ah, thanks, Bill.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4100CB5B.1CE96D9C@***.net...
> Hi Dave,
> Because to get the valves to point at each other in the
> hemispherical dome design, the rockers have got to take some weird
> angles: http://www.classichemi.com/pattern.jpg The new little Hemi wiped
> it though, it'll just never develop the horse power like the engines
> from the sixties: http://members.aol.com/franangrenteria/frankRam.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > why's that Lon ?

 

ah, thanks, Bill.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4100CB5B.1CE96D9C@***.net...
> Hi Dave,
> Because to get the valves to point at each other in the
> hemispherical dome design, the rockers have got to take some weird
> angles: http://www.classichemi.com/pattern.jpg The new little Hemi wiped
> it though, it'll just never develop the horse power like the engines
> from the sixties: http://members.aol.com/franangrenteria/frankRam.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > why's that Lon ?

 

ah, thanks, Bill.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:4100CB5B.1CE96D9C@***.net...
> Hi Dave,
> Because to get the valves to point at each other in the
> hemispherical dome design, the rockers have got to take some weird
> angles: http://www.classichemi.com/pattern.jpg The new little Hemi wiped
> it though, it'll just never develop the horse power like the engines
> from the sixties: http://members.aol.com/franangrenteria/frankRam.jpg
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Dave Milne wrote:
> >
> > why's that Lon ?

 

I got no quarrels with overhead cams, is just that they cost more to
do right, and for similar performance are physically taller, making
streamlining more difficult unless the engine is a boxer, put in the
mid to rear, or both. And then there are the OHC engines where you
set valve lash by putting little freaking shims in little cups on top
of the valves...fun fun fun. With modern engine management much of
the generally superior items from the older OHC designs can be mooted.



L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:

> Hi Lon,
> Over Head Cam worked OK, at over six hundred horse power, stock '67
> Mustang Factory X:
> http://www.popularhotrodding.com/fea...2phr_afxstang/ But, they
> did break parts, that were very expensive compared to the create price
> of twenty three hundred at the time:
> http://automotivemileposts.com/autobrevity/ford427.html The '69 Boss 429
> OHC was a true hemi: http://www.cia.com.au/seale/stangeng.html Uncle
> Sam, called me during those years so I didn't get to play with them,
> then marriage and other things began to take priority.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Lon wrote:
>
>> Plus the trick used on the hemi to change displacement won't work
>> that well without the pushrod design. And a pushrod with modern
>> fuel systems tends to be smaller vertically than a overhead cammer
>> of comparable performance.

 

I got no quarrels with overhead cams, is just that they cost more to
do right, and for similar performance are physically taller, making
streamlining more difficult unless the engine is a boxer, put in the
mid to rear, or both. And then there are the OHC engines where you
set valve lash by putting little freaking shims in little cups on top
of the valves...fun fun fun. With modern engine management much of
the generally superior items from the older OHC designs can be mooted.



L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:

> Hi Lon,
> Over Head Cam worked OK, at over six hundred horse power, stock '67
> Mustang Factory X:
> http://www.popularhotrodding.com/fea...2phr_afxstang/ But, they
> did break parts, that were very expensive compared to the create price
> of twenty three hundred at the time:
> http://automotivemileposts.com/autobrevity/ford427.html The '69 Boss 429
> OHC was a true hemi: http://www.cia.com.au/seale/stangeng.html Uncle
> Sam, called me during those years so I didn't get to play with them,
> then marriage and other things began to take priority.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Lon wrote:
>
>> Plus the trick used on the hemi to change displacement won't work
>> that well without the pushrod design. And a pushrod with modern
>> fuel systems tends to be smaller vertically than a overhead cammer
>> of comparable performance.

 

I got no quarrels with overhead cams, is just that they cost more to
do right, and for similar performance are physically taller, making
streamlining more difficult unless the engine is a boxer, put in the
mid to rear, or both. And then there are the OHC engines where you
set valve lash by putting little freaking shims in little cups on top
of the valves...fun fun fun. With modern engine management much of
the generally superior items from the older OHC designs can be mooted.



L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:

> Hi Lon,
> Over Head Cam worked OK, at over six hundred horse power, stock '67
> Mustang Factory X:
> http://www.popularhotrodding.com/fea...2phr_afxstang/ But, they
> did break parts, that were very expensive compared to the create price
> of twenty three hundred at the time:
> http://automotivemileposts.com/autobrevity/ford427.html The '69 Boss 429
> OHC was a true hemi: http://www.cia.com.au/seale/stangeng.html Uncle
> Sam, called me during those years so I didn't get to play with them,
> then marriage and other things began to take priority.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Lon wrote:
>
>> Plus the trick used on the hemi to change displacement won't work
>> that well without the pushrod design. And a pushrod with modern
>> fuel systems tends to be smaller vertically than a overhead cammer
>> of comparable performance.

 

I got no quarrels with overhead cams, is just that they cost more to
do right, and for similar performance are physically taller, making
streamlining more difficult unless the engine is a boxer, put in the
mid to rear, or both. And then there are the OHC engines where you
set valve lash by putting little freaking shims in little cups on top
of the valves...fun fun fun. With modern engine management much of
the generally superior items from the older OHC designs can be mooted.



L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:

> Hi Lon,
> Over Head Cam worked OK, at over six hundred horse power, stock '67
> Mustang Factory X:
> http://www.popularhotrodding.com/fea...2phr_afxstang/ But, they
> did break parts, that were very expensive compared to the create price
> of twenty three hundred at the time:
> http://automotivemileposts.com/autobrevity/ford427.html The '69 Boss 429
> OHC was a true hemi: http://www.cia.com.au/seale/stangeng.html Uncle
> Sam, called me during those years so I didn't get to play with them,
> then marriage and other things began to take priority.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Lon wrote:
>
>> Plus the trick used on the hemi to change displacement won't work
>> that well without the pushrod design. And a pushrod with modern
>> fuel systems tends to be smaller vertically than a overhead cammer
>> of comparable performance.

 

But, the little pintos blew the door off 2180s.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Lon wrote:
>
> I got no quarrels with overhead cams, is just that they cost more to
> do right, and for similar performance are physically taller, making
> streamlining more difficult unless the engine is a boxer, put in the
> mid to rear, or both. And then there are the OHC engines where you
> set valve lash by putting little freaking shims in little cups on top
> of the valves...fun fun fun. With modern engine management much of
> the generally superior items from the older OHC designs can be mooted.

 

But, the little pintos blew the door off 2180s.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Lon wrote:
>
> I got no quarrels with overhead cams, is just that they cost more to
> do right, and for similar performance are physically taller, making
> streamlining more difficult unless the engine is a boxer, put in the
> mid to rear, or both. And then there are the OHC engines where you
> set valve lash by putting little freaking shims in little cups on top
> of the valves...fun fun fun. With modern engine management much of
> the generally superior items from the older OHC designs can be mooted.

 

But, the little pintos blew the door off 2180s.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Lon wrote:
>
> I got no quarrels with overhead cams, is just that they cost more to
> do right, and for similar performance are physically taller, making
> streamlining more difficult unless the engine is a boxer, put in the
> mid to rear, or both. And then there are the OHC engines where you
> set valve lash by putting little freaking shims in little cups on top
> of the valves...fun fun fun. With modern engine management much of
> the generally superior items from the older OHC designs can be mooted.