degree the cam, or b) pull the timing cover and
look at the timing marks.

Just a thought....

-- 
Derek Deeter                           derek_deeter@mentorg.com
Mentor Graphics Corp.
8005 S.W. Boeckman Rd.
Wilsonville, OR 97070-7777


 


----------
Posted by: emory!apd.MENTORG.COM!derekd (Derek Deeter)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 27 02:10:50 1992
Subject: Re: Weird Timing
To: hotrod@dixie.com

That sounds like a problem a friend of mine had with his 350 chevy, it
turned out to be that the shaft on his distributer was worn out and it
would not run at an idle and would backfire and all at high rpm, the
solution, he put in a mallory unilite and it runs much better...

just a thought!?.

----------
Posted by: emory!odin.unomaha.edu!kelley (Sean Kelley)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 27 02:20:42 1992
Subject: Re: IDENTIFICATION HELP NEEDED
To: hotrod@dixie.com

> 
> Sorry for all the questions. I have a 350 chevy that I am trying to tune-up and I would like to know what I need to do for this motor to purr .....
> 
> If you were to replace the heads from one motor(small block) to another, would you still use the same type of plugs? 
> 
> When the cam, etc. is replaced how is the timing determined?
> 
> If you were to use 10.5 pistons, what is the minimum octane rating that can be used? If you can not get fuel rated high enough, what can be done to offset this problem?
> 
> Also how would you identify a motor that has had its numbers stamped over?
> 
> signed,
> confussed!  "maybe I'm thinking to much"  
> 
> ----------
> Posted by: emory!EBay.Sun.COM!Tony.Vasquez (Tony Vasquez)
>  
> 
> 
> 
as for plugs, depends on the year of the heads, check the casting
as for
as for plugs, depends on the year of the heads, check the casting as
for

...let me start over...
as for the plugs, depends on the year of the heads, check the casting
numbers on the heads, 

the pistons, you could run 92 with no problem as far as I am concerned,
if that is not high enough, add octane booster, the 104 stuff you can
find at any auto store...

cam timing, depends on the cam and how it is ground...am I right
the timing

and the block, well, I have no clue, I think you are SOL on that one

As for plugs..

----------
Posted by: emory!odin.unomaha.edu!kelley (Sean Kelley)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 27 02:30:57 1992
Subject: Re: Weird Timing
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>
>A couple of days later, the damn thing wouldn't start (sounded like it was
>too advanced).  I turned the timing back, set it at 10 degrees with the timing
>light, and started down the street.  A couple of blocks later, same story.
>
>The only way I can keep it running now is to leave it bigtime advanced (per the
>light) and leave the vacumn line detached.
>
>Anybody have any ideas what the heck is happening?  By the way, I though it
>probably was a sticking set of centrifical advance weights, but I pulled the
>cap and lubed them up with WD40.  They seemed to be freely moving before I
>lubed them.
>
>Appreciate your thoughts....

I assume you pulled the distributor before installing the engine?  Could
you have re-installed the distributor incorrectly?

pc

-- 
      -m---------    Patrick Connor           Pyramid Technology   
    ---mmm-------    (408) 428-8819           3860 North 1st St.
  -----mmmmm-----    pc@pyramid.com -or-      San Jose, CA           
-------mmmmmmm---    uunet!pyramid!pc         95134              

----------
Posted by: emory!pyramid.com!pc
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 27 05:26:17 1992
Subject: PIPES WERE TOO LOUD.
To: hotrod@dixie.com


->      Now I want to quiet down the drag pipes and put them back on,
-> but the slip-in baffles won't be enough. Does anyone out there have a
-> good idea on quieting down the drag pipes more than what the slip-in
-> type will offer?

 Frankly, I'd ditch the drag pipes and go for the SuperTrapp
two-into-one header.  I quite like the sound, it looks good, and you can
get in brushed stainless instead of generic chrome.
                                 

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 27 09:48:49 1992
Subject: Weird Timing
To: hotrod@dixie.com


Thanks to all of you who responded.  In reply to Derek Deeter, the timing chain
was a new hi-performance aftermarket variety, so I don't think that's the
problem.  I think Sean Kelley hit the nail on the head with potential distribu-
tor problems.  The HEI unit I used was from an engine I got from salvage - had
set for at least a couple of years.  I didn't have it rebuild at the time, but
think I'll pull it and run it down to the distributor shop to have everything
checked out and replaced as required.

This is a street machine ('55 Chevy 1/2 Ton Step-side built on a '78 chassis)
and is intended to be a daily driver.  It has been mildly warmed up with cam,
intake and headers.  A couple of you mentioned after market 'improved' pivot
pins and weights.  Anybody have any specific recommendations on a vendor and
weight/spring combinations?

Stan Shore

----------
Posted by: emory!ocetca.att.com!sds
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 27 12:50:49 1992
Subject: Re: Weird Timing
To: hotrod@dixie.com

Stan has a problem with an engine that sometimes wants *lots* of spark
advance to run.

I had a somewhat similar problem once; I had a large fuel leak into the
manifold under the carb.  When this happened I had no idea what the
problem was, but the engine sounded like the timing was too retarded
so I cranked it up a *lot*; the engine actually did run under these
conditions but very poorly.  I probably advanced the timing about 30
degrees to get it to run.  My first thought was that the timing chain
had jumped a tooth or two.  Later investigation revealed the fuel leak.

I would suggest having a careful look at the carb and the fuel system.
You didn't mention if you have a nitrous oxide system but if so check
to see if the fuel solenoid might be sticking open on you at times.
If you have a fuel pressure regulator you probably want to put a gauge
on the output and see if it might be trying to flood the carb.

Best of luck.

Bob Hale                                      ...!ucsd!btree!hale
...!btree!hale@ucsd.edu                       ...!ucsd!btree!hale@uunet.uu.net

----------
Posted by: emory!ucsd.edu!btree!hale (Bob Hale)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Wed May 27 12:52:14 1992
Subject: Re: Weird Timing 
To: hotrod@dixie.com


>>advance.  The engine ran fine until I started driving around the neighborhood in
>>the vehicle.  It started missing and backfiring like crazy - the only way I
>>could get it to level out was to crank the distributor cap (advance) about
>>an inch!!!  When I got back to the shop and threw a timing light on it, the
>>timing mark was way the heck over by the passenger side valve cover.
>Sounds to me like your timing chain is slipping.  Did you put a new chain
>on when you changed the cam?  The new cam/springs probably put more stress
>on the chain/sprockets and if they were marginal to begin with, this could
>have done them in.  I would suggest not running the engine till you find
>out for sure - either a) degree the cam, or b) pull the timing cover and
>look at the timing marks.
>----------
>Posted by: emory!apd.MENTORG.COM!derekd (Derek Deeter)

You can also check for cam chain slop by pulling the dist cap and
Having a friend watch the rotor as you slowly turn the motor forwards
and backwards. If you can move the motor more than ~10 degrees before
the rotor moves you get to replace the chain. Does this make sense?
		^^^^^^^^^^ 

----------
Posted by: emory!tekig5.pen.tek.com!markj
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Thu May 28 17:48:00 1992
Subject: POINTS TO HEI
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> The eaisest way to do this would be to just find a small-block Chevy
-> HEI distributor and drop it in your engine.

 That's almost always the best way to go.  I don't care what the yuppoid
car magazines say; I've had fine results with the HEI.
                                                                                                                  

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Thu May 28 17:55:00 1992
Subject: WEIRD TIMING
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> tor problems.  The HEI unit I used was from an engine I got from
-> salvage - had set for at least a couple of years.  I didn't have it
-> rebuild at the time, but

 I had a similar problem with my 2 liter Capri last year.  It turned out
my Mallory HyFire black box had gone bad.
                                                                               

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Thu May 28 17:55:10 1992
Subject: IDENTIFICATION HELP NEEDE
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> If you were to use 10.5 pistons, what is the minimum octane rating
-> that can be used

 That depends on the cylinder head, the cam timing, the ignition timing,
rod ratio, scavenging (intake and exhaust) and how much work you're
willing to invest in tailoring the advance curve.  I've made 12.5:1
engines live on 90 octane fuel, but everything has to be *just right*.
In that particular engine's case, the static advance was 2 BTDC, rising
slowly to 6 BTDC at 3000, then just another degree or two up to 6000.
This required very stiff springs and reprofiling the advance cam.  The
engine would take up to 12 degrees of advance at 5000 but didn't feel
any stronger, so I left it at 6-8.  A dyno might have shown some
difference.

 The figures you see in the service manuals are worst-case conditions -
pulling a trailer in Mexico City on Pemex 83-octane, for example.
They're just a guideline, not carved in stone.  However, more advance
isn't necessarily better.  In general, the more efficient a motor is,
the less advance it needs.  Four-valve motorcycle engines seldom run
more than a degree or two.

 If your car has a knock sensor it's a lot easier to play with the
advance.  You don't want to run into the knock sensor too often because
it pulls the timing back several degrees for a short time, but it will
keep you out of trouble while you're setting things up.
             

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Sun May 31 00:48:09 1992
Subject: turbocharger scavenge pump
To: hotrod@dixie.com


 Okay, most of you have probably heard me babble about my motorcycle.
It's an '83 Yamaha Seca 900 (XJ900 to you furrin' types) with a Seca
Turbo transplant - only 653cc, but 15 psi of boost.

 My original plan was to lower the compression on the XJ900 engine by
adding shims under the base gaskets, effectively making the combustion
chambers larger.  About the time I got ready to do that, I fell onto an
incredible deal on a Maxim X, which is a 700cc, water cooled, five valve
per cylinder variant (the Turbo and 900 are air cooled, two valve).
It's a direct bolt-in; in fact, the 900 engine is in the Maxim chassis
now.

 The X engine's barrels are built differently, making it impractical to
shim them up.  I plan to reduce compression by milling the quench area
off the exhaust side of the piston domes.  I know that sounds a bit
strange, but you'd have to see how the piston is shaped (and they're
seriously weird!) to understand.

 Anyway, lowering the compression was no problem.  The Turbo mounts the
turbocharger below the engine and has a second oil pump to scavenge oil
out of the turbo.  It appears I won't be able to swap sumps and the
scavenge pump; the crankcases are different in that area.  I can't swap
the cylinders from the 700 onto the 650 either.  That means no scavenge
pump.

 Okay, now for the question:  what about an electric scavenge pump?
I'm pretty sure a Mallory pump like I'm using in the fuel system will
work, but I'm concerned about what would happen if the pump quit.  I'm
guessing the mechanical pressure pump (the turbo's oil taps off the main
pump) would push oil out into the compressor and exhaust housings, since
the Hitachi turbo has no seals.  Best as I can figure, the turbo would
still get oil, but the bike would fog mosquitoes for a few miles until
it quit from oil fouling.  I could handle that; I just don't want to
have to hunt down another turbo if the electric pump dies.
                                                                 

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Sun May 31 01:25:34 1992
Subject: Re: turbocharger scavenge pump
To: hotrod@dixie.com

> Okay, now for the question:  what about an electric scavenge pump?
>I'm pretty sure a Mallory pump like I'm using in the fuel system will
>work, but I'm concerned about what would happen if the pump quit.  I'm
>guessing the mechanical pressure pump (the turbo's oil taps off the main
>pump) would push oil out into the compressor and exhaust housings, since
>the Hitachi turbo has no seals.  Best as I can figure, the turbo would
>still get oil, but the bike would fog mosquitoes for a few miles until
>it quit from oil fouling.  I could handle that; I just don't want to
>have to hunt down another turbo if the electric pump dies.

I don't know if the pump will work or not but an easy way to mitigate
the risk of loss of return flow is simply to tee the return line and
run the tee'd line to the top of the cylinder head somewhere.  Normally
the pump will handle the flow and the head pressure will keep the 
oil where it belongs.  If the pump quits, there will be enough pressure
to push the oil up the tube to the cam cover.  There may be some smoking
from the exit line head pressure but the flow won't stop.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        |  To teach is to learn twice.
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |  
Marietta, Ga                  |  Gun control is hitting the shootoff chickens
jgd@dixie.com                 | 
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.

----------
Posted by: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Sun May 31 00:48:09 1992
Subject: turbocharger scavenge pump
To: hotrod@dixie.com


 Okay, most of you have probably heard me babble about my motorcycle.
It's an '83 Yamaha Seca 900 (XJ900 to you furrin' types) with a Seca
Turbo transplant - only 653cc, but 15 psi of boost.

 My original plan was to lower the compression on the XJ900 engine by
adding shims under the base gaskets, effectively making the combustion
chambers larger.  About the time I got ready to do that, I fell onto an
incredible deal on a Maxim X, which is a 700cc, water cooled, five valve
per cylinder variant (the Turbo and 900 are air cooled, two valve).
It's a direct bolt-in; in fact, the 900 engine is in the Maxim chassis
now.

 The X engine's barrels are built differently, making it impractical to
shim them up.  I plan to reduce compression by milling the quench area
off the exhaust side of the piston domes.  I know that sounds a bit
strange, but you'd have to see how the piston is shaped (and they're
seriously weird!) to understand.

 Anyway, lowering the compression was no problem.  The Turbo mounts the
turbocharger below the engine and has a second oil pump to scavenge oil
out of the turbo.  It appears I won't be able to swap sumps and the
scavenge pump; the crankcases are different in that area.  I can't swap
the cylinders from the 700 onto the 650 either.  That means no scavenge
pump.

 Okay, now for the question:  what about an electric scavenge pump?
I'm pretty sure a Mallory pump like I'm using in the fuel system will
work, but I'm concerned about what would happen if the pump quit.  I'm
guessing the mechanical pressure pump (the turbo's oil taps off the main
pump) would push oil out into the compressor and exhaust housings, since
the Hitachi turbo has no seals.  Best as I can figure, the turbo would
still get oil, but the bike would fog mosquitoes for a few miles until
it quit from oil fouling.  I could handle that; I just don't want to
have to hunt down another turbo if the electric pump dies.
                                                                 

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Sun May 31 01:25:34 1992
Subject: Re: turbocharger scavenge pump
To: hotrod@dixie.com

> Okay, now for the question:  what about an electric scavenge pump?
>I'm pretty sure a Mallory pump like I'm using in the fuel system will
>work, but I'm concerned about what would happen if the pump quit.  I'm
>guessing the mechanical pressure pump (the turbo's oil taps off the main
>pump) would push oil out into the compressor and exhaust housings, since
>the Hitachi turbo has no seals.  Best as I can figure, the turbo would
>still get oil, but the bike would fog mosquitoes for a few miles until
>it quit from oil fouling.  I could handle that; I just don't want to
>have to hunt down another turbo if the electric pump dies.

I don't know if the pump will work or not but an easy way to mitigate
the risk of loss of return flow is simply to tee the return line and
run the tee'd line to the top of the cylinder head somewhere.  Normally
the pump will handle the flow and the head pressure will keep the 
oil where it belongs.  If the pump quits, there will be enough pressure
to push the oil up the tube to the cam cover.  There may be some smoking
from the exit line head pressure but the flow won't stop.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC        |  To teach is to learn twice.
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |  
Marietta, Ga                  |  Gun control is hitting the shootoff chickens
jgd@dixie.com                 | 
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.

----------
Posted by: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Sun May 31 15:29:20 1992
Subject: Re: turbocharger scavenge pump
To: hotrod@dixie.com


-> I don't know if the pump will work or not but an easy way to mitigate
-> the risk of loss of return flow is simply to tee the return line and
-> run the tee'd line to the top of the cylinder head somewhere.
-> Normally the pump will handle the flow and the head pressure will
-> keep the oil where it belongs.  If the pump quits, there will be
-> enough pressure to push the oil up the tube to the cam cover.

 CAM COVER?  The turbo is *underneath* the engine; I was planning to run
the return line to the top of the transmission housing.

 If I tee the line, the scavenge pump would just suck air, right?  Most
electric pumps have warnings about not doing that.
     

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Sun May 31 17:22:22 1992
Subject: Re: turbocharger scavenge pump
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)

>-> I don't know if the pump will work or not but an easy way to mitigate
>-> the risk of loss of return flow is simply to tee the return line and
>-> run the tee'd line to the top of the cylinder head somewhere.
>-> Normally the pump will handle the flow and the head pressure will
>-> keep the oil where it belongs.  If the pump quits, there will be
>-> enough pressure to push the oil up the tube to the cam cover.
>
> CAM COVER?  The turbo is *underneath* the engine; I was planning to run
>the return line to the top of the transmission housing.

I know.  Read what I said.  The line to the cam cover would normally do
nothing other than vent the turbo.  Only if the pump failed would
oil flow up and over the turbo.  Like I said, it will probably smoke
but it won't fail the turbo.  I'd go to the transmission vent only
with extreme caution.  Obstructing this vent can cause the engine to
start oiling.

> If I tee the line, the scavenge pump would just suck air, right?  Most
>electric pumps have warnings about not doing that.

You've almost got to have an air vent in the exhaust line.  All the literature
warns you about allowing the oil exhaust line from going solid with oil.
Among the other problems, the excess oil in the bearing capsule can cause it
to overheat or at the least reduce the performance of the blower from
the extra drag.  I can't imagine the oily froth that normally emits from
a turbo being harmful to a scavenging pump but it's something to check on.

----------
Posted by: jgd (John De Armond)
 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Fri May  1 11:49:32 1992
Subject: Hotrodder's Creed
To: hotrod@dixie.com

This was posted on the net a while back.  I thought everyone out
there might be interrested.  If you can think of any additons, let
me know and I'll keep track of them and make a longer list and 
re-post it later!


     Rich Little	    ::  A hot-rodder is someone who is completely 
     LITTLE_RE@LRC.EDU	    ::    baffled by people who are NOT into cars!
     Theta Xi Fraternity    ::
     Lenoir-Rhyne College   ::	The Hoofbeat of America...
     Hickory, NC	    ::	   Today's (and yesterday's) Mustang!!




THE HOTRODDERS CREED (author unknown)

A hotrodder is someone who:

Always ends a sentence about a car with "but it could use a little
more horsepower."

Has trouble remembering his wifes or girlfriends birthday but can
recite reams of part numbers and obscure automotive trivia for hours
on end.

Will show you albums of photos of cars he's owned but will only show
you pictures of his children if requested.

Tries to convince his wife that she doesn't need a new vacuum cleaner
because the shop vac should do just fine.

Remembers important events chronologically by which car he or she
owned at the time.

Thinks the perfect home would be a three bedroom apartment built
atop a huge, completely outfitted multi-car garage.

Is completely baffled by people who are NOT into cars!

----------
Posted by: Rich Little - Theta Xi Fraternity 



From hotrod@Dixie.Com Thu May  7 19:48:11 1992
Subject: Re: Magnefluxing Rod Bolts
To: hotrod@dixie.com

>>Well, call me stupid!!!
>>Anyone ever heard of Joe Sherman?  Call him stupid too! Of course
>>his small blocks are probably all on the verge of loosing rod bolts.
>>Rod bolt failure is quite uncommon. I suppose you hate cast cranks too!
>>And god forbid, 2 bolt mains!
>>Gee, how can I sleep tonight knowing my rod bolts are used!!
>>----------
>>Posted by: emory!tv.tv.tek.com!rons
>Way to go Ron! Ya know I must be one of the stupid ones too cause I
>reused the rod bolts in my SB Camaro and Chevelle. Funny thing is that I
>ran the living shit out of those NOT stock motors for years and even
>turned the Chevelle 355 @4000 rpms for 1600 miles on a road trip with
>not a problem at all. BTW, they were both two bolt main motors. Maybe
>the Chevy is just a superior motor, Hmmmmm. 
>----------
>Posted by: emory!tekig5.pen.tek.com!markj
 
OK, I'll admit it. I'm one of the stupid ones too (I got smart on my most
recent engine though). Actually I think that the majority of rebuilds 
probably don't involve new rod bolts. I know more than a few small blocks 
that have regularly been turned past 6500 RPM w/ stock rod bolts. And yeah
Ron, I have heard of Joe Sherman. Doesn't his idea go something like, "with
the used stuff, you know its good because it would have broke if not". I would 
go along with some of this. I'll bet the vette that failed a rod bolt was more
likely to have had new ones than old ones. I even got about 40,000 trouble
free, high RPM miles from a VW Scirocco motor that I rebuilt, before I sold
it. (I probably should have warned the buyer that there were used rod bolts
in there :) )

The point is even though you can get chrome moly rod bolts for only about
$35 bucks, to do it right you are recommended to get the rods resized, $20
dollars a rod or so. That puts you up to about $200, and some "rebuilds" 
get done for less!

Greg

----------
Posted by: Gregory J Perantoni