stroked small blocks in the race cars?

[1795]

Paul,

Scat is grinding a crank. I am trying to stay within the rules and would have to prove that prior racers had stroked their engines, something that would be hard to do as not many people would admit to having stretched the rules previously.


Jim

[blykins]

Tied to FIA rules (.060” max overbore, factory heads, flat tappet cam, factory rockers, etc.), I can make 450 hp at 7000 and 390 lbft of torque. That is not a “max effort” build by any means. 11:1 compression, non aggressive cam lobes, easy stuff.

Given modern heads, roller cam, etc., 500 hp would be easy with a 289.

RPM is a friend for small displacement engines.

If you’re focused on streetable pieces, a 289 with aftermarket heads, dual plane intake, 9-9.5:1, small hydraulic roller, will make about 310-320 hp on the dyno here.

[eschaider]

Originally Posted by 1795

Paul,

Scat is grinding a crank. I am trying to stay within the rules and would have to prove that prior racers had stroked their engines, something that would be hard to do as not many people would admit to having stretched the rules previously.


Jim

If I am interpreting what you are saying correctly Jim, the original racers were prohibited from running a stroker crank. Regulations not withstanding some chose to run the bigger cranks anyway. In addition to running the bigger cranks they made a conscious decision not to advertise the fact they were doing so.

It appears that nothing has changed. The rules still prohibit the cranks and, like the original racers who did use them, a current user could build his motor with the bigger crank, just like the original racers did and then race the car with the illegal crank, making a conscious decision not to advertise the fact they were using a stroker.

It is hard to get any more period correct than that — replicated vintage cheating without advertisement, pretty authentic ...


Ed


p.s. Follow on thought. If you get tagged for an illegal stroker crank (which shouldn't happen if you don't tell anybody), you should maintain you were replicating what some of the better known 'rules optimizers' were doing back in the day soooo, you are not cheating!

Your argument would continue, positing that in actual fact you are using a well known, period correct, true to life (and form) performance enhancing technique from back in the day that anybody can still do today — which obviously means the car is not only period correct, but a legal vintage racer from that time period inder the rules.

[1795]

Originally Posted by eschaider

If I am interpreting what you are saying correctly Jim, the original racers were prohibited from running a stroker crank. Regulations not withstanding some chose to run the bigger cranks anyway. In addition to running the bigger cranks they made a conscious decision not to advertise the fact they were doing so.

It appears that nothing has changed. The rules still prohibit the cranks and, like the original racers who did use them, a current user would build his motor with the bigger crank, just like the original racers did and then race the car with the illegal crank, making a conscious decision not to advertise the fact they were using a stroker.

It is hard to get any more period correct than that — replicated vintage cheating without advertisement, pretty authentic ...


Ed


p.s. Follow on thought. If you get tagged for an illegal stroker crank (which shouldn't happen if you don't tell anybody), you should maintain you were replicating what some of the better known 'rules optimizers' were doing back in the day soooo, you are not cheating!

Your argument would continue, positing that in actual fact you are using a well known, period correct, true to life (and form) performance enhancing technique from back in the day that anybody can still do today — which obviously means the car is not only period correct, but a legal vintage racer from that time period inder the rules.

Ed,

Will you be my legal counsel in case required? Unless someone complained, there would be no engine tear down or volume assessment. In vintage racing it is not like SCCA or other professional events in which the top three finishers go to impound to make sure that they were not cheating. There are several people who race vintage that everyone knows cheat, but given that there are no cash prizes nobody complains. Probably the only people that would complain are the ones that are cheating

Have a merry Christmas.

Jim

[eschaider]

Originally Posted by 1795

Ed,

Will you be my legal counsel in case required? Unless someone complained, there would be no engine tear down or volume assessment. In vintage racing it is not like SCCA or other professional events in which the top three finishers go to impound to make sure that they were not cheating. There are several people who race vintage that everyone knows cheat, but given that there are no cash prizes nobody complains. Probably the only people that wold complain are the ones that are cheating

Have a merry Christmas.

Jim

Merry Christmas & Happy New Years, Jim


Ed


p.s. Actually although I would love to, I am not licensed as legal counsel nor admitted to any state boards. That said however, Patrick is and it strikes me this is just the kind of argument he would derive immeasureable personal satisfaction not to mention pleasure from. Sort of like a cat playing with a mouse ...

[MAStuart]

Paul thank for the answers. Sound reasonable about getting the stuff from H/M. Next time I talk to Mike I will have to ask about how he is involved with the C6FE heads.

Jim sounds like reasonable reason to be going with a new aftermarket blocks. I was just saying at your HP level i would not be worried about the block holding up. I think RPM International have forged steel 289 cranks for under $400. But they are meant for external balance. But some guys have internally balanced them.

[PDUB]

Originally Posted by MAStuart

Paul thank for the answers. Sound reasonable about getting the stuff from H/M. Next time I talk to Mike I will have to ask about how he is involved with the C6FE heads.

Jim sounds like reasonable reason to be going with a new aftermarket blocks. I was just saying at your HP level i would not be worried about the block holding up. I think RPM International have forged steel 289 cranks for under $400. But they are meant for external balance. But some guys have internally balanced them.

I may give Mike a call to see what porting he has available for the old castings... of which I have a pair.

[MAStuart]

Here is a link to Speed talk . Its on the second place Engine Masters 289. I think its worth reading all 4 or 5 pages of it . It goes on into some discusion on 289 vintage spec engines for both FIA and vintage racing here in the us also. After reading it let me know your thoughts on who you think is build the engines for Cobra automotive. Sound like they might work with one another.
https://www.speed-talk.com/forum/vie...hp?f=1&t=58737

[blykins]

Looks like I should have entered one of my 289's.

[MAStuart]

Brent I am sure you know how the Engine masters work. Keep in mind that the 289 only got one good pull. They were having some problems. It sound like if they would have gotten a few more pulls they might have won it. In what areas would your entry have been different. Just saying that they are built to get the best score in the RPM range that was chosen that year . Anyhow the engine sounds like it would be a nice street car / open track combo in an early mustang or cobra.

[blykins]

Yes, I am familiar with the EMC and I’m abreast of the issues they had.

Their hp/torque curves look very similar to my 289 FIA engines, along with the same horsepower and a little less torque. I think I could have been a contender there but my 289’s in that range run about $25k and that’s a lot for me to swallow without a customer to take it.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by blykins

Their hp/torque curves look very similar to my 289 FIA engines, along with the same horsepower and a little less torque. I think I could have been a contender there but my 289’s in that range run about $25k and that’s a lot for me to swallow without a customer to take it.

Well, if you competed, maybe that would be good advertisement to sell that engine, and also advertise your business for other projects. Also, you could tear down the EMC engine and sell its parts, or tame it a little for another customer.

[blykins]

It's a tremendous amount of work and takes away from money-making builds. I'm a one-man shop and stay busy. Got 11 FE's to do as we speak.

I did look through that Speedtalk thread though and saw a lot of similarity between that EMC engine and a few of my 289 engines. Good to see I'm at least doing something right.

[patrickt]

Originally Posted by blykins

Got 11 FE's to do as we speak.

Well it just might be time to expand a bit. There's a lot of skilled machine/engine guys out there that would love to work for you, especially if you have that kind of a backlog. Personally, I've had my resume in for the apprentice position at ERA for the last 12 years, but it's still "under review."

[FredG]

Sounds like a great second career.

Fred

Originally Posted by patrickt

Well it just might be time to expand a bit. There's a lot of skilled machine/engine guys out there that would love to work for you, especially if you have that kind of a backlog. Personally, I've had my resume in for the apprentice position at ERA for the last 12 years, but it's still "under review."

[1795]

Originally Posted by blykins

It's a tremendous amount of work and takes away from money-making builds. I'm a one-man shop and stay busy. Got 11 FE's to do as we speak.

I did look through that Speedtalk thread though and saw a lot of similarity between that EMC engine and a few of my 289 engines. Good to see I'm at least doing something right.

Brent,

I have no doubt that you would have done well in that completion.

Merry Christmas.

Jim

[eschaider]

But Patrick, there is an unusually high level of perverse satisfaction possible in this sort of engagement. I would think that alone would be sufficiently attractive to spawn some level of interest.

Ed

[eschaider]

Ahhh, a sad story indeed. Yet another missed opportunity falls by the side of the road ...


Ed

[1795]

All kidding aside, I have to call the engine builder Monday and find out which Dart Iron Eagle heads I have and check out to what degree they already have been ported. I checked all of my paperwork from initial build and there was no description of the size of the heads, flow numbers or part number. There are three options with these heads. (all flow numbers are intake) 180 cc that flows 262 cfm at .700 lift; 200 cc that flow 285 cfm at .700 lift; and 215 cc that flow 306 cfm at .700 lift.

My cam has a maximum lift of .606 on the intake valve, so that will cut those flow numbers down as they are based on .700 lift. At 50 degrees the intake is .256. Running the eight stack Webers and 11:1 compression ratio.

Any thoughts? My guess is that I have the 180 cc heads, as the current builder stated that the heads will be the limiting factor on power and the choice becomes port them, or at about a cost of $650 per head new, buy the next size up.

Jim

[blykins]

You don't want to buy the next size up if they are 180cc.

A 180cc port is plenty big enough for a 289. My 347's make almost 550 hp with 185cc heads.

The goal in porting is to increase the velocity and flow, not make things bigger per se.

We can essentially make a port "huge" and it may not do anything but make the engine sluggish.

With that Dart head, there's not any reason why you shouldn't be making up over 475 hp. Camshafts have a lot to do with that and most guys tend to pick stuff out of the catalog, which is a big no-no. You end up with a Chevy cam. If you mean that your cam has 256° duration at .050" lift, then your engine should be making a ton of horsepower. My 289's with ported factory heads (200-210 cfm) make 440-450 hp with about 10° less duration than you and only .500" net lift at the valve.