What an engine bay
- Thread starter Chris Melia
- Start date
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
Which one's this? Nice headers. This is an original car, right, with the rubber drive donuts?
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
I agree; look at how neat the headers are, the crossover pipes are just tucked right in, and the air intake horns are right out onthe side where you could duct lots of cold air to them. In a way, it's a shame the four-cam engine wasn't the standard one, but if ithad been we wouldn't be as well off today, able to build up a full-house GT40 motor from a 5.0 block. I know Jim Toensing's car had an Indy 4cam motor for a while- did any others?
With the exhaust up on top, I wonder what
the rear clip/rear window looked like? It
would have to be modified or heavily
insulated, otherwise it would most probably
melt or catch on fire.
Perhaps that's one of the reasons that the
Indy engine was scrapped.
There were two Gt40's with 4 cams in them.
It sure did look neat, didn't it?
Bill
[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Bayard ]
the rear clip/rear window looked like? It
would have to be modified or heavily
insulated, otherwise it would most probably
melt or catch on fire.
Perhaps that's one of the reasons that the
Indy engine was scrapped.
There were two Gt40's with 4 cams in them.
It sure did look neat, didn't it?
Bill
[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Bayard ]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris L:
The concept of exhaust on top with side induction didn't last long in top competition (a few years in the 60s). Does anyone know why? It seems so much more convenient.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was wondering the same thing a couple of days ago. Could it be because of the concentrated heat or the difficulty of sycronizing the throttles?
The concept of exhaust on top with side induction didn't last long in top competition (a few years in the 60s). Does anyone know why? It seems so much more convenient.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was wondering the same thing a couple of days ago. Could it be because of the concentrated heat or the difficulty of sycronizing the throttles?
Hi all
This design could have been dropped because of combustion chamber design considerations. The inlet’s sits between the cams and next to the spark plug , so heat
transfer between the exhaust port and the inlet port could have been the problem.
But just a guess.
Chris
[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Melia ]
This design could have been dropped because of combustion chamber design considerations. The inlet’s sits between the cams and next to the spark plug , so heat
transfer between the exhaust port and the inlet port could have been the problem.
But just a guess.
Chris
[ March 06, 2002: Message edited by: Chris Melia ]
G
Guest
Guest
I didn't know anyone had designed heads to put exhaust on top, but in considering heat managment, I had thought that this would be an ideal configuration. This is especially true with turbo charging: If the plumbing carrying air to the engine is always above the header tubes, the natural path for heat would be into the intakes side - very counter productive.
I really enjoy the idea of head/intake design. I came up with an idea for variable length runners and the next thing I know BMW announced the cylindrical intake I had envisioned. This would be hard to do with the inverted flow configuration, so there is something to be said for the proximity of the intake ports in classic head design.
-Lynn
I really enjoy the idea of head/intake design. I came up with an idea for variable length runners and the next thing I know BMW announced the cylindrical intake I had envisioned. This would be hard to do with the inverted flow configuration, so there is something to be said for the proximity of the intake ports in classic head design.
-Lynn
G
Guest
Guest
It's been a while since I read the story,
but my memory is that if was simply a matter
of torque. Shelby had gobs of experience
with 289's in the Cobra, and since the
GT40 is so much heavier than the Ford
Indy-car, he switched over to the 289,
which was far torquier over it's curve.
MikeD
but my memory is that if was simply a matter
of torque. Shelby had gobs of experience
with 289's in the Cobra, and since the
GT40 is so much heavier than the Ford
Indy-car, he switched over to the 289,
which was far torquier over it's curve.
MikeD
