|
![]() |
#11 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Conway, AR
Posts: 1,739
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
I had never heard the theory about the Wiilys's deck lid aerodynamics, nose-down attitude, and rear-end "lift," but it makes all kinds of sense, when you think about it. Maybe a good thing that your car wasn't a little faster! LOL! DualRange Hydros had a 3.81 first gear in the generic transmissions,but in the last year this transmission was used in passenger cars, strangely, the '56 Pontiacs that had that transmission utilized a 1.55 front planetary instead if the time-honored 1.45, which accomplished a couple of things: Since the power flows from the crank flange, through the torus cover, into the transmission and through the front planetary unit BEFORE it goes forward to the fluid coupling, it both raises the stall speed AND produces a deeper first gear (about 7-percent) of 4.07:1. Maybe that's what that tail-dragging Gasser had???? The '56 Pontiacs also had a needle-bearing pilot bearing in the back of the crank to support the input shaft... the only such application of that, that I ever saw on a hydro. I have no experience with military hardware, but I know that the G.M.C. six-by's had a modified Dual Range Hydro with a built-in "LOW RANGE" on the bottom of the case. But, I digress... My point of all that verbiage was to point out that the whole drivetrain thing (as regards the slide into Funny Cars,) was a study in evolution, with the Gassers leading the way. Before Pitman-Edwards showed the way, you couldn't FIND an automatic on a drag strip. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who remembers that. ![]()
__________________
Bill Last edited by bill dedman; 12-27-2010 at 02:08 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#13 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Conway, AR
Posts: 1,739
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
We built a Chevy powered Henry J in 1962, thinking it would make a good Gasser. The only thing we didn't realize was that that particular brand of car has the body shoved forward on the chassis SO FAR, that when you position the engine on the chassis with a 10% setback, the number one sparkplug is now directly below the base of the windshield, putting the entire engine behind the firewall. This necessites constructing an all-encompassing engine cover. What a hassle... Thanks for your comments,Rich!
__________________
Bill Last edited by bill dedman; 12-27-2010 at 02:22 PM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Northern New Jersey suburbs
Posts: 2,296
Likes: 25
Liked 531 Times in 208 Posts
|
![]()
Bill your a few years older than me so you have more years and changes to cover from the early days.
I went to the racetrack for the first time in about 1962 or 1963. I convinced my father and mother on a sunday drive to go down the entry road to Island Dragway. I went "crazy" when I saw the cars racing and it must have warped my brain! I had no drivers license or a car for a couple years and tried to get older friends who did to pick me up and get back there. By 1966 I was racing all the time and was fortunate to see a heck of a lot of development in the sport first hand......I tell people today.....We just never knew what we were going to see when we went racing as cars and classes were developing and the sport was rapidly changing......Easily the best era......mid 60's to early 70's......
__________________
Rich Biebel S/C 1479 Stock 147R |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Conway, AR
Posts: 1,739
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
|
![]()
THAT is a funny photo!!!
I see frrom the shoe polish on the windshield, that "PEE WEE" ran D Gas, a 13 pounds per cubic inch class (at least, early on it was.). Even a 265 Chevy motor would have had to weigh atleast 3,445 to run that class. Maybe it was a later car; one that ran after they came up with different weight breaks... That doesn't look like a 3,400+-pound car to me... but it sure is cute!!!!
__________________
Bill |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Conway, AR
Posts: 1,739
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
You got in on most of the changes. Not a lot happened to the Gassers between 1955 and '62 that was significant except for the blown Gassers. They really weren't much in profusion in the really early years, but began to show up big time, in about 1961. The Super Stock movement was also born (as a concept, if not as an Eliminator) in the very early '60s with teams like the Ramchargers, the Golden Commandos, Tasca Ford, Bill Thomas and Nickey Chevrolet sporting the latest in high performance "factory" OEM hardware. That was pretty exciting, just seeing what the factories had come up with for the new model year. Yep,it was a great time to be a fan of NHRA racing!!!!
__________________
Bill |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#17 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NOO JOISEY nexta NOO YAWK
Posts: 5,879
Likes: 38
Liked 100 Times in 45 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
__________________
Former NHRA #1945 Former IHRA #1945 T/SA |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Decatur Illinois
Posts: 634
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
![]()
This is a priceless history lesson of a very innovative Class in Drag Racing. I thank all of you for your comments.
Now, were the turbos used by Mallicoat's or Montgomery an advantage? Were they just a flash in the pan? I saw that Montgomery used the Boss 429 motor for a while, did it do well? I thought it was "dead" until I saw Glidden use it in the EXP's and it seemed mediocre at best. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
VIP Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Conway, AR
Posts: 1,739
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
|
![]()
Must have been a HydraMatic car, Al..... As I said earlier, Pitman-Edwards once ran a 3,600-pound '41 Willys... LOL! No wheelspin there, and the tires didn't much matter....
__________________
Bill |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#20 | |
VIP Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Conway, AR
Posts: 1,739
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times in 4 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
Turbos are banned in the cookie-cutter Top Fuel and Nitro Funny Car classes. Ditto for both Top Alcohol Dragster and Top Alcohol Funny Car. Makes you wonder what they're afraid of.... Comp Eliminator cars can be turbocharged, but the pounds-per-cubic-inch is closely regulated. Turbocharged Stockers and Super Stockers are a hot topic right now, for several reasons that would be subject matter for another thread, or maybe, two. I'm not knowledgable enough about Ford 385 Pro Stock motors to say anything at all... sorry. I guess that Blue Crescent motor was derived from the 385 series, wasn't it??? Glad you liked this thread, Steve; there are lots of old racers on here who, fortunately, remember a lot more than I do about this stuff. I appreciate their comments, too!!!
__________________
Bill Last edited by bill dedman; 12-28-2010 at 05:00 AM. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|