Burtzs block
 

Question, if I install a Burtz block in my Model A and the block looks stock on the outside, can I enter the car in fine points judging?

Re: Burtzs block
 

Make sure you stamp your serial number on it correctly using the correct stamps and don't tell anybody. ;)

Re: Burtzs block
 

From what I understand, all of the Burtz products are intended to look exactly original on the outside. This includes the block, the head, and the soon-to-come flywheel housing. I hear that Terry is also working on an oil pump, but that obviously is not visible to the outside.

Re: Burtzs block
 

It's in the Builders Guide.

15) Detailing the New Engine for Judging
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-7b...IZCnAVVcW/view

Re: Burtzs block
 

Page 48

Re: Burtzs block
 

There is a depression (cavity) at the rear of the engine for the plug that screws into the end of the oil gallery. This depression is not present on the stock engine. It can be filled in with something like JB Weld, textured to look like cast iron, and then painted.

Re: Burtzs block
 

Not sure but I think the oil supply line is on the outside, so may look different???

Re: Burtzs block
 

Oil supply can be rigged internally or externally. If externally it can go through a full flow filter. A pressure gauge can be used either way. If internal a pressure relieve valve can be installed on the pump.

Re: Burtzs block
 

As many times as I've looked at the Builders Guide, I've never focused on that section on detailing for fine points judging because I figured it would not apply to me. Very interesting reading, and an example of the thoughtfulness that has gone into the entire engine project.

Re: Burtzs block
 

Martin Larsen entered a fine point car at the MAFCA National Convention in Kerrville, Texas with a New Engine detailed per the "Builders Guide", and won an "Award of Excellence". This car did not have an oil filter or pressure gauge, so there was no difference in exterior appearance and no deduction for having the New Engine.

Another car with the New Engine was entered at another meet for fine point judging but only received 50% points because the judges knew about the New Engine.

If you are building a points car, do not brag about having the New Engine, brake and clutch pedal heads with deep grooves, Bakelite distributor bodies with one notch and steel cadmium-plated electrodes, 3X spark bases with the correct external knurl without bands, any of the aluminum top moldings used on closed cars, and the Nitrile front and rear main bearing seals because I manufacture these parts.

For judging purposes, don't let anyone know you have a New Engine, and present your points car to the judges without comment. Let the judges determine if the engine is new, if the paint is new, if the upholstery is new, if the top is new, if the tires are new, and if the car has reproduction parts.

Re: Burtzs block
 

Well, if I was to enter the car with the Burtz engine and didn’t tell anyone and the car scored high, wouldn’t that be “cheating “? Doesn’t seem right to me to fool the judges with a non-original engine just because on the outside it looks like the real deal. Just saying.

Re: Burtzs block
 

I see it differently. While there are thousands of original Model A engines about, I don't see it as cheating. The owner is perfectly able to rebuild a three main bearing engine and enter that. How is either engine original once the "original" is rebuilt?

Re: Burtzs block
 

Hard question. If I were one who went to the trouble and expense to source a “correct” engine and someone with a “faux” engine beat me out, I think I would be upset. Or is that just me? I have never entered points competition as I am not interested in that side of owning a Model A.

Re: Burtzs block
 

Or using NORS parts instead of restoring parts originally fitted. Did you use an original clutch disc, did you replace the clutch lining, did you fit a new clutch disc. At what point do we say it is a restored part, or a replaced part. This has to be the hardest part for both judges and restorers. There is a few areas where it is hard to restore over replacing. Did you restore the paint, or replace the paint to original standards using 1920's techniques, did you restore the plating or have the part replated. Upholstery, and the list goes on. Is replacing an engine block, that is the same outward appearance as the original, any different to replacing the upholstery with the same outward appearance, but is made with modern fabrics?

Re: Burtzs block
 

I am the current MAFCA liaison to the Judging Standards committee. Here you go-

If the judges cannot tell the part from an original part, it receives full points. That includes texture and finish. If the judge can tell the part is reproduction, it receives a deduction (this can be arbitrary). If the part is a correct Model A part but incorrect for the month/year, it receives a deduction. If the part is clearly not a Model A part, that part receives zero points.

Terry's advice above is good advice. However, some people on the Judging Standards Committee are now discussing the differences between an original Ford engine block and a Burtz block so that it can be identified as a "reproduction part". If it is identified as such, it will likely receive a deduction or possibly zero points, the same way a B block in a Model A would, at the discretion of the Chief Judge.

Hope that helps.

Re: Burtzs block
 

Re: Burtzs block
 

I don't worry about such things but I am an amateur historian and value things of historical nature so I can see where this will concern those that are strict about originality.

The caveat to forms of deception: Fine points builders generally want the original parts that came from the factory without substitution. Exceptions are materials that rapidly decay over extended periods of time and exposures like rubber, fabric, glass, and wood structure. Some will take it to the extent where engine blocks and other metal parts are fusion welded to repair cracks or broken areas just to get to the point of total originality. Using any part that was not made by Ford in that time frame doesn't pass as an original genuine authentic part by this standard. The only exceptions seems to be where builders reproduce a part to exacting standards due to unobtainium of such parts. This adds a lot of cost to these type restorations so a person could see why folks that do this could have a problem with substitutions by others even if they are of the same exact appearance as authentic genuine parts. To represent something as authentic and genuine when it actually isn't has a moral and ethical problem attached with it that is hard to justify to the all the folks that recognize it and may have a problem with it.

Re: Burtzs block
 

I can see both sides of this discussion. On the one hand, a rebuilt 28-31 engine, perhaps with number restamped, is certainly period but is not "original" to the car. So by extension practically every engine on the road is not "original". On the other hand, dave in australia has a good point. We cannot practically dip fenders in black enamel any more, so is any spray repainted fender automatically not "original"? (You won't find the dribbles that dipped parts had - somewhere.) Or replacement fabric. Would a reupholstered interior automatically not be "original"?

I will admit I'm not tuned to the fine points (pun intended) of fine points judging. I'm much more likely to enter a vehicle into "Restorers Class" evaluation. But I'd hate to see us get to the point where the only vehicles that have a chance at fine points judging are original survivors that have been locked away for 90+ years, and are never driven except into their trailers. I think we need to provide incentive for restorers to make every effort to have their cars look as "original" as possible, focusing on appearance, not the actual provenance of the part. So to that end, if you can make a Burtz block look identical to a 1930 block, I say "great". I agree with rotorwrench that you would not want to represent that this is an "original" part, but I have no problem with presenting it as a part that has been replaced but is by all appearances the same as would have been on the car originally. But I'm not a judge, so maybe I'm just blowing smoke out my tailpipe.

And I really would hate if the judging process took this to having a declaration that all parts are "original". Again, I say focus on whether the vehicle presented looks like what would have been in a showroom at the time.

And thanks, P.S., for chiming in with your comments.

Re: Burtzs block
 

That is the way it should be. I see the Burtz block as a "peace of mind" addition for someone wanting to drive their cars great distances from home at freeway speeds - and of no use for the enjoyment of a Model A as it was designed.
I'd argue that the Burtz block is not a reproduction part because it is not a replica of the original part. It is as much a "reproduction" part as the Donovan engine was. https://www.modelaparts.net/hiperf.html/donovansem.html

Re: Burtzs block
 

I'm ALL for Mr. Burtz' engine receiving full points in competition.

I mean, for crying out loud:mad:

Not allowing such is akin to a clique of Model A owners trying to deduct points off of another's car, to promote themselves.

I say put it to a vote and let the MAFCA and MARC community as well as non club Model A owners have a say which way this one goes! Thank God for somebody like Terry B. trying to move the hobby forward!
No need to throw up road blocks.