Thread: How and Why I do It like I do????????

Tweet

Jerry, I don't expect it to matter to you one iota but let me explain briefly why I would never use your approach. First, let's establish some numbers as talking points, but agree not to get hung up on exact figures because these are all based on some assumptions that may change build to build.
1. Assume a 1932 Ford, 106" wheelbase.
2) Assume a hot rod, and from Roy Brizio the "ideal" rubber rake is six to eight inches. Let's assume 8" drop back to front, because that's what I like, 32" rear height, 24" front, and I'm doing the math.
3) Block mounted dead parallel with the top of the frame, as you state as your preferred method.

Now running the numbers, that rubber rake gives you a 4.3 degree forward tilt (Tangent = 8/106), and since the engine is level with the frame, the crank is now sitting tail high, nose low and if the OEM manifold had a 3 degree tilt it's now sitting at 7.3 degrees rear high. Now all angles, pinion angle, crank angle, and carb plate angle are relative to the same plane, and that's mother earth's gravity - the force that affects the bubble in the level. By mounting your engine dead even with the top of frame, and then establishing the "attitude" that is desired for the chassis I believe that you've caused yourself a whole new set of problems that can be very easily solved with a bit of basic setup in the motor mount to tranny mount to chassis, with the chassis sitting "at attitude". Why not consider the carb angle as one of the inputs, along with oil pan clearance, header clearance, radiator clearance, ad infinitum, and make life simpler.

Now like I said, I don't expect you to agree, nor do I expect you to change your ways. I'm just pointing out that I don't agree with your approach, and I recommend that anyone contemplating a new build do enough research to understand all of the issues, and make informed decisions. It doesn't have to be difficult.