HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: TA/D on Nitro
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 20:33:17 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Tuesday, Jan 12 15:33:14
X-Sequence: 3399
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu

        Reply to:   TA/D on Nitro
[One thing with the top-alcohol cars with the injectors vs the blown cars,
the injected ones can run nitro, whereas the blown are still running alcohol
(or so I've seen.)  Sounds like a decent setup anyway...

-- Steve

----------
Posted by: emory!gte.com!stm0 (Steven McClure)]

I was reading in National Dragster about a guy who is running a Nitro *unblown*
dragster in the TA/D catagory .  He just shattered all the records for TA/D by
running 5.70s and 253 mph.  Normally the dragsters run somewhere around
5.90s-6.0s @ ~220 mph.  He has the same problem with dropping cylinders that
the big Top Fuel guys do, but when it runs ... it RUNS!

Great thing is, he's running a low budget operation.  I always like to see the
little guy shake the tree!

Another oddity in the TA/D category is the Double Vision dragster which runs
TWO gasoline injected (with NOS) motors.  An added twist is the fact that the
car is owned by twins from Omaha.  The car definitely is unique!

-- Ken Mosher
-- Buick Grand National: A *BOOST* of Buick Performance!
 





----------
Posted by: "KEN MOSHER" <emory!imd.sterling.com!KEN_MOSHER>
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: 215 cid Olds V8 question
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 20:02:32 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Friday, Jan 08 15:02:26
X-Sequence: 3280
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu


-> I am in the process of rebuilding my 215 v8 which has been bored out
-> .060" and am using pistons for a 10.25 compression ratio.  The heads
-> have not been done yet, but I plan to install hardened valves and
-> seats to tolerate unleaded gas.

 You already have sintered iron seats to start with.  Unless they're
damaged there's no reason to replace them - the "hardened seats" the
machine shop will install are exactly the same as what's in there now.


-> The question I have is fuel requirements.  Will the oxygenated fuel
-> be the way to go and if so will I have to play with 4bbl (Quadrajet?)
-> to get it to run.  What octane will be required, will 92 be enough?

 It's aluminum, has a good rod ratio, small diameter bore, and the
thing should run fine on premium, or maybe even regular, depending on
what cam profile you use and how much time you're willing to put into
profiling the advance curve.


-> I guess while I'm wasting bandwidth, what are some reasonable mods to
-> make to this 31 year old design...oh the plan is to reinstall it

 The engine is a sorry piece of junk, and I'll swap you a small block
Chevy for it, even up, out of the goodness of my heart.  Yessir.  Why,
they don't even make the 215 any more, what if it broke down in Wolf's
Adenoid, Kentucky?  You'd best be rid of it before it costs you serious
money and inconvenience.  Yep, give it to me and I'll... er... dispose
of it properly.  Yeah.

 Seriously, you might talk to some of the cam grinders to get a modern
high-rate RV or mileage cam, as the technology has moved up by leaps and
bounds since the 1960s.  I'm serious -  lots of places were selling
simple harmonic cams right through the mid '70s.  Other than that, I
wouldn't think you'd do anything else considering it's going into a
stock '62.   You might also scrounge an HEI distributor out of a later
Buick V8, but they were only available for a few years since Buick 's
eights got the axe early on.  An aftermarket electronic ignition would
work otherwise.
                                                                                          

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: Re: Re:: humvee
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 09:37:22 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Thursday, Jan 07 04:37:17
X-Sequence: 3227
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu

Maybe the Cummins would be too heavy and too big,
but you can NEVER have too much torque!
-Merv

----------
Posted by: emory!MAINE.maine.edu!IO10702
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: Re: rod side clearance
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 10:28:05 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Saturday, Jan 09 05:27:46
X-Sequence: 3331
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu


-> May I suggest that a potential alternative is to send the crank to
-> Lunati or Crankshaft Specialists and have the rod journals chromed
-> and then ground to your specs? May cost a few extra bucks but in the
-> end, it would be worth it.

 Not to my wallet.  Lunati gets $600 for a standard chrome job, $100
extra per journal for fancy stuff, and probably a little more since
they'd have to redo the side radii.  CSC is a little cheaper; they'll
weld and regrind the journals for $100 each.  (they've done work for me
before; and I thought I'd have to have them weld up and regrind a
journal on my Mazda pickup a couple of months ago)

 The object of all this was to come up with a set of 6" steel rods for
under $125, so that's a little outside the budget.

 I've been doing some more research, and have found articles by people
who claim to be running up to .035 side clearance.  Since I'll be at
.025, which quite a few claim to run, I'm willing to give it a shot.


-> with other mods (lifter oil feed restrictors, bigger pump, etc.) I've
-> run as much as .040" with no ill effects. Stock car guys have done it

 I'm glad to hear that!
                                                               

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: Geof Evans
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 19:33:53 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Thursday, Jan 07 14:33:49
X-Sequence: 3230
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu

> 
> -> BTW, Geof Evans, one of our Australian correspondents, is in the USA
> -> on vacation.  He is coming to Pennsylvania today and will stop by for
> -> dinner. His tour plan is to go south from here to Florida, then west
> -> across the southern tier states to California.  I'll give him your
> -> regards.
> 
>  By car?  Migawd, that's a killing trip.  I've made the
> Sacramento-to-Tampa and v.versa run several times.   If he swings up
> through Arkansas tell 'im to drop in for a visit.
> ----------
> Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
> 
Actually, by van, which he purchased yesterday. And the trip will start
by heading to Chicago, then the Great Lakes, Niagara Falls.... then
south, then west...  He has 8 weeks.

Geof and his wife Anita had dinner with us night before last.  Nice couple.
I think I will see them again after work today, if they decide to stay in this
area for another day. If you would like to have them drop in and talk utes,
I can pass along your address and phone numbers.

Is Ron Rader still on line? Geof asked me to ask his whereabouts.

----------
Posted by: Dave Tartaglia <emory!immacc.prepnet.com!indy>
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: RE: Chevy Exaust Manifold Ques.
Date: Mon, 04 Jan 93 21:27:18 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Monday, Jan 04 16:27:08
X-Sequence: 3170
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu

Don't know if this will help but...

Lokar Ltd.
319 Paseo Sonrisa
Walnut, CA 91789
(714)594-2269

Lokar makes street rod goodies. They advertise a stainless steel flexible
cable transmission dipstick which twists and turns.  Could you adapt it to
an oil dipstick?  Give them a call. You're probably not the first person
with that problem.

----------
Posted by: Dave Tartaglia <emory!immacc.prepnet.com!indy>
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: 351C trivia...
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 22:55:20 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Wednesday, Jan 06 17:55:14
X-Sequence: 3216
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu


-> Standard Australian 351C - 300 duration and .500 lift

 WOW!  Duration is an essentially meaningless term, but that's a lot of
lift.  Even the high performance US engines never got that much.


->     302 & 351 (2V, 4V Australian) 51.61 - 52.07 mm (2.032-2.050 in)

 That touches on something I suspected.  Did the Oz motors get 4V
intakes on the "2V" heads, or were they 4V heads with 2V size valves?

 FYI (forgive me if it's the same Down Under, you can't take anything
for granted when dealing with international model variations, y'know)
Ford USA built two much different versions of the Cleveland - the 2V and
4V.  They shared the same short block (though some 4Vs had four bolt
mains) but the entire induction system was different - carb, intake,
cylinder head casting, valve sizes, and exhaust manifolds.  All 2V
engines had 2.05/1.66 valves, all 4V had 2.19/1.71 valves.  The 2V has
large intake and exhaust ports, the 4V has gigantic intake ports you can
roll a golf ball through, and weird kinked tiny exhaust ports.  The two
heads are *entirely* different - the 2V head is actually superior for
just about any purpose.  You've probably seen picture of "high ported"
4V heads, where they machine off the side and put a plate on to move the
exhaust port up?  The 2V heads are that way from the factory.  etc.

 Sounds like you either had 2V heads with a 4bbl (sounds like a damned
nice setup!) or 4V heads with 2V valves (bizarro!)


-> I can at least assure you that Australian 351Cs could not maintain
-> 7000 RPM because of the dodgy valve springs that were standard.

 Sure.  We were talking about the powerband of a stock, unmodified head;
I as assuming proper intake, exhaust, and camshaft would be provided.

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: Re: 305 torque
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 19:33:22 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Tuesday, Jan 12 14:33:18
X-Sequence: 3392
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu


-> Yikes!  I hope not.  All I have is the run-of-the-mill hand tools.  I
-> was anticipating a notch here, a notch there, here a notch, there a
-> notch everywhere a notch notch... oh, er, sorry.  :^)

 All we used was a common garden-variety Dremel tool with a $10 pear
shaped high-speed bit.  Since you're not running aluminum rods, I doubt
you'd have to more than barely touch here and there; you might even get
off scot-free.  It's hard to make a call since the block and crank
castings *do* vary.


-> I am on a bit of a tight budget, but I don't want to compromise my
-> cam selection based on cost.  If a roller setup is what I will need
-> for a big improvement in performance, economy, driveablitiy, etc,
-> then I would rather dig up the bucks and be happy for many years.

 If you can scrounge a set of factory hydraulic rollers from the
junkyard, I'd advise running a roller cam.  The prices for the cams are
all pretty much the same.  If you have to buy all the lifters new, plus
the spring tray, then I'd say to hell with it and use a plain old $40
set of replacement hydraulic lifters.  The rollers will only give you
one or two HP max, but the reliability will be greatly improved.


-> The block is an '82
-> No adapter needed, correct?

 Nope.  The one piece rear main seals started filtering in between 1986
and 1988.  The only thing you need to do is have the main journals cut
to 2.45 and drop it in.

 BTW, this will let you use even a severely boogered crank since you're
cutting nearly 1/8 inch deep.  TRW also makes .030 and .040 undersize
rod bearings for the Chevy, so you could go to .030 and still have a
rebuild left.  There's no problem cutting that much - the journal
diameter would still be larger than the original Chevy small journal
size.


-> Sure appreciate all the inputs I am getting from you guys!  When I
-> get this all put together I will report the snags and end results to
-> the group so maybe others can benefit too.

 De nada.  I'd like to see how it comes out!
                                                                                                     

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: Re: 305 torque
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 02:58:39 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Monday, Jan 11 21:58:34
X-Sequence: 3372
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu

Eric Webb on the Hotrod List (hotrod@dixie.com) wrote:
: 
: > How about a 329 the hard way?  3.73 305 bore, and a 3.75 stroke 400
: >crank.  You'd have to have the mains cut to the standard large journal
: >diameter, but they do that all the time for 383s.  At least one company
: >is making their own 383 cranks now too.
: 
:That should do it.  You'ld probably have to relieve some metal about the base  
:the cylinder bores so that the longer throw crank doesn't whack them.  At least
: you have to do this for 350-383 conversions.

I am under the impression that this is a relatively small amount of metal to 
be removed with something like a Dremel tool or the like.  True?

:I don't remember what kind of camshaft you have or budget.  You could install a

Hadn't gotten that far.  I am rolling some ideas around with Dave in another 
thread on this group - see "Solid lifters?"

:high lift/duration hydraulic roller cam with 1.6 ratio rocker arms.  This shoul
:allow over .500 inch lifts with a mild duration cam.  If you have a computer ru
: car, you might need to swap your ECM to allow higher fuel/air ratios.  This ma

No computer, or FI.  This is going into a '77 Camaro.  I have lots of ideas/
questions about FI too but that is yet another thread.  :^)  I will be getting 
around to that when I have the bottom end planned.

:give you the torque you need for less money.  Any reputable cam maker (e.g. 
:Competition Cams) can take your requirements and translate them into a package 
:with correct springs, etc.  I'ld be curious about which combination would be 
:most cost/effective in your situation.

I will be sure to let you all know what I learn from the folks at Crane and 
Comp Cams.  Anyone else I should call?

DER

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Don Robinson    (602) 752-6466     Internet:  vlsiphx!donr@asuvax.eas.asu.edu

   ** Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer, **

----------
Posted by: emory!marble.UUCP!donr (Don Robinson)
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: 1995 Mass emissions laws
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 02:10:41 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Monday, Jan 11 21:10:38
X-Sequence: 3367
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu


Ok, I've been hearing rumors for the past few months about the new emissions
laws going into effect in MA.  From what I have been able to confirm, the only
definite is going to be wheel-dyno testing beginning in 1995 (i.e. they
will put your car on a wheel-dyno, bolt the exhaust to the exhaust machine
and run it through the gauntlet at idle, 35mph and 55mph.)  I'm curious as
to what others know.  For instance, I've heard things about them doing
away with the visual part of the emissions, and as long as it passes the dyno,
it will be legal (that's why they have a visual emissions law:  They assume
if everything is there, it must work.  With the dyno, they can show what
your car is really putting out.)

Any of you hotrodders know the real poop?  I'm curious, because I have an
'81 Z28, which I bought with the generic Cyclone headers/dual exhaust. The
exhaust has been replaced with Heddmann hedders, 2 1/2" pipes throughout, dual
cats and flowmasters (yes, it is loud.)  It passes emissions with flying
colors, but it supposedly came with an air-pump, which I don't have.
(another side question:  Did all 1981 Camaros come with air-pumps?)
That's why I'm curious	about the new laws, so I can get it ready in the
coming winters if need be...  Thanks!!!

-- Steve

   Steven T McClure     '84 GPZ 750 Turbo pilot          stm0@gte.com
GTE Government Systems         DoD #0425              
  Needham, Ma. 02194            /*  Insert standard disclaimer here. */
Beta software: 'beta than nothing, and that's usually all it is...

----------
Posted by: emory!gte.com!stm0 (Steven McClure)
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: RE: 351C trivia...
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 20:42:38 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Wednesday, Jan 06 15:42:35
X-Sequence: 3201
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu


-> I don't see where you'll lose a lot of power, unless the walls flex
-> *inward*. Flexing outward means more blow-by, but how much are we
-> talking about?

 *Any* blowby is horsepower going right out the crankcase vent.


-> the stuff done in the early 1900's is pretty amazing - multivalve
-> heads (most people think the Japanese developed them.  Hah!) etc.

 Desmodromic valves, roller lifters and rockers, aluminum blocks,
overhead cams, fuel injection, dry sumps...  the only reason it all
looks newish today is the deadly sameness of Detroit engineering from
the 1930s to 1980s.  Fifty years of the same old Detroit Wonder Metal
(cast iron), with the big whoopees being the mid '50s when everyone
finally switched from cast iron to aluminum pistons, and the mid '60s
when overhead valves finally took over.  (I had a '65 Rambler with a
flathead six!)


-> No, haven't spun bearings.  Haven't revved to 7,000+ yet, either.
-> Have you had a cylinder *poof* due to being too thin?  (OK, I'm being
-> sarcastic :))

 I've seen several cases of catastrophic cylinder wall failure and a
couple of cracked cylinders.  Lots of times when you come across an
engine that "threw a rod" and you start fitting the puzzle back
together, you find it was the cylinder wall that went first.

 Be it as it may, people like Mario Rossi and Jack Roush didn't part
with large amounts of folding money for heavy-duty Australian cylinder
blocks just to impress the guys in the pits.  Gapp & Roush were so tight
with money they ran a four door Maverick for years.  (you want a laugh?
See a four door Maverick staging against a Camaro sometime)
                                                                                              

----------
Posted by: emory!chaos.lrk.ar.us!dave.williams (Dave Williams)
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod
From: hotrod@dixie.com (The Hotrod List)
Subject: Re: 305 torque
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 93 03:07:09 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.
To: hotrod@dixie.com
Reply-To: hotrod@dixie.com
Posted-Date: Monday, Jan 11 22:07:05
X-Sequence: 3373
X-Gifs-To: met@sunset.cse.nau.edu
X-Gifs-From: ftp.nau.edu

Dave Williams on the Hotrod List (hotrod@dixie.com) wrote:
: 
:  There's a LOT of difference between Chevy blocks, but given the small
: bore I'd agree you'd have to notch the bottoms of the bores a bit.
: Since you may wind up cutting as much as a 1" wide x 3/8" deep x 1-1/2"
: long slot in a 350 with the stock crank and aluminum rods, it shouldn't
: be any major deal.  (not that you'd probably have to get that
: radical here!)  There should be no problem with the cam or oil pan rail.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^
  Yikes!  I hope not.  All I have is the run-of-the-mill hand tools.  I
  was anticipating a notch here, a notch there, here a notch, there a notch
  everywhere a notch notch... oh, er, sorry.  :^)

: EW-> I don't remember what kind of camshaft you have or budget.  You could
: EW-> install a high lift/duration hydraulic roller cam with 1.6 ratio
: EW-> rocker arms.  This shoul allow over .500 inch lifts with a mild
: EW-> duration cam.
: 
:  I don't remember him saying either, but one of the 214 to 220 degree
: hydraulic roller "computer cams" would have the short duration, low
: overlap characteristics a 4500 RPM max torque motor would want anyway.

I am on a bit of a tight budget, but I don't want to compromise my cam
selection based on cost.  If a roller setup is what I will need for a
big improvement in performance, economy, driveablitiy, etc, then I would
rather dig up the bucks and be happy for many years.

: Uuuhhhh... late 305s would have block provision for the rollers anyway,
: and Crane makes a kit to retrofit early blocks to the stock type GM
: rollers.  If this is an '86-up motor with the single piece rear seal,

The block is an '82

: he'll need a seal adapter to fit the 400 crank in, and an early style
: oil pan.  The seal adapters are about $75.

No adapter needed, correct?

:  Since I haven't started building the #(#*! flow bench yet I don't have
: any flow numbers, but the later 305 heads have really nice ports with a
: good shortside radius; they're totally different from the old style

Heads are also '82 vintage.  I can get casting numbers in the next day or
so.

: heads.  However, with the late center-bolt valve cover heads you need to
: either wallow out the center intake manifold bolt holes or use a new
: style manifold that can take the different bolt angle.

Sure appreciate all the inputs I am getting from you guys!  When I get this
all put together I will report the snags and end results to the group so
maybe others can benefit too.

DER

-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Don Robinson    (602) 752-6466     Internet:  vlsiphx!donr@asuvax.eas.asu.edu

   ** Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer, **

----------
Posted by: emory!marble.UUCP!donr (Don Robinson)
Newsgroups: alt.hotrod,wiz.hotrod