[ford38v8]

Wow! Away from the computer for a few hours and look at all the smoking brains! I really like that discussion on the HAMB! Not being a wizard at math or building engines, but still, I see an obvious mistake in the 1932 Ford drawing that I didn't see ironed out in the HAMB discussion:

The pistons in the 1932 drawing are apparently at the same height according to the bore angle radius, a feature of that drawing that is in disagreement with the crank offset. Notice that that radius line showing bore angle 45º is the only indication of height, as the drawing is a demonstration of internal components, excluding the block itself. I think the engine builders here are more able than I to quote the difference in deck height to accommodate the offset.

No wonder there were contradictions between drawings if a Ford drawing can't agree with itself! I can see now that the hack who wrote the Street Rodder article didn't do too badly in his "angle of attack" reference after all! ...But yes, I do still stand by my opinions on magazine hack writers. I think most of us here and on the HAMB have found many discrepancies in magazine articles authored by staff and freelance writers, to the point of distrust in all such articles.