Club Cobra - Bellhousing

Club Cobra (http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/)

- ERA---Speak with Bob Putnam (http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/era-speak-bob-putnam/)

- - Bellhousing (http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/era-speak-bob-putnam/108703-bellhousing.html)

Yeah, you wouldn't want to use a Lakewood bellhousing with that "little bugger" - it would be almost as big as the engine.:3DSMILE:

Hi,
The 5 bolt 289 can be built with as large as a 354 CID. Most people use the 3.4" stroke to yield a 347 CID. As for the 5 bolt versus 6 bolt and the QT bellhousing, all you need it to match the bellhousing, flywheel & clutch kit, starter motor & clutch release and a transmission to all fit together and work properly. I have in stock 2 289 5 bolt engines so I can model any parts before shipping so your installation is free of headaches.

BTW, I believe that Ford went to 6 bolt because they knew of the 302 and most likely knew of the 351-W and the increased power would be better behind a more stout 6 bolt pattern bellhousing. Remember the 5 bolt 289 started as a 221, 260 and then 289. If you need a built stroker 5 bolt 289, I have all of the parts to make this happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PDUB (Post 1105093)

This discussion may have shed some light on a question I have been pondering for a couple of months now. I've been talking with Brent about building a stroked 289 motor with a casting date in the '64 range. As most of you know, Ford transitioned from a 5-bolt to a 6-bolt block/bell housing design that year for the 289. But why? What was the real reason to change?

This was during a time when they were seeing rapid increases in power from the little V8 family, as they punched it out to 289 and went racing with the little bugger. This, in turn, would have stressed the flywheels of the time significantly, no doubt with some explosive results. It occurs to me that this may have been the primary motivation to affect that change in design, in order to help contain the fireworks (though it may have had minimal effect). Look at the two setups and you'll see that the 6-bolt is much stouter than the 5-bolt stuff.

There would not have been any fanfare about this, as Ford would not have wanted any bad press about failures and such, so the 5-bolt design might have gone quietly into the night with some other reason taking center stage as to why. Of course this is only speculation, and could be way off base, but it seems to fit very well with this discussion, the timeline, and the resultant parts used on the 289. I'd like to hear from anyone knowledgeable on this subject. The only thing I've been able to dig up so far on it was that the change was made to reduce some vibration, which doesn't seem very plausible.

Interesting stuff, as I was thinking of using a QT bell if I ended up with a 5-bolt block. QT is the only game in town to be able to mate that with a toploader...

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeforte (Post 1105269)

BTW, I believe that Ford went to 6 bolt because they knew of the 302 and most likely knew of the 351-W and the increased power would be better behind a more stout 6 bolt pattern bellhousing.

Whether or not these were on the drawing table in '64, I don't know... that seems a little early.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeforte (Post 1105269)

Remember the 5 bolt 289 started as a 221, 260 and then 289.

My point, exactly Mike. And as the power grew they may have started to see issues with things coming apart, especially with racing. Thus, they made a change in the back end of the engine.

I was hoping that someone with some inside knowledge would post on it...

The 1964 289 was one reason that I started running scattershields---One day in mid 1965 at Pheonix City Ala dragstrip I was the next car in line to run behing Hubert Platt in his AFXer with all the STUFF back then---After all the rosin spreading, burnouts, sweeping tracks---he did a gigantic wheelstand because he had put his tool box in the back edge of the trunk for a little more traction and the hope of a mild wheel stand---it stood straight up, toolbox came out the glass deck lid and scattered stuff everywhere--

After a lengthy cleanup it was my turn---and---the clutch assy came apart at the 1-2 shift point---another long clean up==

It was a 5 bolt block and the block was ok except it tore 2 corners off the trans, tore up both exhaust headers, debries flattened one rear tire---

After that----bellhousing scattershield adapters---no more shields welded up around the clutch trans

These days I would not use a 289 5 bolt for anything but a date correct rebuild and before I spent the money for a 5 bolt shield I would use the later 6 bolt block for oem roller cam stuff and then a 6 bolt shield

And above all else it would have the engine plate with the extra bolts between every stock bolt into the block and around the bottom .
Specs allow 7 inches between bolts and thats enough to allow trimming the bottom for some ground clearance.

I believe that Ford went to the 6 bolt because of plans for the block in trucks and heavier equipment

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Clayton (Post 1105364)

---the clutch assy came apart at the 1-2 shift point---

It was a 5 bolt block and the block was ok except it tore 2 corners off the trans, tore up both exhaust headers, debries flattened one rear tire---

After that----bellhousing scattershield adapters---no more shields welded up around the clutch trans

These days I would not use a 289 5 bolt for anything but a date correct rebuild and before I spent the money for a 5 bolt shield I would use the later 6 bolt block for oem roller cam stuff and then a 6 bolt shield

And above all else it would have the engine plate with the extra bolts between every stock bolt into the block and around the bottom .
Specs allow 7 inches between bolts and thats enough to allow trimming the bottom for some ground clearance.

Sounds like your experience is exactly the type of motivation for the change to 6-bolts...

Thanks for sharing Jerry!

Thank you Jerry for your perspective.

I agree with your extra bolts and trimming position.

Here is a little extra info from Summit
MFG PART# PRICE shipping weight SFI CERTED

Lakewood 15210 $435.95 47 lbs YES
QuickTime RM 6056 $593.95 35 LBS NO
QuickTime RM 6056 SFI $616.95 38 LBS YES

Jason

And my pricing...

Lakewood #15210 - $400 including shipping

Quicktime #RM-6056 - $570 including shipping

Quicktime #RM-6056-SFI - $594 including shipping

Good luck on dialing in the Lakewood the first time...

Also, the Quicktime bells weigh about 24-25 lbs.

(an excellent use of this post as an advertising forum, I commend you.):cool:

I saw the 22 and 24 lbs weights on the QT web site. Then I noticed that is doesn’t matter what Mfg, motor or trans config. the weight only varies a few lbs.
I figured based on QTs history of extra loose presentation of technical data, Id better call Summit for an infusion of impartiality.

They must use really heavy shipping boxes....:rolleyes:

Interestingly, I found that Lakewood also sells a series of “transmission adapters” that are similar to the non SFI QuickTime as they lack all the lower bolts. However, Lakewood goes to great lengths to distinguish that while better than a cast alum housing they are NOT safety housings. Hmmm who knew….

I've owned 3 Quicktime bellhousings personally....the weight is pretty accurate. The block plate adds weight, along with the huge bag of adapter rings, ball stud pivot, L-bracket pivot, bolts, etc. I've also had a couple of customers on the FE forum weigh their Quicktimes and compare them to the Lakewood weights. Again, the weights are pretty accurate.

I'm not starting this argument again...

However, I will say that there's no comparison since most guys have to cut the bottoms off the Lakewoods anyway (which would NOT make them a safety bellhousing anymore, correct?)....so I'd rather have the bellhousing that weighs almost half, is a smaller footprint, comes with its own L-bracket and pivot (unless they've changed in the past several years, the big block Lakewoods don't include a passenger side pivot option) and in most cases doesn't involve a battle to get them aligned.

And yes, I figured I should get some advertising out of all this....

FWIW, Jegs' website lists the weight of the QT bellhousing as follows:

6056 17 lbs
6057 23 lbs

Also, FWIW, in a side-by-side comparison before my QT was installed, there was a noticeable weight difference between the Lakewood and QT. One was definitely harder to curl than the other. ;) :LOL:

And one more thing, from a non-mechanic "write-a-check" perspective, the Lakewood, which I installed on my old Corvette many years ago took forever to dial in. I really mean forever. Frustrating it was.

The QT installation on the Cobra was quick and simple. Saved me much money, notwithstanding BBC's and BBF's are obviously different animals.

I've taken some pics but it seems that my wife has the download cable with her and she won't be back until Sunday-

Shows the Lakewood race can for multidisc clutches, however I also show a pic of the 1/8 steel plate and also the 1/4 aluminum midmount type plate along with the approved mods allowed--also the pretty sticker!!!!

FWIW....

http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182...pection+plates...

A forum member weighed both bellhousings....Q/T bell was 23lbs. Lakewood bell was 46.

I don't mind a good design study as long as objective data is qualified for each side. That's absolutely fine that someone doesn't like Quicktime, doesn't wanna use Quicktime, thinks Ross McCombs' wife is ugly....etc. However, there's a lot of biased or unqualified data floating around: talking to salespeople who have never dealt with QT stuff before, getting shipping weights instead of actual bellhousing weights, etc. I like dealing with actual data and apples to apples comparisons.

Brent

I just weighed my full dragster can style Lakewood complete with the throwout bearing cross shaft and candlestick and it weighed 38 lbs

And I'm not anti QuickTime

Thanks Jerry...

Like I said, first-hand actual information is good stuff.....

What engine is that for? I thought you were a Chevy guy...

this one is off my pro stock engine of a few years ago--yeah, bbc, altho I don't consider myself a chevy guy--I prefer Fords because my Dad was a Ford mechanic back during WW2 and thats what I learned on--however traded a horse (and saddle)for a 51 4door chev and after 3 engines with rods out the side of block----

Raced hemis in top fuel (Keeling & Clayton Californis Charger)(see my gallery)and funny car, sbc type in stock block indy car(Dale Coyne)and late model dirt, go Karts with the boys-----I done em all----still wanting to post the pics as it shows a lot of what is being discussed.

Thanks Brent for putting the pics up--

I might add that this is an earlier housing but is a good example of how they are bolted between the block mounting holes and around the bottom--also how it was allowed to trim the bottom and leave 7 inches between the bolts.

I also did some measuring and the trimming at the bottom only added anear an inch ground clearance and that was mostly for clearance loading and unloading the car from trailer--the NHRA requires 3 ground clearance from front of car to 12 inches behind the front wheel.
The bottom edge was only aprox 8.5 inches below crank centerline before trimming and 7.5 after cutting

Brent,

“I’m not starting this argument again”…but LOL

Once again, when Apples are compared to Oranges, the customer suffers.
I was comparing the weight of everything needed to install the item. You state “The weight is pretty accurate” …. Accept for it doesn’t include the rest of the assembly, block pate, bolts, etc. Really? Lol
So you would place an ad for a Cobra that say “Weighs 1800lbs” and when the guy that buys it weighs it and comes back and says “Hey you lied! It weighs 2500!” You would respond, “Hold on now! I didn’t say that was the weight with the engine installed”

I hate fractional statements designed to mislead. Not a fan of “SPIN”
But we are done with this discussion on that level….right? lol

“Cutting off the bottom”
As Mr. Clayton stated, they can be trimmed and still meet the spec.
And I add: while offering a substantially higher level of protection.

It is an unfair representation and a disservice to your customers to state or infer that a non SFI QT housing offers the same protection as a “trimmed” SFI unit, be that Lakewood or QT.
Those lower bolts aren’t hype they are a critical piece of the puzzle. The more bolts the better.
Until someone proves the safety capability of that non SFI design with testing, the prevailing evidence shows failure.

The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…

Alignment:
Ya know, many years ago (high school, yikes!!) I installed my first Lakewood (72 Camaro 350 4spd) I was scared to death of the whole “alignment” issue. Check, recheck, removed, reinstalled, a buddy and I spent hours. We spent more time second guessing the numbers. My history is that they have all went right on, with no alignment problems. Maybe some do, but that is not my experience. I have been hearing about it my whole life, so I assume it exists.
The only issue I ever found (with Lakewood) was on my current 460 version. While doing my last clutch, I set the housing up on a big surface plate and found it to be out of parallel by about .030. I sand paper lapped that block face on the surface plate for flatness, then set it up on a big mill and skim cut the trans face so that it was flat within .001. Probably wouldn’t have caused in an issue, but it made me feel better.
I do like the QT products, just don’t like the way they represent themselves

And your prices appear very fair.

Other than this one QT bellhousing blowing up on this 460, has anyone else heard of any "trimmed" (or not) Lakewood's or QT's blowing up? I haven't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-CEL (Post 1105650)

When you do compare apples to apples, you will find things work a little bit easier. Why call Summit and ask for the shipping weight? Why don't you ask them to pull each bellhousing out and weigh it without the packaging and all the items?

No, I wouldn't include everything in the box as part of the bellhousing. When have you used every adapter ring all on the same bellhousing, or when have you used both ball pivot and L-bracket pivot on the same bellhousing? The Quicktime bellhousing includes a WHOLE lot of accessories.....you don't use all of them when you put it in a car. So why include all of that stuff on the weight of the bellhousing? What if Quicktime used a box that was 1" thick and Lakewood used a box that was 1/8"? LOL See where I'm going?

Here's the difference...

You call people that don't have direct relationships with Quicktime. You call the new owner of the company, which before a few months ago didn't have any experience whatsoever with Quicktime. You also call Summit Racing and ask them for a shipping weight. Neither one of those phone calls is valid. I weigh the bellhousings myself. I ask customers to weigh them. That's the difference. Jason, by all means, buy whichever bellhousing you want. Believe me, it doesn't make any difference to me whatsoever. However, if you're going to post an argument, post some solid facts, not biased information based on whims of phone calls.

If you don't have a beef with Quicktime, you're sure going out of your way to start one. You have hijacked several of my threads so far with this stuff. If you were the one whose Boss 557 took a poop on the dyno, I would understand. If you were his best buddy, I would understand. But you have no relationships with anyone, whatsoever. Once again, prove to me that the same scenario wouldn't have happened with an SFI 6.1 bellhousing. You know what, it may not have. It may have contained it perfectly, we'll never know. I do know that I'm not brand loyal....I've used both Quicktime and Lakewood in my stuff. I know which one is a nicer bellhousing, that's for sure. But if you ask me a question about either one, I'll try to give you actual real world data.

All I'm asking is that if you have a vendetta and you're going to act upon it, post relative, REAL, and actual information on each item, like I have and like Jerry has. Don't just call up random people and ask them for their opinions or information.