Author Topic: Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators  (Read 16039 times)

crossboss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • ^ New engine project
    • View Profile
Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators
« on: November 28, 2018, 02:57:09 PM »
Boys,
As you know during the '69 T/A season, Chevy used the Cross-Ram 8V set up and Ford used their IR dual Dominator carbs…Question is do you think Ford 'violated the rules'? OR took advance of the rules?
Just another T/A fanatic. Current lifelong projects:
1968 Olds 442 W-30
1969 Mustang Fastback w a Can-Am 494 (Boss 429)

Jon Mello

  • CRG Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4415
    • View Profile
Re: Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators
« Reply #1 on: November 29, 2018, 02:22:30 PM »
I would say they took advantage of the rules but I don't know if Ford officially homologated those carbs in '69 or not.  I assume they must have.  Pontiac and AMC used the Dominators that year a few times but Chevrolet never did.

Jon Mello
CRG

crossboss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • ^ New engine project
    • View Profile
Re: Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators
« Reply #2 on: November 29, 2018, 03:11:08 PM »
Jon,
Yes AMC did use them also…Btw, the Dominators were approved by SCCA, since they were homologated parts from Fords FIA records. That said, do you think Ford 'stretched' the rules by using IR Dominator Holley's to try and create a 'cheap' Weber type of induction?
Just another T/A fanatic. Current lifelong projects:
1968 Olds 442 W-30
1969 Mustang Fastback w a Can-Am 494 (Boss 429)

crossboss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • ^ New engine project
    • View Profile
Re: Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators
« Reply #3 on: November 29, 2018, 03:39:52 PM »
Jon,
Here is a pic of the Ford IR Dominator intake from 1969.
Click on pic to enlarge.

Just another T/A fanatic. Current lifelong projects:
1968 Olds 442 W-30
1969 Mustang Fastback w a Can-Am 494 (Boss 429)

Jon Mello

  • CRG Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4415
    • View Profile
Re: Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators
« Reply #4 on: November 30, 2018, 02:35:24 AM »
Jon,
Yes AMC did use them also…Btw, the Dominators were approved by SCCA, since they were homologated parts from Fords FIA records. That said, do you think Ford 'stretched' the rules by using IR Dominator Holley's to try and create a 'cheap' Weber type of induction?

Ford was always trying to stretch the rules to their advantage. They spent a lot of corporate money and expected wins.  All the manufacturers wanted to win but I think Ford was the most aggressive, i.e. the 15x9 wheels with offset that made them look like a 15x8, the Tunnel Port 302 that was never a production engine, the special front suspension components for '68, etc.
Jon Mello
CRG

crossboss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • ^ New engine project
    • View Profile
Re: Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators
« Reply #5 on: November 30, 2018, 03:31:47 AM »
Jon,
Yes AMC did use them also…Btw, the Dominators were approved by SCCA, since they were homologated parts from Fords FIA records. That said, do you think Ford 'stretched' the rules by using IR Dominator Holley's to try and create a 'cheap' Weber type of induction?

Ford was always trying to stretch the rules to their advantage. They spent a lot of corporate money and expected wins.  All the manufacturers wanted to win but I think Ford was the most aggressive, i.e. the 15x9 wheels with offset that made them look like a 15x8, the Tunnel Port 302 that was never a production engine, the special front suspension components for '68, etc.



Jon,
Absolutely correct. Remember the Cross-Boss intake and Autolite Inline carb? SCCA banned that one for the '70 season…for the same reason..'stretching the rules'.
--Scott.
Just another T/A fanatic. Current lifelong projects:
1968 Olds 442 W-30
1969 Mustang Fastback w a Can-Am 494 (Boss 429)

69Z28-RS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5778
  • owner since 4-Apr-1976
    • View Profile
Re: Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators
« Reply #6 on: November 30, 2018, 02:27:11 PM »
Some call it stretching the rules...   racers call it 'creative interpretation of the rules'...  :)
09C 69Z28-RS, 72 B 720 cowl console rosewood tint
69 Corvette, '60 Corvette, '72 Corvette
90 ZR1 red/red #246, 90 ZR1 white/gray #2466
72 El Camino, '55-'56-'57 Nomads, '55-'57 B/A Sedan

crossboss

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 779
  • ^ New engine project
    • View Profile
Re: Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators
« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2018, 03:07:25 PM »
Some call it stretching the rules...   racers call it 'creative interpretation of the rules'...  :)



The late great Smokey Yunick said "You ain't cheating until your caught…and everyone in racing cheats!"
He WAS the man who invented the 'creative interpretation of the rules'
Just another T/A fanatic. Current lifelong projects:
1968 Olds 442 W-30
1969 Mustang Fastback w a Can-Am 494 (Boss 429)

klvn8r

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
Re: Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators
« Reply #8 on: December 09, 2018, 11:06:42 PM »
According to Kaplan, the IR Dominators came to him by way of some Ford drag racers near his shop in Chicago.  The Javelins showed up with them at Michigan, race 1, 1969.  I'll add a pic of the AMC t-ram later.

PHAT69AMX

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2018, 12:11:12 AM »
klvn8r - ? Do you have a picture of the inside of the Traco AMC Dual Quad Trans Am Intake to post ?

klvn8r

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
    • View Profile
Re: Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2018, 04:14:46 AM »
I have TWO of the intakes in my shop.  :)

JohnSlack

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators
« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2018, 09:12:55 AM »
Jon,
Yes AMC did use them also…Btw, the Dominators were approved by SCCA, since they were homologated parts from Fords FIA records. That said, do you think Ford 'stretched' the rules by using IR Dominator Holley's to try and create a 'cheap' Weber type of induction?

Ford was always trying to stretch the rules to their advantage. They spent a lot of corporate money and expected wins.  All the manufacturers wanted to win but I think Ford was the most aggressive, i.e. the 15x9 wheels with offset that made them look like a 15x8, the Tunnel Port 302 that was never a production engine, the special front suspension components for '68, etc.

Did Chevrolet have any specific head castings for their 1969 or 1970 Trans Am engines? If so what was special about those T/A cylinder heads?
John

camaroboy68ss

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
  • 1968 L30/M20
    • View Profile
Re: Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators
« Reply #12 on: December 27, 2018, 06:56:23 PM »
Jon,
Yes AMC did use them also…Btw, the Dominators were approved by SCCA, since they were homologated parts from Fords FIA records. That said, do you think Ford 'stretched' the rules by using IR Dominator Holley's to try and create a 'cheap' Weber type of induction?

Ford was always trying to stretch the rules to their advantage. They spent a lot of corporate money and expected wins.  All the manufacturers wanted to win but I think Ford was the most aggressive, i.e. the 15x9 wheels with offset that made them look like a 15x8, the Tunnel Port 302 that was never a production engine, the special front suspension components for '68, etc.

Did Chevrolet have any specific head castings for their 1969 or 1970 Trans Am engines? If so what was special about those T/A cylinder heads?
John

I dont think they did, but Im not an expert of any kind on the trans am cars as they were way before i was even a though. Though I have yet to see any odd ball casting numbers when it comes to small block heads that have listed in a book that were Z/28 specific. My guess is they were standard 2.02 heads (possibly the angle plug head?) that were then cleaned up with a good port and polish.

Young gun with a Camaro or 2.
1968 Camaro RS L30/M20, 2017 Camaro SS
1968 Chevy C10 - Twin to the Camaro
1933 Ford Pickup - "Camaro in disguise"

Jon Mello

  • CRG Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4415
    • View Profile
Re: Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators
« Reply #13 on: December 27, 2018, 08:50:00 PM »
Chevy Camaros did not use a unique head for the Trans-Am series in that era although the factory did tool up and do development on a special head and intake set-up that was in response to the threat posed by the Boss 302. These were canted valve or semi-hemi heads as seen in the following article.  https://hotrodenginetech.com/1969-z28-canted-valve-302/

After much testing and development, these were found to not make any more appreciable horsepower than worked over stock 2.02 production heads. They were never made in enough quantity to qualify for the series and the effort was dropped.  It's too bad because they sure do look awesome.
Jon Mello
CRG

JohnSlack

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Cross-Ram VS Ford's IR Dominators
« Reply #14 on: December 27, 2018, 09:04:43 PM »
Jon,
Yes AMC did use them also…Btw, the Dominators were approved by SCCA, since they were homologated parts from Fords FIA records. That said, do you think Ford 'stretched' the rules by using IR Dominator Holley's to try and create a 'cheap' Weber type of induction?

Ford was always trying to stretch the rules to their advantage. They spent a lot of corporate money and expected wins.  All the manufacturers wanted to win but I think Ford was the most aggressive, i.e. the 15x9 wheels with offset that made them look like a 15x8, the Tunnel Port 302 that was never a production engine, the special front suspension components for '68, etc.

Did Chevrolet have any specific head castings for their 1969 or 1970 Trans Am engines? If so what was special about those T/A cylinder heads?
John

I dont think they did, but Im not an expert of any kind on the trans am cars as they were way before i was even a though. Though I have yet to see any odd ball casting numbers when it comes to small block heads that have listed in a book that were Z/28 specific. My guess is they were standard 2.02 heads (possibly the angle plug head?) that were then cleaned up with a good port and polish.

CBoy68SS,
Thank you for your answer, after I asked the question I read through the Traco thread and from Pigpens comments I kind of had the feeling that was the case. It sounds like the castings we're hand selected from production parts. Unlike the probably nefarious FoMoCo habit of making "slightly different, maybe better than production parts" with almost the same part number. I appreciate your time and answer.

John