uncle tony's garage gets called out by the roadkill guys

-
I think people are taking this thing wayyy out of proportion. It was wrote in books back in the 70's. That is what people did back then, what ever they could do to get 5 more hp for cheap. They claimed the 68 open air cleaner got more 5hp with the built in velocity stack.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sure someone will even if I'm not, but hey....

The claim isn't MORE TOTAL HP, it's HP at a different point, which was lower in the rpm band and a good "cheap" way to get MORE HP, EARLIER and hence a better STREET experience?

pretty sure that was it. No?

-=C
 
so it seems in this thread folks are claiming UTG may slightly be right, but only a tad ??? LOL. I don't know where UTG ever said to take apart your good running motor just to swap banks, however, I think he does it if a guy is already doing a "re-ring/ball hone" job, it cost no more time or money to swap banks. I've never done it.
 
318willrun said:
so it seems in this thread folks are claiming UTG may slightly be right, but only a tad ??? LOL. I don't know where UTG ever said to take apart your good running motor just to swap banks, however, I think he does it if a guy is already doing a "re-ring/ball hone" job, it cost no more time or money to swap banks. I've never done it.
Click to expand...

You know full well UT is not allowed to be "right" around here lol..

Now that said, I think people are forgetting the purpose.

When this was first a thing, these engines we brand fricking new. People weren't swapping banks on engines that had 100,000 miles on them and required an engine bore. So everyone bitching about that aspect, put your panties back on and get a grip. SMMFH....
 
318willrun said:
so it seems in this thread folks are claiming UTG may slightly be right, but only a tad ??? LOL. I don't know where UTG ever said to take apart your good running motor just to swap banks, however, I think he does it if a guy is already doing a "re-ring/ball hone" job, it cost no more time or money to swap banks. I've never done it.
Click to expand...
And this is why you don't see me on this forum much anymore if at all..
Same hacks calling people hacks...
 
j par said:
And this is why you don't see me on this forum much anymore if at all..
Same hacks calling people hacks...
Click to expand...
I just keep it all in light due.
 
Last edited:
Cuda416 said:
You know full well UT is not allowed to be "right" around here lol..

Now that said, I think people are forgetting the purpose.

When this was first a thing, these engines we brand fricking new. People weren't swapping banks on engines that had 100,000 miles on them and required an engine bore. So everyone bitching about that aspect, put your panties back on and get a grip. SMMFH....
Click to expand...


The problem is he’s not right. He’s wrong. When you calculate the dollar per horsepower is ridiculous. By the time you buy all the gaskets and do all the work you could by pistons with a 1/16-1/16-1/8 ring pack and pick up 25 horsepower.

I suppose if you are running Stock Eliminator and you are trying to set a National Record you might give it a shot.

Of course, in Stock Eliminator you have to run OE dimension ring grooves, but you can buy spacers and run a nice, thin ring pack and make more horsepower.

What UT is doing is keeping alive the old myth that there is enough power doing it to justify it. IMO there are a dozen better ways to spend time and money. Even back then when those books were written. It’s not like you couldn’t buy a piston.

Has nothing to do with liking UT or not liking the guy. I don’t know him. It has to do with perpetuating silly crap.
 
yellow rose said:
The problem is he’s not right. He’s wrong. When you calculate the dollar per horsepower is ridiculous. By the time you buy all the gaskets and do all the work you could by pistons with a 1/16-1/16-1/8 ring pack and pick up 25 horsepower.

I suppose if you are running Stock Eliminator and you are trying to set a National Record you might give it a shot.

Of course, in Stock Eliminator you have to run OE dimension ring grooves, but you can buy spacers and run a nice, thin ring pack and make more horsepower.

What UT is doing is keeping alive the old myth that there is enough power doing it to justify it. IMO there are a dozen better ways to spend time and money. Even back then when those books were written. It’s not like you couldn’t buy a piston.

Has nothing to do with liking UT or not liking the guy. I don’t know him. It has to do with perpetuating silly crap.
Click to expand...

Well, again, re-read my post/*****/rant...

So far, no one that I've seen has actually done anything to disprove it. So far I've seen it published from MoPar and Ford... If we're talking about a car that had 1000 miles on it back in the day, both Ma MoPar and the Blue oval say it helps. No one said anything about replacing pistons etc. This is stock stuff.

That said, can anyone show me a reason why NOT to do it? Again, so far, no one has done that either. Fresh stock build. Why NOT?

I stand by my post, and YES, a lot of the comments are all about bashing the guy, but ALL of the "other side" hasn't shown any proof of him being wrong as far as I've seen.

So unless you have actually done a real test, your response, like everyone's here, is opinion. Might be an educated opinion, but it's still opinion.
 
67Dart273 said:
..............
and they say he's full of ****
Kahill Smith replied.................
I just opened up my Mopar Engine Carroll Shelby's Speed Secrets book from Direct Connection and it states on page 44, section E for Pistons and Pins , the 3rd paragraph that "Factory pistons have the pin offset to reduce piston slap. By reversing the offset (reversing the piston) engine friction can be reduced. In engines equipped with power pak (domed) pistons this can be accomplished by installing pistons from the right bank in the left bank and vise versa. This means the notch in the edge of the piston top will now be toward the rear of the engine. With two barrel flat top pistons , it is only necessary to reverse the piston pin on the rod and not necessarily to swap from bank to bank. A piston to bore clearance of .0015 - .002 has proven to be adequate with stock type pistons. Race pistons do not have a piston offset and there-fore don't need to be reversed. " That was a lot of typing for me.

Click to expand...

No one can make a blanket statement about pin offset....
 
Back in the late 90s my bud that was a pro mechanic and did most of my bodywork, freshened the 440-6 engine that was in his 68 GTX. He did not take it apart to reverse the pistons, but he did and also set the dist. for full time full advance, as he was freshening it anyway. 4 speed 3:54 car ran like striped ape, till I bought it and put that 6 pac motor in the 70 Challenger it was born with. Yes I remember its piston slap!
 
Cuda416 said:
Well, again, re-read my post/*****/rant...

So far, no one that I've seen has actually done anything to disprove it. So far I've seen it published from MoPar and Ford... If we're talking about a car that had 1000 miles on it back in the day, both Ma MoPar and the Blue oval say it helps. No one said anything about replacing pistons etc. This is stock stuff.

That said, can anyone show me a reason why NOT to do it? Again, so far, no one has done that either. Fresh stock build. Why NOT?

I stand by my post, and YES, a lot of the comments are all about bashing the guy, but ALL of the "other side" hasn't shown any proof of him being wrong as far as I've seen.

So unless you have actually done a real test, your response, like everyone's here, is opinion. Might be an educated opinion, but it's still opinion.
Click to expand...
UTG hasn't tested it either, hes just parroting something he read out of a book, with no proof, he has even stated he doesn't believe in dyno testing.
 
replicaracer43 said:
UTG hasn't tested it either, hes just parroting something he read out of a book, with no proof, he has even stated he doesn't believe in dyno testing.
Click to expand...

That's a fair statement. I guess we should not believe the mopar or ford people. Ok...

Bottom line, is there are a ton or people saying he's wrong. If you don't believe it, and are gonna talk ****, and claim otherwise, then you have the burden of proof to provide.

That's not what happens around here though....
 
Cuda416 said:
Well, again, re-read my post/*****/rant...

So far, no one that I've seen has actually done anything to disprove it. So far I've seen it published from MoPar and Ford... If we're talking about a car that had 1000 miles on it back in the day, both Ma MoPar and the Blue oval say it helps. No one said anything about replacing pistons etc. This is stock stuff.

That said, can anyone show me a reason why NOT to do it? Again, so far, no one has done that either. Fresh stock build. Why NOT?

I stand by my post, and YES, a lot of the comments are all about bashing the guy, but ALL of the "other side" hasn't shown any proof of him being wrong as far as I've seen.

So unless you have actually done a real test, your response, like everyone's here, is opinion. Might be an educated opinion, but it's still opinion.
Click to expand...


I already offered to test it. For free. I’m just not doing the work. But it doesn’t take a ton of logic to understand that if there is ANY gain it will be 1. Well within the margin of error and 2. It will be so insignificant it won’t matter.

As an example, let’s take a 275 HP 340. Swap the pistons bank to bank. A 1% increase in horsepower would now make it 277.5 horsepower. If it make a 5% increase (and I say ain’t no way in hell reversing piston offset would gain 5% or every piston manufacturer on the planet would do it...for a 5% gain in HP I’d consider prostituting my wife...well, maybe not now but when I was younger I would have) 288.75 HP. The former is a 2.5 HP gain and the latter is a 13.75 HP gain.

IMO 5% would be a DisneyWorld fantasy number. The 1% number is far more likely. Even if we consider the same number of 1% on a 500 HP engine you gain 25 HP. I know for a fact that any engine builder would beg for the 25 HP for something as simple as an offset pin. Yet I don’t know anyone asking for it.

Even in induction limited class racing like 2 barrel circle track stuff no one I know of is doing it. And none of the engine builders I know doing that stuff are back markers.

It just doesn’t add up. That’s not a knock on UT. That’s putting math to the myth.

EDIT: I forgot to add there is the assumption that the guys writing the books did the testing. Highly unlikely they tested it.

EDIT II: 1% of 500 HP is 5 HP not 25 like I wrote above. 25 HP would be a 5% gain.
 
Last edited:
yellow rose said:
I already offered to test it. For free. I’m just not doing the work. But it doesn’t take a ton of logic to understand that if there is ANY gain it will be 1. Well within the margin of error and 2. It will be so insignificant it won’t matter.

As an example, let’s take a 275 HP 340. Swap the pistons bank to bank. A 1% increase in horsepower would now make it 277.5 horsepower. If it make a 5% increase (and I say ain’t no way in hell reversing piston offset would gain 5% or every piston manufacturer on the planet would do it...for a 5% gain in HP I’d consider prostituting my wife...well, maybe not now but when I was younger I would have) 288.75 HP. The former is a 2.5 HP gain and the latter is a 13.75 HP gain.

IMO 5% would be a DisneyWorld fantasy number. The 1% number is far more likely. Even if we consider the same number of 1% on a 500 HP engine you gain 25 HP. I know for a fact that any engine builder would beg for the 25 HP for something as simple as an offset pin. Yet I don’t know anyone asking for it.

Even in induction limited class racing like 2 barrel circle track stuff no one I know of is doing it. And none of the engine builders I know doing that stuff are back markers.

It just doesn’t add up. That’s not a knock on UT. That’s putting math to the myth.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that it would be a very small increase of anything. Never said it was a holy grail of horsepower, and I don't thing Tony did either. it was talked about as a "free" thing you could do during a rebuild, that had no ill effects.

So again, prove it's "wrong" and then talk ****. Otherwise, even if it's 1HP, he's right and people should have a beer, sit down and work on their own crap.
 
Cuda416 said:
I don't doubt that it would be a very small increase of anything. Never said it was a holy grail of horsepower, and I don't thing Tony did either. it was talked about as a "free" thing you could do during a rebuild, that had no ill effects.

So again, prove it's "wrong" and then talk ****. Otherwise, even if it's 1HP, he's right and people should have a beer, sit down and work on their own crap.
Click to expand...


How in the hell do you test and prove 1 HP? You can’t. It’s IMPOSSIBLE. That’s what you ain’t understanding. Even with a full blown ASSCAR or Pro Stock level dyno room, the most sophisticated software and instrumentation you can buy and you won’t find a repeatable 1 HP gain.

I’m not talking ****. I’m talking common sense. And UT is wrong. He’s even more wrong for promoting **** like that. All it does is confuse people.

1 HP gain. ROTFLMBFAO.
 
yellow rose said:
How in the hell do you test and prove 1 HP? You can’t. It’s IMPOSSIBLE. That’s what you ain’t understanding. Even with a full blown ASSCAR or Pro Stock level dyno room, the most sophisticated software and instrumentation you can buy and you won’t find a repeatable 1 HP gain.

I’m not talking ****. I’m talking common sense. And UT is wrong. He’s even more wrong for promoting **** like that. All it does is confuse people.

1 HP gain. ROTFLMBFAO.
Click to expand...

I didn't say you could test to 1HP, it was an example for discussion sake so roll on the floor all you want, haha....

Fact remains, no one has proven him, or direct connection wrong.

As far as common sense, if something can possibly reduce the side load, how does that NOT make more power available somewhere?
 
yellow rose said:
I already offered to test it. For free. I’m just not doing the work. But it doesn’t take a ton of logic to understand that if there is ANY gain it will be 1. Well within the margin of error and 2. It will be so insignificant it won’t matter.

As an example, let’s take a 275 HP 340. Swap the pistons bank to bank. A 1% increase in horsepower would now make it 277.5 horsepower. If it make a 5% increase (and I say ain’t no way in hell reversing piston offset would gain 5% or every piston manufacturer on the planet would do it...for a 5% gain in HP I’d consider prostituting my wife...well, maybe not now but when I was younger I would have) 288.75 HP. The former is a 2.5 HP gain and the latter is a 13.75 HP gain.

IMO 5% would be a DisneyWorld fantasy number. The 1% number is far more likely. Even if we consider the same number of 1% on a 500 HP engine you gain 25 HP. I know for a fact that any engine builder would beg for the 25 HP for something as simple as an offset pin. Yet I don’t know anyone asking for it.

Even in induction limited class racing like 2 barrel circle track stuff no one I know of is doing it. And none of the engine builders I know doing that stuff are back markers.

It just doesn’t add up. That’s not a knock on UT. That’s putting math to the myth.

EDIT: I forgot to add there is the assumption that the guys writing the books did the testing. Highly unlikely they tested it.
Click to expand...
did you write that 1% gain on 500hp is 25hp? isn't it 5hp?
By the way, I agree 1 to 2.5hp consistent gain is probably not repeatable on a dyno.
 
Here's a question....

Some of you like to tout that if piston manufacturers thought "reversing" pistons was a great idea, they'd put in an offset... Well, lets think about that from a "common sense" approach.

If they thought the offset was good, they'd leave it as was, but NO, the pit the piston pin dead center. Why? Less side load..... yes? Less side load means more available power?

So given the lack of aftermarket pistons, I can get less sideload by simply flipping the flipping pistons, how am I NOT getting the same benefit? You know, from a common sense perspective?
 
I kinda don't want to add any fuel or publicity to either of these YouTube yahoos. For UTG the smoking, the NY accent, and the MAGA crap is a big turn off. And the CA guys are just too out there for me.
 
rustycowll69 said:
I kinda don't want to add any fuel or publicity to either of these YouTube yahoos. For UTG the smoking, the NY accent, and the MAGA crap is a big turn off. And the CA guys are just too out there for me.
Click to expand...


Now I'm confused...

Is it ...

1. The smoking
2. The accent
3. The political opinion

that makes him wrong?
 
Cuda416 said:
Here's a question....

Some of you like to tout that if piston manufacturers thought "reversing" pistons was a great idea, they'd put in an offset... Well, lets think about that from a "common sense" approach.

If they thought the offset was good, they'd leave it as was, but NO, the pit the piston pin dead center. Why? Less side load..... yes? Less side load means more available power?

So given the lack of aftermarket pistons, I can get less sideload by simply flipping the flipping pistons, how am I NOT getting the same benefit? You know, from a common sense perspective?
Click to expand...

Because the piston in question has an offset in both planes (I think that is the correct term). IOW’s, using random numbers if the pin is offset .100 towards the thrust side it is .100 away from the non thrust side.

What happens to ring seal if you move the pin off center? I don’t know as that’s way above my pay grade. But this I do know for a fact. Any time the piston can rock in the bore you lose ring seal and that is lost power. How much does an offset pin affect ring to cylinder contact? I don’t know that. You could probably call a piston manufacturer and ask them.

Or you could call them and ask if they will offset the pin. I’m sure they will. That may open a conversation about ring seal and offset pins.

There has to be way more to it than just offsetting the pin or it would be done to the point it would be a big marketing tool.

Again, it is highly irresponsible for UT or anyone else to propagate this stuff when he himself hasn’t tested it. He’s repeating some old tale. Yet you say I have to prove him wrong. You hold me to a higher standard than UT. That I don’t get.

Did you get on HIS boobtube page and ask HIM to prove it? Just because it’s in books doesn’t mean it’s correct. I’ve got a library full of books with incorrect **** in them.

FWIW, I would never tell a customer to swap his pistons around. Ever. It makes zero sense. I know a guy who was given Chrysler money to develop some Stock Eliminator stuff in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Of all the things we discussed over several years of our association he never once mentioned swapping the pistons on the rods. Not once.

I know we spent at least 15 hours just on the oiling system of a SBM. And the differences of what he did and what I was doing. Let alone valve jobs (NHRA legal valve jobs), balancing and a dozen other topics we regularly discussed.

And yet, it never came up about swapping the pistons on the rods. We did discuss, at great length cylinder wall finish, geometry and ring configuration. We had both used ring spacers to get to a thinner ring. We both found some power doing it. And we both agreed it was better to get a piston with thinner ring grooves in it to start with. Unless you are stuck by a senseless NHRA rule that is now killing all the older engine combinations (from what I’m told...I haven’t followed Stock eliminator much lately...they may have let up on the ring rules a bit) there is no reason to run a thick ring.

There is by FAR more power in thinner rings. We all have to buy rings. Spend a bit extra and get a good ring pack and make power.

Ive never been a fan of dumpster style engine builds or rebuilds. Buy once, cry once is what I always say.
 
yellow rose said:
Because the piston in question has an offset in both planes (I think that is the correct term). IOW’s, using random numbers if the pin is offset .100 towards the thrust side it is .100 away from the non thrust side.

What happens to ring seal if you move the pin off center? I don’t know as that’s way above my pay grade. But this I do know for a fact. Any time the piston can rock in the bore you lose ring seal and that is lost power. How much does an offset pin affect ring to cylinder contact? I don’t know that. You could probably call a piston manufacturer and ask them.

Or you could call them and ask if they will offset the pin. I’m sure they will. That may open a conversation about ring seal and offset pins.

There has to be way more to it than just offsetting the pin or it would be done to the point it would be a big marketing tool.

Again, it is highly irresponsible for UT or anyone else to propagate this stuff when he himself hasn’t tested it. He’s repeating some old tale. Yet you say I have to prove him wrong. You hold me to a higher standard than UT. That I don’t get.

Did you get on HIS boobtube page and ask HIM to prove it? Just because it’s in books doesn’t mean it’s correct. I’ve got a library full of books with incorrect **** in them.

FWIW, I would never tell a customer to swap his pistons around. Ever. It makes zero sense. I know a guy who was given Chrysler money to develop some Stock Eliminator stuff in the late 60’s and early 70’s. Of all the things we discussed over several years of our association he never once mentioned swapping the pistons on the rods. Not once.

I know we spent at least 15 hours just on the oiling system of a SBM. And the differences of what he did and what I was doing. Let alone valve jobs (NHRA legal valve jobs), balancing and a dozen other topics we regularly discussed.

And yet, it never came up about swapping the pistons on the rods. We did discuss, at great length cylinder wall finish, geometry and ring configuration. We had both used ring spacers to get to a thinner ring. We both found some power doing it. And we both agreed it was better to get a piston with thinner ring grooves in it to start with. Unless you are stuck by a senseless NHRA rule that is now killing all the older engine combinations (from what I’m told...I haven’t followed Stock eliminator much lately...they may have let up on the ring rules a bit) there is no reason to run a thick ring.

There is by FAR more power in thinner rings. We all have to buy rings. Spend a bit extra and get a good ring pack and make power.

Ive never been a fan of dumpster style engine builds or rebuilds. Buy once, cry once is what I always say.
Click to expand...

See, this is why I love this site. I appreciate to no end that you are NOT taking what I say as any kind of attack at you and finally someone offers some "common sense" reasoning why it might be a problem with the rings.

However, there is still no proof shown it's harmful or causes problems with ring seal. I can certainly see it as a potential problem, no doubt, but we also need to look at the direction of travel and the direction of the side load during the rotation.

Again, I never said it was better than a centered pin, ever. What I DID say, was that in a vacuum, with no "better" pistons available, how can it hurt? And from a common sense point of view, ANY reduction in side load, should result in allow more "available" power to be realized.

Your response with regard to ring seal is the "closest" anyone here on all of these fricking bash session threads, has come to something that actually is believable from a "common sense" approach.

So, again, I'll say thanks for actually keeping your cool and coming up with a logical possibility. Do I believe it? Dunno, above my pay grade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top