The 230 Headerfold project

[maineSS]

Some interesting info on multiple carburetion for flatheads... Hudsonator's stuff is pretty good- http://forum.olskoolrodz.com/showthr...6&page=1&pp=10 .

[MoparNorm]

Fuel consumption can be moderate if the carb linkage is progressive. The more throttle you apply, the more carb you get.
Seems though we are running far afield from the original header topic, even though this is part of the whole overall philosophy of intake/exhaust.

[maineSS]

Bike carbs often have a rigid linkage tying the throttle shafts together end to end- difficult to make that work in our application. Snowmobile carbs use individual cables to each carb that are linked together at a block- easier to adapt. You definitely want to get a set of triples or quadruples- that insures all the carb internals are identical. When multiple carbs are set up correctly, they work very well. It's not easy to do, and lots of people end up with huge fuel consumption. If you put the effort in, you'll like the results- but it's a couple steps above tuning a Holley. You may want to design your header so you can do either single or multiple carbs. A better intake shouldn't be too hard to fab- only 3 runners- and would make a noticeable difference in intake flow over the stock one.

[chriscase]

Chris,
I've been thinking more about a better intake system to match the headerfold. Due to limited hood height in the M-series, I thought maybe a clever set-up with (3) single barrel sidedrafts could create more room for the headers and perform better than the old Carter. I checked out Weber and a few others, but honestly know little about such a carbs. Any ideas? Thanks.

Side draft Mikunis. My neighbor was running quad Mikunis on his Pinto 2300 in a dune buggy. He liked them, and he is a hot rodder/restorer/mechanic. A set of 3-4 off of a Japanese bike could be had cheaply. Simple carbs.

Looks to me like that flat log intake gets in the way of the exhaust too- necessitating hard downward bends near the block. Perhaps a design more like the slant 6, with sweeping curves on the intake would allow space for exhaust headers, plus better flow for the intake, and allow a downdraft carb at the same elevation as stock?

My pics are toast, I took the discs to an expert, everything on them is gone. Back to square one.

[monkeymissile]

single-barrel side drafts

filter and ducting. Hmmm, maybe a set of three side draft Mikunis off of a Japanese motorcycle would fill the bill? 32mm would be about 1 1/4" . Or would that look too high tech on that old iron? On the '41 I ran a 2bbl from a '70's 318 van- Stromberg? The GM Monojet one bbl is good, the Duo-jet two bbl Okay also. The small Holley/Weber progressive two bbl (5200?) might get the best milage. Like on Pintos. Holleys have always done a good job of atomizing fuel.

Chris,
I've been thinking more about a better intake system to match the headerfold. Due to limited hood height in the M-series, I thought maybe a clever set-up with (3) single barrel sidedrafts could create more room for the headers and perform better than the old Carter. I checked out Weber and a few others, but honestly know little about such a carbs. Any ideas? Thanks.

[maineSS]

I found some interesting info about cooling problems on a V8 repower that might shed some light on the curious heating of the flathead oil/engine surfaces in tractor pull duty. Dan O'Day noticed that his V8 overheated during break in with the stock fan, so he fitted a waterpump riser that allowed use of a bigger fan in the stock location. This time water temps on the gauge and in the rad stayed normal- but he could hear afterboil in the engine (snapping/popping caused by steam pockets). He pressurized the cooling system, and the noises went away. When steam pockets start forming, you've lost control of your cooling- cracks or a seized piston are not far off. Wonder if this was happening in the tractor pull engine? See www.dodgepowerwagon.com/glovebox/oday.html .
MM- I don't think a heated carb spacer will help with fuel dropout as it makes the turn into the manifold passages- this is the place where you have to re-vaporize, otherwise it enters the cylinders in liquid form and never burns effectively. That 90 deg turn under the carb is where you lose most of the fuel out of the airflow- it has to be 10 microns or less particle size to make that turn, carbs produce droplet sizes between 10-400 microns.

[maineSS]

Marius- looks like I'll have to keep looking for a lighter piston. Cutting reciprocating weight pays big dividends in rod stress reduction- the major problem is tensile forces at the top of the intake/exhaust stroke, not on the compression stroke. 1 lb of recip weight reduction is also worth about 10 lbs of chassis weight in acceleration ability- although acceleration is low on the list of most PW owners. Anyone know any sites that cross-reference piston measurements?

[monkeymissile]

[QUOTE=maineSS;52292]MM- You may want to look into "thermal transfer cement" as an aid to making a hotspot. It's used industrially in pipe & tank heating- carries heat from a steam line to whatever needs heating. Lot's cheaper than double jacketing, and works just as well. It comes in hardening & non-hardening varieties, and can be gotten in caulking gun cartridges. Just run a waterline next to the bootom of the intake, fillet the cement on either side- you're done. Some info at: http://www.insulation.org/articles/a...fm?id=IO021203


mSS,
what funky stuff! Thanks for the link. Still leaning towards some sort of coolant-heated carb spacer though.

[Marius]

Anyone know what the dia of the 170 Slant Six piston is?

They are the same as the 225!!

http://www.kb-silvolite.com/spistons...etails&S_id=38

[maineSS]

Anyone know what the dia of the 170 Slant Six piston is? The 225 piston will fit the 251, but is too big for the 230. The big challenge to better flow thru the flathead are the two 90 deg bends the flow has to make in the valve area, with the valve exit bend being more critical. Anything that reduces turbulence in this area will help. Flow testing is necessary to develop this info, and flow testing a flathead would be a real science project, as you have to test both the head and the block. You'd have to take the rotating assy out, mount the engine on a stand, and use a flexible tube & adapter to plug into the bottom of the cylinders. About the only way to get more air in will be increasing intake flow velocity, since you can't use bigger valves. Sidedraft triple carbs would probably give the best result. This would take advantage of the greater BDC dwell of the long rods.

[W_A_Watson_II]

The tractor was sold by Montgomery Ward in the 50's, as soon as I can I will post what my Dad found in one of his tractor books.

[chriscase]

I haven't had a 230 crank in my hands in 30 years. +/-. But most of the main inserts for all of the more common engines have un-grooved bottom halves. The lack of the groove gives more surface area to support the crank. I was thinking that using fully grooved inserts might be an alternative to drilling through the crank.

I wonder if grooving the bottom of #1 and #6 rod inserts would help get oil to #2 & 5?

Has anybody here got a loose crank to check for the oil hole in #2 & 5? Seems to me that about last year somebody said that no, it ain't so, each rod is fed directly from a main...

[Marius]

Or at least use two upper inserts in each main, to get maximum oil headed towards the rods?

All my NOS main bearing inserts are grooved in both halves. Any idea who supplies ungrooved inserts?

[chriscase]

Anybody know what head casting numbers would be the '58 and up?

The combustion chamber has a pretty low angle to it's roof, slotting the head bolt holes would add marginal improvement to the port size.

Looks like the best head # is 1676337, form this site: <http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache...misc/a1/3.xls+
%27casting+number%27+1311804&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl =us&client=firefox-a>

[maineSS]

Mario- Good find- that's the one I found on the Inliner BB. However, on that forum they decided AGAINST plugging the rod oiling holes! It sounds like they got their bearing groove idea from the rebuild chapter in one of the Dodge truck books I have (Don't have the title handy), which advocated cutting the groove as wide as the oil feed hole and 3 times deeper than stock. I'd leave the bearing alone and refrain frum plugging the rod squirt holes.

Clint- Looks like you found the right tractor. In reading page 2 of Mario's post, I saw that "Hudsonater" had it up to 70 mph on asphalt- scary for a farm tractor. Did it have a 2 speed rearend or overdrive?

MM- You may want to look into "thermal transfer cement" as an aid to making a hotspot. It's used industrially in pipe & tank heating- carries heat from a steam line to whatever needs heating. Lot's cheaper than double jacketing, and works just as well. It comes in hardening & non-hardening varieties, and can be gotten in caulking gun cartridges. Just run a waterline next to the bootom of the intake, fillet the cement on either side- you're done. Some info at: http://www.insulation.org/articles/a...fm?id=IO021203

Chris- You're right about a better intake and keeping velocity high- the flathead needs all the breathing it can get. The key seems to be to reduce backspace around the intake valve, as was done in the '58 and up head. The Briggs & Stratton racers would slot the headbolt holes and shift the head sideways to reduce the valve backspace area. and the Ford people often cut a slot in the intake side of the block, but that kills compression, with no way to get it back. Another thing to look into would be reducing piston weight & ring friction by replacing that 4-ring monster with a lighter modern one with thinner, better rings. Supposedly the Slant-Six will fit certain Dodge FH's, maybe others will, too.