102 replies to this topic

[Quixotic]

When I was young I remember watching a replay of the Indy 500. I may be mistaken, but I seem to recall one of the commentators saying that one of the Indy Cars had a Bus engine?

Bloody Hell? Is this just my memory playing tricks on me? Here in Adelaide South Australia in the mid to late 70s it was rare to even see any open wheeler racing, let alone the Indy 500.

Can someone confirm it? Or am I just being an idiot? Even now after all there years, it has stuck in my brain.

[Vitesse2]

The Cummins Diesel Special?

[ZOOOM]

Don't remember the details but back in the stock block era someone qualified with a Chevy
engine that came out of a schoolbus. The thinking at the time was that a block with many miles on it was more "seasoned"
and would hold up better than a fresh block.
It was an interesting story. It ran well but I don't recall if it finished.
Could it have been Dale Coyne?

ZOOOM

[B Squared]

Roger Rager - 1980 - 357 ci Chevrolet in a 1979 Wildcat. Started 10th, finished 23rd - accident in turn 2, lap 55.

I personally thought the bus engine block story was a bit overblown by the press looking for the little guy story as the series became more professional in nature.

[Michael Ferner]

Agree with Brian, it was Roger Rager in 1980, and it was hardly a "bus engine"! Maybe the block originated from a bus engine (or maybe not!), but it was transformed into a proper racing engine before it ever took to the Speedway. There was, however, also the Fageol "bus engine" in 1948, that was put into the ex-Louie Meyer/ex-Rex Mays Bowes chassis for boat racer Bill Cantrell to qualify and race. Lou Fageol was the head of the Fageol Twin Coach Co., an Ohio company that was apparently in the bus manufacturing buisness. Whether the engine (a 4.5-litre 6-cylinder) really originated from a street-going bus is another question, however.

[D-Type]

The Cummins Diesel Special?

It's a question of definition.

The Cummins diesel engine didn't come out of a bus. The design was intended for installation in a bus or a truck. I understand that in addition to reducing frontal area another reason for the "laydown" arrangement of the 1952 Indianapolis car was that this was the arrangement proposed for bus installations to allow forward control with the driving position over the engine. If the perceived oil scavenging problems could be demonstrated to have been solved in a racing car they would be clearly work for a bus or truck.

BMW should have taken a close look at the Cummins engine before producing the engine for the 1986 Brabham BT55!

[arttidesco]

Better known as a midget racer Roger Ragley's #66 Wildcat with a stock block taken from a school bus is seen at the bottom of this post, according to some accounts Roger led two laps before retiring !

Roger retired in 2009 after being inducted into the National Sprint Car Hall of Fame.

Edited by arttidesco, 11 July 2010 - 16:57.

[Michael Ferner]

Midget racer? Hmm. I remember him as one of the last quintessential travelling Sprint Car drivers to make it to Indy, and yes, he led two laps during early yellows, one while going down the pit lane! And his name was really Roger Rager...

[arttidesco]

Stand corrected Michael what is the difference between a midget and sprint car exactly ?

[David McKinney]

Depends what part of the world you're in, and what period you're talking about ;)

[arttidesco]

USA 1980 to 2009 is the period covered by Roger Rager, he resides in Minnesota if that makes much difference ?

[Bob Riebe]

Roger Rager - 1980 - 357 ci Chevrolet in a 1979 Wildcat. Started 10th, finished 23rd - accident in turn 2, lap 55.

I personally thought the bus engine block story was a bit overblown by the press looking for the little guy story as the series became more professional in nature.

You would not if you were the one doing the wrenching and did not have x hundreds of thousands of dollars for hired men.

[arttidesco]

You would not if you were the one doing the wrenching and did not have x hundreds of thousands of dollars for hired men.

Rather reminds me of the Connew with it's clapped out DFV engine 'borrowed' from McLaren.

Racing is full of fascinating little details of this nature, I remember being at Le Mans once when the WM's ran out of spares for their PRV V6 engines and a call came over the PA to the effect that PRV would be most grateful if they could borrow some ones Volvo 260 distributor for a speed record attempt on the Mulsanne straight :-)

[sterling49]

Delicately phrased Arty.........there is a member on TNF who has very close links with the Connew team.............I saw the Connew, it was a brave effort.

[B Squared]

You would not if you were the one doing the wrenching and did not have x hundreds of thousands of dollars for hired men.

I understand what you are saying Bob. As long as it is true, I have no problems with a good tug at the heart story. A gallant, underdog effort doesn't necessarily have to be built up in legend with possible near or untruths. It will be readily recognized, supported and congratulated by your peers in the garage and in those fans in the know. At least that is my opinion on it.

[Michael Ferner]

Sprint Car = full size racing car

Midget = ...well, a midget of a racing car, you see?

I don't want to get into any argument, but Roger always seemed to me the guy to make a difference between a MAN's racing car, and.. a midget. Mound, Minnesota, that's where he came from, and he raced all throught the sixties and seventies. Some may say he was a spent force by 1980...

[Lee Nicolle]

Stand corrected Michael what is the difference between a midget and sprint car exactly ?

Both cars are similar in design but a midget has an up to 2.5 litre engine and a Sprinter has at least a 5 litre engine and generally has wings. Do some research about those cars.

[Michael Ferner]

You would not if you were the one doing the wrenching and did not have x hundreds of thousands of dollars for hired men.

Not wanting to demean the efforts of real racers, but I have always found it odd that the "general public" used to cheer the stock block efforts, not only at Indianapolis. In my view, it has only led to terribly boring racing cars, and very possibly to very boring racing. Sure, stock blocks are meant to be cheap, but look at today's Sprint Cars, they are anything but. What exactly is the lure of stock block engines, or even "stock cars"?????? It's just a vain attempt to sell racing to a public who doesn`t care. And with that, it has estranged all the fans of "real" racing. The rot set in in 1930... with Eddie Ricken****er!

[T54]

What's wrong with THIS ONE?

[RStock]

Roger Rager - 1980 - 357 ci Chevrolet in a 1979 Wildcat. Started 10th, finished 23rd - accident in turn 2, lap 55.

I personally thought the bus engine block story was a bit overblown by the press looking for the little guy story as the series became more professional in nature.

Agree with Brian, it was Roger Rager in 1980, and it was hardly a "bus engine"! Maybe the block originated from a bus engine (or maybe not!), but it was transformed into a proper racing engine before it ever took to the Speedway.

As ZOOM has already noted, there was a method to the madness of using a "bus engine" to race. I can't shed any light on the Indy car with the supposed bus engine, but it being a 357 ci doesn't match with what I know of them.

It was rather common years back for some to use "bus engines". These were actually GM designed "truck engines" for use in their heavy haulers, 1 ton and the like and so therefore were used in school buses. . But they were big block engines, and I'd have to dig out my old big block Chevy books, but they were much larger than a 357. They were basically just regular big blocks with a taller deck, thus a longer stroke if I recall correctly.

They were generally used a a "low buck" alternative which could be beefed up to racing standards with parts that fit other Big Blocks. I used to see them in some of the Winged Modified division we competed in. One fellow used them regularly, and we had the running joke whenever we saw him pull in that "somewhere, a school bus is missing an engine."

Oh, and a note on Roger Rager, one of the best Sprint Car shoes of all time. I saw him win a heat race with the World of Outlaws a few years back, at age 70+ I believe it was.

Edited by REDARMYSOJA, 12 July 2010 - 00:40.

[Lee Nicolle]

Not wanting to demean the efforts of real racers, but I have always found it odd that the "general public" used to cheer the stock block efforts, not only at Indianapolis. In my view, it has only led to terribly boring racing cars, and very possibly to very boring racing. Sure, stock blocks are meant to be cheap, but look at today's Sprint Cars, they are anything but. What exactly is the lure of stock block engines, or even "stock cars"?????? It's just a vain attempt to sell racing to a public who doesn`t care. And with that, it has estranged all the fans of "real" racing. The rot set in in 1930... with Eddie Ricken****er!

World of Outlaws 410s[and mainstream Aussie and NZ] are expensive purpose built engines based on a small block Chev. Whereas the 360 engines are true stock block and comparitivly cheap engines.

[Lee Nicolle]

As ZOOM has already noted, there was a method to the madness of using a "bus engine" to race. I can't shed any light on the Indy car with the supposed bus engine, but it being a 357 ci doesn't match with what I know of them.

It was rather common years back for some to use "bus engines". These were actually GM designed "truck engines" for use in their heavy haulers, 1 ton and the like and so therefore were used in school buses. . But they were big block engines, and I'd have to dig out my old big block Chevy books, but they were much larger than a 357. They were basically just regular big blocks with a taller deck, thus a longer stroke if I recall correctly.

They were generally used a a "low buck" alternative which could be beefed up to racing standards with parts that fit other Big Blocks. I used to see them in some of the Winged Modified division we competed in. One fellow used them regularly, and we had the running joke whenever we saw him pull in that "somewhere, a school bus is missing an engine."

Oh, and a note on Roger Rager, one of the best Sprint Car shoes of all time. I saw him win a heat race with the World of Outlaws a few years back, at age 70+ I believe it was.

While some GM commercials used big blocks, generally 454 a lot also use 350s. And the truck block was generally one of the best castings with steel cranks etc so to say it was a bus engine could well be true. A 357 can be made by a stock stroke and 040 overbore or 3.5 stroke and 020 overbore [Aproximatly]

[B Squared]

I got the cubic inch number from the Jack C. Fox book. Maybe someone has another source to confirm or correct the 357 figure.

[Bob Riebe]

I got the cubic inch number from the Jack C. Fox book. Maybe someone has another source to confirm or correct the 357 figure.

As the USAC/CART stock-block limit was 355 in. cubed, the number does not make sense.

[Bob Riebe]

Not wanting to demean the efforts of real racers, but I have always found it odd that the "general public" used to cheer the stock block efforts, not only at Indianapolis. In my view, it has only led to terribly boring racing cars, and very possibly to very boring racing. Sure, stock blocks are meant to be cheap, but look at today's Sprint Cars, they are anything but. What exactly is the lure of stock block engines, or even "stock cars"?????? It's just a vain attempt to sell racing to a public who doesn`t care. And with that, it has estranged all the fans of "real" racing. The rot set in in 1930... with Eddie Ricken****er!

Hmm,most Can-Am cars were stock-blocks, the later engines were alloy, but the mechanical system involved was identical to the truck blocks.

It is called: Race on Sunday, sell on Monday-- something few current Europeans understand as they lived in a different society, although, touring cars in Europe seemed to live by the same dogma for quite some years.
You have no idea how much the public did care , or you would not make such an obtuse statement, ignorance is bliss.

Boring racing-- hmmm- John Greenwood traveled down the Mulsanne at over 210 mph, in a three thousand pound stock-block, modified street car-- I can hear the cry from a European now- "If that car had a proper racing engine, in a proper racing car, it would not be so boring!"

Tell me, why does the millions Ford spent on the DOHC, and DFV, and variants, produce less boring racing?
Dan Gurney thought stock-blocks were the way to go, he told CART, and USAC, that with another thirty inches cubed, he could run with the hyper-buck racing engines; therefore USAC, CART, and you think he was fool, although apparently a dangerous one as they made sure the stock-blocks did not get the extra inches.

[RA Historian]

Just to be ornery and to go off on a tangent, isn't "stock block" a bit of a misnomer? Would not "pushrod" be somewhat more accurate? After all, most cars built these days have overhead cams. As such, with these being the "stock" engine, shouldn't they also be classified as "stock blocks"?

Then there were the Mercedes-Benz pushrod V-8s used in 1994. Special, built from the ground up, pure racing engines, but with pushrod valve actuation. Under the very loose use of the term "stock block" that everyone seems to use, those engines would fall into that category although they, of course, were anything but "stock".

Yet another example. In the early, dark days of the IRL the cars were powered by production-based Oldsmobile and Nissan dohc V-8s. Seeing as these V-8s were standard production items in Oldsmobile and Infiniti cars, by all definition and usage, these four overhead cam engines were very much "stock blocks"!

So, calling pushrod V-8s being used in racing as "stock blocks" really is not too accurate, is it.

Just being contrary...;)

Tom

Edited by RA Historian, 12 July 2010 - 16:34.

[RA Historian]

... as they made sure the stock-blocks did not get the extra inches.

Not quite as I recall it. I believe that the pushrod engines not only got greater displacement, but the turbocharged ones also got greater boost. I seem to recall that sometime in the 1980s (?) that CART restricted pushrod engines to the same boost as overhead cam engines, but that they still had greater displacement. 3.4 vs 2.65, IIRC? Meanwhile, USAC still allowed pushrod engines not only the greater displacement but also greater boost. The climax of that disparity, of course, was Roger Penske's special race built pushrod Mercedes-Benz V-8s in the 1994 Indianapolis 500.

[Michael Ferner]

Dan Gurney asked for "another thirty inches" several times, and he got them several times, beginning in the sixties. That's exactly my point: stock block engines aren't competitive, unless they are allowed a massive advantage in capacity. We're talking about 355 Chevys when racing engines were only allowed 275 inches. Yet, some people always complain that stock blocks aren't given "fair rules"!!! I REALLY don't get it, somebody please explain: WHY?

"Race on Sunday, sell on Monday" may be important for the manufacturers, but as a fan I couldn't care less. I'm (or, better: I was) in it for the sport, for the exciting technology, for the inventive engineering, and not for the business interests of the participants. Sure, speed costs money and somebody will have to pay the bills, but history has shown that racers can deal with it without manufacturer support, and in general the racing has always been better when no factories were involved. Manufacturers will always look for an "angle", how to make an investment pay off in terms of advertising or whatever. Take the minimum weights that NASCAR used to establish for every individual manufacturer, what a load of crap! Make ONE set of rules, and let the racers play with it, and it usually gives good, level racing, like when everybody ran Offys at Indy or Cosworths in F1. Whether they use stock blocks or not is not important, but they should all play by the SAME rule!

[Bob Riebe]

Dan Gurney asked for "another thirty inches" several times, and he got them several times, beginning in the sixties. That's exactly my point: stock block engines aren't competitive, unless they are allowed a massive advantage in capacity. We're talking about 355 Chevys when racing engines were only allowed 275 inches. Yet, some people always complain that stock blocks aren't given "fair rules"!!! I REALLY don't get it, somebody please explain: WHY?

It changed during the sixties and early seventies but at first it was 256pperiod, then racing verses 305 stock block, same as the sprint cars, then the standard stock block was upped to 320, but special push-rod heads still at 305; then all were 320; eventually they stopped at 355, same as Champ cars, and small-block stock cars.
Racing engines remained at 256, but Offys were allowed 274 naturally aspirated, to keep them competitive in Champ cars.
So Gurney never got 30 inches cubed, ever, if what you said was true the engine would have been at 365 inches.

Without the equivalency formula it would have been a boring spec. race, as it is now a long time ago.
The Offy people raised hell back in the fifties AAA days when Chrysler was going to run a Hemi; they pissed and moaned till the AAA made the Hemi uncompetitive. That should have made you happy, no variety, just the same old Offys, over and over and over and over.
With out the varied formula Ford would not have spent squat to race there and it might still be Offys.

It is an apprx. of making them equal by mechanical equation. It is not perfect but worked, to varying degrees during the fifties through the seventies ose oin multiple racing forms.
Why did blown engines in F-1 not run at 3 liters, what a boring cop-out.

Why does (did) LeMans have all those other classes, I assume that bothered you also.
Variety is the spice of life, it is gone from racing now and racing pretty much sucks.

[Oscarphone]

Don't remember the details but back in the stock block era someone qualified with a Chevy
engine that came out of a schoolbus. The thinking at the time was that a block with many miles on it was more "seasoned"
and would hold up better than a fresh block.
It was an interesting story. It ran well but I don't recall if it finished.
Could it have been Dale Coyne?;)

ZOOOM

According what I know, Zooom is right on this. Seasoned blocks were at the time highly sought after by racers as they were stronger and less prone to torsional forces having been "seasoned" (or repeatedly heat cycled) by years of duty in buses or any industrial application. Chevrolet industrial duty engines were also four bolt main blocks, same as their high performance, high compression brothers. Using seasoned blocks were real common in NASCAR too but I don't think they do it now as they all can afford the best blocks money can buy and they use aluminum I'm thinkin'. Might still be popular in the lower ranks of stock car racing tho.

[arttidesco]

IMHO great racing usually comes about by exceptional circumstances and talents rather than any particular set of regulations I am thinking about the final half a dozen laps at the 1979 French GP when Arnoux and Villeneuve were at it hammer and tongs one in a ground effect V6 1.5 litre turbo the other in a not quite so ground effect 3 litre flat 12.

Regrettably only saw that on tv.

Also Le Mans in 1988 when the V12 7 litre Jaguar beat the flat 6 3 litre turbo Porsche by less than 3 mins.

In favour of the stock regs Formula Ford which in the UK from the late 70's to the late 90's produced some of the best racing I have ever seen as did the one Renault 5 Cup race I saw at the Nurburgring at the 1976 GP meeting.

[Bob Riebe]

According what I know, Zooom is right on this. Seasoned blocks were at the time highly sought after by racers as they were stronger and less prone to torsional forces having been "seasoned" (or repeatedly heat cycled) by years of duty in buses or any industrial application. Chevrolet industrial duty engines were also four bolt main blocks, same as their high performance, high compression brothers. Using seasoned blocks were real common in NASCAR too but I don't think they do it now as they all can afford the best blocks money can buy and they use aluminum I'm thinkin'. Might still be popular in the lower ranks of stock car racing tho.

No they are still cast-iron or one of the newer iron compositions.
They have the money now to pre-stress or some other method, so old seasoned block do not have the premium status they used to, but are still an excellant choice.

[Bob Riebe]

IMHO great racing usually comes about by exceptional circumstances and talents rather than any particular set of regulations I am thinking about the final half a dozen laps at the 1979 French GP when Arnoux and Villeneuve were at it hammer and tongs one in a ground effect V6 1.5 litre turbo the other in a not quite so ground effect 3 litre flat 12.

Regrettably only saw that on tv.

Also Le Mans in 1988 when the V12 7 litre Jaguar beat the flat 6 3 litre turbo Porsche by less than 3 mins.

In favour of the stock regs Formula Ford which in the UK from the late 70's to the late 90's produced some of the best racing I have ever seen as did the one Renault 5 Cup race I saw at the Nurburgring at the 1976 GP meeting.

You are of a "close race" as what you call good racing; in the U.S. a close race used to be a cherry on top of the treat, but racing was make verses make, and as long as one's personal choice of make was the winner, huge blow out or not, that was what counted.
Drivers, much less a "close race" were never the drawing point, although many had there favorites.

The Can-Am was a huge draw, to the end, even though the races were blow-outs; the SCCA Formual A/5000 had closer races, and especially at the end " bigger name " drivers, but was always a b class show, but was killed and had fenders put on the cars so it could be callled Can-Am.

NASCAR, to Big Bill France's credit, nurtured and forced things, so drivers could replace the cars as stars, when the cars became a farce (though he forced Detroit to sell what they raced as long as possible, shown by the low production aero Chevy Monte Carlos, and Pontiac Grand Prix that he required to be built, and sold to the public, if they wanted to race them).
That worked well when the stars, had once been attached to factory A, B, or C. Now that those that drove in both eras are gone, NASCARS falling attendance shows that drivers come and drivers go, and the fans do not really care.
Earnhardt senior was the last of the hard chargers that had a connection to the old times; Earnhardt Jr. leeched off of his fathers exceptional status, as the last of the hard chargers, not his fault but his fortune.
I was amazed, this year,I found that when what I thought was one of the new up comers had been racing and winning for a decade.
The only reason I really checked on the goings on was the new Ford engine for this year. (I watched every Daytona and Talledega 500 possible on TV until 1994. The cars had become a joke by then and I have not watch one since.)

On a secondary note, the attendance for the b class NASCAR cars at Road America, shows that if someone had the brains and bucks to get it going, a redo of the Trans-Am with original series rules would probably be a huge hit.

[Bob Riebe]

Not quite as I recall it. I believe that the pushrod engines not only got greater displacement, but the turbocharged ones also got greater boost. I seem to recall that sometime in the 1980s (?) that CART restricted pushrod engines to the same boost as overhead cam engines, but that they still had greater displacement. 3.4 vs 2.65, IIRC? Meanwhile, USAC still allowed pushrod engines not only the greater displacement but also greater boost. The climax of that disparity, of course, was Roger Penske's special race built pushrod Mercedes-Benz V-8s in the 1994 Indianapolis 500.

Blown push-rod engines always, as I remember, allowed 209 inches cubed, but Gurney was not speaking of blown engines. He wanted the extra inches for the non-blown stock-block.

He felt that with apprx 390 inches, the stock-block engines could run with the blown ohc engines, without being tuned to hand-grenade levels.

At that point in time stock-blocks were just that. It had been over a decaded since Gurney used prototype alloy Windsor Ford blocks from Alcoa, and they were long gone.
His Chevy was the prototype for the first ever after-market alloy Chevy.

The huge after market, much less factory, offering of iron and alloy versions of engines from Detroit did not exist.
The fear of a competitive bus engine, must have scared CART and USAC.

[Bloggsworth]

The thinking at the time was that a block with many miles on it was more "seasoned" and would hold up better than a fresh block.

I seem to recall that BMW used old engine blocks in Brabhams during the turbo era for precisely that reason.

Edited by Bloggsworth, 12 July 2010 - 21:11.

[Lee Nicolle]

I seem to recall that BMW used old engine blocks in Brabhams during the turbo era for precisely that reason.

Yes i have heard that too. The BMW Turbo engines with their rediculous horsepower figures were a stock block engine!!
In the US 60s stock blocks were largely that, hence the used truck blocks would have been [and still are] a desirable thing and not just in Chevys.These days you can buy any number of aftermarket blocks that are more suited to race use and capable of the best bore and stroke combos. In Ford, Chev and A block Mopar.
I doubt that anyone would have used the 305 Chevy,that is small bore long stroke. They would have used the 302 [4"x3"]which was ofcourse the basis for F5000 engines. 302 Fords were the same and A block Mopar was a short stroke 340.
Smokey Yunick ran a turbo 209 Chevy at Indy in the late 60s. from what i gather it had big HP but reliability was a factor.
Even now a 6 litre normally aspirated stock block would possibly be competitive among the turbo cars though the weight and bulk would probably be an issue. Even with alloy blocks etc. But I bet the crowds would love them, and they would look and sound tuff!
And Fines, the reason people would like them as they can assimilate those engines to their own cars, or at least the ones they used to own before they started driving 4 cyl Front WD econo boxes that Americans sem to drive these days. They have to import alot of true performance cars these days.Though thank God they are bringing back at least a few interesting cars like Mustangs and Challengers etc.
Though those engines are probably not up to being racedextremely hard. Though very nice engines for road cars.

[Michael Ferner]

The Offy people raised hell back in the fifties AAA days when Chrysler was going to run a Hemi; they pissed and moaned till the AAA made the Hemi uncompetitive.

Nobody made the Hemi uncompetitive, it simply WAS uncompetitive. Chrysler used oversize engines to match the speed of the Offys, that's all there is to it. And about the rest of your comments, I shall remain silent.

[Bob Riebe]

Nobody made the Hemi uncompetitive, it simply WAS uncompetitive. Chrysler used oversize engines to match the speed of the Offys, that's all there is to it. And about the rest of your comments, I shall remain silent.

Your statement is obtuse.
AAA changed the rules, look it up.

Earlier that year the AAA Contest Board approved a rules change that would allow stock block engines displacing up to 335 cubic inch displacement (cid) to run against pure racing engines that were limited to 4.5 Liters (274.4 cid). Chrysler’s 331 cid HEMI fit nicely into the formula, as did most of America’s new overhead valve V8s. Chrysler took one look at the new rules and jumped right in. The engineers already had a HEMI racing engine—developed for the Cunningham sports car team. It was to dominate the road courses of America that year and earn respect at the 24 Hours of Le Mans....

This big success was also Walcott’s and Chrysler’s big mistake. They did it all in public, not realizing that the news would alarm the Indy establishment, with its huge investment in Offenhauser racing engines. Faced with extinction at the hands of the new stock-block HEMI, the entrenched teams lobbied hard. After months of controversy the AAA caved, and in February 1953 took away Chrysler’s advantage by reducing the stock-block displacement limit to 4.5 Liters, the same as pure racing engines. The result: no more 400 hp for the HEMI.

Edited by Bob Riebe, 13 July 2010 - 14:31.

[Michael Ferner]

I have looked it up, and as opposed to you, I did so in period sources. This statement of yours has been endlessly copied in secondary literature, but still it's bollocks. But I'm sure you don't care, after all a good legend is much more interesting than the boring truth...

[D-Type]

Both cars are similar in design but a midget has an up to 2.5 litre engine and a Sprinter has at least a 5 litre engine and generally has wings. Do some research about those cars.

When did those limits apply? I thought a sprint car had the same limits as applied at Indianapolis - 4.5 litre to 1956, 4.2 litre 1957-1968, etc

[Ray Bell]

Originally posted by Michael Ferner
.....But I'm sure you don't care, after all a good legend is much more interesting than the boring truth.

You did learn something from Buford after all!

I do agree with you, however, that great racing doesn't come from pandering to manufacturers...

[Lee Nicolle]

When did those limits apply? I thought a sprint car had the same limits as applied at Indianapolis - 4.5 litre to 1956, 4.2 litre 1957-1968, etc

The rules are diferent for different organisitions and always have been.Since at least 1970 USAC ran wingless Sprints with 5 litre engines. Other bodies used 355 ci or 366 at least. Mostly Chevs but there was a few Fords and and Mopars.
Midgets used different capacities too and the Offy was propped up there too in the early 70s with the VW invasion they were given more capacity.
I am not sure of US rules but here in Oz midget rules have generally followed US and forced aspiration has equivilancys as do twin cam etc.
Sprinters , which evolved from Supermodifieds used both small and big block engines until early 70s. From then it was 366, then 372 until 410s were allowed 2-3 years ago. [To me a dumb decision particularly with our generally smaller tracks]
In the US more tracks run 360s which are true stock block Chevs with 23 deg heads. And they are getting bigger too here in Oz. Far cheaper to run and maintain.

[ZOOOM]

Michael, with all due respect, The Chrysler engines complied with the rules for the Indy 500.
They were certified to compete for the race.
The following year the displacement for the stock blocks, was reduced. The stock block Chrysler engines were no longer compeditive.
They were no longer brought to Indy to compete.
Those are facts.
Kinda like the turbines that followed.
Kinda like the Mercedes stock block engines used by Penske that were outlawed the next year.
The Indy management has, for years, accommodated the status quo.
It may not be nice, but it is the truth......

ZOOOM



Here is one of the offending Chrysler powered cars that ran at Indy before it was banned.

[McGuire]

Nobody made the Hemi uncompetitive, it simply WAS uncompetitive. Chrysler used oversize engines to match the speed of the Offys, that's all there is to it.

That is my understanding as well. The Chrysler was never banned. It ran at Indy in '53 but failed to qualify running at the regular displacement limit. The engine was never actually legal at 331 CID. There were proposals, discussions, and lobbying by Chrysler, but in the end the rules remained unchanged. So the Chrysler was totally legal but only at the same displacement as the Offy. There was no separate displacement limit for production-based passenger car engines until 1966 when the 305 rule was instituted.

A reasonable person might ask why the Chrysler should be allowed such a big break in displacement in the first place. Its design was 20 years newer than the Offy's and it had eight cylinders to Offy's four. Nor was the A311 (Chrysler's internal designation) a true production engine, as it used a special block, heads, etc. In 1963 Ford ran its pushrod V8 (not a stockblock either) at the same displacement as the Offies et al. Why should the rules be rewritten to hand the Chrysler a clear and unwarranted performance advantage? Especially when this advantage was clearly demonstrated in testing? That's hardly fair, reasonable, or responsible action by a sanctioning body.

It appears that over the years, the story has been spun in the Chrysler's direction by single-marque enthusiasts and overimaginative writers. If anyone has primary source material to the contrary (like a USAC rulebook or an official rules change announcement) I will happily stand corrected. I can be wrong like anyone else.

[RStock]

Sprinters , which evolved from Supermodifieds

Not hardly. Sprinters have been around since the begining of the automobile and might be the first "true" racing cars. The modern sprint car is a mutation of sprints and super-modifieds, but they did not evole from them. There's an entire thread here somewhere about it, "The origins of sprint car racing" or something like that.

[Lee Nicolle]

Not hardly. Sprinters have been around since the begining of the automobile and might be the first "true" racing cars. The modern sprint car is a mutation of sprints and super-modifieds, but they did not evole from them. There's an entire thread here somewhere about it, "The origins of sprint car racing" or something like that.

In Australia and New Zealand they did.

[Henri Greuter]

Yes i have heard that too. The BMW Turbo engines with their rediculous horsepower figures were a stock block engine!!
In the US 60s stock blocks were largely that, hence the used truck blocks would have been [and still are] a desirable thing and not just in Chevys.These days you can buy any number of aftermarket blocks that are more suited to race use and capable of the best bore and stroke combos. In Ford, Chev and A block Mopar.
I doubt that anyone would have used the 305 Chevy,that is small bore long stroke. They would have used the 302 [4"x3"]which was ofcourse the basis for F5000 engines. 302 Fords were the same and A block Mopar was a short stroke 340.
Smokey Yunick ran a turbo 209 Chevy at Indy in the late 60s. from what i gather it had big HP but reliability was a factor.
Even now a 6 litre normally aspirated stock block would possibly be competitive among the turbo cars though the weight and bulk would probably be an issue. Even with alloy blocks etc. But I bet the crowds would love them, and they would look and sound tuff!
And Fines, the reason people would like them as they can assimilate those engines to their own cars, or at least the ones they used to own before they started driving 4 cyl Front WD econo boxes that Americans sem to drive these days. They have to import alot of true performance cars these days.Though thank God they are bringing back at least a few interesting cars like Mustangs and Challengers etc.
Though those engines are probably not up to being racedextremely hard. Though very nice engines for road cars.

Smokey's turbocharged stock block was ran between '73 and '75.

As for stock blocks being competitive against the turbocharged cars, Sorry but no way unless you take off the turbos.
Back in '88 it was Dale Coyne who ran the last ever stock blocks at Indy at least in practice in a 2 year old car, an 86C March. I recall the capacity being a massive 390 CI in US units. The capacity had been raised shortly before in order to increase the power output.
An 86C was used, more modern cars were simply not big enough anymore to shrinkwrap around the block. The frontal area alone was too bulky already. Since 87 on, the frontal area of the indycars were reduced, thus needing less power to get them through the air at the same speeds. This effectivly nullifying the increased capacity allowed for the atmo stock blocks.

And then, keep in mind that from, say 1990 on, the cars became even lower and flatter with even less frontal area.
For those who remember the car, try to imagine to fit a 6.5 liter Chevy within a March 90P size chassis (that was the 1990 center exhaust March Porsche.)
The 90P was a tiny car, and remember that the 1990 Porsche engine was far more bulky then the post 1992 engines like the Ford XB and XD enges and Ilmor /C and /D.
Think about the diference in frontal area between such a 6.5 liter Stock and the XB... The difference between Ford/Foyt Qaudcam, DFX, and XB is startling enough.
And I think iit is very unlikely that the frontal area of the 6.5 liter stock block could have been reduced that much compared with the area it had in 1988 already. Those vegetable tin cans within the anchor could not be reduced that much...

That why: only if those shoebox size quadcam engines of 1993 and later had virtually no turboboost whatsoever, then the would be so much down on power against the atmo Stock block that it had enough of a power advantage to make up for the far larger frontal area of the car they had to drag through the air.



In this thread the Mercedes "Stock block" is mentioned but this wasn't a stock block at all. It was in almost every aspect (save one) a purebred racing engine. The only compromize made for it was that it was fitted with technology based on stock block technology (two valves and pushrod, single in block comshaft) but in its most extreme optimized configuration as possible in order to benefit from the two bonusses valid for a pushrod engine: additonal cpacity as well as additional turboboost.

Allow me to refer to two pieces that I have put out on the web at the 8W website, related with this engine. The first is a brief history of stock block engines at indianapolis before the arrival of the Ilmor/Mercedes.
I know that I've had a number of confrontations with several posaters in this thread because of my opinion on stock blocks but to my knowledge, this piece is unbiased, neutral and an overview of what has been at the speedway.
Maybe some of you will like to read this and if anyone can add something to it, please feel free to inform me about it.

http://www.forix.com...tockblocks.html


The second piece is written by former USAC director Mike Devin in which he told me about USAC's opinion on stock block and how they came into use within USAC/Indy and were allowed to race against purebred racing engines.
For these people who are interested in the Mercedes engine, I think it contains a number of little known details and facts about what USAC knew about the engine before it was introduced as well as the reasons why it was outawed eventually. I can add to this that this particular piece is published with permission from Mr. Devin


http://www.forix.com...sac-reacts.html


One last return to topic the bus engine. Wasn't there a car entered by Lou Fageol, a "Twin coach special" somewhere in the late 40's or very early 50's that was powered by a bus engine too?
(I ask this since my Indy stock block history piece I refer to could not contain or refer to every entry even made....... )


Henri

Edited by Henri Greuter, 14 July 2010 - 11:55.

[Michael Ferner]

When did those limits apply? I thought a sprint car had the same limits as applied at Indianapolis - 4.5 litre to 1956, 4.2 litre 1957-1968, etc

"Sprint Car" is a single term used for a variety of machines, and Lee Nicolle has already enlarged upon that, but I don't think USAC Sprint Cars ever had the same engine rules as Indy Cars, though they were very close for a long time in the sixties. 5-litre/305 CID stock-block engines were allowed under USAC from late fifties, early sixties (1962 the latest). Today, in the US, it's mostly 360 (5.9 litres) or 410 (6.7 litres) cubic inches.

Edited by Michael Ferner, 14 July 2010 - 13:42.

[arttidesco]

Here is a pic of Paul Russo in Lou Fageol's 4wd 'Twin Coach Special' at Indy in 1946, featuring two 1.5 litre 'Offy's' one in the front one in the back

If memory serves me well this arrangement is close to impossible to tune.

[Michael Ferner]

Michael, with all due respect, The Chrysler engines complied with the rules for the Indy 500. Yes, those that were entered in the 1953 Indy 500.
They were certified to compete for the race. Yes, but they were to slow to make the starting field.
The following year the displacement for the stock blocks, was reduced. No, there never was a special displacement limit for stock blocks under AAA rules.
The stock block Chrysler engines were no longer compeditive. They never were in the first place.
They were no longer brought to Indy to compete. Not true, they just never made the starting field because they were uncompetitive.
Those are facts.

Those are not facts, but wishful thinking by the Chrysler PR department. You can find the full engine specifications in every Indy 500 Yearbook, and they never changed between 1950 and 1953, and the only changes for 1954 were a slight decrease in capacity for 4-stroke Diesel engines, a slight increase for 2-stroke Diesel engines and the option for Turbine engines.

Chrysler just pulled a PR stunt with illegal engines, and hoped the public would be too dumb to notice. The sad thing is, they ultimately succeeded!

A few contemporary newspaper articles are enlightening:

"(UP)—Race driver Joie James disclosed today that he had piloted a test car powered by an eight-cylinder semi stock Chrysler engine at speeds up to 170 miles per hour on the Indianapolis motor speedway track Thursday. James said the car averaged 137 miles per hour for each lap, well above the speedway average. David Wallace, president of the Chrysler Corp. Chrysler Division, said he didn't know whether any effort would be made to change 500-mile race specifications so an engine of that type could compete. The engine, with 331-cubic inch piston displacement, differs chiefly from a stock engine in its carburetion method. The car is owned by Roger Wolcott, an Indianapolis businessman." (Traverse City, MI, Oct 11, 1952)

"The Chrysler engine used at that time [during the test runs] — like other engines coming off the production line now — was slightly larger than the maximum allowance of 274 cubic inches permitted under Speedway rules. Chrysler engineers have solved that problem, however, by reducing the stroke of the piston sufficiently to comply with existing regulations." (Tipton Tribune, IN, Mar 3 1953)

"Connor's car, and a mate to be driven by Johnny Tolan, National AAA midget racing champion from Denver, are limited to the same size power plant as the special four-cylinder racing engines that have won the last six Indianapolis classics. The Tolan car was used in Firestone tire tests last summer with a V-8 Chrysler engine of 331 cubic inches piston displacement." (Galesburg Register-Mail, IL, May 6, 1953)

The funny thing is, even with an engine that was a full litre over the maximum displacement, the Chrysler was not really that competitive: 137 mph was not "well above the speedway average", it was still more than one second per lap slower than the official lap record - after 500 miles, it would've been lapped three or four times. And about "the slightly larger than the maximum allowance of 274 cubic inches", it should be noted that thirty years earlier, one Harry Miller had built complete engines that had little more than that difference in overall capacity, and ran nearly as fast as the Chrysler. Yes, the Offy owners must've shivered with fear...