For those of you running quicktimes.............

[timsullivan]

I'll take a much better built and lighter Quicktime bellhousing to a a much heavier Lakewood "boat anchor" any day of the week. I have used them both and the Quicktime is much superior to the Lakewood, by ANY measure. There is no way in hell that a Quicktime properly bolted down, all away around the entire circumference, would blow like that video is showing. Those fasteners around the very top of the bellhousing are clearly suspect and I doubt very much that they are Grade 8. Talk about a "BS", ripoff video--unbelieveable!!

[ROBERT GWALTNEY]

Brent, I'm running a small block @ 485 hp and a tko600 with an aluminum bell housing, Could you tell me what other bell housing would you recommend. I have though about just how much protection is or isnt there

[blykins]

Robert,

I would use a good steel bellhousing like a Quicktime, McLeod, or Lakewood. The factory aluminum bells are very brittle and although the chances are that you'll never have any issue, you are very correct...there isn't much protection there.

JWD,

You think a factory bellhousing is a quality performance part?

Apparently I'm not the only one that doesn't understand...

And thanks for your permission, I will most definitely run what I like.

[blykins]

BTW,

My reference to the 2000 Cobra R was my way of saying that Ford didn't think that a factory aluminum bellhousing was going to be good enough for a car with that pedigree...i.e. a hot street/track car. They found it necessary to upgrade to a steel scattershield. That's in a car with "only" 385hp...about 100hp less than what a lot of guys are running in a car with only 3/16" of fiberglass between them and the drivetrain.

[ng8264723]

I have contacted the other member on the 460 forum who suffered a blown up quicktime. He is going to try to find and send me some pics...............

[RICK LAKE]

Guys you ALL need to relook at this video and pictures.
Here's what I see
1 An 800 hp motor with an non SFI flywheel, this was stated at the start. We also DOn't know the weight of this flywheel. Could be 20# could be 45#, thats a big differents between explosions in a bell housing.
2 Unknown grade of fasteners on the motor to the bell housing
3 Cast iron block being pushed passed limits.
4 I see 3 ears broken off the block
5 This is another case of STUPID people running the show without Safety involved.
6 I started the problem of SFI with Quicktime 2 years ago. Had a couple of heated e-mails from the last CEO. He came clean on this SFI problem.
As far as the new bell housing, YOU the customer need to ask the question
"IS MY BELLHOUSING SFI CERTIFIED AND STAMPED". Bottom line is you get what you paided for. If a bellhousing cost $300.00, and it could be a lakewood there may be nothing wrong with it other than the date for the certification has expired and needs to be retested. I got 2 15 year old bells and have no fear of them not doing there job. One has already done the job of holding a blown disc in the can.
I like the fact that quicktime bells are about 20 lbs lighter than Lakewood.
I am buying a quicktime for my next motor. This bell did it's job to control the explosion in the can. I see block failure and fastener failure more than bellhousing. Rick L.

[RestoCreations]

As Rick states in #1, that was my first thought and i am surprised it was not brought up before.

I just installed an SFI quicktime bellhousing and it is very thick and not all that light. It took me quite a while to hack through the metal to modify it for the Kirkham Clutch arm. i will have no worries about running this housing on my 527FE, especially since i am using an SFI approved flywheel, as should be.
I did note that the bolts that came with my quicktime housing were too long for the block, so i will be replacing them with the correct length units. Perhaps this person had the same issue with his bolts and used a spacer or something along those lines, which possibly contributed to why the threads pulled out.

[blykins]

Originally Posted by ng8264723

I have contacted the other member on the 460 forum who suffered a blown up quicktime. He is going to try to find and send me some pics...............

I don't understand the logic behind this.

Do you actually think that the other bellhousing manufacturers have never had a failure? I have posted one, should I find more for everyone?

Seriously, what is the motivation here?

I try to be as fair as I can be with all things. In this situation, it seems like I'm really holding up the flag for Q/T, but the fact is, there have been numerous threads started about this from people who: 1. have never had a failure and 2. have never owned a Quicktime bellhousing. 3. don't have enough facts/data for an argument.

NO ONE CAN PROVE AT ALL that the incident that happened on the dyno is the bellhousing's fault. No one.

Everyone is pro-Lakewood and yet I found a scenario where the very same thing happened....but of course no one takes that into argument.

This has become as illogical as a Presidential debate.

Hey, if you don't like that a non-SFI Q/T isn't bolted around the bottom of the bellhousing, then by all means, go buy a Lakewood, then cut the bottom of it (you know, a lot of the bolts that hold it together at the bottom) off so it will fit your car.

[Ronbo]

There's nothing structural about the bottom bolts since they fasten to a 1/8" aluminum backing plate. This portion of the bell is protecting the ground, not you. If you want to worry about something how about that big hole they all have aimed right at your legs? (clutch fork)

I remember this from a while back, the guy "grabbed an old (stock) flywheel" he had laying around because he didn't want to wait on getting a new one. Chain's only as strong as the weakest link.

The bellhousing held up pretty well considering the bolts pulling out of the block.

He was lucky this only hurt his wallet...

[blykins]

[quote=Ronbo;1124486]There's nothing structural about the bottom bolts since they fasten to a 1/8" aluminum backing plate. QUOTE]

That's absolutely correct....but those bolts have to be there in order to be SFI 6.1 certified (and get the pretty decal).

[D-CEL]

Superdouche (aka Rodknock, )

So you are calling me a liar? Copying at the local Kinkos? I am offended.
But I digress.
You would never need, want, nor be able to handle the type of power a 385 series BB can produce, so in that respect all are safer because of your choice.
The two people in the world that are closest to this issue and that are currently responsible for it, are not enough for you. Clearly, you only hear what you want to hear. No answer to the contrary will be considered let alone accepted. Spoken like the true child that you are.
“Minions”, “Indicting the entire line”
Are you functionally illiterate or just suffering from severe case adult A.D.D.?
Its not about the RM 8010 or any other non SFI housings, It’s about a manufacturer that claims a product be something it clearly is not.
I’ll say it again, Quick Time builds a nice housing, Certified or not, that has never been an issue for me. My issue is the claim that the two very different designs offer remotely similar protection. The former owner made the claim, I checked it out and it’s simply is not true.
I condemn the false adverting practice and the propagandists that continue to spew it forth. It led someone to purchase a part that was no suitable for his application.

Please return to whatever rectum you dribbled from.

Brent,

Yes the 2000 Cobra R did in fact come with a QT RM-8080…. that was SFI 6.1 certified. As the car was intended for racing I would imagine Ford felt it important enough to provide a certified bellhousing…
But what happened to all the pro QT rhetoric? “Ross said it has been tested, So until someone proves that it hasn’t..” …yea that what I thought…

It’s interesting that you brought up failures of SFI certed housings. During my conversation with Graham from Prestolite, I asked the question. “Since all of the validation test and field failure data for Lakewood and QT is now in one place, how many “failures to contain” of SFI certified housings do you see between both companies.
It surprised me when he said “none”. That certainly points toward a 6.1 design advantage. But that means nothing right? You wont do the research, and when I do it, you saythat I have some "Axe to grind with QT"
I have no axe to grind, just looking for truth and honesty in advertising.

I have to laugh when people make engineering statements but obviously don’t understand the mechanics and dynamics of the failure. The lower bolts are not there to “protect the ground” LOL. They are there to inhibit ROTATION of the housing. While the threaded mounting holes are sufficiently strong in straight tension, if the housing is allowed to rotate (as we see in the photos) the load is applied perpendicular to designed load path of the threaded hole and unfortunately against a relatively thin and unsupported wall of the brittle block casting. That is why we see a failure of the entire length of the threaded hole. I doubt any of you junior engineers would be willing to put a bolt on your block and hit it perpendicular to its axis with a 16oz hammer in a full swing.
Given that logic, how could it possible survive the force generated by a 5lb piece of a flywheel spinning at 9000rpm (the ring gear speed of a 20” flywheel @ 9k is roughly 535.5 mph)
The cumulative shear and tension strength of the lower bolts and nuts has historically proven sufficient to overcome that rotational force thereby saving the block from damage and containig all the pieces.
Again, How and why would anybody state that the lower bolts are not structural? They are critical.

Rick,
How can the block be blamed? The block mounts aren’t designed to take that type of impact load. The block failed as a result of the Flywheel failure and the design of the housing. If there was a cast alum or no housing on the motor, would the block have failed?
Lets perform a thought experiment based on what is known.
This same shape, depth, material and mfg process, yields a housing, that in its SFI 6.1 compliant form, has passed all of the SFI testing requirements and is certified. With 3 housings tested, all 3 contained all of the pieces and remained attached to the motor plate. The photographs of this failed housing suggest that its basic form remained intact after the failure. However pieces escaped and its attachment was compromised.
Q: what changed? (The OP stated that he used all of the attachment hardware as provided by QT)
The differences being:
1) The lack of lower containment bolts in this design.
2) it was bolted to an actual block vs. the steel mounting plate of the test stand.

If the failure cause is #2 than we should see failures in 6.1 compliant designs.

This pissing match is old and tiring, stop stating that the designs offer the same level of protection and I won’t comment on QT.

For my own edification, I have contacted a lab (Balco in Vandalla Oh.) that provides the SFI testing service and asked them to quote me on a test of a single housing without the lower bolts. When I discussed the test and its parameters with them (Mike Belcher), he was quite clear is stating his opinion that the results would not be good. But that is why we run tests, to separate opinion and fact.

If I can get it set up, I will publish the data pass or fail.


Jason

[Avmaviator]

Why did this flame-baiter, ng8264723, put this thread in the Kirkham section anyways? Ran out of space in other sections? :eyeroll:

[computerworks]

Originally Posted by Avmaviator

Why did this flame-baiter, ng8264723, put this thread in the Kirkham section anyways? Ran out of space in other sections? :eyeroll:

Good point...moved to FE Forum

ron
ClubCobra Moderator

[ng8264723]

Why did this flame-baiter, ng8264723 eyeroll? My response........"go to hell"

I PUT it here b/c some people are still in the build phase for their cars. I thought they should consider the Lakewood.....................

[blykins]

Ah c'mon guys, it's an important subject, but we shouldn't lose friends and respect for each other over it. It's hard to tell over written words, but I definitely don't want to come across like I have a chip on my shoulder over this. If I have, I apologize to everyone involved.

[blykins]

Since your replies always come with a sense of attack towards me, I'll have to reiterate the following point:

My data is actual first-hand data, coming from measurements, testimony, etc., from either myself or customers.

Your data is based on "the opinion" of others, the Summit Racing shipping department, etc. How can that be valid? You yourself said that we need to distinguish between opinion and facts, but yet I never see any facts.

Also, if the block fails, how can the bellhousing be at fault?

If you clothesline yourself riding a motorcycle and your head pops off, is it the helmet's fault?

[RodKnock]

Here's a gratuitous plug for Brent.

Brent has Lakewood, Quicktime and McLeod bellhousings on sale right now:

Classifieds: Bellhousing Blow-Out Sale


BTW, I'll quote the great Buddha:

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

[blykins]

Again...

Someone please prove that this was absolutely the bellhousing's fault.

To be perfectly fair, I can't prove that it wasn't.

However, common sense, an engineering background, and a sense of reality tells me that if the thing that you bolt the bellhousing to isn't strong enough to hold it, then the bellhousing can't do its job.

When they SFI test them, they don't bolt them to a block, they rigidly bolt them to a test fixture.

Also, everyone seems to be skirting around the fact that there was a Lakewood incident (a manufacturer that hasn't changed their design in decades) that mimicked the exact incident that we're speaking about with the Quicktime.

Yet no one wants to acknowledge that.

Interesting.

[blykins]

Fitting name for the thread wasn't it?

Bellhousing Blow Out?

[Jamo]

Ok...everyone knock it off (name-calling, etc.). Now.

Muchas gracias.