Change FC?

[Steve Thomson]

Kevin, We don't have to search out any manufactures, the Zetec engine with the restrictor or added weight or both, will be competitive with the current Pinto.

Steve

[Rick Silver]

First, the comp board and the BoD read this and related web sites. So it is important to try and limit the discussion to reasonable and useful inputs. If the final outcome from all of the drivers and teams is 18 different solutions all over the spectrum, then what can the comp board do but come up with there best guess solution.

So, we should try and construct a reasonable set of alternative solutions which can then form the suggested set of rule changes. These get evaluated by the Formula car advisory board and then formulated into a set of rules, resent to Sports Car for member input and then onto the BoD for final disposition.

The Comp Board does read all of the letters it receives. It is essential to come to some set of agreements and then SUBMIT several independent letters of support to the SCCA/Comp Board.

There are a specific set of potentials actions in the Fast Track. I believe that whoever said the bulk of cars are x-pro cars is definitely correct. Mine is, and I cant think of one newer car which isn’t except for a few rare situations. So, the Pro crossover has been very good for FC.

Newer better parts for the Pinto engine is a good idea and not particularly hard to deal with.

The Zetec engine should be allowed, in my opinion, as an alternative powerplant, but all cars must entirely conform to FC specs. This is not that hard to do for any Pro crossover guys. Quicksilver has tested a few intake restrictors, and can easily get the engine HP and Torque to values near or below the Pinto. This can be done without changing the ECU and fuel mixture curves. The new Zetecs should run at a 50 pound weight disadvantage to start, which is only 10 or 15 pounds over the current pro weight. This weight disadvantage can be easily removed over time to equilibrate the cars. The comparisons of FC and Zetecs needs to be done with fully developed FC cars running Zetecs not in Pro spec cars with the spec wings and shocks etc. The wheels, especially at reduced power, should remain current FC specs. It is possible also to look at cost reduction of the Zetec in its current configuration. There are some concrete items which can be changed or offered at reduced costs.

One important fact is that Ford will continue to support this Zetec engine for several years. I am told there are some legal requirements for support of a minimum of 7 to 8 years. I am trying to get an official statement on this. The engine is still being installed in Ford Focus SVTs for 2004. Also, there are a lot of 100,000 mile warrantied cars out there which have to be factory supported for 6 or 7 years. The point is, these engines and parts will be supported for several years to come.

This is my personal opinion. Let the Zetec in with the restrictions and weight disadvantage. See how things go, then we can look at the Duratec engine when some actually makes an FC compatible chassis which will accept it. NONE of our current FC cars will accept the Duratec. It needs a bellhousing adaptor (wrong bolt pattern), it will then be too long, it is taller, and would require significant development work. Lets let the Zetec in with a design goal of having them .3 or .5 seconds slower and then remove the weight as required to equilibrate. We really need to focus the discussion to come up with a few specific actions which can be submitted as rule changes.

Rick Silver, member of the Formula car advisory board.

[Steve Thomson]

Rick, I agree. Thanks for your input.

Steve

[Charles Warner]

I have to agree with Kevin. Unless these ideas are presented to the Comp Board in a well thought out and articulate manner all this banter is for nought. I have yet to read any statements as to (1) the projected cost for Zetec conversion for those cars that can take the motor, (2) what the exhorbitant costs to maintain the Pinto are, (3) what the suggestions are for after market parts that would reduce these costs without a performance increase. This is the data the Advisory Board needs. From what I gather, the conversion to Zetec is not a simple matter and will be fairly costly, especially when you add the cost of a new motor. Then, what will you do with the old 2 liter? Sell it to another FC guy? S2000 guy. Don't forget, a replacement engine just might devalue your current engine stock by a great deal. Could this be an example of false economy?

[Rick Silver]

Charles those are important points. It is my guess that not that many Pinto guys will convert to the Zetecs. If it is 12 to 14K for a conversion, and the car is equally competitive with the Pinto motor, then I will keep my pinto until I buy a new car or upgrade my car. It will take a lot of Pinto rebuilds and miles to pay for a 13K motor upgrade. It more than just a motor, it is a new clutch, new wiring harnesses, new rear body work, new exhaust system, new flywheel, fuel tower etc. The Zetecs still need to be rebuilt every 4000 or 5000 miles.

But more important for the long term health of the class, is to allow the Zetec so that new chassis continue to filter into the class. Currently, there are no new cars coming into FC. It will rapidly go the direction FF has, if we dont have an approach or plan to allow new cars and modern powerplants. Why not allow the Zetec, if it is done in a controlled, fair manner without affecting any other rules within the class. There are so many positives to allowing it in and it sets the stage for a reasonable approach based on experience for future engine evaluations.

-Rick Silver

[Dave Hopple]

But more important for the long term health of the class, is to allow the Zetec so that new chassis continue to filter into the class. Currently, there are no new cars coming into FC. It will rapidly go the direction FF has, if we dont have an approach or plan to allow new cars and modern powerplants. Why not allow the Zetec, if it is done in a controlled, fair manner without affecting any other rules within the class. There are so many positives to allowing it in and it sets the stage for a reasonable approach based on experience for future engine evaluations.

Sorry, but I respectfully disagree with that, engines don't drive new car sales, you don't need a new car to win in FC, Mr. Anderson and Mr Weitzenhof prove that on a regular basis. If Van Diemen came out with a new design FC Pinto Car that was faster than the current 98-02 series car there would be 30 orders tomorrow (allthough with the pound at 1.76 per $ maybe not ).

The Zetec pro cars IMHO are not club Pinto cars anymore, having worked on them for the past year, yeah the chassis are similar but it's morphed into something else completely.

I'll go back to lurking, my advice is, don't duke this out on the internet, send in a letter/email how you feel invidually to the CRB, it's worked for us in FF, we have had a lot of new parts etc approved in the last year-Dave

[Steve Thomson]

Dave, you FF guys set the standard for duking!

[Mr T]

I sent my letter in tho the SCCA saying to keep the Pinto motor as is. Allowing the zetecs in at at a restricted level will only cause frustration and confusion to exsisting car owners and new car buyers. The comp board does not react extremly fast in the SCCA so how long will it take until a parity level can be reached, 2 or 3 years. Ive been racing for a long time and have seen people come and go in shorter time than that. Can a parity level ever be reached, I think not. Either the zetec guys will complain or the pinto guys until the SCCA will have no choice but to pick a motor or unrestrict it. Then were will costs go?
As far as new people coming into the sport at this time, what car will they choose, a zetec or a pinto? They may look at the situation and deciede that its screwed up and go play with the FSCCA car.

Then will see our numbers start to drop and then who knows?

Brian Tomasi

[Mike B]

I'm going to side with Brian on this issue. As Kevin points out, there is no way to make a Pinto and Zetec (or any other engine) equal. And certainly not in a timely fashion. Just look at NASCAR: they change the rules on a weekly basis and there's always at least one group that's pissed off. Besides, in 2 years when the Pro series changes chassis and engines, there won't be any new Zetec cars being built, either. That's not a lot of new cars coming in to Club racing between now and then.
Steve, I don't think anyone is advocating titanium rods or pneumatic valves or any other cutting-edge technology. With input from the engine builders (and Purple Frog) we can come up with some well-though out replacement components that cost less but maintain the current spec. I still struggle with the fact that a practically stock 4-cylinder engine costs $10,000+.

[BrooksHall]

I'll second the two above posts. Allthough I do believe that this class needs to seriously start to think about a replacement engine it's more important that we make our existing engine last longer. I pay Sandy what I pay him because he delivers a quality motor with great reliability and performance. My problem isn't with the cost but the longevitity. To my way of thinking if the cost were to remain the same but the rebuild time was lengthened we would all be better off.

As a "regional only" driver I don't know if my concerns are the same as the National or Runoffs guys. I doubt if the if the Ztec were allowed to race in FC that it would impact Regionals in the same way as it would the Nationals. I do know that from the posts on this board and many conversations that our current motor could last longer with out increasing the initial cost of building it.

I think that before we write our letters we should come up with a suggested parts list for the Comp Board. Let's give them the outline of what we need. I think if we were to just write in and let them know we want to keep our current rules then we will miss the opportunity to get the new parts approved. I've seen a couple of posts that listed names of rods/pistons etc maybe we could build a concensus and send that list in with our individule letters?

[Thomas Copeland]

I honestly don't understand the reluctance to allow another more modern(and less costly..in the long run) engine into our class(in addition to the Pinto). Isn't it the "Kent engine only" mentality that's thinning out and killing off Formula Ford fields? Are we going to duplicate that here with a "Pinto engine only" one? Parity is near impossible to obtain...so what else is new? There will always be those that complain that the playing field is uneven regardless of what's decided.

It might be more prudent for SCCA to wait another year to see which direction the pro series goes in in their chassis/engine selection before determining a direction seeing that most FC cars are filtered down from the pro series. But I wouldn't want to wait any longer than that. Change is inevitable.

[size="1"][ December 24, 2003, 12:08 AM: Message edited by: Thomas Copeland ][/size]

[carnut169]

I've heard talk of people going out on their own with motorcycle-powered cars, running in FS, then hoping that people jump on board do the same, and start having folks to race against.
For me, I don't really care what type of engines we run... but I would like to run a motor that does not have to be built every year to be competitive. When I look at what Honda can do w/ the S2000 motor (a high reving, reliable motor that can go 100k) I do wonder what we are doing. Are we all just crazy? The Ztec was the answer but still needs to be rebuilt at 4-5000k? Why not pick a motor like the S2000, and be done with it!
If we had enough people interested in doing a motorcycle/ Honda/ Toyota conversion wouldn't that bring the conversion prices down to a reasonable level?

[Chas Shaffer]

As I see it the issue with allowing the Zetec into FC is the cost of conversion. I do not believe a new engine package should be allowed unless it is cost effective to convert a large percentage of the existing cars.

Rick, I would suggest you speake with Sandy and see what can be done to significantly reduce the conversion cost. At one time he told me if we had 5 - 10 conversions he could cut the costs quite a bit. If the cost of conversion were under $7k it may become a reasonable replacement engine. For instance if we could use the stock injection and find a cheaper source for ECU, harness and exhaust we should be able to get to a reasonable conversion cost. Otherwise all that is accomplished is to allow Pro hand-me-downs into FC. This may not be a bad thing if the Zetec series had a long term strategy to stay with the Zetec but we all know that is not the case. I believe if a new engine is brought into FC one of the biggest requirments must be conversion cost as well as operational cost and parity with the Pinto. This is all very possible.

Regardless of what happens with the Zetec we should push hard to allow lower cost but equivalent parts for the Pinto.

[Chas Shaffer]

I'd like to clarify my point about the actual cost of conversion. I think a max should be set around $7k for the engine and all major componenets. I'd prefer it be around $5k and believe this to be very possible especially if the engine remains mostly stock.

[Curtis Boggs]

Is it possable, .. or reasonable to convert a car older then a 99' without major chassis mods????

Also, .. are the zetecs loosing #1 rod bearing?
Remember ANY engine put under the stress of racing will have a reduced lifespan.

If the Zetec is going 4,000 miles, .. and with new parts costing say $3,000, .. the Pinto can go say maybe 3,000
what's the gain???

Just to be clear, .. I like the Zetec cars a bunch, .. and I like Pinto, .. and Kent, .. they all have their good and bad points.
But, .. I only see one or two Zetec cars at most races, .. compared to 15 - 20 pinto cars.

To be honest I don't think engine issues have much to do with SCCA club formula classes dying out. I feel it has more to do with the new guy, and young gun going where they get the most exposure. With all the different places to race these days, .. Dodge, F2000 pro, Fran Am, Mazda, ..

It used to be if you won the Run Offs in Formula Ford, or even FC, .. somebody would come talking about a paid ride, . or mving up "the ladder". Those days are gone, .. and gone with it are the drivers looking to make a name for themselves.

Curtis

[Rick Kirchner]

Jay Ivey just told me that our good friends at Ford Motorsports (when was the last time they actively supported our class??) are changing their wholesaler policies. Seems that next year you'll need to do $60K/year of business with them to get the parts, otherwise, you'll need to find a middleman. Expect costs of Olivers and J&Es to go up.

For me, the cost of a single, normal rebuild at $3K is not a budget breaker. However, it's the big one every third time of so that's the killer. The last rebuild just did pistons, valves, bearings, and gaskets - reasonable at $2400. This time I'm looking at rods, pistons, rings, bearings, gaskets, cylinder liners, a couple of valves, crank, and clutch - and that hurts.

[Larry]

Circa 1993 we had "The Great Rod Famine," in which the supply of good 2.0 rods was gone, and the remaining rods weren't up to the stresses of racing. About 30 manufacturers and suppliers met at the PRI to discuss the problem. Ford even had a rep at the meeting. We noted that we could go down on the floor at the PRI show and buy plenty of high-quality conn rods that would provide no inherent advantage over the legal Ford rods, and that these rods would cost about $55 wholesale. the problem was that they wouldn't be legal.

Ford gave a contract to Cosworth for improved forged rods which would carry a legal Ford part number. The drawing was in error, and the new batch of rods was heavy and had weight in the wrong areas. They were, however, strong enough for racing. Cost was about $100 wholesale...but the engine builders spent a couple of hours per rod to prepare them. End result was that a set of rods cost about $900, which was easily double what equivalent aftermarket rods would have cost.

The major gripe seems to be the cost of the engine and overhaul. This was the problem with FF, too (plus the lack of availability of crankshafts).

One answer is to open up the sources for components to the competitive forces of the market place. Allow aftermarket pistons, rods, valves, cranks--as long as they meet the weights and sizes of the factory units. This will help lower the engine overhaul costs while improving reliability.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

[Curtis Boggs]

Originally posted by Larry:
The major gripe seems to be the cost of the engine and overhaul. This was the problem with FF, too (plus the lack of availability of crankshafts).

One answer is to open up the sources for components to the competitive forces of the market place. Allow aftermarket pistons, rods, valves, cranks--as long as they meet the weights and sizes of the factory units. This will help lower the engine overhaul costs while improving reliability.

Larry Oliver
International Racing Products

Larry hit the nail directly on the head, .. .. ...

If we eliminate some of the weak links in the engine, .. for FF it was the crank, .. and now the piston, .. time between rebuilds will be much greater, .. and the engine will do much less damage to it's self.

My understanding with the 2.L, .. and Sandy should jump in here, .. is when the forged piston was put into play, .. SCCA asked it to mirror the design of the old cast piston.
While being stronger the piston skirt design did nothing for helping piston rock in the bore and eating up cylinder walls.

Same thing with the 1600, .. not only does it need to be forged but the design needs to be improved to extend piston ring and cylinder bore life.

I agree with Larry, .. if we are building race engines then let's use race parts, .. the long term cost is much less.
I had posted some math on this subject a while back on 1600.com, .. .. I'll see if I can find it.

There are two issues going on here, .. one to let the Zetec into FC, .. the other is to support the Pinto powered cars.

If the Zetech can be made somewhat equal perhaps it should be placed in FC, .. but only if there will be support for the car from the pro series and most important, .. support for the engine. If Ford is no longer producing the engine, .. and dumping it's stock you'll be right back in the same place 5-10 years down the road.

As for Pinto parts, I think it's the same as with the 1600, ..
let's get the engine builders to research parts, .. find good alternitive parts, and bring that to the comp board.

The comp board has been open to new parts for the 1600, . there's no reason why they won't be for the 2.L

Curtis

[size="1"][ December 22, 2003, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Curtis Boggs ][/size]

[Purple Frog]

IMHO, "The same specs for the engine, but at a cheaper cost" is not a solution. You still have a 12 hour engine. What fun is that, unless you are an engine builder.

Some of the fine folks have said they are happy to race 5 times a year. But, many of us like to more than double that participation number. Down here, even if we only race once a month, it's easy to race ten times a year. [img]smile.gif[/img] Add in testing, and some years we are doing two refreshes. I enjoy driving, not being in the shop doing R&Rs on the engine.

There is no need for less expensive parts unless we make some of the changes to the parts themselves that the high-performance crowd started using decades ago. Just changing the rod length and piston design over to parts already on the shelf will lower the rebuild costs, and give extended time between rebuilds. (I have written all this research up in years past.) The Crower Sportsman rods are a good example. By using their 2300 rod combined with a piston such as the one from Wiseco, you still have the same bore and stroke, but you have an engine with less rod angle, no ancient wrist pin technology, and a lighter piston with better pin-to-ring placement for less slap and ring wear. All sold currently at prices less than what we have to pay for the "stock" parts.

I sold the old car last week, and was shopping for a new ride. Which means I don't have a current log book. So does that mean my 6 years of racing experience with the pinto would not have a voice? Hum....

I am paying attention to the development of this news in Fastrack. How it goes may determine where I go. [img]graemlins/skull.gif[/img]

[Curtis Boggs]

Froggy,

Thanks for the PRIME example on the parts issue, ..

I hope you'll be around racing with us, .. ..

I wonder, .. with the new rod ratio and better piston, ..
will it make a little more power as well as last longer?, .
If that happens will it bring the performence closer to a Zetec, .. thus helping engine life & closing the performence gap between the Zetec & Pinto.

Curtis

[Purple Frog]

Ah shucks... You would see an improvement in torque numbers. At a lower cost. Obviously something we wouldn't want to do.

Remember, hp lowers lap times, torque wins races.

I'm not propsing to try to catch the Zetec. It can be done with addition of a cam, and/or somebody like Curtis installing bigger valves in the steel head. Of course since most of us are buying 108 octane at the track pumps... compression could be bumped a bit, either by allowing the pistons up into the head gasket area, or milling the head. But, as they say in the orange groves down here, I'm not sure the juice is worth the squeeze. In terms of endurance, growing the hp a lot to chase the Zetec, may bring you back into a 12 hour service level. I'm only proposing changes to increase endurance.

[Chas Shaffer]

Curtis,
To answer your question I do not think it is resonable to install a Zetec in a car older than a 1998 VD but there are a tremendous number of 1998 and newer cars out there. The point I wanted to make is that any new engine should be able to retrofit at a reasonable cost into a large number of cars. I do not see any value in allowing in an engine that will cost $12k plus to convert.

I like the Zetec engine a lot and I am a proponent for allowing it in but not at the current configuration and cost. Get cost down to the equivalent of two Pinto rebuilds and it starts to make sense.

Either way I really don't plan to switch. I really enjoy my relationship with Steve Knapp, he is just great to work with and builds excellent engines! It takes me just over an hour to pull my engine and just over two to reinstall it by myself. I'm getting well over 1500 miles per rebuild with little degradation in performance even with higher leak down numbers. I had 1800 miles on my engine at the Mid Ohio National this year and over 800 at the Runoffs. In neither event did I feel I was at a horsepower disadvantage and in both events I was running Avgas. I really hope the cheaper Pinto parts are allowed and the Zetec is allowed. I will likely buy a second Pinto if everyone starts converting assuming Pinto motors will become more plentyful and therefore even cheaper.

[QS]

4 engines have lost rod bearings 3 because the oil level in the tank was not maintained properly the 1 we have no idea.We have built approx 63 Zetecs to date.

I do not know where the low milage numbers has started but there are at least 15 to 20 engines out there with over 5000 miles on them and going strong there are some with more.

If there are any specific questions anyone has I will do my best to answer them Zetec or Pinto

Sandy

[Curtis Boggs]

Sandy,

Thanks for jumping in and clearing things up, ...

Care to share your feeling on this????
Can a Pinto or Kent be built to run 5,000 race miles with the right parts?????

What is the rough cost of a Zetec "kit" ???

Curtis

[size="1"][ December 22, 2003, 12:53 AM: Message edited by: Curtis Boggs ][/size]

[Purple Frog]

I admit, 12 hours may be a bit of an exageration. [img]smile.gif[/img] Last season I put over 20 on a great Butler refresh.

I think the good engine builders currently are building legal engines that are strong for 15 to 18 hours. What happens to some guys is they get to a break in the season, they have 12 hours on the engine already, find they need to do some off-season chassis maintenance, so while the engine is out they refresh it when they have the time instead of trying to squeeze it in between races once the season is active.

Charles, I sure wish the Zetec retrofit was less than $10K. I did a lot of research on that topic last winter, and could not figure out any way to bring the cost down. There are just so many custom little pieces needed for the conversion... water pumps, immersible fuel pumps, wiring harnesses, headers, intake manifolds, brackets for this, brackets for that, yadda, yadda...

The powers-to-be shyed away from the Duratec because it did not easily bolt up to all the existing gearboxes. But I wonder if when all is considered, in retrospect, the Scholar Duratec conversion (being used in the pro S2 series in the UK )almost looks easier and less expensive.

[Chas Shaffer]

If a Duratec, which requires the same components as the Zetec, is a cheaper solution then doesn't that imply the Zetec conversion parts are too expensive given that the engines themselves are similarly priced? For example the Pectel ECU for a Zetec is approx. $1500 vs approx. $500 for the Duratec. As I understand it the Duratec ECU will work fine for the Zetec so why use the expensive one? Answer: The pro rules require it. Same question and answer for the fuel rail, wiring harness, fuel pump, etc.

I'm suggesting that by using parts not available when the Zetec conversion was designed, as well as leveraging economies of scale, the Zetec conversion cost can be significantly reduced to a point where it makes sense to convert.

I'd hate to see the Zetec engine allowed into FC requiring the more expensive components.

[Jim Nash]

To no one specific,

One of the main reasons behind using the Zetec as an FC alternative is that it’s proven. Many hard miles of racing, no lasting horror stories, and it was put together by some of the clubs best outfits in Primus, VD, and QS. Write the check, and they will send the parts. The Duratec may well be a better way to go but somebody’s got to do it and prove it. Maybe data systems do not work with the cheaper ECU, maybe they do not stand up to the vibrations of racing. Who knows? You do not know until you start doing the work.

The aluminum head got approved for FF, not because it was a good idea, but a good idea that somebody acted on and did the homework (Ivey). USF2000 thought the Pinto engine costs were too high and thought it should be replaced. They chose the Zetec, worked with QS and VD, and made it a reality. Believe it or not, all those Pro teams bought into the idea of the change to save money. Debate all you want on what would be better but its not really better until its been done. Don’t count on the club doing the development on these ideas. That’s not their job. If the Duratec is ready to go, 10 or 15 guys get together, order the things, run regionals as FS to prove it will work and then write the Comp Board.

Jim

PS- Sorry for the rant. I’m a veteran of the FF Underground battles and had a slight relapse.

[Ron B.]

Jim makes good points.

It's taken awhile and some thought, but I'm afraid I'm still at a loss.

If we limit the discussion to the introduction of the Zetec with an equivilancy package (mind you JUST the motor - not the pro wings, wheels, etc) to run with the current Pinto please explain the following:

IF you are a mulitple national winner (Tomasi, Shaffer, et al,), or have an older VD, or have chassis that makes it hard to convert to Zetec AND are happy with the Pinto, WHY why would you consider changing to the Zetec? Better yet, WHY would you be against letting someone else run a choked Zetec?

If the Zetec were allowed into FC, it can only INCREASE class participation, even if it's only 1 car.

How cool would it be to run in FC, then able to pop off the restrictor, add some 8's and 10's and go to the odd pro race that came around? Kind of like the old days, huh?

[Curtis Boggs]

To be clear, ..

are we talking about allowing the Zetec to run but NOT in pro trim?

Open shocks, FC spec nose & wing, .. smaller tires & wheels, . .. restricted engine.
Or maybe just open shocks and FC wheels & tires & restricted engine.

Curtis

[D.T. Benner]

To Ron B.-I have a Zetec and I think that going from a restrictor intake back to a "pro" setup would require a reprograming of the ECU. I guess you could buy a second ECU that was programed to run with the restrictor. Maybe Sandy from QS can comment on this?

[98Vandiemen]

Basically the only modification that should be performed is the engine swap, not wheels, wings, etc... If we keep all the other rules that apply to the pinto the same, i cannot see where we could go wrong. FC is continuously loosing competitors, we should do whatever we can to preserve the class and to increase participating numbers.

[Curtis Boggs]

Is there anything in the rules that doesn't allow the pro nose & wings? And, .. is there a reason not to allow them?
Are they better, .. worse, .. the same???

I've thought about this, .. if the pro nose & wing is better why didn't I see it on a FC???

I agree, .. the Zetec should be worked into FC
just wish I could port the heads

Curtis

[Matt Satchell]

Curtis,

The pro front wing is not nearly as effective as the standard VanDiemen front wing used in FC. To balance the cars, we (St. Clair Motorsports) ended up using about half the amount of rear wing with the pro front vs. the FC front wing.

DT - Sandy could answer this better, but I don't see why you would have to change the ECU.
I posted a message back in June discussing the results of a back to back test of a full pro setup vs. installing the proposed restrictor by Sandy and switching from Avon Pro Series tires to Hoosier FC tire (and wheels). It was done at the June National at Grattan with Jerry Szykulski. We did not change the noses, nor the shocks. Times were very similar in both setups.

I would think that the Zetec equivalent package would consist of the restrictor and going to FC tires, and perhaps weight to start. I agree you should err on the conservative side to start.
As far as wings and shocks, make those open as long as they fall within the current FC rules. If people dont want to spend for the extra wing and extra shocks, they don't have to.

[Ron B.]

Curtis,

Yes, that's exactly what should be (and is) being proposed, along with a couple of other options. Nowhere is there a mention of bigger tires, spec shocks, spec wings or making everyone run factory only parts. We are only talking about letting someone with a Zetec powered car run it in FC with a restrictor and possibly more weight, but otherwise with FC rules. I think some here have read into the discussion things that are not there.

[QS]

Primus and Quicksilver are working on up to date Prices for installation kit and engine should be ready in a day or so.

So far all the on track testing with the restrictor plate has been done with 1 MAP same as we use in USF2000. At this point I do not see any reason to change it but time will tell.

Also as far as I know the the only request that has been made to the Comp Board is to get member input on an additional engines or mods to the Pinto. No changes to suspension body work etc

[Charles Warner]

We can't even get a consensus as to whether this is a good idea or not . . . and several are already talking about more mods than the restricted engine. As Kevin pointed out . . the creep already begins.

Can anyone provide data that shows the Pinto is either way too expensive to run and/or parts can not be found that will significantly reduce the rebuild costs without increasing power? The oft-repeated 12 hour engine life has crept to 18-20. Chas has gotten 1800 miles on an engine. We hear of the Pinto motors going a season without refresh. Does anyone really think that a Zetec driver will not refresh every year (needed or not) just to get the last little power? Same as buying two sets of new tires each race. As soon as someone (possibly with more money than brains) does it then it become de rigeur.

Change for change's sake is often foolhardy. I may not have a dog in this fight, but, as an Advisory Board member I would like to get some hard data to back up the proposals.

[mark defer]

charles and brian echo my sentiments exactly. if the zetec comes, unless there is a clear performance advantage, i'll stick with the pinto. unless the cost of switching comes way down, it would take many seasons to recoup the switch. until now, i've consider the introduction of the zetec into FC inevitable. but after hearing in this thread that the pro series might dump the engine in the next few years, i'm not so sure. one last point no one has made in this thread yet. right now with the pinto, your ignition spares are few and relatively inexpensive. possibly a set of points, cap, rotor, coil, etc. additionally, diagnosing and repair a running problem is usually fairly simple. if you have a zetec that develops a misfire, who's going to diagnose the problem at the track? and if someone does, and it's the ecu, whos going to carry a spare? and how willing is somebody going to be to loan you such an expensive electronic unit versus a bosch coil. could be a long tow home. mark d

[sarrcford]

Perhaps we should take a current pole regarding the average miles or hours between Pinto rebuilds. We could use this to develop some average running costs per mile. Most of us already know how much it costs on average per mile. I don't want a few people stating they run their motors 12-18 hours between rebuilds to be the assumed current average.

Rob Poma

[Curtis Boggs]

simple question, ..

can the engine dyno HP & TQ curves of the Zetec be matched to a Pinto with a restrictor????

Curtis

[Mark C. Ritter]

If a large percentage of us were in favor of making a change such as the one Frog suggests, (longer rods, different pistons) for the sake of longevity and costs shouldn't we be able to convince the SCCA to approve these changes? We are after all the ones that pay the membership, entry fees and also keep the engine builders in business.
Seems like the tail is wagging the dog. Sounds like we all would like to change, but the folks WE ARE PAYING say we can't.
I'm pretty new to all of this, so if I'm off base please tell me.