Oil Filter Options

[1Bad55Chevy]

Although it was an impressive conversion, I see it as too much of a job to make a "just-because" point, especially when MEL restorations and upgrades can be had with fairly-relative ease. Besides, where would one unleash all that power, except on NASCAR tracks on days when they permit general public to run their personal cars? I'm quite satisfied with the rebuild I pulled off; I'm confident I could break the speedometer if I had a notion to.

---Tony

You are a real purist for these cars and classic cars in general and that's cool. I do have a real question though for you regarding the future of this hobby.

With the supplies of rebuildable core motors running out not only for MELs but for everything what are car builders supposed to put in these cars going further? Or should we just crush all the rebuildable cars in the event an original motor can not be sourced?

The crazy part about all of this is when you start thinking about the "dime a dozen" engines of the past and how long its been since they were actually produced. For example Ford has not produced a pushrod V8 in any fashion for almost 30 years now. Your seeing more and more people having to turn to aftermarket engine blocks to build your basic "dime a dozen" SBC/BBC/ SBF/BBF engines because most cores not are either not rebuildable or the cost of a new block is cheaper than the machine work on the old.

Another crazy reality is that engines like the LS and the Ford Modular motors have been in production now for ALMOST 30 years! That's just as long as any of the Ford pushrod engine series, BBC, and rapidly approaching the SBC. The manufacturers have built exponentially more of these late model engines and they are here to stay. I honestly don't see a future where the late model swaps stop and there is this massive resurgence in the old engines since they are all disappearing.

[TonyC]

I don't bother thinking that far out, as I don't expect to be around long enough for it to have an impact on me. Where MELs are concerned, the oldtimer collective really needs to change its perception of these motors; they are far more resilient and restorable than people give them credit for. Anyone can take any MEL block out of a rotted-out organ donor, strip it down, and refresh it, as long as it still has intact cylinder sleeves (and maybe somebody can address a broken sleeve, IDK). With that as a starting base, new parts are still attainable for those who know how and where to look. So, to me, the whole situation of finite resources is moot.

I think the fad of newer engines in these cars will eventually go away, once enough people realize that the compromise of structural integrity makes it pointless to put in a newer engine. They won't be outrunning cops with a car that shakes itself apart, which is what's bound to happen given all the mods required to drop one of those engines in. I'm not saying the fad will go away universally; after all, many other makes are easier to convert, and some are even fully replicable. Clap-door Lincolns, however, not so much the case.

To some degree I'm a purist, yes; I just don't see a need to swap something out entirely, "just-because." Only if the proposed swap will improve the car overall with no trade-offs will I go new. I do, however, advocate removing design flaws when they can be removed; no point in keeping a car flawed just for originality. My MEL runs 6 cid higher than stock, with adjustable valve pushrods, all-metal timing components, and high-volume oil pump, none of which existed originally...but they are improvements over the OE-stock parts, which have had a history of breaking down (though, admittedly, decades after they were made). My transmission runs a high-performance valve body and fluid passages to the clutch pack, again neither of which existed in OE...but they are improvements at least to the point of no more worry about a breakdown. And creature-comforts...well, many of my add-ons did not even exist yet; but you cannot notice them unless I point them out. I'd say I'm a balance between OE-purist and all-new converter: If it improves the car without compromises, even in its OE look, I'll do a change; if it doesn't make any difference or has a trade-off, I'll stay OE.

Question for you, Badchevy, in all serious curiosity: Have you seen anyone work on rebuilding and running engines of the Chevrolet 348/409-series? I ask because those engines have a lot of similarities to the Ford MEL-series, to include the off-angle cylinders. I'm curious if Chevy enthusiasts give those engines any love. I'd like to think so, considering the parallel designing to the Ford equivalents; but I don't know the history of them beyond the design configuration, like how powerful could they be made, how durable were they, et al.

---Tony

[1Bad55Chevy]

The 348/409 was a very short lived run that was replaced by the Big Block Mark IV Chevy (396,427 454, 502, 572, 632). I have only read about these engines and have never actually worked on one. It seems like the only people messing with those engines are purist of the 58-62 (maybe) full size passenger cars.

That design is so strange because the block will shroud the sides of the valves and create flow issues at higher RPM. Also having the valves perpendicular to the piston will create serious flow issues in cylinder heads with the air trying to make such a drastic turn into and out of the cylinder. IMO all the manufacturers saw how bad Chrysler was kicking their ass with the Gen I Hemi on the NASCAR/drag strip tracks and switched away from the in cylinder combustion chambers since their cylinder heads sucked so bad.

[rick]

Remember the Beach Boys tune: 409?

Well I saved my pennies and I saved my dimes
(Giddy up giddy up 409)
For I knew there would be a time
(Giddy up giddy up 409)
When I would buy a brand new 409

One of my Loser-Enemies in high school ended up quitting school and getting his hands on a '62 navy blue Pontiac Parisienne with a 409 in it. I was also told at some point by somebody that probably didn't know what he was talking about, that the 409 was primarily a truck engine.

But Tony, you got me interested when you said............... And creature-comforts...well, many of my add-ons did not even exist yet; but you cannot notice them unless I point them out. What are these creature comforts pray tell ?? You got a fully stocked bar built into the back of the passenger seat upholstery?

Rick

[TonyC]

Naw, that's reserved for limos, not a sedan that only I ride in (same goes for the TV option). But here's a list of stuff I do have:

(Didn't exist yet)
Electric, semi-automatic power door locks*
Electric remote trunk release (with working warning light)*
Grid-type rear-window defroster
Fully-electronic cruise control*
Adjustable head rests on front seat
Removable center console with power outlets
Starboard-side adjustable rear-view mirror
Sunglasses hanger on center mirror
Fully-integrated AM-FM/Cassette stereo unit
Automatic radio antenna
Lighted vanity mirror in each visor
Coolant overflow-recovery tank
Halogen-core headlights (sealed-beam) along with wiring upgrade
Safety front marker lighting (a/k/a "parking" lights)

* Similar features did exist at the time but in cruder form.

(Existed, but not on Frankenstein originally)
Power vent-windows
Rear-door interior lights (only installed on 'verts)
Trailer hitch
Dual-hydraulic brake master cylinder
Radial tires
Locking fuel cap

(Items already on Frankenstein)
Auto-dimmer
Tilt column (though OE Saginaw was later swapped for a '67 tilt column)
Green leather upholstery
6-way power adjuster for front seat
Stereo setup (OE AM/8-track unit, later swapped out for above)
Hazard flasher (I believe still optional in '66?)
Seat-belt warning (also optional in that year, I believe?)
Vinyl roof covering
A/C with manual control

Everything above is what Frankenstein is fitted with now. Really, the only thing I don't have and cannot retrofit is a reclining mechanism for the seatbacks. Pity, because I would love to have that done with this front seat.

---Tony

[LithiumCobalt]

You are a real purist for these cars and classic cars in general and that's cool. I do have a real question though for you regarding the future of this hobby.

With the supplies of rebuildable core motors running out not only for MELs but for everything what are car builders supposed to put in these cars going further? Or should we just crush all the rebuildable cars in the event an original motor can not be sourced?

The crazy part about all of this is when you start thinking about the "dime a dozen" engines of the past and how long its been since they were actually produced. For example Ford has not produced a pushrod V8 in any fashion for almost 30 years now. Your seeing more and more people having to turn to aftermarket engine blocks to build your basic "dime a dozen" SBC/BBC/ SBF/BBF engines because most cores not are either not rebuildable or the cost of a new block is cheaper than the machine work on the old.

Another crazy reality is that engines like the LS and the Ford Modular motors have been in production now for ALMOST 30 years! That's just as long as any of the Ford pushrod engine series, BBC, and rapidly approaching the SBC. The manufacturers have built exponentially more of these late model engines and they are here to stay. I honestly don't see a future where the late model swaps stop and there is this massive resurgence in the old engines since they are all disappearing.

As our leader here has said on more than one occasion, anyone can customize a car. It takes a truly dedicated artist to put something back to the way it came originally, with undetectable improvements, of course.

And I see no shortage of MEL parts or blocks 50 years later on fairly low production cars. There are so many people doing modern engine upgrades, that you can barely give away an MEL block. Personally, I don't really understand the whole thing, especially since it costs four times as much to do a transplant than it does to rebuild what you have to be perfect, but people are free to do whatever they want with what they have. Once I got done with the mechanicals on my '67 sedan, it never gave one problem, everything worked on command just as designed or better, etc.

[Lee]

The 348/409 was a very short lived run

I helped my brother rebuild the 348 in his ‘58 Belair, and was surprised at the similarities to the MEL engines. He added a tri-power and Isky cam to it, but generally speaking, it was all show and no go.
Apparently, these engines are only 2 examples out of many of what is called the “Heron” cylinder head design, which includes Porsche and Jaguar’s V-12. That surprised me…I even checked a few pictures of Jag heads online.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron_cylinder_head

(I wouldn’t normally trust Wikipedia for anything, but this turns out to be rather useful)

[rick]

(Didn't exist yet)
Electric, semi-automatic power door locks*
Electric remote trunk release (with working warning light)*
Grid-type rear-window defroster
Fully-electronic cruise control*
Adjustable head rests on front seat
Removable center console with power outlets
Starboard-side adjustable rear-view mirror
Sunglasses hanger on center mirror
Fully-integrated AM-FM/Cassette stereo unit
Automatic radio antenna
Lighted vanity mirror in each visor
Coolant overflow-recovery tank
Halogen-core headlights (sealed-beam) along with wiring upgrade
Safety front marker lighting (a/k/a "parking" lights)

* Similar features did exist at the time but in cruder form.

(Existed, but not on Frankenstein originally)
Power vent-windows
Rear-door interior lights (only installed on 'verts)
Trailer hitch
Dual-hydraulic brake master cylinder
Radial tires
Locking fuel cap

Damn, Tony - you weren't fooling, my man. That is an impressive list.

Just thinking about what appears to be missing COFFEE CUP HOLDERS!

[TonyC]

Oh, yes, about that ...

The removable console has adjustable cup holders, bought separately but kept on the console as part of the whole thing.

Oh...yeah, I just remembered one more thing for the "Didn't Exist Yet" list: A radar detector, wired into the car's electrics. I use an old Whistler 1660 detector, which to this day, 20+ years after it was made, still serves its purpose. The phone-cord plug had long-since deteriorated, but I found a cord on E-bay some 10 years ago that was designed to be wired into a car's electrical system, so I got that. That frees up my main cigarette lighter to light my stogie-ettes (proper ones, that is; I do the brown s**t, not the green s**t), or to plug in the console (which has a cigarette lighter in the power-outlet cluster, along with two straight-up power outlets).

---Tony

[Lee]

Just thinking about what appears to be missing COFFEE CUP HOLDERS!

That is an impressive list, and I think I only have one of those examples…but anyone elderly enough to have driven before the Chrysler minivan should recognize this:

It seems hard to believe that before 1984, they actually expected you to STOP in order to eat and drink! The engineer who designed that for Chrysler should be in a hall of fame or something.

[frasern]

IMG_0404.jpeg

Oh, I remember those crappy plastic holders! Always popping out of place on a little bump, spilling everywhere! I'd rather hold my coffee, hands free nonsense be damned!

[frasern]

This is what Buick called "cup holders" in 1962, Seriously, the owners manual calls them cup holders! I just about split a rib when I read that!

There are 2 more on the console lid, for rear seat passengers, just don't hit the brakes too hard!

[1Bad55Chevy]

The 348/409 was a very short lived run

I helped my brother rebuild the 348 in his ‘58 Belair, and was surprised at the similarities to the MEL engines. He added a tri-power and Isky cam to it, but generally speaking, it was all show and no go.
Apparently, these engines are only 2 examples out of many of what is called the “Heron” cylinder head design, which includes Porsche and Jaguar’s V-12. That surprised me…I even checked a few pictures of Jag heads online.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heron_cylinder_head

(I wouldn’t normally trust Wikipedia for anything, but this turns out to be rather useful)

Here is something interesting I found on the internet regarding those engines design. I would assume Ford/Lincoln engineers would have had the same mindset during that time.

General Motors engineers explained, in 1959, reasons behind the combustion-in-block setup. Anticipating varied future compression ratios in future auto and truck use: "It was obvious that with the combustion chamber placed within the cylinder head, the foundry must retool every time a compression change is in order. The necessity of making special heads to provide a range of compression ratios and to permit attachment of accessory mountings for the various model applications is of serious concern to the manufacturing and service departments....Inclining the top of the block to 16 deg and shaping the top of the piston like a gabled roof with a 16-deg angle resulted in a 32-deg wedge-shaped combustion space....The addition of two milled cutouts [in the head] to extend the volume of the combustion wedge can create a compression ratio of 7.5/1; one milled cutout produces a 9.5/1 compression ratio. The difference between the volume of these cutouts provides a wide compression range without making any changes in the piston or cylinder head. The number or size of cutouts is varied simply by adding or removing cutters."

Here are some interesting pictures I found on the internet showing the cylinder head design of the GM W series and the GEN I Hemi of the same era.

You can see the intake valve is mounted nearly perpendicular to the piston face on the GM W series. The draw back of this is the near 90* angle that the air mixture will have to make trying to enter the combustion chamber. Also mounting both valves in the head like this severely reduces the size of the valves that can be ran.

The king.... Original Hemi! You can see how the valves are canted on both the intake and exhaust making for a much smoother entry/exit of the combustion chamber. By canting the valves it allows the use of much larger valves.

I have never worked on an original Hemi but I would love to know how the ignition timing settings for performance applications were different compared to other engines of that time. Mounting the plug in the center of the combustion chamber drastically reduces the burn time across the chamber which shoul lead to lower initial and total advance settings.

[Lee]

Oh...yeah, I just remembered one more thing for the "Didn't Exist Yet" list: A radar detector, wired into the car's electrics.

Buzz! Try again (surprised me too).

[TonyC]

Well, that is a surprise, considering that back then military radars couldn't really tell the difference between incoming warheads and fragments of a failed launch. So...that sort of tech was anticipated a good decade before it was actually applied. That's good history there. So, it did exist...though still not as a factory offering, I suspect.

Funny thing is, it seems like it isn't all that popular nowadays, people being more into video displays playing movies or such, or some kind of interaction like texting on their handys while free-rolling in and through traffic. How many people still get nailed for speeding? A few have looked at my detector as a thing of the past. Being that I've never been nailed for speeding when I have mine in use, I'd care to dispute that belief. Mine helps remind me to keep my speed in check...and yes, despite being nearly as heavy as a Hummer my car can pick up speed easily like something half the size, especially since the rebuild.

I do remember well the hanging holder Lee shared. I have one of those, actually, still in good shape; same design, but mine has little stands added to give a bit of a grip to the cup being held.

Badchevy, that is some really nice history info there on the "why" of the development of those types of engines!

---Tony