Inliners International Forums General Discussion MOPAR flathead stuff

MAN!!!!!!!!!!! WHERE ARE ALL THE MOPAR GUYS?
I'm in process of building two different flathead sixes, one for race, one for street. I recently found a gear drive cam setup out of an industrial flattie- does anyone know anything about these setups?
Also- a few years ago in Rod and Custom a guy wrote in saying there was an easy way to do electronic ignition in these engines-- anybody know how to go about it?
Any other tips or tricks are wanted and appreciated, thanks

I think maybe us flathead dudes have been taking a winter sabbatical.

Petronix makes a "drop in" electronic ingnition conversion for the stock distributor. It takes a litte modification on the rotor button to make it work as the kit that fits the point cam does not carry the correct rotor button. This little modification is my dad's concoction so I'll get a bit more info from him to pass along to you. I'll have to say, this isn't my favorite due to the limited advance range of the reluctor in these conversions. It only allows about 16 degrees total advance.

Bob has a HEI conversion he has built that is very impressive and works well on his engine. If he doesn't jump in here I'll alert him to this thread and hopefully he can get you the information on how to build yourself a similiar distributor. There is an explanation of this system hidden somewhere in this board already, but danged if I can find it. I think its in the "flathead modification" topic in this mopar forum, but there are 52 posts in that one.

Hudson

Hey, hudson, glad to see you're back!

I'm still tinkering with my '49 Coupe.
Got the carbs more-or-less sorted. The cheap rebuild kits I got seemed to work ok. I ended up locking the dashpots down completely, and after discovering that the setscrews holding my linkage together were not really holding, managed to get everything running pretty well. Still a little rich on idle, and the accellerator pump linkage seems to want another hole for the rod to go into. I have it set to the full stroke, and I still get a little hesitation if I floor it from low revs.
My current project is swapping a set of fluid drive 1949 gears into a 1956 overdrive gearbox so I can put it in place of the three speed I have now. According to all the research I've done, it should work, and I can't wait for that overdrive ratio!
I'm thinking about getting another engine and rebuilding it from the ground up with the crankshaft oilway mods that you had listed here in the past. I'd love to have an engine that runs like the one in your tractor pull rig!

HUDSON-- thanks for the info on the ignition-- we are dealers for Pertronix at my work (A-1 Street Rods, Colorado Springs) and I've not seen anything for the flathead six, I'll have to look a little deeper. My thoughts were to take a stock distributor, an electronic out of a small block Mopar and a slant six Mopar, between the three I figured I could come up with something. The HEI way sounds really good too.
I would like to run a Vertex mag in the "hot" engine, any thoughts?
I skimmed through the past posts concerning the oiling mods and carb mods, I'll have to go back to them when I get to that point on the rebuild. Any thoughts on shot peening the rods? What about relieving the block? I am going to run an Edgy head, He had one that had a flawed deck, by the time he got it straightened out his best guess was around 9.5 or 10 to 1 compression.I intend to try the gear drive setup, with the Isky 280/.448 cam grind.
My intention is to build my own dual intake and tube headers. I am planning on trying two Rochester two barrels.

If the cam is made for the common timing chain setup, it won't work with the gear drive. The gear drive setup from the industrial motor will turn the cam backwards.

Regards,
Del

I will have the cam that goes with the gears. My concerns with the gear drive are-- whether or not it will stand up to high rpms since most industrial engines are low revving, and also whether the engine will use the standard auto firing order, or a reversed order. I do not yet have the parts in my posession, so I cannot compare the two cams just yet. The gear drive setup should be here in a couple weeks.

Hello Fellas!

The Petronix conversion isn't exactly a "drop in" modification. Its actually a kit for another distributor and slightly modified by adding a stock rotor button via a little milling and superglue. I'll get the kit's part # from My dad as this was his concoction. I was a little critical of it, but its held together without a problem.

I really don't like the limits on advance/retard of the petronix conversions. We only have 16 degrees to play with in timing the engine. I prefer a vacuum disabled distributor with good old fashioned points stiffened by an additional point spring. We have one modified by reworking the mechanical limiters on the centrifugal advance mechanisms that give a full 40 degrees advance without vacuum.

The initial timing is at 10 degrees BTDC at cranking with the petronix and will only advance to a total 26 degrees. This is something that just can't be corrected with the petronix limitations. It is working fine and without one single hitch, I would just like more timing to play with - I suppose its just a little hangup of mine. This petronix system has worked without a problem up to 6000 rpms so I am complaining about nothing I suppose.

Dad is keeping an eye out for the "new improved" petronix "dual dwell" system that is supposed to overcome the advance limitations. I'll keep this board posted on what comes out of that. I suppose We will use such a conversion on the distributor set up for the total mechanical advance of 40 degrees and see how it goes.

Carlo, glad to hear your battle with the Ball&Ball's is coming around. I still think you need to guage the diamter of the air bleed in your air horn and match it up to your idle circuit jetting. This could be part of your problem at the "stomp it" phase of transition between carb circuits. Keep swapping that accelerator setting around until you get comfortable with the amount of "shot" you get. I suppose you need to determine if the hesitation is a temporary richness or leaning out.

DEL - good to see you back reminding us of those often overlooked nuances, it would be perplexing to have a nice chain-type cam ground and hook it up to that gear drive.

In more general discussion, a little exploratory tear down was done on the little 230 to see how things were going before the start of a new season. It needed a beefier clutch as the previous one was the source of alot of smoke during last year. The oiling modifications evidently were the trick to keeping things intact at such rpm. The rod bearings looked and spec'ed out as good as when they were installed, not one blemish whatsoever. Del could probably discuss the merits of shot peening better than I could, these rods weren't shot peened; however, they were resized with alot of detail regarding concentricity and correct crank fitting. I suppose we will run this engine another season to further explore just how much a stock setup can handle in terms of rpm. Its not going to do much more to turn more as I suspect our cam is not going to add anymore power at a higher rpm than we are already running.

My thoughts on reliving the block are this, not the best idea. For street running where compression is a variable leaning on the low end of the scale, perhaps its the best modification. However, if you are going for an all out competition engine, this just creates more cc's of volume in the combustion chamber that cannot be taken up, hence a loss in compression that cannot be gotten back as in an OHV engine. I'm looking at different heads for these little flatties to attempt a modification over the piston.

I would much rather do some relieving in the head above the piston that would accomodate flow, in an area that can be taken up by a dome modification on the piston, than hogging out the block over to the edge of the bore. In another criticism of relieving the block, I just don't like flame path after you cut a trench across the block to the piston's edge at TDC. It just stands to reason that the air/fuel mix is heating as it enters the combustion chamber and would want to rise by simple thermodynamics, there should be a way to relieve the head accomodating the same added flow capacity of a block relief, and recapture some of those additional cc's by popping up a matching dome to replace the machining in the head.

But don't hold your breath, those heads look pretty thin above the combusition chamber.

Hudson

BTW,

Edgy head = Edmunds head?

I don't have an aluminum aftermarket head to look at for comparison. If anyone would know where I can get one I would appreciate it.

Hudson

Hudson- you share my opinion on relieving the block. I discussed it at length with a flathead Ford guy, and then again with a friend who is quite interested in my flathead six project. Both thought the flow was paramount, I figure trying to get an L-head to flow (in modern terms of capacity) is like kicking a dead horse. I opted for compression rather than flow, but I thought I'd toss the idea around one more group. Thanks. The Edgy head is done by a guy named Earl Edgerton, you can get ahold of him at
Edgerton@pacbell.net
I do not know if the Edgy head is more similar to a Fenton or an Edmunds head, I searched for either for years but could never find one. I also tried to get a Phillips head when he was developing his, but was never able to get one. I don't know if he ever produced them finally or not.

I went back and re-read ALL the old posts in the Mopar section, I have a couple more questions and comments.
First I would like to mention that there is a mass produced forged piston and moly ring available from Sealed Power. The pistons are part # 37p, I can't find my sheet with the ring # on it.
Two questions about connecting rods-
One of the posts mentioned pre '42 Plymouth 201 inch rods having smaller diameter journals, enabling the 230 builder to concoct a stroker by offset grinding the crank. Did anybody ever find out whether the 201 rods were babbit or insert? Also, what would then have to be done for pistons?
I didn't understand part of the discussion on rod lengths, so, would the stock rods be better in a 230, or the shorter 218 rods?
There was mention of Bob Criswell's HEI setup, however, nothing detailing its construction. There was also mention of him using a t-5 trans, which is what I want to do, I'd love to get details on both.
I mentioned previously that I want to use the Isky 280/.448 cam grind- are there better than stock valve springs suited to this cam/engine, or are the stock springs ok? I do intend to wind this engine up as often as possible.

The 201 rods are insert bearing rods. The only thing I'm not sure of is the bearing/journal width. If it's the same as a 218 you'd be in business. The 201 and 218 rods are the same length, but the 201 has a .125 smaller journal size allowing a stroke increase of .125 ( 4.75 for a 230 ). You would need a piston with .250 less compression height for this combo ( rod .125 long + .125 longer stroke ). I don't think there would be a great deal to gain in just using the longer 218 rods in a 230 since it wouldn't change the rod ratio an appreciable amount and would require a custom piston, although, you might be able to use the stock compression height pistons and cut the tops down if they are thick enough ( you'd have to remove .125 ). Or on the other hand, there's your chance for a popup piston.

blueskies has a picture of an Edgy head on his website. I must say its a thing of beauty!

blueskies parts page

thanks Del for the info on the rods. The idea of buiding a 230 into a stroker REALLY intrigues me. I want to try to push the limits with one engine, really see just how much one of these 230's will take. I may yet get to do some relieving, as my head is in the neighborhood of 10 to 1 compression with stock stroke and a planned .060 overbore, I don't know if I want to go the added compression of the extra stroke. Decisions, decisions!
I found the moly rings number I mentioned before- it is Sealed Power #E108KC
Anyone know where I can score a nice set of pre- '42 201 con rods?

Hi kcc, This is Bob C. The HEI dist. can be bought from Tom Langdon. He was making them when I built my '38 Dodge bus.cpe. Are you a member of Inliners International? They have a news letter called "The 12 Port News" that comes out every two months, I wrote an article on the installation of the T-5 transmission to the L head Dodge eng. seems it was in Mar/Apr 2000 issue.Jack Halton has the back issues of The 12 Port News. Some good stuff coming across this Mopar thread. Enjoyable reading,keep it up.............Hudson is your email address still the same?????Mine is.........

Hey guys can you send in pictures of your engines to be put into the rides section. Hudson, how about pictures of that tractor you are running - how about one in the middle of a pull?



[This message has been edited by 4.0Jeeper (edited 04-22-2002).]

I think mine's already there.

Hudson, you Del, and Bo need toget together and write a book similar tothe one those chevy guys have been raving over.
Us flattie guys need all that info you've accumulated put in one place.

Here's another pic of my car posing on Flathead Road!



[This message has been edited by carlo (edited 04-23-2002).]

hello fellas!

Sorry I've been away for a bit, its good to see a little activity on the mopar board again.

I've tried to post a pic of the Ram-Tough Custom tractor on here, but don't seem to have the combination to do so. If I could lean on Carlo's pictorial expertise, I sent him some pictures via e-mail and would allow him to post them here if he would. I don't have any good action shots of the tractor as yet, but I hope they are soon in the coming.

It may be hard to believe, but this was an actual production tractor made of Dodge 2-ton truck components. Including the little L-230 industrial.

By the way, on the valve spring question from above. I have been pretty amazed at how much the stock valve springs will take, they have hit 6000 rpm on the track in a pull but they do want to float out around that rpm. I really don't know if I want to turn anymore than that right now. Dad pulled it twice last week and the ole girl can still hit those high notes without a hitch. He did pop the front up far enough to allow fuel to spill over the main air bleeds and cause it to smother a bit (need to adjust those wheelie bars a tad).

I am very interested in contacting the Edgy head man and having a discussion with Him regarding the area just above the piston. I appreciate that info very much Kcc!

On the rods issue, in the same block family, the longer the stroke - the shorter the rod. conversely, the shorter the stroke - the longer the rod. The rods will interchange in the same crank/block family with the smaller block crank journals being generally .125 smaller than the larger block cranks. I've seriously considered Del's mention of the longer rods being a source of popping up an "off the shelf" L-230 piston for doming purposes by simply radiusing off the piston edge. This also brings the top ring (depending on piston mfg. and distance of the top ring from the piston deck) nearer to the block deck which is supposed to aid in gas sealing, but necessitates a wider ring gap due to increased heating and expansion.

Another unresloved issue from the previous flathead thread was the use of sleeves in these engines. Bo had offered two of his blocks for exploration and the sleeve topic came up when I went to haul them away. Lo and behold, one had sleeves - the other didn't. My question now is, just how thick are the cylinder walls in each of these blocks? I know the sleeves at .060 thick almost allow a .125 overbore when taken out. However, I just don't know how much thickness is left beyond that, nor if the block alloy is sufficient to handle cylinder duty.

Carlo, if you still have those pics you can post the ones you consider appropriate, Thanks!

Hudson

I may be able to help with the cylinder thickness question--- as well as tell what I think is a cool story
Before I started working at the rod shop the other guy that worked there was charged with towing a '52 Plymouth parts car out to our storage yard, which is 18 miles from our shop, most of which is via highway. He hooked the car up to the wrecker, left the driveshaft in the car, and took off. He didn't realize (i'm still not sure how he couldn't tell) that the trans was in first gear. 65 mph all the way out, the motor grenaded only 2 miles from the yard. I've never figured out the rpm, but I always thought 65 mph in first gear, with 3.90 rear gears was pretty impressive.
Anyway, the car is out there, I've robbed parts off it for other things. The block has a huge hole in the side. It would be the perfect candidate for cutting in half to measure wall thickness.
On another note, I am going to get my piece of 3/8 plate tomorrow morning and begin to make my header/intake flanges.
One other thing I discovered this weekend- 323 straight eight engines are 3.25 bore and have the same pin dia. as the 201's. Anybody have one laying around they can take measurements off of? In a perfect world, they'd have a .250 shorter deck to pin height, to be a perfect stroker piston for the 1/8 over 230. (yeah, that'll happen)

Hi kcc, What eng.is this 323 inline 8 cyl. I don't have any laying around, however,some 10 miles from me is an old hudson inline 8 w/a two barrel intake manifold.I believe its a '51.Trees grown up around it and would be hard to retrieve but not impossible.....

Thats quite a story on the '52 Ply. going 65 mph in low. So I did the math: 5280 divided by 7 ft.(size of tires) times 4.11 (rear ratio)= 3100 eng rpm @ 60 mph so @ 65 mph the eng. rpm is 3358, with a 1st gear of 3.54 @ 65 mph the eng. would be turning 11,887 rpm.....(WOW) Now if Hudson could get that tractor turning that rpm he could really smoke those tires.

The Hudson straight 8 engines were all 258 cid. The straight sixes were 232, 262, and 308 cid. and highly interchangable. The little Jet engines were 212 cid flat-sixes.

For some unkown reason, the Hudson straight 8 never used an insert bearing. They were all babbit till the end of production. Nice little aside to those engines was a roller lifter arrangement as standard. Ironic that engine should be so far ahead in one respect yet so far behind in another.

The 258-8 and the 212-6 shared alot of common mechanical characteristics as they were the original family of engines produced by Hudson that dated all the way back to the 1920's. The Jet engine was updated by the incorporation of the insert bearings when the design was revived for the production of the little Jet.

Since Hudson and Nash combined to form AMC, then Chrysler snapped up AMC - I suppose a little Hudson automotive trivia is appropriate for the Mopar board, don't ya think? Its all in the family now anyway.

Hudson

Hudson is Kool with me- I've always fancied the idea of a "step down" with a twin H or some kool aftermarket stuff-- Marshall Teague here we come!
11,000 plus rpm out of a Plymouth six!!!!!!!! can you imagine what that would sound like running?
YYYYEEEEEEOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWW

my book only covers '40 to '53, so it only shows the Chrysler 323 c.i. eight from '40 to '50. I don't know how far back the 323 actually goes.

Hudson, I think I still have those pics you sent. I'll see it I can find them and put them up where everyone can see them.

Regarding cylinder wall thinkness, I just learned that the rebuilt engine in my Dodge has .080 over pistons in it. Isn't max supposed to be .060?
I found a tag from the engine rebuilders giving the over and under size specs for pistons, main and rod bearings.
That thing is at or beyond the limits for just about every parameter.

Found the info to answer one of my own previous questions- regarding the 323 straight eight pistons- they are the same piston as the 230 six. I also gave the wrong part number for the Sealed Power forged pistons- the correct number is L-2101F
The part # 37P I gave before is for cast pistons, listed in the book as giving 7.8 to 1 compression for the 230 engine
I also found in another book that the connecting rods for a '53 241 Red Ram Hemi have the same pin size and journal size as the 201 six rods. I have a '55 270 Hemi,(a 270 is a bored out 241, but I don't know about the crank journal sizes) so when I get the chance to pull the rods out for comparison, I'll post the results.

Well, after two pulls this season, I regret to report the winner's circle has not been occupied by the buzzing little flathead. The competition has stiffened with some pretty sturdy OHV's really turning it up on the rpm's. Although the crown as to who can hit the highest digit on the tach still belongs to the lil' 230, the cubes are getting ahead of the Custom. I guess you can say the bar has been raised.

I do have the combination for the Petronix upgrade. It requires Petronix kit #1562. The spark plate adapter bolts right in, but the distributor shaft will need to be modified by shortening the point cam down .125" as measured from the top. The distributor shaft can be taken out and chucked up in a lathe to cut the point cam by the amount needed to align the magnets on the shaft with the pickups.

The rotor button also does not match. The top half of the Petronix rotor will have to be cut off and a stock rotor button matched and glued to the Petronix bottom half. This is the modification I was most skeptical of, but its worked for two years at 5000+ rpms without a bobble.

This has proven to be a reliable setup without a single service failure in the time it has been running. The real criticism is the lack of timing advance/retard capability due to the limited range of the magnetic pickup. The maximum advance is 16 degrees.

The Custom may not be dead in the water as far as competition goes. Dad is working over some tire changes and perhaps a little weight distribution change or two. There is a bone stock 292 chevy and a cross flow, 12 port waukeshau 312 really putting on a show right now at the track. Its gonna be tough.

Hudson

Say Hudson, Whats going on w/the tractor? Did you get the new HEI dist. re-worked and installed? Too much rain to be farming, might as well work on the tractor.......

As a matter of fact, I did get the HEI on the tractor. The centrifugal advance weights "grenaded" and turned the distributor cap into shrapnel at about 4700 rpms. Not to worry, it was the integral coil cap and the associated module pack from the other distributor I bought at the salvage yard. No lasting damage was done to any of your components.

However, I am having loads of problems with the vacuum advance mechanism. I am more than curious at as to why you relocated the advance tab on the magnetic pick up ring. When I hook our engine up to the vacuum advance-it advances way to far and kills the engine outright at an idle. On the other hand, if the initial timing is set to run with the vacuum advance hooked up - it retards so much under acceleration it pops and snaps like crazy being severely retarded.

I also hooked up the advance pot to two different locations to check response. By running a line from each carb (ported vacuum) into a "T" then to the advance, I get no vacuum actuation until the engine reaches about 1200 rpms - then it slams the pot with 20" of vaccum. This sends the distributor into a radical advance all at once causing it to miss and snap. This is an addition to the initial advance plus the minimal mechanical advance. The total vacuum contribution is beyond what my dial can read on the timing light - WAYYYYY too much.

When hooked to the manifold vacuum, it is virtually sucked shut in the advance position right off the start. With the initial timing set at 0 degrees (absent vacuum advance being hooked up) the addition of vacuum advance sends the timing immediately over what my timing dial can read at 500 rpm's - killing the engine outright. The manifold vacuum on this engine at idle is 15".

So, it wasn't a throw it in and off you go situation. I think there is a different way to tailor the vacuum advance range other than relocating the pickup tab. Also, a means of limiting the degree of advance/retard by using movable stops.

It may take some time, a little head scratching, and researching - but I'll get this ironed out one way or another.

I do like the potential here, and I'll share a few of My observations thus far. The electronic adapters attempt to work as the points previously did, however the magnetic field/electronic impulse is limited by the distance the signal can be sent. The old point type distributors rotated the point assembly to effect a change in timing. The electronic devices can't adapt to this very well outside about a 16-18 degree movement.

The HEI distributor on the other hand effects the mechanical change in timing by moving the rotor assembly only, leaving the magnetic pickup alone and using it soley as a location device related to crank position. The vaccum advance is attached to the magnetic pick up assembly and necessarily needs to be limited inside the allowable range of signal from the magnets. A huge range in total advance is possible in these distributors, tailoring the curve and total timing to your specific requirements seems to be the challenge.

In addition, the late model "990" non-computer controlled GM module is about as good as it gets in terms of timing controls. The microprocessor in this chip is able to reliably run a 6 cylinder up to about 7500 rpms from what I have read. The addition of an aftermarket coil can run voltage up to 50,000 volts. The "990" module coupled with a good aftermarket coil shows the maximum benefit in terms of horsepower gains. MSD controllers have nothing to add to this setup in terms of spark energy or the ability to ignite the fuel charge under demanding conditions.

I may not have my exact application lined out yet - but I like the potential.

Hudson

Sorry to hear about the explosion. There goes that $5.00,however,it isn't often you can buy an HEI dist. for $5.00. It doesn't seem the plate was retarted but advanced. It would not run otherwise on my eng. Hey you have been in that little coupe,it runs like a sewing machine. Keep us up to date on your progress,also when is the next pull & where???