60 replies to this topic

[Bob Riebe]

How may makes of push-rod engine had these developed for them.
I know there were ones for Chevy, Ford and Studebaker; did any other make ever have someone buillt one for it?
Bob

[ray b]

cosworth, lotus, and repco [olds] in races
volvo did their own 4 bangers with a stop at SOHC in between in their B-x motors
in fact I would guess alot of CORPs tryed a DOHC head on a existing block

there were even a few flat heads to DOHC motors

[Bob Riebe]

I was actually wondering about V-8 engines, and I had forgotten about the BOP engine.

Bob

[johnny yuma]

The General Motors/Holden Australian 6 cylinder (1948-63 models) had a dohc alloy head made in fairly limited numbers in Sydney in the 1950s by Waggott Engineering for sports/racing purposes If you put one in the original Holden sedans the radiator had to be tilted forward to clear the bulky camcovers.Rules for sedan racing banned the heads almost as soon as they appeared,but by the mid 60s the engines with original heads modified put out more power than the dohc .For speedway oval dirt track the Holden 2.5 litre 6 without dohc often beat visiting American entrants with Offenhauser DOHC motors of similar capacity.

[Bill Sherwood]

Quick sidetrack but this seems like the place to find out such things - I want to see photos of the Harold Clisby rotary-valve Holden Red Motors that he built in the 1960's.
Used in hydroplanes, they were reputed to be able to rev hard enough to beat small block Chevs.

[Ray Bell]

I never knew Clisby did that...

I knew about the Dunstan heads, one of which was used in a car that raced at Mallala in the AGP and a couple of years ago featured in Motor Racing Australia. They were made for grey motors, however.

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by ray b
cosworth, lotus, and Repco [olds] in races
volvo did their own 4 bangers with a stop at SOHC in between in their B-x motors
in fact I would guess a lot of CORPs tryed a DOHC head on a existing block

there were even a few flat heads to DOHC motors

T-model conversions?

Actually, the Olds didn't... not even by Repco. By the time Repco went to twin cams they were already well down the track with their own blocks (cast by Commonwealth Aircraft Corp).

Cosworth did twin cams (basically FVA setups) to Ford and Chev Vega engines. Jensen did a twin cam on a Vauxhall engine, ISTR, which was also a Lotus design, perhaps?

The small Ford pushrod engine got the treatment from Lotus, as mentioned, the FVA and BDA setups from Cosworth and the very similar Waggott.

Repco did a Volvo head, but it wasn't OHC at all... just an alloy high performance head to go on the old B20 engines.

Then there were the Cologne Capri engines, again by Cosworth. I'm sure you'd also find that someone somewhere in Italy did a twin cam head on a Fiat 1100. Gordini did this with Simca engines, didn't they?

And there was that abortion of a twin cam head done by BMC for the 1500cc MGA engine.

You wouldn't count Laurie Seidl's Jag head with the centre two cylinders cut out and welded back together to go onto a Peugeot 403 block for speedway racing, would you? It was fairly successful as far as I know, used a Vanguard crank and sleeves to take it out to near 2-litres.

[McGuire]

Sticking to pushrod V8s as per the original question... There was the DOHC Indy version of the Ford smallblock V8, the Moser DOHC conversion for the smallblock Chevy V8, and the Studebaker DOHC Indy engine.

Then you have the Repco-Olds DOHC V8. Ray is not counting it because they had a new block cast by the time they went from SOHC to DOHC, but I am counting it because it was still based on the Olds architecture. So it's an Olds with an aftermarket block. It's still an Olds as I see it.

There were also DOHC versions of the Olds, Buick, and Pontiac V8s built in-house as GM experimental engines. Basically one-of-ones and one-of-twos but they did exist and were featured in HOT ROD and other mags. Somewhat less well known, Chrysler did a DOHC version of the RB V8 concurrently with the Hemi version for use in stock cars. Used a timing belt to each head with a chain from cam to cam if I recall correctly. NASCAR turned down the DOHC as one step beyond but okayed the Hemi. Then NASCAR banned the Hemi for the following year, but then readmitted it in '66.

[Bob Riebe]

Didn't Mickey Thompson do DOHC set-ups for Chevrolet?
I know he did Hemi heads for several engine, Pontiac for sure.

I thought maybe there were some out there that I had not heard of (did anyone ever do one for the Rolls Royce engine?)

I do remember Oldsmobile came close to actually putting a BB OHC in their production cars, or at least racing it in the Can-Am, from what auto rags wrote decades ago.

On a slightly off note, after market heads for push-rod US V-8s are as numerous as pigeons in a park, but pre-nineteen eighty, Barnes built one for sprint cars.
Little is/has been written about this head, alhough from reading oval results, it was also tried in an Indy car at least once by Chuck Gurney.
There were various Weslake heads, and the Barnes p-r head in the seventies, I have never heard of any others. (I am aware of the Crower modified head that was banned from Formula A)

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by McGuire
.....the Repco-Olds DOHC V8. Ray is not counting it because they had a new block cast by the time they went from SOHC to DOHC, but I am counting it because it was still based on the Olds architecture. So it's an Olds with an aftermarket block. It's still an Olds as I see it.....

Chalk and cheese...

Yes, the heads interchange, but the blocks are totally different. Repco had to brace the original blocks, these were built with sufficient strength to do the job.

[cosworth bdg]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


Chalk and cheese...

Yes, the heads interchange, but the blocks are totally different. Repco had to brace the original blocks, these were built with sufficient strength to do the job.

Ray, you are very correct about them being like Chalk & Cheese.............Regards , P N

[marchof73]

Originally posted by Ray Bell


Chalk and cheese...

Yes, the heads interchange, but the blocks are totally different. Repco had to brace the original blocks, these were built with sufficient strength to do the job.

I loved the way they were braced,aluminium plates epoxied to the weak parts of the block,now that,s belt and braces!
Brabham was always a practical engineer.
Ian

[phantom II]

The Lotus designed LT5 was designed with the same bore centers as the cast iron 350 ci Chevy V8 engine so that the heads could be interchangeable. The common bore centers destroyed the LT5 and the heads could not be made to fit the cast iron small block. This is what happens when bean counters become engineers.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by phantom II
The Lotus designed LT5 was designed with the same bore centers as the cast iron 350 ci Chevy V8 engine so that the heads could be interchangeable. The common bore centers destroyed the LT5 and the heads could not be made to fit the cast iron small block. This is what happens when bean counters become engineers.

Or something like that. The LT5's bore centers were maintained at 4.40 inches not for any parts interchange but so the engine could be claimed as part as the Gen 1 "small block family." More of a corporate legacy/marketing thing.

The bore centers of the LSx family were also kept at 4.40 inches but with considerably more logic behind it. Obviously there is no parts interchange with the Gen I. It was simply determined to be the maximum dimension that would fit in a transverse fwd package. Ford went too small with the modular V8 (under four inches) and now they are stuck with it. But maybe not... perhaps the market is coming back their way toward smaller displacements.

[phantom II]

In my hands, I am holding my trusty copy of ”Corvettes From The Inside”, by Dave McClellan. I turn to page 197 Chapter 12, ‘How the LT5 came about.’
Lloyd, Russ, Gee, and Roy met with Tony Rudd of Lotus.
Tony said that if he designed only the heads, the HP would be 350. A ground up design would be 400hp.
It was Roy Midley who wanted to keep the 4.4” bore center “ so that the heads could be used in Chevrolet at some point.” “ Tony was concerned that the smaller bore would reduce the HP potential of the engine.”
405hp was reached with cam timing and opening up the intake manifold later.

Further adding to the problem was the space in the C4 engine compartment. The exhaust valves were straightened up within 11’ of the cylinder axis and the cam bearings were made integral to the rocker cover.
Rudd had never built an engine to meet GMs stringent durability test before.
I think you and the other engine heads would enjoy the chapter.

My ZR1 lives in Munich.

Originally posted by McGuire


Or something like that. The LT5's bore centers were maintained at 4.40 inches not for any parts interchange but so the engine could be claimed as part as the Gen 1 "small block family." More of a corporate legacy/marketing thing.

The bore centers of the LSx family were also kept at 4.40 inches but with considerably more logic behind it. Obviously there is no parts interchange with the Gen I. It was simply determined to be the maximum dimension that would fit in a transverse fwd package. Ford went too small with the modular V8 (under four inches) and now they are stuck with it. But maybe not... perhaps the market is coming back their way toward smaller displacements.

How about that ruling on the second amendment?

[Engineguy]

Originally posted by McGuire
The bore centers of the LSx family were also kept at 4.40 inches but with considerably more logic behind it. Obviously there is no parts interchange with the Gen I.

I wonder if they were able to salvage (portion of) a high-volume tranfer line ($100million~ish savings) for the iron LSx truck block by sticking with 4.4" BS? Or at least were influenced (or ordered) in the initial design stages by the possibility/requirement? I've seen transaxle transfer lines retooled for transaxles that shared no details at all, except the two shaft centerline distances (input-to-output and output-to-diff) and the bellhousing bolt pattern.

Originally posted by McGuire
Ford went too small with the modular V8 (under four inches) and now they are stuck with it...

Understatement.
(4.6L ... 3.552 bore x 3.543 stroke ... 3.937 bore spacing x 8.937 deck height)
(5.4L ... 3.552 bore x 4.165 stroke ... 3.937 bore spacing x 10.079 deck height)
.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Engineguy
I wonder if they were able to salvage (portion of) a high-volume tranfer line ($100million~ish savings) for the iron LSx truck block by sticking with 4.4" BS?

No doubt but that is more of a secondary bennie. When a program like this gets green-lighted the $$$ is there for new lines.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by phantom II
In my hands, I am holding my trusty copy of ”Corvettes From The Inside”, by Dave McClellan. I turn to page 197 Chapter 12, ‘How the LT5 came about.’
Lloyd, Russ, Gee, and Roy met with Tony Rudd of Lotus.
Tony said that if he designed only the heads, the HP would be 350. A ground up design would be 400hp.
It was Roy Midley who wanted to keep the 4.4” bore center “ so that the heads could be used in Chevrolet at some point.” “ Tony was concerned that the smaller bore would reduce the HP potential of the engine.”
405hp was reached with cam timing and opening up the intake manifold later.

I know the book. Dave has a talent for technical writing and he should do more of it. All I can say is there would be no reason to build the LT5 on SBC bore centers for interchangeability, since nothing would interchange anyway.

I do believe the LT5 might be the last engine designed by/at/for General Motors on "expertise." That is, someone like Tony Rudd comes in and says, "we will do it this way because that is how we do it." The process is entirely analysis-driven now.

[mariner]

In Tony Rudd's book " It was fun" , a great book BTW, one key constraint for Lotus on trhe ZR-1 was the assembly method on a Corvette of " bottom loading" i.e inserting the drivetrain from below . The Lotus engine had to be narrow enough to pass through the C5 chassis rails. Clearly this did not directly impact bore size but it would have limited deck height ( because the heads move apart as the deck goes up) and the valve angle. I would think that the "cosworth" style narrow valves helped but I imagine they had to watch the valve seat to cambox height.

The book relates how GM gave Tony Rudd a plastic kit of the C5 and said " it is very accurate so use this to measure the rail widths and engine installation restrictions". Today I imagine it would need a few computers and much CAD work!!

[phantom II]

He has a new blogg now. http://corvettechief.com/ Roy Midgley’s design group were pretty pissed when Rudd got the LT 5 engine job. They redeemed themselves with the LS1 just before the LT5 was to get a boost in HP to 475. Seems a very elegant and complex rocker arm mechanism which would run both cams on the B profile instead of the original A and B profile was under development. The C5 was under way and the LT5 couldn’t get the low hood profile desired and couldn’t meet impending emissions legislation.
Oh yeah. Notice all the Vettes on the road today? National Corvette Day tomorrow.
Drive your Corvette to work today and every Friday closest to June 30th, the birthday of the Vette.
I gotta get a job.

Originally posted by McGuire


I know the book. Dave has a talent for technical writing and he should do more of it. All I can say is there would be no reason to build the LT5 on SBC bore centers for interchangeability, since nothing would interchange anyway.

I do believe the LT5 might be the last engine designed by/at/for General Motors on "expertise." That is, someone like Tony Rudd comes in and says, "we will do it this way because that is how we do it." The process is entirely analysis-driven now.

[phantom II]

C4

Originally posted by mariner
The book relates how GM gave Tony Rudd a plastic kit of the C5 and said " it is very accurate so use this to measure the rail widths and engine installation restrictions". Today I imagine it would need a few computers and much CAD work!!

[Bob Riebe]

This gets away from why I did this thread but: Who actually did what on the Chevy DOHC, as it was a bit of a white elelphant I did not pay too much attention to it way bach when.

I remember reading that Mercury Marine did the block and Lotus did the heads.

How far can it be over-bored as it is not a dry-deck engine?
The greatest advantage of an OHC engine is the ability to hit higher rpms as it does not have to deal with push-rods.
Small-blocks are now hit the 10,000 rpm range, how high did this engine go?

The only racing LT5 was or is in Germany, who did most of the engine work on that car?

Sean Hyland wrote the theorectical limits of hp for the modular Fords, what was the theoretical limit for this engine?

[phantom II]

From the horses mouth so to speak, McClellan’s book. The ZR1 was his baby and he was Corvette chief after Duntov , the father of Corvette way back in 74.
There was a dude named Lloyd Reuss in charge of Corvette development. He was a consummate engine guy who wanted lots of power. He talked with Calloway and tested twin turbo V6 and V8 Corvettes that were very very fast. How fast? One was parked on the GM Desert Proving Ground when a Countach passed him at 120mph. Jingles AKA Jim Ingles, floored the Vette and the Lambo driver floored the Countach. The Vette passed the Lambo at 180mph within a mile.
I digress. Lloyd thought the twin turbo car was crude and sought a high tech solution.
Tony Rudd of Lotus was consulted and came up with a proposal.
Him and his team were in the process of designing a a 4 liter engine for their proposed Etna Supercar.
The timing was perfect, because a client had cancelled the project and there would have been a lot of engine engineers out of work. To support Lotus, a Corvette group including, Jim Minneker, Ian Doble, and Dave Whitehead(chief designer) set up a shop at Hatal-Whiting in Lemmington Spa, England.
GM bought Lotus.
The whole engine design was performed by Louts while Roy Midgley set out to find a way of manufacturing the thing.
GM is not set up to build 125 engines per day. He looked all over the US to see who could handle such low volumes of a high precision engines which required precision casting, CNC milling and a thorough grounding in statistical process control, etc. GM’s own prototype facility was not suited.
Mercury Marine(no part of Ford) manufactured high tech aluminum two cycle marine engines and 4 cycle engines made under license from GM and outdrives.
A deal was struck for engine assembly at Mercury’s Stillwater Okalahoma plant. Bud Agner was given the assignment to design and tool the manufacturing process and produce the LT5 engine.

The Etna engine was so huge that it could not fit into the C4 engine bay. Lotus set out to shrink this engine but increase capacity by 50% from 4 liters to 5.7 liters. Thermal management dictated that Rudd use wet liners that were coated with Nikasil that can‘t be rebored. The top of each liner was free standing and supported by the gasket. Tony and Roy got hold of a Jag engine to hear the bicycle chain driven cam shafts for excessive noise. They decided that it was OK for the LT5.

John Heinracy raced this car for 4 years. The final year was with an LS1 engine. I don’t think that they exceeded 600 hp at 7500rpm with the LT5. This part of is not included in the book. I defer you to McGuire for this info.

I took mine to Europe for a couple of months. I reached 180mph almost on a daily basis. I loved the car.
Dave McClellen left Corvette under a cloud. Something to do with this engine. The engine was simply no good perhaps because of too many restraints and too many cooks. Intake noise was a problem and smog.
The true story is not known although budget constainst probabley played the biggest role..

Originally posted by Bob Riebe
This gets away from why I did this thread but: Who actually did what on the Chevy DOHC, as it was a bit of a white elelphant I did not pay too much attention to it way bach when.

I remember reading that Mercury Marine did the block and Lotus did the heads.

How far can it be over-bored as it is not a dry-deck engine?
The greatest advantage of an OHC engine is the ability to hit higher rpms as it does not have to deal with push-rods.
Small-blocks are now hit the 10,000 rpm range, how high did this engine go?

The only racing LT5 was or is in Germany, who did most of the engine work on that car?

Sean Hyland wrote the theorectical limits of hp for the modular Fords, what was the theoretical limit for this engine?

[Engineguy]

Cosworth made a chain-drive DOHC 16-valve head for the pushrod Pontiac Iron Duke/SuperDuty4/Tech IV inline four (Cosworth Project DBA, 1987), but I'd guess they're about as rare as hens' teeth or Moser heads, since it had no apparent purpose in life. It may have been used one season in the Dole Pineapple (Huffaker?) IMSA Fiero possibly maybe

I can't find a picture of it, but my semi-photographic memory tells me Hot Rod Magazine did one of their neat disassembled engine photo tours... McGuire might have access to it?
.

[Terry Walker]

R-R got Cosworth to build a quad cam version of the alloy 6.75 litre Rolls-Royce V8, which ran well and is now owned by the Sir Henry Royce Foundation at Paulerspury, where I saw it a few years ago. R-R ultimately opted for turbocharging in their search for more torque and more power.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Engineguy
Cosworth made a chain-drive DOHC 16-valve head for the pushrod Pontiac Iron Duke/SuperDuty4/Tech IV inline four (Cosworth Project DBA, 1987), but I'd guess they're about as rare as hens' teeth or Moser heads, since it had no apparent purpose in life. It may have been used one season in the Dole Pineapple (Huffaker?) IMSA Fiero possibly maybe

I can't find a picture of it, but my semi-photographic memory tells me Hot Rod Magazine did one of their neat disassembled engine photo tours... McGuire might have access to it?
.

The IMSA GTU Fiero had to run the pushrod head as I remember it. The Cosworth DOHC version went in the Spice Fiero GTP car at 3.0 liters (Camel Lights) where it was rather successful. The engine was based on a stock Super Duty block casting, used the production water pump setup with sidewinder diecast housing. The head was much of a muchness with the other Cosworth 16V setups. The engine was very reliable, great application of the KISS principle... beat a lot of far more elaborate junk. I wish I had snagged one of these engines when they were still snag-able.

There was also a weird front-engined GTP Fiero that ran once or twice. Don't remember much about it anymore except Doug Goad was involved somehow. I have a picture in my mind of both of us standing looking at it, with me thinking wtf.

The plain pushrod version was no slouch. GM exec named Ed Koener built a Fiero with one for drag racing (his own car, not a factory deal) and was testing it a few weeks before the US Nats when NHRA told him don't even bring it, it is going to be illegal. Koerner and Tom Stephens are often billed as the fathers of the LS1.


I can't publish archival material here and it would take a year to find anyway. Maybe I have something, will have to look. I hope you noticed I have revived that engine feature format. We just did the LS9, stay tuned for more.

[Joe Bosworth]

Why hasn't anyone mentoned the Ardun heads for the flat head Ford? You all must be either too young, forgetful or not fully informed as to useful hstory.

The Ardun heads were developed by zora ARkus DUNtov prior to his Chevrolet days which started in the early/mid 1950s. (He came to the US from Europe in the late 1940s).

Zora was also well known once upon the time as the brains behind early Corvette race engine development and most particulalrly the best cam you could put in a Chev V8 for a long time, the Duntov Cam.

Regards

[McGuire]

Ardun heads are not DOHC.

[McGuire]

Also, the flathead Ford V8 is not a pushrod engine.

[McGuire]

But other than that, they are totally relevant here.

As a side note, the Ardun heads were not the trickest pieces that ever came down the pike. The terms crude, primitive, and undeveloped might be applied. Technically, a bit naive. The juvenilia in Duntov's curriculum vitae, one might say. Once in the hands of the users, it took a considerable amount of work to make them reliable and competitive.

[Bob Riebe]

I saw in a book recently that the Rolls Royce people, had Cosworth make a DOHC head for them and also built their own hemi-head for that engine.

[cheapracer]

I recall seeing, and probably a joke, a tech drawing of a dohc, pushrod, side valve engine some years ago on the net (no I havent been smoking anything).

Maybe someone remembers it?

[cheapracer]

Originally posted by McGuire
Ardun heads are not DOHC.

I dont know these heads at all so Googled them and found this along the way - just some nice reading, nothing else.

http://www.allpar.co...hemi/ardun.html

[NTSOS]

Joe Shubeck, of Lakewood Industries fame (hydroformed scattershields etc.) designed dual spark plug hemi heads for an avaition engine and then introduced them to top fuel drag racers where they became a virtual standard.

He then designed a complete drag racing engine with DOHC 4 valve heads called the Eagle which eventially ended up as the revised 904" monster featured here:

904 DOHC Hemi

John

[xbgs351]

Globe for Windsor. Search in the Nostalgia Forum.

[Ray Bell]

I have a photo of that one here somewhere...

Originally posted by cheapracer
I dont know these (*Ardun) heads at all so Googled them and found this along the way - just some nice reading, nothing else.

http://www.allpar.co...hemi/ardun.html

And containing some minor inaccuracies...

For instance, the Riley engine wasn't 'unique' in its layout. The Lea Francis had a very similar valve operation.

Personally I like the Esplanada story... Chrysler producing the Ford V8 with the Ardun heads in their thousands in South America. Zora Arkus-Duntov must have smirked at that too. No mention is made there, by the way, of the similarity between those engines and the Chrysler Hemis and the Peugeot 203 of 1948. The BMW 328 is mentioned, but it had a ridiculous setup with two pushrods and rockers for one set of valves.

[Terry Walker]

The dohc 6.75 litre R-R engine, photographed in 2002:

[Ray Bell]

Wow! Doesn't that inlet manifold look sooo Pommy? And the multitude of bolts on the crank flange too!

Of course, it's fine to have the distributors on the back end of the heads if you can afford to pay someone to service the thing!

On the other hand, I'd love to see a schematic of that manifold.

[cosworth bdg]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Wow! Doesn't that inlet manifold look sooo Pommy? And the multitude of bolts on the crank flange too!

Of course, it's fine to have the distributors on the back end of the heads if you can afford to pay someone to service the thing!

On the other hand, I'd love to see a schematic of that manifold.

Your very correct correct in that only the English could do something like this Design..........................................................

[Terry Walker]

Of course it was a hand-made prototype, for test-bed work, never fitted in a car. Too wide to fit inside either the Shadow or the Spirit, which is why it never went into production. You can see a lot of clumsy stuff on the front of the engine that would have been used only for testbed work.

I doubt the dizzy location would have been a problem. My Shadow has an electronic ignition setup that hasn't been touched in the 8 years I've owned it. Never lifted the diz cap to look inside, never replaced a lead.

I think this engine was built at the time Vickers owned both R-R and Cosworth, so it was a (sort of) in house job.

On the flywheel bolts, I expect you need a lot when you're looking at a possible 1,000 lbs ft of torque, which is what the current turbo version of the same block puts out.

Where I took the pic had a bunch of other R-R and Bentley oddball and prototype engines, including a factory Motor Show cutaway of the B60 6 which came before the V8, beautifully done, and when on show in the 50s it was turned over by a hidden electric motor.

[Bob Riebe]

Originally posted by Terry Walker
Of course it was a hand-made prototype, for test-bed work, never fitted in a car. Too wide to fit inside either the Shadow or the Spirit, which is why it never went into production. You can see a lot of clumsy stuff on the front of the engine that would have been used only for testbed work.

I doubt the dizzy location would have been a problem. My Shadow has an electronic ignition setup that hasn't been touched in the 8 years I've owned it. Never lifted the diz cap to look inside, never replaced a lead.

I think this engine was built at the time Vickers owned both R-R and Cosworth, so it was a (sort of) in house job.

On the flywheel bolts, I expect you need a lot when you're looking at a possible 1,000 lbs ft of torque, which is what the current turbo version of the same block puts out.

Where I took the pic had a bunch of other R-R and Bentley oddball and prototype engines, including a factory Motor Show cutaway of the B60 6 which came before the V8, beautifully done, and when on show in the 50s it was turned over by a hidden electric motor.

If you have pictures of the other engines please show them.
Bob
PS--Can you get me the bore spacing of the R-R Engine?

[cosworth bdg]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
I never knew Clisby did that...

I knew about the Dunstan heads, one of which was used in a car that raced at Mallala in the AGP and a couple of years ago featured in Motor Racing Australia. They were made for grey motors, however.

Ray it was the Dunstan head made by Souuthcotts here in Adelaide............

[cheapracer]

Originally posted by Terry Walker
I doubt the dizzy location would have been a problem. My Shadow has an electronic ignition setup that hasn't been touched in the 8 years I've owned it. Never lifted the diz cap to look inside, never replaced a lead.

Look I'm sorry but your wrong and this is the attitude that really hurts car manufacturers.

If your John Smith and you want to buy a car, 90% of the time you will go to your trusted local mechanic. Now your local mechanic hasn't owned your car for 8 years and never had to touch it, it's his job to touch it now, he will only see it for a couple of hours and when the dizzy is in such a location I assure you his/my report on that vehicle will be well less than favourable when John Smith asks about it.

I hate Lada's because it took me 2 hours to change a starter motor on one once - 3 darn bolts!

Which reminds me why lada's have heated rear windows standard - so you don't get cold hands when your pushing them.

Or

Man walks into spare parts place; "How about an oil filter for my Lada"? - Manager answers; "nah Mate, we're not buying today".

[McGuire]

Originally posted by cheapracer


Look I'm sorry but your wrong and this is the attitude that really hurts car manufacturers.

If your John Smith and you want to buy a car, 90% of the time you will go to your trusted local mechanic. Now your local mechanic hasn't owned your car for 8 years and never had to touch it, it's his job to touch it now, he will only see it for a couple of hours and when the dizzy is in such a location I assure you his/my report on that vehicle will be well less than favourable when John Smith asks about it.

Mechanics would certainly like to think so, but not really. That is the mechanic-centric view of the universe. Consumers want cars that don't break, not cars that are easy to work on. They couldn't give a hoot about the latter except to the extent it touches their pocketbooks. Most consumers in the USA don't even have local mechanics anymore. They have never met the persons who service their cars. They turn over their cars every 36 to 48 months having never opened the hoods.

As a practical matter for the manufacturers, cost of assembly in production is far more important than ease of repair in service. That will rule the day with component layouts etc. Cost of assembly is experienced in every car that comes down the line, but cost of repair only matters in the cars that break. Under warranty.

Often the mechanic will wonder, "why in hell did they put that part THERE?", not realizing that the component had to be installed before the body was dropped on the chassis, or before the skillet was dropped over the cradle. At that point in the process that was the most sensible way to do it. And at the end of the day cars are made to be sold and driven, not to be repaired.

[cheapracer]

Originally posted by McGuire


That is the mechanic-centric view of the universe.

Love it!!

[McGuire]

If mechanics designed cars they would all look like Checker Marathons and Mack B Models.

[cheapracer]

Originally posted by McGuire
If mechanics designed cars they would all look like Checker Marathons and Mack B Models.

...with the dizzy at the front of the engine.

We would also ban studded cylinder heads - 6 hours, 2 men and 438 cans of WD40 later to get 1 Jag XJ6 head up the studs I tell people not to buy Jag XJ6's (unless they have a SB Chev, far better car all round then).

Oh and as for XJS V12's, you need to take a 4 year Plumbers apprenticeship and get your ticket before tackling one of them - Dam, I could buy those for 2,000 Aus bucks not so long ago and you couldn't give the engines away, I should have seen the potential :

[Bill Sherwood]

Originally posted by cheapracer


...with the dizzy at the front of the engine.

.... with a mud-flap cable-tied to the grille in front of it, to stop the water getting into it, ala old Mini style.

[Terry Walker]

The diz at the back of my 1970 R-R is perfectly accessible - I just haven't had to access it due to aftermarket electronics. I suppose, if they ever actually thought of putting the twincam R-R into production, things like diz location etc would have been considered during "productionising" phase. But it was never more than a feasibility study. Hey, it works, but look, a Garrett Turbo'd engine works better and costs less, let's run with that...

[cheapracer]

Originally posted by Terry Walker
The diz at the back of my 1970 R-R is perfectly accessible - I just haven't had to access it due to aftermarket electronics. I suppose, if they ever actually thought of putting the twincam R-R into production, things like diz location etc would have been considered during "productionising" phase. But it was never more than a feasibility study. Hey, it works, but look, a Garrett Turbo'd engine works better and costs less, let's run with that...

Terry I've done my years in workshops stretching over hot radiators, from the side over the guard gaining a tired back or actually climbing into the engine bay to know that there is no such thing as an accessible dizzy/accessory at the back of a big car.