Eddie (Login EDrgr) Member from IP address 18.104.22.168
For all who follow the EMC, the new rules were just released. Jon Kaase will not be able to build a Cleveland engine next year or a Ford for that matter. WTF! I think this is a slap in the face to Kaase. I also think by the rules, it's designed to keep a FORD engine from winning. I know we have guy's on here who compete. What do you guy's think?
(Premier Login blizzardND) Forum Owner 22.214.171.124
December 12 2009, 4:37 PM
How big are the bores on your Autolite inline? Isn't a Bud Moore Mini plenum a dual plane intake?
bolt it to a set of iron 4V BOSS 302 heads and de-stroke her to 289 cu. in. it might not win ,but it might beat all the other "carburetor" engines.
this is BS I think they should just change the whole game, have all these "advertisers" supply the parts then pass them out to 5 builders and have them all build the same engine. See if anyone can out prepare the other, oh they all ready do that in NA$CAR.
a Ford starts to win they change the rules against them. Example; in Pro Stock of old they keept adding weight to the Cleveland till they were not competitive any more. In NASCRAP they added spoiler to the Fords to slow them down. Now in EM they make you switch manufactures! That's BS.
(Premier Login blizzardND) Forum Owner 126.96.36.199
so the inline is still in the game...
December 12 2009, 9:57 PM
Just to tweek 'um show up with the 850 on my above 289
1-11/16 = 1.6875 which is smaller than the rule single 4 bbl carb 1.690 venturi bore
If Carburetion used:
1) Manifold must be single-four barrel, dual-plane design, cast iron or
aluminum Manifold must be commercially available. Porting, polishing, filling, welding and/or
sizing of the interior surfaces of the intake runners and/or ports is acceptable. Sheet
metal, tunnel ram, and/or fabricated manifolds are prohibited. Modification or
welding to the exterior surface of the intake ports and/or manifold to increase port
size and/or alter port design prohibited. Filler such as epoxy is prohibited for use
in plenum area of intake manifold. Using an intake manifold that is designed and
cast for use on a different make or family of engine is prohibited. Intake manifolds
may not be drilled and tapped for additional coolant paths. Spacer or adapter plates
between the intake manifold and the cylinder head are prohibited.
Maximum thickness of gaskets used between cylinder head and intake
manifold 0.250. External bypass coolant lines prohibited.
Devices to actively manage or vary airflow inside the intake manifold or
effectively vary the intake runner length and/or plenum volume are prohibited. Intake
manifolds equipped with such systems as OEM require that such systems are
disabled in a manner which can be clearly confirmed and verified by the event tech
So where do we find a BOSS302 dual plane intake that could have to carb pad milled off and a autolite inline plate bolted on?
I like the no plates between the intake and heads, what engine might benefit from that?
For what purpose did they ban single plane intakes?
Any one know how well the Weiand dual plane intake is for the 400? can that be machined flat for an inline 4? Could the autolite feed a 400? how 'bout a Tod Block 4.125 bore 3.25 stoke 4V?
I aint giving up my first damn day on the job!
This message has been edited by blizzardND from IP address 188.8.131.52 on Dec 12, 2009 9:59 PM
USE an EFI manifold for the autolite if that is allowed. I put my Autolite when I had it on top of a 351W truck EFI manifold and it was looking like it would be pretty easy to build some sort of adapter. So go out and pick up a TFS or other good EFI intake and give that a shot. I don't know if they would allow it but it would be an arguable option. I have pictures of my test of the autolite on a EFI manifold somewhere.
>Just to tweek 'um show up with the 850 on my above 289 1-11/16 = 1.6875 which is smaller than the rule single 4 bbl carb 1.690 venturi bore
>INTAKE MANIFOLD If Carburetion used: 1) Manifold must be single-four barrel, dual-plane design, cast iron or aluminum Manifold must be commercially available.
Commercially available is a Killer. There was no such animal ever made for an an Inline.
>Porting, polishing, filling, welding and/or sizing of the interior surfaces of the intake runners and/or ports is acceptable.......So where do we find a BOSS302 dual plane intake that could have to carb pad milled off and a autolite inline plate bolted on?
Presuming the rules would allow the mod of a commercially avaible dual plane in this manner, it would be a very difficult mod. All the dual planes that I'm aware of have the shape of the two planes arranged such they can be accessed by a traditional square bore pattern. The inline is vey long and this makes it difficult to access the two planes laid out for a square bore pattern carb in primary and secondary fashion. The other thing to remember about inlines is all butterflies open simultaneously. Although the linkage is somewhat progressive, there is no primary and secondary progression of the butterflies. I did see one fellow that split the shafts allowing the end butterflies to actuate independent of the center two butterflies. He then hung a couple of vacuum Diaphragm on the outer two butterflies to actuate them independent of the inner two (which were mechanically actuated). This sat on top a Cross Boss intake which is a (massive) open plen single plane "box" type intake. Pretty clever idea (see pic below, very purdy but he needs one of my filter assemblies ). He said it worked well. I figured it may have worked "better" for street. You can get a CB intake and inline to work, but working "well" for street use compared contemporary 4-Barrels is a tall order. Both the CB and the inline live in higher rpm-ville.
What do the EM rules say about rpm?
IMO, the place for Inlines is a pair of the 9510Bs in true IR configuration. They do very well at all rpms. Dan Jones will be testing one of my IR inline setups on a stroker Cleve in the not to distant future.
Frankly, I don't understand what the EM rules are trying to accomplish but on the surface, I'd have to concede they appear to be throwing out the winners because their approach doesn't cater to the more commercially appealing sector of the automotive world. I would stop short of stating new tech can't compete with the old tech, but it certainly appears that EM have concluded such with the rules exclusions.
This message has been edited by kcoffield from IP address 184.108.40.206 on Dec 13, 2009 9:28 AM This message has been edited by kcoffield from IP address 220.127.116.11 on Dec 13, 2009 9:26 AM This message has been edited by kcoffield from IP address 18.104.22.168 on Dec 13, 2009 9:25 AM
I corresponded with him a few years ago but lost track of him.
I'd like to know how it runs. Have you ridden in it?
Isolating the center two barrels should provide a fairly strong signal to the center two boosters helping to somewhat negate the lag and low rpm stumble introduced by the large plenum of the Cross Boss. Not sure what he did about the accelerator pumps as there is a seperate diaphragm and shooter for each barrel that are all mechanically coupled together in stock configuration. If he left all four coupled to the mechanically actuated primaries (which I suspect he did), this probably works best because I doubt the diaphragms have enough oomph to actuate the pumps as this is better left to mechanical linkage. However this method would still potentially charge the secondaries with an accelerator pump shot when the secondary butterflies were not open but depends somewhat upon where he has the diaphrams set to open. Maybe not be a big deal as it would just more gradually get sucked around the butterflies anyway.
This message has been edited by kcoffield from IP address 22.214.171.124 on Dec 13, 2009 10:50 AM
Yes Kelly, I've ridden in it lots of times. The center 2 barrels are mechanical. The 2 end barrels are vacuum completley separate from the center ones. Took a lot of tweaking with the end vacuum "secondaries" to get it to work correctly. But it does (did) run good and idled nice. I say did because he is doing the car over again. We just finished the short block (now 328 CI) TLSR cam and new CHI 4V heads. So will have to tweak the carb again when we get it running. You can e-mail me coupe3w@aoldotcom. and I can give you his e-mail address if you want.
for Kaase to try his luck with a Poncho again, or go Buick, MoPar or AMC. I think he is about the best America has to offer with American V8s, so I'm interested to see if he can choose something of a different brand as off-the-wall as his previous 385 entry was, and give those Ford (or Kaase) haters a nice, thick s**t sandwich to eat.
Meanwhile, it does also open the door for some other people (MME, Scotty J., Barry R., etcetera) to pick up the torch and show 'em that the only way to really defeat some historically and currently mean and nasty mechanical devices is to completely legislate them out of competition. They've come to that crossroad before and taken it, but, so far, at least, the 335 road is not closed.
"If you're under control, you're not going fast enough." ---Parnelli Jones on Trans Am racing.
This message has been edited by 351CRanger from IP address 126.96.36.199 on Dec 13, 2009 3:37 PM
"I like all the new rules. The changing brands rule is for the magazine and its readers. This year, the same engine won, with little changes from last year. It would make for a repeat teardown article and front cover shot. Not very good for news stand sales. It would have been much better for the magazine if Bischoff's LS had won. It will be either an Olds or Chevy or small Dodge for us next year. ..... Kaase"
Well I guess someone else has to step and win with the Cleveland or at the very least a Ford engine.