|
|
Post by Toymaker on Jul 8, 2010 13:07:51 GMT -5
THIS ONLY APPLIES TO EAGLE FIELD RACES
I'm in an uncomfortable position but the decision had to be made. HA/GR (HAMB Gas Rail) engines must have been available in a 1961 or earlier Production model automobiles to be considered a HA/GR Dragster powerplant. HAMB "STYLE" Dragsters with later style engines are welcomed, encouraged, begged, pleaded and wanted to join the fun at Eagle Field but the Eagle Field HA/GR award will go to a Rule complying car. HA/GR style cars built with non-complying engines are welcomed to mix it up and run for FUN with the HA/GRs with all cars racing every round but the the HA/GR final round at Eagle Field will not have an engine that was not available in a 1961 or earlier production model automoble. Rocky
|
|
|
|
Post by ex hamb guy on Aug 13, 2010 18:49:38 GMT -5
Toy Maker
My personal thoughts on this HAMB class will never get off the ground in California. Your rules are killing interest. I had a car started. I had a brand new chassis built. Had collected allot of parts, including a couple Chevy Six motors. I was excited about running a Hamb car. Then the more I heard and read about some of you rules made me loose interest so I sold it. I know of about 5 others that have done the same. The guy I sold my stuff to has now sold it. He had a 63 chevy six and was told he could not use it. Whats the horse power difference between a 62 and a 63. You are killing the HAMB class here. Who cares what the farm boys in Nebraska say. Who on the west coast are going to travel that far. I know you will pay no attention to what Ive said. Good Luck
|
|
|
|
Post by hamb on Aug 13, 2010 19:24:40 GMT -5
Toy Maker My personal thoughts on this HAMB class will never get off the ground in California. Your rules are killing interest. I had a car started. I had a brand new chassis built. Had collected allot of parts, including a couple Chevy Six motors. I was excited about running a Hamb car. Then the more I heard and read about some of you rules made me loose interest so I sold it. I know of about 5 others that have done the same. The guy I sold my stuff to has now sold it. He had a 63 chevy six and was told he could not use it. Whats the horse power difference between a 62 and a 63. You are killing the HAMB class here. Who cares what the farm boys in Nebraska say. Who on the west coast are going to travel that far. I know you will pay no attention to what Ive said. Good Luck It seems to me that you are self centered with one train though. if the nhra said you had to use a certain year motor you would not question it , What you might not know is the HA/GA is for people that want to run this class not for cry baby's. so take your marbles and go home. |
|
|
|
Post by Toymaker on Aug 13, 2010 22:31:51 GMT -5
Toy Maker My personal thoughts on this HAMB class will never get off the ground in California. Your rules are killing interest. I had a car started. I had a brand new chassis built. Had collected allot of parts, including a couple Chevy Six motors. I was excited about running a Hamb car. Then the more I heard and read about some of you rules made me loose interest so I sold it. I know of about 5 others that have done the same. The guy I sold my stuff to has now sold it. He had a 63 chevy six and was told he could not use it. Whats the horse power difference between a 62 and a 63. You are killing the HAMB class here. Who cares what the farm boys in Nebraska say. Who on the west coast are going to travel that far. I know you will pay no attention to what Ive said. Good Luck The decision I made was ONLY for our little race at Eagle Field, protecting those who understood the pre-62 rule (I wish it was worded 1961 and earlier) and built their car (we are up to 7) accordingly to race heads up. There is plenty of room in ANRA's Open Wheel class for any engine or transmision. Rocky |
|
|
|
Post by old6rodder on Aug 14, 2010 1:46:46 GMT -5
Toy Maker My personal thoughts on this HAMB class will never get off the ground in California. Your rules are killing interest. I had a car started. I had a brand new chassis built. Had collected allot of parts, including a couple Chevy Six motors. I was excited about running a Hamb car. Then the more I heard and read about some of you rules made me loose interest so I sold it. I know of about 5 others that have done the same. The guy I sold my stuff to has now sold it. He had a 63 chevy six and was told he could not use it. Whats the horse power difference between a 62 and a 63. You are killing the HAMB class here. Who cares what the farm boys in Nebraska say. Who on the west coast are going to travel that far. I know you will pay no attention to what Ive said. Good Luck That's funny, I could swear we're still alive and racing (or in my case breaking parts  ) at six meets, fitted into existing classes, and as our own show at two more. We have two more cars this year, with more being finished. We're certainly not "exploding" (nor do we wish to), but even with a late start we are growing steadily. Doing so in the face of a near vacuum of 1/4 mile strips (none independant) and folks trying to change us to suit themselves. Yeah, I guess we're just plain old mule headed about it, but perhaps we're not just out to be a fad. |
|
|
|
Post by ex hamb guy on Aug 14, 2010 19:53:48 GMT -5
Just the kind of replies I expected. Oh by the way I have picked up my marbles and left. Sounds like a bunch of guys with their heads buried in the sand. Once again, good luck.
Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
OH no one answered my question about the difference between a 62 and a 63.. There are allot more questions but I know Id get more to the same replies. Bye Bye boys
|
|
|
|
Post by Toymaker on Aug 14, 2010 20:36:07 GMT -5
Just the kind of replies I expected. Oh by the way I have picked up my marbles and left. Sounds like a bunch of guys with their heads buried in the sand. Once again, good luck. Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OH no one answered my question about the difference between a 62 and a 63.. There are allot more questions but I know Id get more to the same replies. Bye Bye boys It's irrelevant, the rules say PRE-62 which means 1961 and earlier. 1962 was the 3rd gen Chevy 6 which look the same to me (without educating myself) up to a 250, you could of kept your car, started a group of like minded builders and ran Open Wheel until there were enough of you to start a class. I personally don't see us ever getting a heads-up class at ANRA, MAYBE at best a handicapped category for cars built like the HAMB dragster (street tires, 12 seconds and slower etc) which you could of fit right in while racing OPEN WHEEL. Rocky |
|
|
|
Post by old6rodder on Aug 14, 2010 22:35:36 GMT -5
Just the kind of replies I expected. Oh by the way I have picked up my marbles and left. Sounds like a bunch of guys with their heads buried in the sand. Once again, good luck. Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee OH no one answered my question about the difference between a 62 and a 63.. There are allot more questions but I know Id get more to the same replies. Bye Bye boys OK, you have your excuse in hand, that seems to suit your purpose (and I'm glad you still have your marbles). Just because you assume a point doesn't require someone else to accept your assumption. Using your given rational, anything with an equivelant HP should be acceptable to represent 1950s drag racing. Your question wasn't answered specifically as it's already been addressed ad infinitum in the proper venue for that; HA/GR on the HAMB. The answer is exactly what you don't want to hear; that the question's irrelevant to the rule. But then, you've left, and won't see this to respond. Right? |
|
|
|
Post by JR Van Osten on Aug 14, 2010 22:37:03 GMT -5
Funny stuff here, why again was it pre '62? Is there a factual basis for that cut off year? Just curious....
|
|
|
|
Post by JR Van Osten on Aug 14, 2010 22:44:34 GMT -5
For what it's worth:
1937
The next-generation Chevrolet inline 6 was introduced in 1937 and phased out in 1963. Both were also shared with Chevrolet's trucks.
216
This engine displaced 216-cubic-inch (3.5 L) with a 3.5 in (88.9 mm) bore and the a 3.75 in (95.25 mm) stroke. A four-bearing crankshaft was added, along with 6.5:1 compression pistons, for 85 hp (63 kW). A new cylinder head in 1941 bumped output to 90 hp (67 kW), and 6.6:1 compression gave the 1949 model 92 hp (69 kW). This generation did not use a fully pressurized oiling system.The connecting rods were oiled using an "oil trough" built into the oil pan that had spray nozzles that squirted a stream of oil that the connecting rods (which were equipped with dippers) caught on the fly and supplied the necessary oil for the rod bearings
235
In 1941, a 235-cubic-inch version of the 216 engine was introduced for use in large trucks. This engine also had a "dipper system" as described above, in reference to the oiling system, as in the 216.
The 235-cubic-inch (3.9 L) version was added to cars in 1950 to complement the new Powerglide automatic transmission, and 3.55:1 rear differential. Hydraulic lifters were used in the Powerglide 235 and a fully pressurized lubrication system was introduced in 1953, but only in cars ordered with the "Powerglide" transmission. The 216-cubic-inch (3.5 L) continued to be standard powerplant for cars with the 3 speed manual transmission until 1954 when the 235-cubic-inch (3.9 L) became the standard powerplant on all its cars. Two versions were used in 1954 cars - a solid-lifter version with 123 hp (92 kW) for standard transmissions and the hydraulic-lifter 136 hp (101 kW) version (The Blueflame) for Powerglide use.
From 1954 to 1962, the high-pressure 235-cubic-inch engine with mechanical valve lifters was used in trucks. From 1956-1962, all 235-cubic-inch engines used in cars had hydraulic lifters.
It is interesting to note that the original 1953 Corvette engine was the high-pressure 235-cubic-inch engine equipped with mechanical lifters. A 150 hp 235 engine was used in the 1954 Corvette and into 1955 (until they were all sold). The Corvette 235 was equipped with the same high-lift camshaft as used in the 261 truck engine and used triple side draft, single barrel, Carter Model YH carburetors mated to a PowerGlide transmission and dual exhaust manifold.
The Chevrolet 235-cubic-inch is known today as one the great Chevrolet engines, noted for its power and durability.
261
In 1954, a 261-cubic-inch (4.3 L) truck engine was introduced as an optional Jobmaster engine for heavy-duty trucks. This engine was very similar to the 235 engine, except for a larger piston bore, two extra coolant holes (in the block and head) between three paired (siamesed) cylinders, and a higher-lift camshaft. The 261 USA truck engine had mechanical lifters and was available from 1954-62. In 1963, the 261 truck engines was available in 4x4 Chevrolet trucks (until the engines sold out).
The 235 and 261 truck engines were also used by GMC Truck of Canada (GMC truck 6-cylinder engines were also used in Canada). The 1955-1962 Canadian full-size Pontiac car had an optional 261-cubic-inch engine that had hydraulic lifters. This engine was not sold in the USA but was very similar to the USA truck 261.
Generation 3
Third Generation Type inline-6
Production 1962 - 1988
Bore 3.563 in (90.5 mm)
3.875 in (98.4 mm)
3.875 in (98.4 mm)
3.875 in (98.4 mm)
Stroke 3.250 in (82.6 mm)
3.250 in (82.6 mm)
3.530 in (89.7 mm)
4.120 in (104.6 mm)
Displacement 194 cu in (3.2 L)
230 cu in (3.8 L)
250 cu in (4.1 L)
292 cu in (4.8 L)
Length 32.5 in (830 mm)
Valvetrain OHV
Chevrolet's third-generation inline-6 was introduced in 1962 (two years after rival Chrysler introduced its Slant Six) and produced through 1988. This generation was lighter in mass although the dimension were similar to the previous generation Stovebolts - the difference between the Stovebolt and the third generation sixes is the cast-in Chevrolet V8 bell housing pattern (similar to Chevrolet small block, big blocks, and the W-series). With the addition of the bellhousing redesign - transmission bellhousings (for manual transmissions) and automatics between Chevrolet V8s and sixes are interchangeable - this also includes the starter motors between both engines.
There are a few differences - the harmonic balancer received cast-in pulley provisions (for air-conditioned vehicles, a stamped steel pulley was bolted up front), and the rocker arm ratio is close to the one used in the Chevrolet GEN IV big block (1.75:1 ratio).
Although still considered a truck motor, the first usage was in the newly-introduced 1962 Chevy II; the following year, Chevrolet passenger cars (alongside Checker Marathons since 1965) used this powerplant until 1977 (1979 for Camaros, Novas, and Full Size Chevys). Chevrolet/GMC trucks, which previously used the Stovebolts (235 and 261), also used some members of this family from 1963 through 1984, as did Pontiac in 1964 and 1965. There was also a inline-4 version of this engine.
By the mid-1970s, the compact V-design (e.g. Buick 231) led to the phaseout of inline sixes in passenger cars where the inline six continued for usage in trucks and vans until 1988. It is common to find a Buick 3.8 and/or Chevrolet 4.3 in a mid-1980s GM RWD passenger cars with an elongated fan shroud since the motor's positioning is farther back than the inline six.
Overseas, the third-generation of the inline six was mass produced in Brazil. It was used at the Chevrolet Opala from 1969 (230) to 1992 (250). It was already used in light trucks as the A and Chevrolet Veraneio (this also includes the Brazilian version of the GMT400 - the Brazilian Chevrolet Silverado is powered with a 4.1 instead of the Vortec 4300). It was already converted for marine usage by Volvo Penta (the 4 cylinder version, the 151 was converted too), at stationary applications (power generation) and at Clark Forklifts.
153
The 153-cubic-inch (2.5 L) 153 was a straight-4 version of the family and was only used by Chevrolet with the entry-level Chevy II/Nova. Usage of the 153 lasted until 1970 when the inline six was made the base powerplant with the Chevy II/Nova (buyers opted for the inline sixes - the 230 or 250); currently, descendants of the 153 are used with industrial (forklifts or generators) or marine applications. A later variant of the 153, the 181, used the bore/stroke of the 250. The 181 (branded by GM as the Vortec 3000 for marine or industrial usage) was not installed in passenger cars.
This engine is entirely different from the later 151-cubic-inch (2.5 L) Iron Duke, but the two are often confused today. That name was never used for this engine when it was produced.
Applications:
1962-1969 Chevy II
1967-1971 Postal Jeep
1968-1992 Chevrolet Opala (Brasil)
194
The 194-cubic-inch (3.2 L) 194 was shared between Chevrolet and GMC trucks.
Applications:
1962-1967 Chevy II
1964-1967 Chevrolet Chevelle
1965-1966 Studebaker Commander, Daytona ('66 only), Cruiser and Wagonaire (built by McKinnon Industries in Canada)
215
Pontiac's 215 (1964-1965) is documented elsewhere.
230
The 230 REplaced 235 cubic inches (3.9 L). It was also used by Chevrolet and GMC trucks. It produced 140 hp (100 kW). This engine was used on the following vehicles:
1964 Chevrolet Chevelle
1965-1968 Checker Marathon
1965 Chevrolet El Camino
1966-1970 Chevrolet Nova
1966 Studebaker Commander, Wagonaire, Daytona and Cruiser
1967 Chevrolet Chevelle
1967 Chevrolet Camaro
1968 Chevrolet Chevelle Malibu
1969 Chevrolet Camaro
1969 Chevrolet Chevelle
3.8
The Pontiac 3.8 was a special SOHC version of the standard 230-cubic-inch (3.8 L) I6. An optional W53 version on the Firebird produced 215 hp (160 kW).
This engine was used on the following vehicles:
1967 Pontiac Firebird
1967 Pontiac Tempest Sprint coupe
250
The stroked 250 version produced 145 hp (108 kW) for Chevrolet and GMC. Between 1975 - 1984, an integrated cylinder head was produced, with one-barrel intakes for passenger cars, and two-barrel intakes for trucks after 1978.
During the mid-1970s, the Buick 231 and Chevrolet V6-90 (basically a variant of the Chevrolet small block V8) was replacing the Chevrolet 250 for use in passenger cars and light duty trucks/vans. Passenger car use of the 250-cubic-inch (4.1 L) engine was discontinued after the 1979 model year since the six was restricted to light truck usage (the 4.1 was discontinued after 1984 where the 4.3 V6 became the base motor). It would be GM's final inline six (along with the Chevrolet 292) until the introduction of the GM Atlas engine in late 2001.
This engine was used on the following vehicles:
1966-1984 Chevrolet (passenger cars to 1979, trucks/vans to 1984)
1968-1976 Pontiac Firebird
1968-1970 Pontiac Tempest
1968-1976 Pontiac LeMans
1968-1969 Buick Special
1968-1972 Oldsmobile F-85
1975-1976 Oldsmobile Cutlass
1971-1974 Pontiac Ventura
1968-1971 Buick Skylark
1968-1979 Chevrolet Camaro
1969-1979 Checker Marathon
1968-1992 Chevrolet Opala (Brasil)
|
|
|
|
Post by old6rodder on Aug 14, 2010 23:01:00 GMT -5
Funny stuff here, why again was it pre '62? Is there a factual basis for that cut off year? Just curious.... Yep, there is, it takes but a minute to describe. The class is meant to represent and enjoy drag racing of the late '40s and early '50s, with Dick Kraft's "Bug" as the poster child. Early attempts at what were called "rail jobs" for their use of actual frame rails (and little else). Home built, back yard engineered, used parts, whatever was to hand, and however it could be done is the order of the day. The one item impossible to duplicate is the cost of the original equipment. Thus, rules were devised to allow newer equipment that fairly represents the technologies of the era but is more available and cheaper than the "real stuff" has become. There in lies the fun & games. The pre-62 engine cut was chosen as a reasonable compromise between availability and technical advances not representative of the era. There are arguments that can be made for several exceptions to the rule, but as yet most have been made for the wrong reasons and/or with the wrong intent. The first version 194 Chev was one that had some merit. However it unfortunately leads all too often to wanting later engines in the series, engines that have other advances not fairly representative of the era. The consensus to date is that the first 194, while being a good deal, opens the flood gates to it's later brethren, not readily told apart. There are too many who'd either not understand or, more likely, would intentionally game the rule. Unfortunately, this one's a case of "would be nice, but ......". |
|
|
|
Post by Toymaker on Aug 14, 2010 23:08:23 GMT -5
Funny stuff here, why again was it pre '62? Is there a factual basis for that cut off year? Just curious.... Good question, I didn't write the rules, Old6 can tell us the HAMB original reason I'm sure. All I know is there is a growing group who run at Eagle Field and they have built their cars along the rules on the HAMB board, it would be unfair to them to change them now PLUS I welcomed everyone to join us, just NOT for the COVETED ;D (I'm kidding) HAMB Dragster Trophy. Thanks for the info about the Chevy 6, Rocky |
|
|
|
Post by JR Van Osten on Aug 14, 2010 23:13:02 GMT -5
So someone could run a 235 with a powerglide?
|
|
|
|
Post by old6rodder on Aug 14, 2010 23:14:01 GMT -5
[/quote] There is a growing group who run at Eagle Field and they have built their cars along the rules on the HAMB board, it would be unfair to them to change them now PLUS I welcomed everyone to join us, just NOT for the COVETED ;D (I'm kidding) HAMB Dragster Trophy. Thanks for the info about the Chevy 6, Rocky[/quote] I covet it .......  |
|
|
|
Post by old6rodder on Aug 14, 2010 23:16:15 GMT -5
So someone could run a 235 with a powerglide? Sorry, no slushpumps, they just weren't seen at strips then. Too expensive for rodders then, and too weak as well. They wouldn't be reliable behind horsepower for another few years. Besides, you're talking about a '50s, 200 lb, cast iron, two speed Powerglide, not the modern one. ;D |
|
) at six meets, fitted into existing classes, and as our own show at two more. We have two more cars this year, with more being finished.