Landracing Forum
Bonneville Salt Flats Discussion => SCTA Rule Questions => Topic started by: graham-34 on September 27, 2019, 09:18:57 AM
-
So the rulebook is very clear, a 337 Lincoln flathead would be in the XXO class because it is over 325 cubic inches. I really think the same 337 Ford flathead from a F-7/F-8 truck would also be in the XXO class and I think that is the intent of the rulebook. However, you parse exactly what the rulebook says, technically the 337 Ford truck flathead is not allowed in any of the vintage classes. It is clearly not allowed in the XF and XXF classes because it is not a passenger car engine. The XO class says "flathead V-8 (except Ford & Mercury)". The XXO class says "Non-Ford & Mercury flathead V-8s". I don't think anyone can argue with this point, literally, that means no Fords or Mercurys (even truck engines).
It is my assumption that the intent of the XO and XXO classes is except Ford & Mercury passenger car engines. Am I correct, a 337 Ford truck flathead can run in the XXO class, right?
I would like to give a sincere thanks everyone that volunteers their time to work on the rulebook. You do a great job and none of us would be racing without your work. I read posts where people complain about the rulebook when they could offer suggestions to make it better. If the intent is to allow 337 Ford truck motors in XXO, I would suggest changing the paragraph where it talks about the 325 - 375 CID engines without specialty heads to say Non-Ford & Mercury flathead passenger car V-8s. Thanks again for all that you do!
-
You are right. The 337 engine is considered a Lincoln engine no matter if it came in a truck or not, And it's over 325 cid so it's XX. Never seen a fast one.
-
Just reviewed the XXO class requirements and it looks like my plan for a 1929 Duesenberg 420 cu. in, 4 valve, double over head cam emgine in one of the vintage classes is not possible. The Duese made 270 hp stock. Probably a tight fit in our little lakester anyway!
Rex
-
Could be a tight fit in your budget, too.
-
Graham 34, guess I am seeing the rule different then you say. It says Non-Ford and Mercury. SO substitute Chevy instead of Non-Ford and the rule says Chevy and Mercury. I realize that is not the intent. Maybe it should say NO Ford or Mercury. AM I confused?
-
Can't read to much into this. Plain old V8 Ford and Merc engines of the 221 - 239- and 253 persuasion as delivered are XF. Any over 325 cid are XXF. Everything else is XO. O for Other than a Ford or Merc. Ford six. Lincoln or Ford truck=XO
-
RichFox: Thanks for the answer! You summed it up well!
noboD: The rulebook says (for just V-8 flatheads) that Fords and Mercurys are not allowed in the XO or XXO classes. The intent was no passenger car Ford and Mercury V-8 flatheads are allowed in the XO or XXO classes. The problem is the Ford 337 "8EQ" truck engine is allowed in the class even though the rulebook says no Ford V-8 flatheads. RichFox explained this well: this is because it is treated like a Lincoln 337 "8EL" car engine. That is why I suggested saying no V-8 Ford and Mercury "passenger car" flathead V-8 engines are allowed in XO and XXO (I added "passenger car") . This way the wording is consistent with the wording in the XF section of the rulebook.
-
RichFox: Thanks for the answer! You summed it up well!
noboD: The rulebook says (for just V-8 flatheads) that Fords and Mercurys are not allowed in the XO or XXO classes. The intent was no passenger car Ford and Mercury V-8 flatheads are allowed in the XO or XXO classes. The problem is the Ford 337 "8EQ" truck engine is allowed in the class even though the rulebook says no Ford V-8 flatheads. RichFox explained this well: this is because it is treated like a Lincoln 337 "8EL" car engine. That is why I suggested saying no V-8 Ford and Mercury "passenger car" flathead V-8 engines are allowed in XO and XXO (I added "passenger car") . This way the wording is consistent with the wording in the XF section of the rulebook.
Yes Graham you are correct. "Passenger car" should be added where you say.
Back in the old days you could run a 337" motor in the XF class. And it was done by as I recall Soloman and Hartsock at Bonneville. I was the one that prompted the word "Passenger Car" to be added to the rule book. Not because I wanted to outlaw the motor from the class. Instead I wanted to run a sleeved block 337 motor in the XF class that came out to 324 inches. I was told it was a Lincoln motor and I said I could provide evidence that it was in fact a Ford motor. The year I provided proof that it was a Ford motor, the very next year "Passenger Car" was added to the rule book. It was a shame in my opinion as they only have 3 main bearings also and are much heavier than a stock passenger car Flathead.
So reading the rule book as to what it said at the time, cost me a lot of time and money.
Tom G.
-
But really you can run a 239 Ford even though it was delivered in a truck. Of saw mill or boat. Everybody knows what a Ford/Merc flathead is. Trying to sneak something else in on a technicality isn't happening.
-
I totally agree, the truck vs passenger car distinction is not the best answer. I latched on to it because that is how the rulebook tries to clarify this issue for XF and XXF. Stating the as manufactured displacement would remove all ambiguity. This would be my recommendation if someone wanted to reword this section to remove any ambiguity. Again, I am sincerely trying to help improve things for the next Rookie that reads the rule book and is just trying to figure out what it really means.
If the 337 was only a Lincoln engine and not also a Ford, this section of the rulebook would not be so complicated. I think it is not fair to desotoman to consider this just a technicality because some 337s were absolutely Fords. If Ford just put Lincoln engines in its trucks I would not feel this way. The exact opposite is true. The 337 was an engine that Ford design and used in its trucks for an entire year (1948) before Lincoln started putting it in their cars in 1949. History remembers the 337 as a Lincoln motor mainly because more were sold in Lincolns but it is totally correct to also consider the 337 V-8 a Ford flathead because it was one first.
-
When I started running my 270 GMC powered red coupe, it was just X class. I ran against Fords, Lincolns, Buicks, Hudsons. Didn't matter. We all ran together. Then the Ford/Merc guys started whining. "No fair. Those guy go to fast and don't spend enough." So the XF and XO classes came to be. To the best of my memory the XF class has always been limited to the same 221/239 based engines that it is now. And it seems to be working OK.
-
Everybody knows what a Ford/Merc flathead is. Trying to sneak something else in on a technicality isn't happening.
Rich,
One must remember not everyone who buys a rule book was born in the 1930's or 1940's, or has tribal knowledge on what is acceptable vs. what is not acceptable.
When I started my project I read the rule book and adhered to the rules as written. I was not trying to sneak something in on anyone. Just because the motor was a 337 inch motor does not matter, as sleeving, boring, stroking, and de-stroking motors is all a common practice in most if not all classes of the SCTA. If at the time the rulebook had said something to the effect of 221-239-255 Ford Flathead engines blocks only are allowed in this class, I would not have pursued the 337 Ford motor.
In 1986 the SCTA rule book was a whopping 80 pages. In 2019 it is 281 pages plus a few that are not numbered. Granted there have been some new classes formed and a change from just jumping up two classes for supercharged to new supercharged engine classes. I am also sure some of the rulebook growth is based on clarification of the rules in the rulebook. This conversation is a perfect example of a clarification question.
Tom G.
I totally agree, the truck vs passenger car distinction is not the best answer. I latched on to it because that is how the rulebook tries to clarify this issue for XF and XXF. Stating the as manufactured displacement would remove all ambiguity. This would be my recommendation if someone wanted to reword this section to remove any ambiguity. Again, I am sincerely trying to help improve things for the next Rookie that reads the rule book and is just trying to figure out what it really means.
If the 337 was only a Lincoln engine and not also a Ford, this section of the rulebook would not be so complicated. I think it is not fair to desotoman to consider this just a technicality because some 337s were absolutely Fords. If Ford just put Lincoln engines in its trucks I would not feel this way. The exact opposite is true. The 337 was an engine that Ford design and used in its trucks for an entire year (1948) before Lincoln started putting it in their cars in 1949. History remembers the 337 as a Lincoln motor mainly because more were sold in Lincolns but it is totally correct to also consider the 337 V-8 a Ford flathead because it was one first.
Graham-34,
I appreciate you bring this up. I think the idea of stating Flathead block years of manufacture and displacements would end any confusion on the issue. Here we are xxxx amount of years down the road and there is still confusion on the way the rules are written. I appreciate your post stating that the 337 was a Ford motor first before it was ever designated a Lincoln motor. I did in fact have heads that said Ford on them and nothing else and that is how I was able to prove I had a ford flathead engine.
Thanks again for bringing this up.
Tom G.
-
Tom --
You'll have to admit that you cornered the market on them.
What's next in this discussion -- the French connection?
Stan
-
Hey just in case anyone is thinking about running the 337 Lincoln/ Ford truck engine i have a very nice set of Edelbrock finned aluminum heads for what i call the big block Flathead. Heck i also have a two carb Edmunds intake for this big block. Selling these and many other Flathead related intakes and heads from my little collection from pre WW2 to the later productions that being into the fifitys. Going to put the proceeds into next years racing budget and a bigger truck with 4WD so i can pull the trailer out of the ruts on the salt next August.
Ronnieroadster
-
Tom --
You'll have to admit that you cornered the market on them.
What's next in this discussion -- the French connection?
Stan
Stan,
Ha Ha Ha yes at one time I had 4 of them, maybe that was cornering the market. If I still had one I would give it to you to run in the San Bernadino Roadster.
Don't get me started on the French connection, as I don't think we have enough years left to discuss what a fiasco that is. Especially the guys who are grinding everything off the outside of the blocks to make them look like an original Ford. :police: :police: :police: :naughty :naughty :naughty
Tom G.
-
I am so glad that we all work together to ensure the competition is on a level playing field and police ourselves to
help the SCTA to ensure that the rules are followed.
DW
-
I wonder how many head studs a 337 has? Maybe they should have limited the class to 21 and 24 stud engines/ Or what seemed more fair to me at the time. Any flathead under 325 CID. The Cads seem to do OK in XO. Dozier's Chrysler straight eight did good. But I don't remember any Lincolns doing anything. The S&H roadster I understand was disappointing.
-
"I am so glad that we all work together to ensure the competition is on a level playing field and police ourselves to help the SCTA to ensure that the rules are followed."
I'd guess that you would now agree that adding words or phrases to a rule would not lead to having a level playing field. Kinda limits the discussion when that happens, right?
-
I know very little about the XF etc. classes, but IIRC it was created to permit the large number of Ford/Mercury engines to fight among themselves without being overwhelmed by other brands, sizes, and types. It was never a "level playing field" because it consisted of a single design and narrow displacement range. Sort of like "only Gen-2 hemi engines are legal for NHRA top fuel"..."
It appeared to have worked well for how many decades?
Are any records currently held by other-than-F/M?
If not, why not re-parse it to even more obvious: F/M only.
I think there might be interest in an XO/XXO class with lower displacement limits, there are many engines that are simply too small to be competitive at 325" but were modified back in the day, such as the Pontiac L6 SV 239, small Buick L8, Chevy Gen-2 L6, Chrysler 25" L6, Studebaker L6. Many of these could be easily swapped into existing XO chassis due to smaller package and make the car dual-use.
Wouldn't anyone like to see a Rajo Chevy L6 go fast (no chance in XX0 due to its 280" maximum in a 375" class)?
-
Wouldn't we call those DAIR or EAIR.... Oh sorry, DIA or EIA... don't have to be in a roaster.... Think of all the new competitors we could get...
:dhorse: cromag
-
Hey another question. I think I know the answer but I want to just verify. The 325 CID limit on XO is "as raced" and not "as produced", right? Someone could sleeve a Ford/Lincoln 337 so it is under 325 and run in XO, right? Likewise, they could add a specialty head to the sleeved XO Ford/Lincoln 337 (under 325 CID) and run in the XXO class, right? We all know there are soooo many aftermarket overhead heads available for the 337! Not saying anyone would ever want to do this, but I just want to make sure I understand the rules.
-
Graham-34,
Reading the wording in the current rule book I would say yes to all of your questions. But I am not an official in the SCTA. One thing the current rule book does say is no Ford or Mercury flathead V-8's in the XO class, so you would want to run it as a lincoln motor. Hope I am not confusing you.
I would love to see someone do it. I was going to do it on the cheap side so I was going to sleeve the block to 3 7/16 as I remember, and I had boxed rods etc. But to really do it right you should bore the heck out of that block and run a destroked crankshaft. Journal size on those motors are way to big IMO and there is HP to be gained. The stock crankshafts were Forged so you could weld it up. By boring it you bring the valves closer to the bore and eliminate some transfer area. Anyway just some thoughts.
Good luck,
Tom G.
-
I am so glad that we all work together to ensure the competition is on a level playing field and police ourselves to
help the SCTA to ensure that the rules are followed.
DW
I think it is human nature to push the limits, although I don't think that is an excuse for cheating. Sometimes you can talk to the person and tell them what they want to do is not legal for the class, but they think they know better and will not change their minds, and they always have some kind of excuse for what they are doing. So what do you do then? Turn them in? Walk away? Keep your mouth shut? You are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't.
Tom G.
-
Rex. Your 420" 1929 Duesy is over the 375" vintage limit and will run heads up in "B"
-
Once upon a time you could buy new flathead blocks from a Ford/Mercury dealer. 1948 blocks were still available even after the introduction of the 1949 Ford/Mercury.
If you bored a new block almost into the water-jacket, then pushed-in steel sleeves (from LA Sleeve) you then had a big-bore 24 stud block. Harold Daigh (Chuck's older brother) raced one in the early 1950s. I have no idea how many other people did this, but it was common knowledge back then. You could also buy unfinished cranks from Ford. These cranks could then be machined into full half stroker cranks. This is how you built a 325 inch flathead then.
Today you can over-bore a French block and buy a new half stroker crank (available from SCAT). This easy-to-build all-new-parts 325 CID flathead would be for-street-use-only. For racing with SCTA, you'll need to pay a small fortunes for a NOS Ford block (if you can find one).
There have been many rule changes over the years. In the late 1950s 275 CID overheads ran in the same classes as the few remaining flatheads. SCTA's Production classes never were stock classes, like at the drags. The small engine Production class had 1949 296 V-8 Fords racing against 1953 239 V-8 Studebakers. Chevy 261 truck engines, with 3 carbs, also ran in Production bodies.
The X Classes came along in 1966. The world was a lot simpler then. If you said Flathead, you meant Ford/Mercury V-8 only. If you were talking about a Cadillac Flathead, you said Cad-Flathead.
-
Today you can over-bore a French block and buy a new half stroker crank (available from SCAT). This easy-to-build all-new-parts 325 CID flathead would be for-street-use-only. For racing with SCTA, you'll need to pay a small fortunes for a NOS Ford block (if you can find one).
I personally am happy the SCTA has not allowed the French block to participate in the XF class. What is so vintage about a block that was improved and made into the 1980's.
When one decides to participate in a vintage engine class it comes with specific rules and one has to decide if the rules might be to specific for their tastes or wallet. I don't personally buy the BS of there are not enough good Ford Flathead blocks out there. IMO there are plenty, and if you don't mind paying 500 for a good block you will find one. Building a vintage motor is not for the person on a budget.
Part of the challenge of building a vintage motor is it's age. I had a friend who would fill the block with aluminum, and it worked fine for him. Another friend ran a 352 inch Flathead at the drags back in the 70's, and he told me it was good for 10 passes, then it was time for another block as it was junk, but that did not stop him from building another motor for his car.
As I remember when they made the XF rules there was discussion on what the cubic inch limit should be set at. Some thought they should limit the class to 300 inches since most Hot Rod motors back in the old days were 3/8 x 3/8 or 296 inch. But some competitors already were running 324 inch motors so the limit was set at 325 cubic inches.
Tom G.
-
And the GMCs were mostly 320 inches.
-
This was before the great awakening (1975?) when all of those oil consumption, blowby, seizure, strange skirt wear patterns, short ring life, overheating, blue smoke, and low power problems were attributed to "I bored it 3/16", like always".
BJ said 45 years ago that a SBC factory 350 block must be bored .030" to remove the ring chamfer, but anything over .040" was only "as necessary", and .060" was the end of its race life. At that point, making a 301 out of a 283 was regular business.
-
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.
-
Seems this has taken a bit of a curve away from the Ford/Lincoln 337 original post. Its been my experience as one of the guys still running the Ford Flathead block in the not so easy world of Land Speed Racing the only way to get a block to survive is to experiment. In my case 7 painful years of damaging blocks along the way until you come up with what will actually work for more than a few runs.
The Flathead engine I ran My rookie year is 2016 at Speedweek setting the 192 MPH record on gas is still used as my backup engine at Speedweek. I originally built her way back in 2014 ran and tested for lots of runway records back then so theres a lot of miles on the old girl for sure. I know what it takes to be legal including the car and the amount of hours my son and I spend machining and building all of our engines in the true back yard hot rod spirit. Heck i still use the stock original exhaust location designed by Ford three ports per side i have felt if theres a true vintage idea to the class why allow so much modifications to the block. Relocating the exhaust to the top of the block to gain four ports per side as well as relocating the original intake port locations is certainly not a vintage or stock block the way I see it. Some food for thought from the world of things flat.
Ronnieroadster
-
So adding ports is suspect. What about adding main bearings?
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
And that's another problem,long wheel base roadsters should not be allowed in a non modified class, but I know :dhorse:
-
New engines in '63? Small block Ford, yes. But the much run small block Chevy came in 55. As did the Pontiac, and Packard. Nostalgia depends on when you were born. For me it is before Chevy small blocks. A time of 303 Oldsmobile engines. And what ever you had. Newer people will have newer nostalgia.
-
The NEW engine designs came out in 1963 or '64
Ford FE & MEL, Chrysler B/RB, Chevrolet W: 1958
-
New engines in '63? Small block Ford, yes. But the much run small block Chevy came in 55. As did the Pontiac, and Packard. Nostalgia depends on when you were born. For me it is before Chevy small blocks. A time of 303 Oldsmobile engines. And what ever you had. Newer people will have newer nostalgia.
Maybe I should have said: The later, more modern engines that came-out after 1963 or 1964 should not run against Classic Engines released between 1949-1962. Like 1965 Chevy Mk IV big-blocks.
BTW This kid first ran Santa Ana in 1957, so my nostalgia is older :-)
-
Sure has become way off topic from the 337 Flathead original subject matter. So to add to this roadster talk what about the coupes turned into roadsters back in the day once allowed with many setting records as roadsters the few that still exist presently are no longer allowed to run for records in the modern era. So whats the story on that?
Ronnieroadster
-
I guess there should be a Compressed Air class in every sub- and regular category. We'd almost catch up with the motorcycles.
I've seen some classed in other sanctioning bodies, 1-cyl., 2-cyl., 3-cyl. -- overhead, underhead, F-head, -- 2-stroke, 4-stroke, just stroke the official -- gas, alcohol, nitro, other -- seat higher than the cylinder head, green number plate, etc.
Everyone's a "World Record Holder" -- step right up with your checkbook.
-
Sure has become way off topic from the 337 Flathead original subject matter. So to add to this roadster talk what about the coupes turned into roadsters back in the day once allowed with many setting records as roadsters the few that still exist presently are no longer allowed to run for records in the modern era. So whats the story on that?
Ronnieroadster
Rod Rider President Marlon "Red" Sefton sold his coupe to someone who cut the roof off. This is one I know of, there were probably many more.
(http://www.ussarcherfish.com/roadrunners/Back%20in%20the%20Day/Chuck%20Embrey/707roadster.jpg)
The '32 doesn't look as slippery as this 29 on 32 rails.
(https://bit.ly/2IUIuKW)
-
I guess there should be a Compressed Air class in every sub- and regular category. We'd almost catch up with the motorcycles.
I've seen some classed in other sanctioning bodies, 1-cyl., 2-cyl., 3-cyl. -- overhead, underhead, F-head, -- 2-stroke, 4-stroke, just stroke the official -- gas, alcohol, nitro, other -- seat higher than the cylinder head, green number plate, etc.
Everyone's a "World Record Holder" -- step right up with your checkbook.
All you need to do is to go back to the days of yore. No street classes, just racecars. Roadsters, lakesters and streamliners ...all running on fuel. Maybe make a Fuel Street Roadster class, so that Stan Back can keep running :wink:
-
Sure has become way off topic from the 337 Flathead original subject matter. So to add to this roadster talk what about the coupes turned into roadsters back in the day once allowed with many setting records as roadsters the few that still exist presently are no longer allowed to run for records in the modern era. So whats the story on that?
Ronnieroadster
Rod Rider President Marlon "Red" Sefton sold his coupe to someone who cut the roof off. This is one I know of, there were probably many more.
(http://www.ussarcherfish.com/roadrunners/Back%20in%20the%20Day/Chuck%20Embrey/707roadster.jpg)
The '32 doesn't look as slippery as this 29 on 32 rails.
(https://bit.ly/2IUIuKW)
One Im especially found of Scottys Muffler service roadster held a number of street roadster records and still holds the El Mirage AA/BFR record it started life as a three window. But today its not a welcome car when it comes to records. The 29A roadster has an interesting touch hanging out of the grill shell the front drive blower has a belt driving the injection pump.
Ronnieroadster
-
Same body. Different decade. Different owner
-
One Im especially found of Scottys Muffler service roadster held a number of street roadster records and still holds the El Mirage AA/BFR record it started life as a three window. But today its not a welcome car when it comes to records. The 29A roadster has an interesting touch hanging out of the grill shell the front drive blower has a belt driving the injection pump.
Ronnieroadster
The 29/32 belonged to the Brissette Brothers, Bob and Jim. Jim was badly burned while driving this 29/32 roadster at El Mirage..
Besides the roadster, they ran a tank. Both Bob Brissette and Howard Eichenhofer, got in the 200 MPH Club with the Brissette & Eichenhofer lakster. Bob Funk, who drove Jeff Shipley's tank, was killed at El Mirage in July '62, while driving this car.
(http://www.brissetteracing.com/images/01_1.jpg)
Jim was an engine builder, who knew how to make a lot of horsepower. His Woody-car, with the late Bill Alexander driving, was the first to run over 220 mph in Top Fuel. Later he worked for Doug Herbert.
I have no idea what the problem is removing the top from a coupe. There is no advantage, that I can see, over a smaller frontal area 1828-31 body.
-
Nostalgia: Remember when you could land a plane at Bonneville or EM! And then came the BLM . . .
-
(Is this off-subject?)
Years ago, an older fellow (probably younger than I am now) landed a plane and taxied over next to the return road opposite our pits. He struggled to get out -- he had mobility problems. The plane had a longer than usual right side door which he'd opened and took out a small motorcycle. He started it up and didn't return for quite a while. He put it all back together and took off.
I'm not sure, but I mentioned it to someone years later and they said he'd crashed somewhere in the mean time. The report might be suspect to some -- "he was run over by a motorcycle during a plane crash . . . "
-
(Is this off-subject?)
Years ago, an older fellow (probably younger than I am now) landed a plane and taxied over next to the return road opposite our pits. He struggled to get out -- he had mobility problems. The plane had a longer than usual right side door which he'd opened and took out a small motorcycle. He started it up and didn't return for quite a while. He put it all back together and took off.
I'm not sure, but I mentioned it to someone years later and they said he'd crashed somewhere in the mean time. The report might be suspect to some -- "he was run over by a motorcycle during a plane crash . . . "
Well, it is Funny Friday...
-
& that was the reason Don Francisco had a light weight fold up bike in the back of his Cessna, he said he didn't want to get run over by it if he crashed.
Sid.
-
SB, That was Mouse Lietdke (sp) a friend of Nolan Whites. And yes he had a pilots lic. until he passed.
He went off the end of LIONS drag strip in a jet car, burned the shuts right off...HMM.
But Yup, motorcycle in the back of his air plane.
-
Actually, more than one plane has gone off the salt on the back of a truck.