Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Rich, I had a 210 four door hardtop 220 HP that ran H/S. 3316 lb. shipping weight. Came in at 15.06 in a 15 lb. class. The 2 dr. sedans & hardtops had to run G/S. That's when we couldn't add or subtract weight and sometimes had to run an ugly body style to make the class.

I also used the Carter WCFB although a lot of the guys were running the Rochester which
I think later proved to be the better carb or at least the carb of choice.

I think the later 327 solid lifter cam was the .030-.030 cam. The 283 solid lifter cam called for .008"-.018". Still noisy but sounded good when pulling through the local drive-in.

I had to run the hydraulic lifter cam, as you did.

When I first started running that car in 1962 it was classified in F/S but as more classes were added at the top, it got pushed down to F/S. Now, I believe the 15 lb. class is N/S.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Dear N.H.R.A.

Is there only one competitive "Old School" car in the entire Stock Eliminator Class that is complying with the cylinder head rules.

It appears to be time for some clarification!

Peter Ash

"sent today"

Dear N.H.R.A. Technical Services

I would like to see the Rules regarding Stock Eliminator Cylinder Heads strictly enforced to help bring equity to the hard working members in the Stock Eliminator class.

Yours truly

Peter Ash

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Sure there are the new paper cars with CNC Ported heads.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

See post #1

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Yes Bobby.....We had guys running every body style that had a favorable factor/ weight break. I do recall some very good running 4 door hdtp '57 Chevs. Wagons were all over the place and not just sedan deliveries. They were built for the automatic classes and the Hydro's we all used.....The hdtps sedans and wagons were all 4 speeds.....

One guy that used to pour thru the NHRA class guide book looking for good combos....Ralph Truppi.....He was real good at finding good combos.

Once NHRA decided to only allow assembly line produced combos....it really put a hurt to the category......Was it right....I guess it was but since they allowed them for a few years and so many of us built them....well it hurt a lot of guys....

Putting a Powerglide in a sedan delivery was just not something I wanted to do....We sold our car and quit......for a year or two....And than built a car that was a Ralph Truppi combo.....
It ran 2 tenths under the existing record on it's first hard pass.....with Ray Allen driving....and set the record later that year again with Ray behind the wheel...That record stood untill class changes combined some classes and it was bettered........I was always very proud of that record and it was not easy to get....Some guys set a lot of records and made it look easy...It was not....

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

A few thoughts:
1) Wade, I agree with you that this whole "any valve job" issue needs to be clearly stated and addressed by NHRA.
2) Relevent to the "any valve job" issue, when NHRA started the Super Modified classes way back when, they allowed any combustion chamber mods without welding and any valve job or work in the valve seat/port that did not extend more than 1" into the port. Can you believe they still had people who got thrown out? It will happen here, too.
3) Alan, your explanation of the characteristics of a legal valve job will never fly. I'm not saying you were not told that, but if that's their (NHRA) assumption, it needs to be in writing. I see nothing in the current rule book that gets even close to the description you gave. We are way past having a written set of rules and then the tech men's rules the way we have raced so much in the past. We approach the technical sophistication of NASCAR cars and they would never survive with such an approach to this.
4) I asked and was told that we are limited to 1/4" below the top of the valve seat, 1/8" greater than the diameter of the valve head. Anything goes.
5) It is the suff outside the valve job that generally is a judgment call. I give that total call to the tech people. As long as we are basing our definition of "legal" on no modifying the port, that's their judgment. I know it puts the issue of right-ness in somebody else's hands and that allows for all kinds of corruption, but so be it. Everytime someone on this forum opens their mouth about insinuating that a racer has bogus stuff, that person does the same thing. If anything, we should develop some way to inprove the quality of that tech person's judgment.

Finally, an interesting bit of history. The whole Junior Stock camshaft flap that arose in the Jenkins era and carried on into modern Stock Eliminator racing has an ugly twist. The original camshaft specs sent to NHRA by Chevrolet were "functional specs", that is camshaft specs based on at-that-time industry standard .004" lifter rise on mechanical lifter cams and .006" on hydraulic cams. When it was found that NONE of the off the shelf GM cams would pass that spec, first Jenkins and his crew got General Kinetics to grind camshafts that would and add a bit of "juice" to the grind. Then another "advantage" showed itself when somebody got hold of "design specs" for those cams. As an example, the original '57 283 hydraulic cam, the 398 pn cam that was used up thru 1966, had "functional specs" of 250 degrees. Compare that to "design specs" which showed 300 degrees it was an obvious benefit to get those numbers submitted. It became the standard from then on that design specs were sent to NHRA from Chevrolet. That is how you ended up with the 929 cam being 310-320, the 30-30 cam being 346 degrees, etc. Then came the flap of "how much lifter rise do you allow before you start measuring?" because the design specs were what was on paper and did not have anything to do with valve train movement. It was later (in the 1970s) established at .001" on Chevrolet hydraulic cams and some other GM makes. (I got bit on that deal, having a CD cam measured at .000" liffter rise.) Unfortunately, Ford, Chrysler and AMC never caught on to what was going on. So, even in the Stock Eliminator era we had a 289 Ford with a 244 degree camshaft, a 390 AMC with a 266 degree camshaft, etc. Other makes never stood a chance against the advantage Chevrolet had, especially before wholesale factoring was introduced for attempts at equalization.

For grins, I still have a hand written tech sheet that Farmer sent me from 1965 that shows a 1957 283 with a 398 camshaft and it states 250 degrees.

Your history lesson for the day. :-))

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

When Dwight speaks....people should listen

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

I believe the Pontiac specs used with NHRA were also inflated.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

I read somewhere that early stocker "cheater" cams were made from cams with a lot more lift, cut down to allowable, and the sharp corners were rounded with a belt sander just enough that the engine could get the rpm it needed.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

They sure were hard on stuff.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

I seem to remember the Mopar 340 specs at 336/348 duration intake/exhaust respectively. I think the 383/440 HP combos had a similar duration way back when. I wasn't sure if it was zero to zero or maybe the first hint of movement to where it stops moving? I sort of remember a BB Chevy cam had 360 degrees of duration.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

sounds like the cam i've got...

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Dwight-- That was interesting. Nothing woke up those early SBC's more than good short block assembly and the right camshaft. Any more hisory lessons out there?

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

I have been given the same explanation as Alan and also in writing (for what little that is worth). 3 thru tech with not a word said and never used the letter. The only thing I was told that wouldn't fly was a radius valve seat. (which I don't use) However, I have seen them go thru tech also. I think this disinformation is what Wade is trying to clear up.
There is some hp directly behind the valve if work is done correctly. I would think that .250 thou. below the seat would be all that should be allowed in stock. Anything more I would consider a form of pocket porting.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Well, 0.250" below the stock valve seat angle was the rule until they opened it up. Now there is supposedly no limit on the number of angles, and I was told 0.500" below the seat angle would pass. I was told a radius seat was legal as well, I just have not had time to try one, yet.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

If they allow .5" below the seat, we are all in for some big surprises. They might as well get some templates to check for an acceptible port opening location and size, pour the port and let it go.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Yeah, Don't ever let anyone check your camshaft using a piece of masking tape wrapped around the balancer, a ball point pen to mark opening and closing and then measuring the distance between the marks to calculate duration.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

In 2008. I was the d3 srac member when the rule was changed to permit any valve job. I was told by three different senior tech people that you could do anything in the bowl as long as it was done off the center of the valve guide with a cutter. Alan is exactly right that the rule was .250 down before the rule change. Any of you talk to engine builders or head guys and they will tell you the same thing. A lot of people who post on here don't like all the changes in stock over the years. That's not relevant to this discussion.

What's needed are fair and consistent rules that are enforceable no matter who is looking at the heads. With the technology that is available to anyone who's willing to spend the money, it's my feeling that to get to fair and consistent rules there have to be things that can be measured. When one person can say, " I don't like the way that looks" and give no other reason for disqualification that opens up the door for favoritism or vindictiveness. I know for a fact some engine builders and head guys have been told that if the heads pour right and there are no grinding marks they are ok. I think to get enforceable rules they should allow porting with no welding or epoxy and that the heads should hold the right number of cc's in the runners.

I realize some of you would not like to see that change but given where we are right now I see no other way to have rules that are fair and enforceable.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

I was told that the "NEW" Legal valve job did away with the unshrouding rules (1/8 bigger than valve head) and the 1/4" (Seat) part of the rule.
Basically if you can do it "On center of the valve guide" it will pass. It doesn't matter if it is in the bowl area or chamber area as long as it is "On center of the valve guide Center Line. The only exception I got, if you want to call it that, was when I ask if anything could be "elliptical" The answer I got to that was a definition of "on center". I'm pretty sure that last line just gave away who was giving me the Vale Job information. I would bet quite a few of you know his "Style"... of giving answers.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

I have added a poll in the member's area, just for fun.
http://classracer.com/classforum/showthread.php?t=41556

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Bump, this is 2 years old now.....so how far down with the cutter can we go? on both ends of the job?

Are they going by looks, feelings, a measurement or who you are?

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Ask your division tech people.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

It is Indy that I am concerned with

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Bill, I have been told that as long as it swings around the guide C/L it will pass.
There seems to be no depth numbers any more. Let me qualify the above statement with "AS OF" July 2014. Rules can be a moving target you better call someone with a little more authority than this message board.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Good call. Come out of nowhere and be fast at Indy. That is cool,but it is a lock for getting invited to the dance. Seen it many times. Most of the time it works out. Most of the time....

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

This is my understanding of the rule. As there is nothing in the rulebook saying you can't cut the manifold face in stock, if the bottom cut takes you over the maximum cc's, it's not hard to fix. I had suggested NHRA add something in the rulebook about not cutting the manifold faces but was shot down on that one. It would be interesting to know how many of the "expensive" heads have had the faces cut.

Jim Mantle V/SA 6632

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

can't cut past the valve cover bolt holes the way I read it

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Bill, if it has had any angle milling at all the face needs to be milled to get the angle corrected. Even flat milling the head the intake surface needs milling for the intake to fit in the valley. I would say the odds are pretty good that there are very few that haven't had the intake surface milled.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

The basics of Fast stocker cylinder heads are very simple. If you consider each intake port and exhaust port assembly as a orifice you can flow them with a constant draw and establish an effective orifice size. There are endless ways to change or improve flow. The only way to significantly improve flow is to change the effective orifice size of the assembly by porting!
Stop lying to yourselves and Stop pushing NHRA to police something that is out of control. If NHRA were to throw out ALL modified stocker heads the pits would be empty. I know I know it's only the other guys that would stoop to cheating NOT YOU!
Just buy the $1000 cast iron intake and the $3500 heads and have fun like MANY others do. Louis Jeffery:D

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

All this just reminds me of the letter I got from nhra several years ago after being pitched out.... after further review ect ect... what's right?????? Sounds like my x_ wife...... I'm done thanks:confused:

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Not true, Louis, my slow E/Stocker would still be there, watching tumbleweeds blow across the staging lanes, as i take a final bye run pass, and pull up to the Winner's Circle to accept my Wally... hehe

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

I'm looking at building a "killer?" 318 2bbl combo with the 302 swirl port heads. It sounds like I can use a bowl hog and go all the way down to the valve guides as part of the valve job? Or maybe use a Serdi type cutter with a radius at the bottom of the cutter to open up the bowl as long as it's done all the way around?

When did they get rid of the .250" depth cut limitations? I guess I haven't been paying attention to the rules.

I also saw the 308 360 head was legal but needs to have the smaller 318 valves put into it. I guess with the VJ changes that opens up another possibility with new seats and whatever VJ works. It may not make much difference with the tiny BBD 2bbl carb?

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

You would have me there to race Brent. ;)

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Had to revive this post.
It was interesting and no jabs taken.

Saw a web site on a S/SS head machinist named Tommy Sizemore.
Then checked his references on Internet.
Is this guy good or not?

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Dan,
Define "Good"
He could be called a real "Pillar of Power"

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

You just may find that when dealing with seriously restricted combos(I think that a 2V 318 qualifies even though that carb flows more than what I'm used to) you might want to be looking for the smallest runners. Velocity is your friend not necessarily volume. The manufacturers didn't spend lots of time and money coming up with those swirl port heads just as an engineering exercise.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Well said Billy.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Thanks for the advice Billy. Sometimes I wonder if the engineers cared about airflow in the 1950s and 1960s on most engines. I guess the emissions and CAFE standards forced the auto makers to make them more efficient in the 1980s and later. I'm thinking the 273 4bbl combo looks more attractive, basically the same 302 head casting. The 308 head isn't legal on the 273 but is on a 318. Sort of odd, but the 340 intake is legal for the 273 4bbl and apparently so is the old Edelbrock LD4B intake. Maybe that got in via the 1966 D/Dart engine? Now I wish I had that LD4B I bought in 1975 and gave to a friend in the 1980s.

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Cannot reach him since October.
He has a pair of my heads getting updated.
Tommy Sizemore seems to have fallen of the face of the earth.
D

Re: Stocker Cylinder Heads....
 

Dan,
About the time he disappeared someone on another forum said the State went after him for something about his business.