|
By Joe-JDC - 5 Years Ago
|
|
Rules are posted at: https://www.hotrod.com/events/engine-masters-challenge/ Joe-JDC
|
|
By charliemccraney - 5 Years Ago
|
Cool. Looks like they want to get more stuff involved than the Y-Blocks, MEL's and Poly's.
The OEM head rule seems ambiguous. Like would a vortec head be accepted as oem for a 60s sbc?
|
|
By Cliff - 5 Years Ago
|
|
These don't look Y Block friendly
|
|
By Joe-JDC - 5 Years Ago
|
After looking at the rules a couple of times, it seems they are trying to be rid of the Y Block, but if someone were to attempt it, I believe a well thought out engine could still be competitive at the 10.5 compression ratio and .550" camshaft lift. The Y Block heads I have ported these last several years are very competitive in flow with just about all the original iron heads before '69 model year. And the flow at .550" will not be significantly better with the best SBC 327/350 head with 2.020" intake valve if they use the correct pre'69 heads. Where they are better is the intake manifolds, and header selection, and crankshaft stroker kits. Still a good Y Block could be interesting if they would allow it. Joe-JDC
|
|
By charliemccraney - 5 Years Ago
|
|
I don't think stroker kits would help as much since stroke is limited to a 10% change.
|
|
By Cliff - 5 Years Ago
|
|
I wonder if a 471 blower manifold could be made to fit the rules with a single 4bbl?
|
|
By Joe-JDC - 5 Years Ago
|
charliemccraney (1/10/2019)
I don't think stroker kits would help as much since stroke is limited to a 10% change.
I believe stroke of 3.760" or so with a 312 crankshaft would be an acceptable torque producer for Y, and if a person could use a 3.860-3.864" bore, as a 312 would be allowed, then 113, or -G heads fully ported without any tubes or welding and use 2.000" intake with 5/16" stems and 1.540" exhaust with 5/16" stems, BT or Mummert intake, FPA headers, and .550' camshaft ground on 106 ICL, it could be decent in the hp/cubic inch and torque. Any more ideas? Joe-JDC
|
|
By charliemccraney - 5 Years Ago
|
I see another thing in their rules that needs clarification. For the engine block, they state that it must have the oem main bore diameter but for the crankshaft, they state that any journal diameter is permitted. If the block must match oem, and a 312 is claimed, then it has to have the larger mains. Probably not a huge compromise considering the ci increase vs frictional loss from the larger bearings compared to an engine claimed as a 292. If the crankshaft rule holds then it can be claimed as a 312 but have 292 mains, even better.
For rocker arms, do any aftermarket rockers match the NHRA stock eliminator rule for a Y? What exactly does that mean?
|
|
By LordMrFord - 5 Years Ago
|
"Due to the EU’s Global Data Protection Regulation, our website is currently unavailable to visitors from most European countries. We apologize for this inconvenience and encourage you to visit www.motortrend.com for the latest on new cars, car reviews and news, concept cars and auto show coverage, awards and much more."
Nice to live in European(soviet) Union.
>(
|
|
By yalincoln - 5 Years Ago
|
|
I see they are eliminateing the mel engine, no intake! the y-block should still be a good competitor! it will be great to see how the y-block stands up against the sbc! I don't think they can make enough hp to make up for there lack in torque! I see they did give them 7000rpm. and they handycapped the y-block with cu in! good luck guys! I hope you have better luck this year!
|
|
By charliemccraney - 5 Years Ago
|
Displacement is not so much of an advantage given the way they score the engines. However, even if they did not have the bore and stroke limits, like previous years, an sbc can still be much bigger so allowing for that would not necessarily help, either. The rules can't favor one engine, it's all or none.
Under previous years' nearly unlimited rules, a Y would not stand a chance against an sbc, which is why it's good that there are limits this year, to help level the playing field since more modernly developed engines are allowed.
An sbc has an advantage for intakes, headers and possibly heads - Joe might have a better idea about that - depending on what is accepted as "factory." Like it or hate it, the reality is that a sbc or some other mainstream engine could dominate since they are now accepted. That's just the advantage of decades (half a century) of continuous development.
|
|
By Joe-JDC - 5 Years Ago
|
|
The largest sbc allowable under the rules would be a '67-68 350 which would be 3.480" + .348" offset stroke for 3.828" stroke, and 4.065" bore or 397.442 or 398 cubic inches. A 292 with 3.330 + .330 =3.660" stroke, and 3.815" bore would give 334.696 or 335 cubic inches possible. A 312 with 3.440 stroke + .344" would be 3,784" and bore of 3.865" would give 355.165 or 356 cubic inches. With the heads available before 1968, There isn't a lot of advantage with the sbc head and .550" lift camshaft. I don't think they will be able to flow huge numbers and fit the cylinder heads required for the competition. Of course, each of these engines are hypothetical, and a builder would not push the limits on both the stroke and bore, because a simple measuring error could disqualify an entry, so I would probably be looking at 329-330 cubic inches for the Y if I were to build one for this year's competition. Finding a good crankshaft that can be offset ground the maximum of 3.660" will be difficult at best. The rest should be fairly straight forward with good machining work and blueprinting. It will come down to intake manifold and camshaft selection to make the difference in horsepower/cubic inch and torque/cubic inch for the competition. Since the intake can be 7" tall, spacers could be used to help with any deficiency in manifold selection for the Y. There will be some heavy hitters in the Big Block category, and if the small blocks can get their friction and weight down, they should be more than competitive in my opinion. Joe-JDC
|
|
By PF Arcand - 5 Years Ago
|
Fuel quality was a big problem this last EMC. What is the situation coming up?.. Too bad that the SBC is allowed, cause it's had Billions of $$ spent on it by the factory & aftermarket & millions of hours of development also. To ask lesser developed or orphan engines to compete with that is just ridiculous!. But, then it's Hot Rod you're dealing with, so it's not a big surprise..
|
|
By Ted - 5 Years Ago
|
The ‘Early Iron’ rules for this year are well written and very concise. Someone in the back ground put a lot of thought into them. Comments made last year on how to proceed forward with the class were heard and the ‘Early Iron’ class has been updated accordingly. With the new rules, I expect to see an increased diversity of engines entered.
With how the current rules are written, I still think that the Y will outscore the SBC engines. The Y had no problem besting the LS series of engines in the past when put head to head with them so I don’t see a problem with a iron headed Y up against any oem iron headed SBC. Much of the unorthodox thinking that made its way into past vintage class engine builds has been eliminated but as rules go, I’m sure there are still some loop holes to be found.
For this year, oem iron heads and oem rocker arms are required and that by itself levels the playing field at least between these two families of engines (Y vs SBC). The new players in this class would be the various Ford, GM, Mopar, and AMC big block engines with the BBC engines (IMO) having a clear advantage. I’ll not discount some of the other small block entries but the big blocks may have an advantage this year simply due to some of the better flowing heads that were available from the factory for those engines.
The fuel being used is yet to be determined but with the compression ratio now limited to 10.5:1 for all entries in the ‘Early Iron’ class, that should not pose much of a problem even if ‘swamp gas’ is used again.
|
|
By Joe-JDC - 5 Years Ago
|
|
Well, it looks like some changes in the rules are in the works. Only 7 months to go! The 10% stroke increase should read .010" increase allowed. That is ten thousandths, not ten percent. Big difference. All early iron competes in same class, no distinction between small blocks and big blocks. Must use heads from factory for same factory block. 292 heads on 292 block, 312 heads on 312 block, etc. Was contemplating another Y Block build, but looks doubtful now, the largest 292 would be 303ci, 312 would be 324ci. The SBC can use a 350 from '67-'68. Joe-JDC
|
|
By Cliff - 5 Years Ago
|
|
Wouldn't the smaller engine make the heads look bigger? that's why I built my dragster motor so small.
|
|
By Joe-JDC - 5 Years Ago
|
|
Some folks tend to think this, but in reality, a head is capable of flowing x amount of air and fuel at maximum valve lift. With a small cylinder pulling/giving a smaller atmosphere displacement volume, then you are not taking full advantage of the capability unless you can spin the air pump fast enough to reach maximum flow. If you have a head that flows 230 cfm, theoretically it is capable of supporting at least 473 hp. If you have a 292 cubic inch engine, it will need to make 1.62 hp/ci to reach that goal. If you have a 338 cubic inch Y with those same heads, then it will only need to make 1.4 hp/ci which is a lot easier to do. Some time ago Engine Masters did a segment on You Tube using a 410 cubic inch 351W stroker engine and installed three sets of heads to see if your theory is correct. They did the tests back to back with 165 cc/190 cc/220 cc heads, and the results were fascinating. You would think a 410 cubic inch engine would starve for air with 165 cc heads, but they equaled the 220 cc heads and had better torque. The 190 cc heads were slightly better, but less than single digits difference. "The more I learn, the more questions I have!" I believe Ted finally came close to maximizing a set of Mummert heads with his EMC engine, but was handicapped with only ~.630" lift on his camshaft. Would be very interesting to build that engine again with .700" lift camshaft. I intend to rebuild my engine with a camshaft that will give me at least .690" lift at the valve and see if the heads are the limiting factor, or the manifold is the bottleneck. Joe-JDC
|
|
By Joe-JDC - 5 Years Ago
|
|
Updated rules posted on Hot Rod Engine Masters Challenge web site. Called Early Iron now. Joe-JDC
|
|
By RB - 5 Years Ago
|
Ted any thoughts after the new rpm rules have been posted? Long stoke for low rpm torque looks less important when you can start a pull at 4200.
There must be some thoughts that really small motors have an advantage as I see there is a 10% penalty for engines under 250 inches.. The 58 and older engines can use a manifold from another engine family which keeps the MEL and Lincoln Y legal, but not necessarily competitive
|
|
By charliemccraney - 5 Years Ago
|
|
The main journal contradiction is not fixed. The block must use oem main bore but the crank can have any journal diameter.
|
|
By Ted - 5 Years Ago
|
charliemccraney (2/10/2019)
The main journal contradiction is not fixed. The block must use oem main bore but the crank can have any journal diameter.
Simply means you can turn the crankshaft mains down as far as you want assuming you can get the bearings to fit both the oem main bores and the crankshaft main journals. For the GM guys, it means you can potentially run bearing spacers or extra thick bearings made specifically for running small journal crankshafts in large main bore blocks. While I wouldn’t go there myself, that rule leaves it open to run a 292 sized main in a 312 block assuming you can use a bearing spacer or extra thick bearing to make that happen. Joe and I have discussed some of the possibilities this opens up.
|
|
By pegleg - 5 Years Ago
|
Charlie, I'm not sure they'd know what the journal sizes are on a 312. You should be allowed to claim a stroked 292 + 10% and use the 312 crank in that. With the mains cut to 292 size.
|
|
By Joe-JDC - 5 Years Ago
|
|
The guys that tear down the winning engines and inspect them are die-hard racers with years of experience, and checking main bore size will be an issue, since it is mentioned in the rules. I will not be a part of any build that I know beforehand is not within the rules. Also, the stroke increase is only .015", not enough to make a great amount of difference when you do the math. Some things are just much more simple to follow proven blueprinting techniques, and assemble the best Y Block you can with the rules posted. Everyone is subject to the same inspection upon tear-down, and to be found illegal would get you banned from participation and ruin your reputation. I think it is more fun to build a so called "underdog" engine and win than it is to go there with the most popular magazine selling engine.(LS, sbc) Joe-JDC
|
|
By charliemccraney - 5 Years Ago
|
|
So conceivably, a 312 could be built with main bearing spacers and a 292 crank offset ground to 312 stroke to keep bearing friction down.
|
|
By Joe-JDC - 5 Years Ago
|
|
I personally would not attempt that until the question was asked the EMC question line, and got a positive answer back in writing in form of e-mail. As Ted mentioned, there are some sbc that do have spacers available. Just an added place for a problem to bite you and cost a lot of money if it fails. I do know there were problems with the sbc at one time losing bearings with the spacers. Joe-JDC
|
|
By charliemccraney - 5 Years Ago
|
|
Are custom bearings an option, thick enough to make up the difference without spacers?
|
|
By Ted - 5 Years Ago
|
charliemccraney (2/15/2019)
Are custom bearings an option, thick enough to make up the difference without spacers?
That’s a yes for that.
A 312 build would be on the order of 324 cubic inches. The 292 build being looked at as a possible contender would be a claimed 303 cubic inches. Both of these combinations use a 0.014” increase in stroke and 0.060” overbores. Not really looking at the 312 combination for a number of reasons. Cam tunnel bore alignment issues in many of the early 312 blocks comes to the forefront while the use of bearing spacers or a custom bearing on the mains is a not anywhere near the top of the “Let’s do this” list.
Some quick math calculates a reduction of 2” of main bearing travel for each crankshaft revolution for the 292 engines versus the 312 engines. That’s a 5% reduction in bearing travel or speed for the 292 mains. That simply equates to more power potential for the 292 sized mains vs 312 sized mains when all other factors are equal; dyno testing shows this being a six horsepower difference. This corresponds to what one of the retired Ford engineers said when he mentioned “Four barrel carburetors were not installed on the 1957 292’s so that the 312’s would not be in a position to be outrun by a 292. Lessons were learned from the 1956 model year where both the 292 and 312 engines had 4V carbs”.
|