What would happen if NHRA allowed more engines? (1 Viewer)

We had come from a fairly successful background in oval track. After witnessing our first Top Fuel race we came away with the opinion that “these are the most awesome cars on the planet”
It was only natural, with a background racing overhead cam engines (our dad was the Meyer Drake “Offy” distributor in Australia), to ask the question why hasn’t someone done this before?

The first version of the engine was very much like an Offy with integral blocks and heads. Although powerful and strong it was very difficult to work on. In 1986 the motor was redesigned to a more conventional configuration and was actually faster to service than a Chrysler.

Obviously building a motor is just a small part of what is required to field a race team.Most of the “motor” problems had nothing to do with the motor. When you try to build more power you identify a lot of other weak links on the racecar. With the torque of the 4-valve engine we had a succession of catastrophic drive train failures and expended an enormous amount of time and energy making everything else on the car, better. As it started to run properly we started to burn it up and had to make bigger fuel pumps and barrel valves.In any combustion chamber when you have detonation it will damage the most vulnerable area of the chamber. On a two-valve motor a trough gets burnt between the exhaust valve and the plugs. With the 4-valve engine it would pick on the area between the exhaust valves. We made one piece dual valve seats that took care of that and we ran the last few years with a half dozen heads being rotated in service.

Finally we did start to run well. We bought a state-of-the-art chassis, hired a champion driver and assembled an experienced crew. We purchased the best clutches, superchargers and ignitions available and began to make respectable runs. At that point we began to qualify for most of the races, sometimes in the top half of the field, and occasionally won some rounds. We broke into the 4’s in 1992 with Gary Beck driving.

We went from being laughed at to being the subject of a lot of behind-the-scenes secret meetings with engine builders, auto companies, team owners and race officials. Long before the rules were written, in 1997, to outlaw overhead cam, multi valve engines, most of the teams had been scared off realizing that any advantage with the engine would be negated by added weight.

Today Phil and I are racing with our kids and having fun. Our dad, Hedley, was inducted into the Australian Speedway Hall of Fame in 2007. We still have some unfinished business in the world of fuel racing. We will be a part of fuel racing again. Visit Mcgee Cams Jr. Dragster Racing or Kaitlyn McGee Racing for more news. Chris McGee.
Wow, Chris..what a post. Thanks.

My question..like Ian mentioned earlier. Since they have a hard time putting the 8K horsepower to the ground now..what benefit would there be to creating more horsepower? Or is it the stability and less carnage that could be derived? That would certainly be the benefit? The way it is now..a whole motor is the price to pay for a competitive run..or if it doesn't break, at least my yearly paycheck to continue..LOL

Would your configuration result in less carnage? This is ending up being an awesome thread..and my thanks to those contributing.
 
Wow, Chris..what a post. Thanks.

My question..like Ian mentioned earlier. Since they have a hard time putting the 8K horsepower to the ground now..what benefit would there be to creating more horsepower? Or is it the stability and less carnage that could be derived? That would certainly be the benefit? The way it is now..a whole motor is the price to pay for a competitive run..or if it doesn't break, at least my yearly paycheck to continue..LOL

Would your configuration result in less carnage? This is ending up being an awesome thread..and my thanks to those contributing.

The valvetrain was certainly more stable. There was a period where the hemi style motors were having catastrophic failures. To their credit some of those problems were corrected. A couple of respected crewchiefs came to us hoping that the 4-valve with no pushrods or rockers would eliminate the carnage and keep their drivers safer. Any performance gain would then be "icing on the cake". The block was also considerably stronger which was good and bad. The headbolt layout was a lot better and we seldom pushed out head gaskets. The only trouble was that if you broke a pinion or driveshaft and hydrauliced the motor you could push the crank out. On the 426 style motors, as ridiculous as it sounds, the headgaskets act like a secondary burst plate! Today the 4-valve engine would have more potential on 90% than it did in the unlimited nitro days.
Chris McGee.
 
Chris, could you give us a cost comparison between your motor and the Hemi ready to rock and roll? It would seem to me with all the cams and valves the price would get a little steeper not to mention production volume numbers.
 
Chris, could you give us a cost comparison between your motor and the Hemi ready to rock and roll? It would seem to me with all the cams and valves the price would get a little steeper not to mention production volume numbers.

We have absolutely no plans to sell any of the engines.
 
Who says the Mater can't still come up with a good thread now and then?

Great stuff, guys... really enjoyed reading this.

My .02 - The big bore space Ford stuff would be the way to go, but I might be a little biased.
 
Ways To Support Nitromater

Users who are viewing this thread


Back
Top