Ford 337 Flathead, XXO, right???

[RichFox]

So adding ports is suspect. What about adding main bearings?

[37str]

   If your not allowed to add ports to a buick 8 head why are you allowed to add them to a flathead. Guys that use the intake ports for exhaust should have to run XXF.

[will6er]

I agree with DeSotoMan about the cost of vintage engines.  Even if you could find a decent V-8 block for $500 (doubeful), how much are you going to spend on making some horsepower out of it.  V4 class is another example -- those overhead conversions aren't cheap -- and when you make decent horsepower with the 4s or flatheads, how long do they last.  Adding horsepower to vintage engines almost always ends in failure.  So, then, you've gotta be real smart or real lucky to make one last.  (You guys oughta look to RonnieRoadster for some clues.)

And then there's the Compressed Air Class which is now, I'm told, running up the prices on the qualified Chevy big and little pieces.  And, beating a dead horse, they're the only ones that are competitive -- just what the class was designed to do -- make more Chevys eligible.

I would suggest that C/AIR should only run something OTHER than small block Chevys. Where's the challenge?

Will Willis
XO/GC 6302

[ronnieroadster]

So adding ports is suspect. What about adding main bearings?

  The Ford Flathead valve in blocks I run have three main bearings thats all you need up to 7500 RPM and a good amount of HP. However adding more main bearings in no way modify's the Flathead block at all.  Unlike the additional ports that requires the blocks to be modified a whole lot.
 Ronnieroadster

[desotoman]

As I remember adding ports was also brought up when the XF class was formed. A historian from our club got up and stated they did that in the old days, so why ban it now. I personally did not agree but got outvoted.

On a side note I don't think enlarging the heat riser on a flathead would be considered adding a port as it is already connected to the exhaust. I remember Tom Beatty telling me he had tried it on one of his motors and it was worth 8 HP on the dyno back in the 1950's.

On the AIR class I would love to see a rule against SB, and BB Chevy's, but allow the old 348 chevy to run, along with Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Nailheads, Cadilacs, and even early Hemi Dodge, DeSoto and Chrysler. But it will never happen.

Tom G.

[Beef Stew]

desotoman said: As I remember adding ports was also brought up when the XF class was formed. A historian from our club got up and stated they did that in the old days, so why ban it now. I personally did not agree but got outvoted.

On a side note I don't think enlarging the heat riser on a flathead would be considered adding a port as it is already connected to the exhaust. I remember Tom Beatty telling me he had tried it on one of his motors and it was worth 8 HP on the dyno back in the 1950's.


Back in the 1950's, a flathead was just another engine, and were treated as such?no special rules needed. Four-pipe flatheads were not unusual. Here' John Bradley http://www.draglist.com/artman2/uploads/1/inyo6.jpg

I first met Tom Beatty, in the late 1950s. And I continued to talk to him until his club disbanded. He was extremely intelligent, and had a vast warehouse of fascinating stories?and he enjoyed telling them.

On the AIR class I would love to see a rule against SB, and BB Chevy's, but allow the old 348 chevy to run, along with Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Nailheads, Cadilacs, and even early Hemi Dodge, DeSoto and Chrysler. But it will never happen.

Doing that would make the class stupid-expensive. The 348 Chevy had little in the way of speed equipment.  Pontiac was good in NHRA Stock, but not much else. An Olds needed a blower.

The 1957 283 HP FI head (casting number 3731539) came on FI engines, 270 HP dual WCFB, and Power Pack (singel 4GC) engines. The 3731539 heads are available at low prices on e-bay?because they are common. All the fast guys, including the Scarabs, used them. Small main-bearing blocks (265, 283 and early 327) have less friction than later big-main 327/350 blocks. Today I'd run Honda-size rod bearings, just like NASCAR. A 265 with 3731539 heads could easily run 150 mph, on gas. in the early 1960s. Today 180 mph should not be that hard to do, with 370 inches.

[desotoman]

desotoman said: As I remember adding ports was also brought up when the XF class was formed. A historian from our club got up and stated they did that in the old days, so why ban it now. I personally did not agree but got outvoted.

On a side note I don't think enlarging the heat riser on a flathead would be considered adding a port as it is already connected to the exhaust. I remember Tom Beatty telling me he had tried it on one of his motors and it was worth 8 HP on the dyno back in the 1950's.


Back in the 1950's, a flathead was just another engine, and were treated as such?no special rules needed. Four-pipe flatheads were not unusual. Here' John Bradley http://www.draglist.com/artman2/uploads/1/inyo6.jpg

Beef Stew,

When John Bradley AKA "Mr Flathead" ran at El Mirage I saw his motors and talked to him. I know it was common practice to run ports out the ends of the blocks etc. My reason for voting against adding ports was to keep the cost down as I was looking down the road and know how racers think and interpret the rules.

On the AIR class I would love to see a rule against SB, and BB Chevy's, but allow the old 348 chevy to run, along with Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Nailheads, Cadilacs, and even early Hemi Dodge, DeSoto and Chrysler. But it will never happen.

Doing that would make the class stupid-expensive. The 348 Chevy had little in the way of speed equipment.  Pontiac was good in NHRA Stock, but not much else. An Olds needed a blower.

The 1957 283 HP FI head (casting number 3731539) came on FI engines, 270 HP dual WCFB, and Power Pack (singel 4GC) engines. The 3731539 heads are available at low prices on e-bay?because they are common. All the fast guys, including the Scarabs, used them. Small main-bearing blocks (265, 283 and early 327) have less friction than later big-main 327/350 blocks. Today I'd run Honda-size rod bearings, just like NASCAR. A 265 with 3731539 heads could easily run 150 mph, on gas. in the early 1960s. Today 180 mph should not be that hard to do, with 370 inches.

Beef Stew,

Well we are going to disagree on this subject.  I don't know if you have kept up with the record in this class but at Bonneville it is over 200 mph already. It is already expensive to build one of these motors if starting from scratch. The 348 and 409 are built on the same platform and as I recall the 409's were pretty competitive in SS racing back in the early 60's. Any 1950's motors like Cad, Olds, Buick, Chrysler, 352 Ford, or 348 Chevy, would not be cheap to build. But this is racing and I know people who have spent 50,000 building an old motor. And if they set a record they say it was worth every cent. It is all in the eyes of the beholder. 

But one must remember this class was intended to be for roadsters that were sitting in racers garages that were not run anymore because they were not competitive. And to get them out of the garages and give them a class to run in. The Chevy's hold a lot of the records in the roadster class already, so did we just make a new class for them to hold another record in. If so then why do we need the class.
Kind of redundant wouldn't you say. 

Tom G.

[RichFox]

I am 100% with Tom on this one. Except if this was the RFTA the ckass would be for single rocker shaft engines only. With possible exemptions for DeSotos, And Pontiacs as well as 348s. No SBC engines or destroked BBC engines of SBFs. I thought the idea ws to bring out "Classic OHV engines.

[Stan Back]

"The Chevy's hold a lot of the records in the roadster class already, so did we just make a new class for them to hold another record in. If so then why do we need the class."

Well, we never needed this class any way.  No one ever said a Studebaker V-8 couldn't run.  No one ever said you have to run a SBC in C/GR.

Most people run the engine they have ? and maybe it's the engine that is best for the class ? or maybe the one they worked on in high school.  I see cars with Chevy 6-cyls. in XO.  Are they competitive all the time with the Jimmys?  Maybe not.

There is no rule about not running early (or late) Olds V-8s in C class.  Nor Studebakers.  Nor Packards.  Nor AMCs.  Nor DeSotos.  I'd guess you could run a 320 GMC in class if you wanted to.

The older engines were not competitive (I know the feeling).  The owners were getting older and some  had had their fun (I know the feeling).  Some were running just to see if they could equal their earlier numbers (I know the feeling).

With the failure of the Compressed AIR Roadsters to accomplish anything due to a bad premise and equally bad rule writing, it's hopefully not leading to Compressed AIR Altereds, Comp Coupes, Modified Roadsters, etc.

Leave it alone.  Maybe the current runners will step up to C/GR where the playing field is equal.

[RichFox]

Actually. No. I tried to run a 252 GMC in E roadster some years ago. No deal. Had to run XX. Since SCTA has classes for vintage engines already. XF and XO as well as the V4 classes, I don't see the harm in having a real "Classic OHV V8 class" True, I ran a Packard in C/Alt because I wanted to. But I had a destroke Lincoln that I think would have been all right in a true AIR car. But as has been pointed out. It's just another place for 350 Chevys to play. And that makes it redundant in my opinion. I am not to sure about Engine Masters Vintage engine class. But I think they may be closer to what I was hoping for.

[Stan Back]

Rich --

You're more well versed in this than I am -- but (theoretically) -- if you had a GMC out to 340", you could run it in C, right?

I'm sure you'll agree with me (?), that a lot of the old-style/engined roadsters that quit running were not up to current specs -- and that, along with being non-competitive, and no chance of record-running, led to their retirement.  I believe they didn't come out of the woodwork for as much as they weren't ready, but it was the fact they couldn't pass tech.

Some of us (used-to) run for the sake of running.  That's why, a year or so ago, I contacted you about the Lincoln that, by then, was not available. 

I just believe it's too late to modify the already dumb rules for a dumb class that shouldn't have been included any way.

Stan

[panic]

cars with Chevy 6-cyls. in XO.  Are they competitive all the time
None of the time. The largest 261 (truck-based) engine with 292 rod stroker (+1/8" bore, +3/16" stroke) is only 292" (against 325") with really bad porting and chamber design.
Shameless self-promotion: http://victorylibrary.com/235BK.htm

[RichFox]

Rich --

You're more well versed in this than I am -- but (theoretically) -- if you had a GMC out to 340", you could run it in C, right?


I just believe it's too late to modify the already dumb rules for a dumb class that shouldn't have been included any way.

Stan

No. A 340 inch GMC would run in XXO. As I understand it anything under 375 inches must run in the X classes. A 340 inch GMC with a 12 port head would. I guess run in C, But not in C/AIR. And you are right about it being to late

[Beef Stew]

I don't know if you have kept up with the record in this class but at Bonneville it is over 200 mph already ...But one must remember this class was intended to be for roadsters that were sitting in racers garages that were not run anymore because they were not competitive. And to get them out of the garages and give them a class to run in.
Tom G.

The Bonneville record holder is an on-the-ground long-wheel-base car. Not a Classic Roadster like the Brissette Brothers or the Sadd, Teague and Bentley 29/32 roadsters from the 1960s. Sounds like you need to make Classic AIR classic

Maybe a 1963 engine cut-off date for Classic Engines would be more appropriate. The NEW engine designs came out in 1963 or '64 for GM. Ford and Chrysler switched earlier.

[Beef Stew]

The Bonneville record holder is an on-the-ground long-wheel-base car. Not a Classic Roadster like the Brissette Brothers or the Sadd, Teague and Bentley 29/32 roadsters from the 1960s. Sounds like you need to make Classic AIR classic

A real Classic roadster. The Yeakel Brothers 29/32 ran Cadillac V8s. The Rollbar wouldn't pass tech 'cause there ain't any    The below pages are from the May 1956 Hot Rod Magazine.

https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/attachments/hrm-mar-56-yeakel-1-jpg.3141247/

https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/attachments/hrm-mar-56-yeakel-2-jpg.3141248/

Back in the day, Fuel was for racing and Gasoline was for washing parts    Today's racing gasoline should make as much horsepower as methanol did then.