Off Road SHO wrote:
And they run backwards so you need a reverse grind cam to use them with transaxles and transmissions that were designed for the normal clockwise rotation. (when looking at non-transaxle side of engine, towards the transaxle). Some Hondas rotated counter-clockwise. You must absolutely be in love with Corvairs to go down that route. There are million other engines that are more plentiful, more powerfull, more dependable, more everything than the Corvair. But if you're dead set on it, go for it.
Tom
Thanks for your points. I am glad to see that you have an opinion.
I guess we all have our own way to look a locost projects: from light BECs to supercharged V8s, there is no right or wrong way to go about this thing. Merit is all in our heads.
What attracted me to the Chevy flat 6 is first the weight. Not so many among the million engines you are referring to weigh less than 217 lbs and can potentially crank out 180 bhp. I also like its simplicity. It is not a bad engine. However, GM just could not build a decent car for it.
My plan is to run the Chevy flat 6 as a front engine-rear wheel traction, which means that I could either bolt it to a conventional Chevy transmission and run a rigid rear axle. Or build a power shaft from the engine bell housing to the reversed Corvair transaxle . In either case the stock Chevy runs like most engines: clockwise when you look at the crank pulley.