|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,673 Likes: 42
1000 Post Club
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,673 Likes: 42 |
Tom, I think that if it came down to it,and a 235 style 12 port head was actually available, it might open up some eyes and get a lot of interest started. But with nothing existing yet, its more difficult for people to picture the possibility of it happening I guess, and they seem to be nonchalant about it. I think there has always been a bigger demand for the 12 port GMC stuff compared to the Stovebolts, 3 different companies make them for the GMC today. Plus after the Zaillian fiasco, im sure a lot of folks are gun shy about buying something that isn't on the shelf.
Class III CNC Machinist/Programmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 504
Major Contributor
|
|
Major Contributor
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 504 |
Scott, I think you are right to a degree. but Arias promoted the hell out of it for a few years and had less than 10 takers. And he is a guy with some experience behind him. thats all I'm saying - he did his job and it never sold. I cant figure out why. the Model A stuff is still selling.
I'd buy one
Tom
I.I. #1475
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 20
Active BB Member
|
|
Active BB Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 20 |
so the only solution is to yank out the ol 235 and drop a GMC in there?...
dawg...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,673 Likes: 42
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,673 Likes: 42 |
Wow, that is strange Tom.
Class III CNC Machinist/Programmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 92
Active BB Member
|
|
OP
Active BB Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 92 |
Dawg, its hard to think of carved wood being a precision part. But in patternmaking its a pretty precise ordeal. The actual patterns and core pieces themself are in fact larger by some percentage, than the part it will make. So a lot of time and cost goes into making the patterns. For a part to be made or cast in aluminum, the patterns are about 2% larger than what the finished part will be. This is called the "shrink allowance". You also have to add extra thickness for areas that will be machined. When the molten aluminum is poured in to the molds and cores,its around 1350°F, and as with all things when it is hot, it expands, so an allowance has to be made for that. All the features of the part to be cast have to be enlarged by the shrink allowance factor, in order to compensate for the thermal expansion process. For a cylinder head for example, you have to make a negative core for all the intake and exhaust ports, and a negative cavity for the water jacket, and the exterior features of the head as well. Then the combustion chamber side of the head and the valve cover area,plus a way for all these individual cores to interconnect and make the complete core box. You can easily end up with close to 20 seperate core pieces just to make one head. You should also make a pattern master, because the actual parts you use in the sand and core box don't last long, because the sand is very abrasive and wears it out quickly. So its a little more involved, and the more attention to detail you put into it the pattern, the better the part will turn out, but the more costs you add to the patterns. Clearly you have spelled out why the casting method won’t go anywhere however recent technology with aluminum laminating might make a 3 section cross flow machined head economically possible and I am looking into it. Then again I can’t see many guys wanting a $3000.00 head.
1952 Chev 1300 Cdn. ½ ton
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 141
Contributor
|
|
Contributor
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 141 |
I enjoy following this thread and keep wondering at what point the 4 main bearings in this engine would become a detrimental factor, with optimized head flow and increasing rpm, especially with a 12-port head ?
I read a while ago, from racers of these engines, back in the day, how they kept replacing the bearings all the time on these early inline 6s, built for all out racing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,673 Likes: 42
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,673 Likes: 42 |
Road Runner, I guess you have to look at newer technology to try to determine how to better improve the reliability of these vintage engines. The Flathead Ford guys have made billet main caps and main girdles for their 3 main engines, so maybe these type of mods are in order when you start pushing the limits of these engines as well. Plus, im sure starting with a full flow oil style block is a good benefit also.
Class III CNC Machinist/Programmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 365
Contributor
|
|
Contributor
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 365 |
Back in the day, they ran huge clearances to cope with the RPM and oil quality. You have to remember these engines have forged steel cranks with a journal diameter of 2.7 on the mains and 2.3 on the rods. Roughly the same as a big block Chevy (bigger on the rods!). Some folks do run BBC 4-bolt main caps. Harmonics are the killer of all sixes. If you can't dampen them, run above or below their ranges. There are Wayne 12 ports out there, you just have to find them. Charlie Yapp gets $3,650 plus shipping for a Riley Model A head, worth every penny if it makes you happy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 20
Active BB Member
|
|
Active BB Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 20 |
so, why dump the savings account on a motor that won't get it done in the first place, after all, isn't that what everyone here is saying?...
dawg...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 504
Major Contributor
|
|
Major Contributor
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 504 |
so, why dump the savings account on a motor that won't get it done in the first place, after all, isn't that what everyone here is saying?... nope - saying it can be done, but why isnt it now?
Tom
I.I. #1475
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,042 Likes: 51
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,042 Likes: 51 |
Tom, I think part of the problem has always been that with the with the Ford 4 banger guys there is only one basic engine. With us there are are at least 3 different heads needed to cover the old & new Chevys and the GMC. I don't think any one of them would have enough supporters to pay the bills. I also doubt the depth of commitment of many GM 6 guys. Many run them because they were already in there and they sound so cute. Not us though!  Tom
"I wonder if God created man because he was disappointed in the monkey?" Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 37
Active BB Member
|
|
Active BB Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 37 |
I enjoy following this thread and keep wondering at what point the 4 main bearings in this engine would become a detrimental factor, with optimized head flow and increasing rpm, especially with a 12-port head ?
I read a while ago, from racers of these engines, back in the day, how they kept replacing the bearings all the time on these early inline 6s, built for all out racing.
Roadrunner - My partner, Jerry Hall and I started racing GMC's in the 60's. Bearing problems have never been an issue. We are currently running two 302 powered dragsters. In the past 15 years we have incurred no rod bearing or main bearing problems (hundreds of runs)`. We have run 7.79 at 170 mph with our 12 port car and 8.28 at 160 mph with our Kirby lump port head car in Denver at over 8,000 feet corrected altitude. The 12 port engine runs over 7,000 rpm consistently (sometimes with a little nitro). The only lower end change in over 45 years has been longer, lighter weight aluminum rods and a Fluid Dampner. As Armond stated I feel harmonics is the biggest problem in any of these engines. We run stock main bearing caps with a support on the 2 centers and huge clearances - then and now. My personal opinion is the connecting rods are the weakest part of the 261 engine. I feel with a good set of rods and a good balancer - the lower end will handle all the power you can make. Sometimes new technology isn't always better. Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 37
Active BB Member
|
|
Active BB Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 37 |
I also doubt the depth of commitment of many GM 6 guys. Many run them because they were already in there and they sound so cute. Tom Beater - I think most of us need to be committed for what we do - especially myself. But they do sound cute!  Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 37
Active BB Member
|
|
Active BB Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 37 |
so, why dump the savings account on a motor that won't get it done in the first place, after all, isn't that what everyone here is saying?... Dawg - What's your definition of getting it done? An 848 head on a 261 may not make the power of a 12 port 292. If everyone wanted the same thing we wouldn't need nearly as many parts. Go for it Curt! Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 365
Contributor
|
|
Contributor
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 365 |
We race these engines because we love em! Many classes demand a stock head or block. Wringing more speed out of the same engines our forefathers used in the same basic class they ran in has a taste like no other. To best a speed in a vintage class means literally to best every person who has ever raised the bar in that class since it's inception back in the 40's. Every problem we have discussed here must be overcome. If you look at the vintage records, you will see most of them are quite respectable, LSR or Drag. You can't go down to the local speed shop and buy the latest trick part and expect to succeed, you design and make it. Vintage racing has the greatest challenge because all these problems and for me and many others, the greatest rewards.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 504
Major Contributor
|
|
Major Contributor
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 504 |
Tom, I think part of the problem has always been that with the with the Ford 4 banger guys there is only one basic engine. With us there are are at least 3 different heads needed to cover the old & new Chevys and the GMC. I don't think any one of them would have enough supporters to pay the bills. I also doubt the depth of commitment of many GM 6 guys. Many run them because they were already in there and they sound so cute. Not us though! Tom Too many Toms on the board!!! True, there are a lot of head designs, but it seems that the most used one is the 54-62 235/261 head. i would think if one were to sell, that one would.
Tom
I.I. #1475
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,673 Likes: 42
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,673 Likes: 42 |
Thats the 18 bolt design. The blocks that use these heads also have the better oiling system in them also. So it probably is the more desirable one to have for performance use.
Class III CNC Machinist/Programmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 20
Active BB Member
|
|
Active BB Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 20 |
I know alot of guys that drop more the 5 grand on a set of small block heads, I would spend that on a 12 port head for my 235...
dawg...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 504
Major Contributor
|
|
Major Contributor
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 504 |
I received my latest secrets of speed issue this week. There are 3 aftermarket heads available for Model A's. The basic performance flathead is $550. The Riley 2 port for $3600 and a Roof Cyclone 4 port for $3700. They claim to have sold 700 Rileys.
I would assume that our 235/261 casting would run in the $5000-6000 range because its the way it is. But damn, those model A guys show up.
I think a 12 port on a 235 would be the cats a$$
Tom
I.I. #1475
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,673 Likes: 42
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,673 Likes: 42 |
That guy over at Classic Inlines can sell his small Ford 6 aluminum heads for $1300-$1400 bucks....surely someone could do the same with the Stovebolts and GMC's.
Class III CNC Machinist/Programmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,042 Likes: 51
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,042 Likes: 51 |
Too many Toms on the board!!! True, there are a lot of head designs, but it seems that the most used one is the 54-62 235/261 head. i would think if one were to sell, that one would. [/quote] There's a lot of Dicks here too but not many Harrys.  Sorry I can't help it. Beater
"I wonder if God created man because he was disappointed in the monkey?" Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 20
Active BB Member
|
|
Active BB Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 20 |
So has anyone looked at the bolt circle and spacing from any modern engines for comparison? I.E. why couldn't you cut some pieces and weld them all back together? Even if it was something forien made like a BMW, or Jag,or Mercedes?...
dawg...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,673 Likes: 42
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,673 Likes: 42 |
Thats a whole other topic. Thats been discussed for decades, and it was even thought at one time the Toyota Landcruiser engine was the same one, but it isn't. The bolt pattern and bore spacing on the Stovebolts is so unique, it would definately take a lot of ingenuity to pull it off. Most of the european stuff is all overhead cam, so that isn't going to be practical, you are just going to create a lot more stuff to fab and engineer to make that work. The bores on the Stovebolt are not equidistant between each other, so that is going to be more challenging, than if they were equally spaced apart.
Class III CNC Machinist/Programmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,411
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,411 |
I received my latest secrets of speed issue this week. There are 3 aftermarket heads available for Model A's. The basic performance flathead is $550. The Riley 2 port for $3600 and a Roof Cyclone 4 port for $3700. They claim to have sold 700 Rileys.
I would assume that our 235/261 casting would run in the $5000-6000 range because its the way it is. But damn, those model A guys show up.
I think a 12 port on a 235 would be the cats a$$ Yeah, that would be nice, wouldn't it? Every time I find a 12 port head for either the Jimmy or the Chevy (either in print or in conversation) it's a $7K entry fee into that club, minimum. That's not always including all the stuff to make it run that you would need (intake, rockers, exhaust, etc).  But I chalk it up to "the price of cool".
Last edited by Nexxussian; 01/15/10 04:15 PM.
My, what a steep learning curve. Erik II#5155
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 364
Contributor
|
|
Contributor
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 364 |
One of our local Model A clubs meets once a month in the church parking lot in back of my garage, and there are usually about fifty people attending. According to the latest Inliners' roster there are about four official Inliners in the St. Louis area, and only two them have a 235-261. We just do not seem to have the critical mass to support support a new 12-port head manufacturer. Do we know how many firm orders the Wayne Manufacturing Co. received for their heads? How many were actually delivered? I was also one one of those with an unfortunate outcome. However, I would probably line up again, this time with a little more caution.
How "That guy over at Classic Inlines can sell his small Ford 6 aluminum heads for $1300-$1400 bucks....surely someone could do the same with the Stovebolts and GMC's." also amazes me.
Does anyone have any experience with the LENS process for producing very limited runs of complex metal parts? Some engineers at my workplace tell me that it is less expensive and quicker than casting or machining. They have made some fairly large pieces (about 30"x10"x10") in titanium with the LENS process.
Hoyt, Inliner #922
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,673 Likes: 42
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,673 Likes: 42 |
Hoyt, im not familiar with the LENS process you speak of, but it sounds interesting. Here is a comparision we can probably all relate to. How much different in cost would you think it would be to cast a 12 port Stovebolt head as opposed to the Sissell 12 port head. They are real close to the same size, and the machine work to complete both heads would be the roughly the same as far as time and additional parts like valve seats, guides, etc... Kirby has had his heads cast in a relatively low volume, but his unit cost per head to have them cast is reasonably cheap. So where does this extreme $5000 cost come from for a finished head with no porting come from that the Wayne Manufacturing Co. was trying to sell either the GMC or Stovebolt for. When a finished Sissell head is easily half that, depending on what level of completion you buy.
Class III CNC Machinist/Programmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,332
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,332 |
Gentlemen;
As I recall; the latest 12 port ones
from Wayne Mfg Co. (circa 1999) were
around $4400 complete.
I know they sold 6-7 units before they
ran short of rocker arms etc.
I paid $1000 for mine in the 60s,
from Harry Warner in Burbank. Then sold
the whole car for $4000 in 1983.
It's all those 'accessories' that add up.
Everythings "custom" etc.
-------
There's a bunch (20-30) castings in a
Warehouse somewhere. Where/how much
is the "big" question...
It's been about three-four years since
I talked to the guy in Pentaluma, Ca.
Someone might 'buy out' one of those
guys & re-start it (Wayne Mfg Co) all??
He may have the same mailing address??
That group bought all the rights to the
name, the molds and everyhting from the
Wayne estate back then (1997-98).
John M., I.I. #3370
"There are no shortcuts to any place worth going". -Anon
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,673 Likes: 42
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 3,673 Likes: 42 |
I saw on another forum several years ago when that whole Wayne thing fell apart, that a guy in Australia claimed that there were still a batch of those heads at a foundry in Australia just sitting waiting to be payed for so they could be shipped. They apparently were having them cast in Australia, and then finish machining them here in the states. I dont know how true that is, but if you could find the foundry, i'd say if they still have them, that for pennies on the dollar you could by a pallet load of unmachined GMC or Stovebolt heads, if they hadn't already melted them down or if someone else hasn't already gotten them.
Class III CNC Machinist/Programmer
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,042 Likes: 51
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,042 Likes: 51 |
I'll have to check with my friend here. He bought one and I think he ended up with one that needed to be finished. I don't know if he still has it.
"I wonder if God created man because he was disappointed in the monkey?" Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 20
Active BB Member
|
|
Active BB Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 20 |
so the only alternative right now is to run a GMC, and buy one of the 12 ports available for it?...
dawg...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,566 Likes: 37
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 3,566 Likes: 37 |
Weren't there a # of 12 port heads made, back in the day, for the 235/261 engines. Both the 15 and 18 bolt versions.
It is just a matter of finding one. Tom
Inliner Member 1716 65 Chevelle Wagon and 41 Hudson Pickup Information and parts www.12bolt.com
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 37
Active BB Member
|
|
Active BB Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 37 |
Weren't there a # of 12 port heads made, back in the day, for the 235/261 engines. Both the 15 and 18 bolt versions.
It is just a matter of finding one. Tom Tom - You are correct. There were a number of 12-Port Wayne Chevy heads produced. However, the majority of those were the 15 bolt version. The 18 bolt head was originally produced in 1957. I don't know how many were done, but I would assume there were not very many. I have heard the 15 bolt version can be adapted to the newer engines, but I have never personally seen it done. Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 20
Active BB Member
|
|
Active BB Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 20 |
so even if one were to supercharge a three port motor, the exhaust problems are still an issue?...
dawg...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,332
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,332 |
Dear Bob;
If Harry Warner is still with us,
he would know about all that.
You could check with Bob Toros also.
Good luck.
John M., I.I. #3370
"There are no shortcuts to any place worth going". -Anon
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,332
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,332 |
Dear Dawg;
That's correct, Sir.
The 216-235-261s all have that
basic head design, with little
change from It's beginning in
1937, till ending in 1962.
--------
Wayne & Harry 'teamed up' after
WWII to build the 12 ports and
all went well till the SBC 265"
V-8 came out in 1954.
After that; the "muscle car" era
began and the 'flatheads'/'sixes'
all took a "backseat".
-------
They just tested (engine dyno) a
377" small V-8 on pump gas (9:1)
& a single 'quad' with 506 HP @
4,800 RPM...
It's really tough to get 1 HP per
CID with the early sixes. Even
then; they have a really short
lifespan and cost over $4000.
Most do it still; "just for fun".
Good luck.
John M., I.I. #3370
"There are no shortcuts to any place worth going". -Anon
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 20
Active BB Member
|
|
Active BB Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 20 |
so what you're sayin is we need a good head...
dawg...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,332
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,332 |
Dear Dawg;
Well; that's a start.
------
Ya see; with 4 main bearings the crank
does a little 'dance' at 5500 RPM and
that puts it into "self destruct", at
about 5800-5900. That's the MAX.
The later ones have seven and will do
9,000 RPM with a few modifications.
------
Build the early model and just run it
in the 'normal' RPM range (up to 4500)
and enjoy... A few @ 5500 is okay but;
if you miss a shift, It's all over.
So; be carfull, have fun and be happy.
John M., I.I. #3370
"There are no shortcuts to any place worth going". -Anon
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 37
Active BB Member
|
|
Active BB Member
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 37 |
Ya see; with 4 main bearings the crank
does a little 'dance' at 5500 RPM and
that puts it into "self destruct", at
about 5800-5900. That's the MAX.
Build the early model and just run it
in the 'normal' RPM range (up to 4500)
and enjoy... A few @ 5500 is okay but;
if you miss a shift, It's all over.
John - I've had people tell me this story for years. We continually run a 12-Port GMC over 7,000 rpm and have not even hurt a bearing in 15 years. I think part of our success is a Fluid Dampner and torque convertor which absorbs alot of the harmonics. Bob
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 420
Contributor
|
|
Contributor
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 420 |
Dear Dawg;
Well; that's a start.
------
Ya see; with 4 main bearings the crank
does a little 'dance' at 5500 RPM and
that puts it into "self destruct", at
about 5800-5900. That's the MAX.
The later ones have seven and will do
9,000 RPM with a few modifications.
------
Build the early model and just run it
in the 'normal' RPM range (up to 4500)
and enjoy... A few @ 5500 is okay but;
if you miss a shift, It's all over.
So; be carfull, have fun and be happy.
Ol' Smokey called that dance the "Hully Gully"
Jerry Davis II#4711
ol Smokey said "one test is worth a thousand expert opinions."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,332
1000 Post Club
|
|
1000 Post Club
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 3,332 |
Dear Jerry;
In the 50s, I was very lucky. My
"self destruct" rate was very low
for engines.
In my first 216, I broke the crank.
Never had a major explosion but many
others did etc.
However; those 85Hp trasmissions never
did work/last very long. LOL
-------
By the time I finally got a Muncie 4spd
and the 12 port from Harry; it was 1963
and the (Hot Rod 6) era was long gone.
It would have been great though. My
3 window coupe only weighed 2640#.
Sold it all in 1983 and moved to the
desert. Tried some others in the 90s
(joined Inliners) but the $4.50 gas
killed all that. RIP
Got a couple of built 261s if ya know
any one that want's to spend money??
John M., I.I. #3370
"There are no shortcuts to any place worth going". -Anon
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
83
guests, and
42
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
