Messages

I love how "flat" car is in the turn.   I seem to remember a mention of how really big (for the time) 1.25" or bigger front bars had started to come into play...    Ken

Thanks-  but it got kicked back-  "address not found".........   

Anybody know how I might get in contact with Mr.Tullius?  I have a few Trans Am era questions for him...  Not the usual stuff, and I won't divulge the contact...   Thanks!    Ken

It's  tajavelin.com    Click on the " Kaplan, Penske, and McNealy "  button....     Ken

Yep, they're about 1/2" thick.....  which is exactly what is needed to space an intake manifold that is 1" narrower than stock to a stock 9.175" deck height  block.   I own several '69 (9.175") blocks, several '70+ (9.205") blocks, and one very rare, 4 bolt, 8.6??? short-deck block.  I also have 2 of those intakes; one is being prepared now and is ready to run, the other is straight out of the mold, with only the top blanchard ground..   They're narrow intakes.....  designed originally to be run on a short-deck block.  The revslib pic is from about mid-season, Mid-Ohio I think.....   the short-deck block was only run at the first race, which was Michigan. It was deemed illegal and not allowed again..   The spacer plates allow the trick intake to continue to be used on a production height block...   Increasing deck height over what is already a "plenty tall" block to build a 305 inch motor makes absolutely no-sense, in the rotating assembly or induction design.   There's a web page about the 100 special edition Trans Am Javelins that has a short Ronnie Kaplan interview where he describes his motor; I'll try to post a link.   Ken

The Larson book is good. It contains lots of reflection from varying, and aged memories.. I really hate the fact that Ronnie's explanation and John Martin's of the '69 "super-motor" are vastly different.  Ronnie has always been quoted and described it as a short-deck motor that was made by hand filing the water jacket cores down, so that the stock block casting had a really thick deck enabling the block to be shortened "about 5/8 of an inch".   John describes it as an extra tall deck, to be able to run a "long 6.0 Chevy rod"....       The math and the parts, in my opinion, really only fit Ronnie's description.    A stock 1969 AMC block deck height is 9.175....    taller already than a stock Chevy.    The AMC T/A crank is 2.906 stroke, which is shorter than the 302 Chevy at 3.0...  What this means is, you don't need to cast a taller block to run a 6+ inch rod in a stock AMC block.    A block with a 5/8" SHORTER deck height lowers and narrows the intake valley; the rare T/A tunnel ram for the Dominator carbs is 1 inch narrower than a stock AMC intake...   My T/A crank (NOS) has 2.20 inch rod journals which are are not a standard AMC size, but are standard big block Chevy size (6.135 standard length).  There are no mentions anywhere of any "extra tall"AMC blocks; but there is a handful, literally, of thick-deck or short-deck blocks.... I have 1 with 4 bolt mains... Ken

That's what I'm talking about.....      what are parts really trading for?   

I would like to inquire if anyone on here knows what (realistic) prices true GM  (old, Guinn-documented) crossrams are actually selling for?Thanks!!    Ken

My guess it's supposed to be in a "full throttle oversteer" attitude for the display.    Ken

http://www.speedwaymotors.com/Heidts-PS-101-Adjustable-Power-Steering-Valve,14895.html    Hey guys, this "may" be the answer to our problem since most of us in this group would want to or be required to run the older pumps!    Sorry for no brake ducts pics yet Eric- building a house has me going crazy..    Ken

Ill try to take some and post this evening-   stay tuned!  Ken

I run my hose inside the actual subframe, then exits out a "window" cut just in front of the spring pocket. This saves lots of room, protects the hose from all the monkey-motion going on, and really makes for a clean, straight shot to the center of the disc.  Ken

There have been Ford racers who have had their 4 piston caliper cast in aluminum...... doesn't work, it's not stiff enough in aluminum..   I'd have to guess there's something askew with your brakes, (or pads, or master cylinder..)   I don't think you'll ever stop with the smaller/later cars, but the Hemi Cuda reference tells me yours aren't right...    Ken

Looking for an image or pic of the early '70's SCCA Central Division logo.   I know this isn't really "Trans Am" but I'm in a tight spot and you guys are awesome!!  Help!    Ken

....and so the 1971 rules stated " all hubs require five (5) studs equally spaced around the circumference of the hub."       Ken