Any questions for these former employees?

[bitzman]

Went to the racing film festival in Yosemite. Met two former S-A employees.
One was a Mr. Law who built engines and the other was a former GP racer, (Ganley?) who worked on the X1 Can Am version of the GT40 and the automatic transmissions. I am going to work up some questions and interview them by e-mail but if there is a question of former Shelby employees like this that you always wanted to ask, let me know and I will include it and print the interviews here.
For instance I am going to ask Mr. Ganley "Why did they throw out the X1?
or "how effective were the sidedrafts on the 427 big block,?"

Mr. Law I will ask about non stock items on the SA team 289s, how he rated the engine, max hp., etc.

Not every Shelby employee had the big picture (Mr.Law said to last there 18months was a long time) but I think I can piece it together if I talk to enough people....

[Bob Gaines]

What time period did they work there? It might keep the irrelevant questions to a minimum.

[bitzman]

The F1 racer worked with Bruce McLaren on the X1 which I gather
was around late '64 and in '65. I remember he said they used the nose of the '65 long nose LeMans cars. And he worked on the automatic trans at Kar Kraft for the Mk. II cars. So I'd narrow it right in there.

Mr. Law worked for the racing engine shop in '65 so he knows the good points/bad points of the 289 but said when the 427 arrived it was from H &M so I presume he is not as hip on that engine. He actually spans from the early days in Venice through the 289 period to the 427. He said 18 months was a long time to work for Shelby; which I can get into when I do the interview

I should put a cut off time of a week to come up with questions because they may take quite long to answer them

[Shelby~gt350#3000]

I have a Question. Maybe its been answered but I never really saw a answer in stone so here it is:

"What is the purpose of the little "hatchet weight" located behind the timing chain sprocket on the 67 289 Hi-Po K Motor?" (im sure its for balance. Hopefully there is more to the answer).

Also: I read the HIPO crankshafts in a 289 K motor were diffrerent from a regular 289 Motor. Is this true? If so, will the use of a "non hipo" crankshaft cause a balance issue if used with all the other HIPO items. i.e. Hipo Balancer, rods, hatchet weight and Flywheel (4 speed car)?

Thanks!
Jim

[Bob Gaines]

Originally Posted by Shelby~gt350#3000

I have a Question. Maybe its been answered but I never really saw a answer in stone so here it is:

"What is the purpose of the little "hatchet weight" located behind the timing chain sprocket on the 67 289 Hi-Po K Motor?" (im sure its for balance. Hopefully there is more to the answer).

Also: I read the HIPO crankshafts in a 289 K motor were different from a regular 289 Motor. Is this true? If so, will the use of a "non hipo" crankshaft cause a balance issue if used with all the other HIPO items. i.e. Hipo Balancer, rods, hatchet weight and Flywheel (4 speed car)?

Thanks!
Jim

Meaning no disrespect but we don't need to ask those guys that question. The answer is fairly common knowledge among hipo aficionado's. The short answer on the hatchet head is yes for balance. It can be eliminated when dynamically balancing a engine at rebuilt time .I always thought it would be less to go wrong. It was a item that could be used easily in large production applications to compensate for the heavier rods with out having to balance a engine. The cranks are identical except that the hipo cranks were theoretically stronger by testing for extra hardness. If they passed they were used in hipos if they didn't they were used in every other 289. The use of the standard non Hipo crank will not upset your balance. i hope this helps. Bob

[bitzman]

I already will ask him about the head bolts that pulled on the 289s causing blown head gaskets
and hope to work my way around to why Miles got to run special things on his "Heim joint" special when it wasn't standard.
He probably left before the tunnel port disaster but I will ask him about that too. So let the questions fly.

[Shelby~gt350#3000]

Originally Posted by Bob Gaines

Meaning no disrespect but we don't need to ask those guys that question. The answer is fairly common knowledge among hipo aficionado's. The short answer on the hatchet head is yes for balance. It can be eliminated when dynamically balancing a engine at rebuilt time .I always thought it would be less to go wrong. It was a item that could be used easily in large production applications to compensate for the heavier rods with out having to balance a engine. The cranks are identical except that the hipo cranks were theoretically stronger by testing for extra hardness. If they passed they were used in hipos if they didn't they were used in every other 289. The use of the standard non Hipo crank will not upset your balance. i hope this helps. Bob

Thanks Bob. Thanks for your explanation on my questions.

Ok here is another question (hopefully not another dumb one to most): is it true that the connecting rods were standard rods from a 289, machined out to accept 3/8" bolts? Or were they entirely different rods all together?

If this question can be answeed here that works for me too. Thanks!

Jim

[bitzman]

I will submit that, and if anybody else has a question about changes made to the racing engines from the street 289s and 427s, let 'em fly. I even think there were races where they ran larger than 289 size hoping not to get caught. I think we can tell tales outside of school now that 40-plus years have gone under the bridge...