Pinto Upgrades

[RSS]

So where can you run with another club? Canada? I am in Texas. We use to have 20 car FC fields and 15 car FF fields not that long ago. Now we have no FC cars and only 3-4 FF with Hondas and rarely do we see any Kent powered FF's. Not much fun running with 3 cars. I have 4 FF's in my shop that could be raced. Not much interest because of the cost to have the best engine package.

Might be able to sell those Kent powered cars to the Series guys out in AZ as they seem to be making it work in FF/CF?

Thing is whatever class is stongest in each area and offers a wide variety cars (old and new) needs to be jumped on by every openwheel driver in that area. They need to get together build one series/class that has a wide variety of cars and people to compete with so everybody has someone to race. This 5 classes with 3 cars each isn't fun but if everyone is in one class thats a 15 car field which is a pretty good grid these days and can actually attract new drivers. So get together with all the local guys find the median car cost for everyone and choose your class based off that FV/FF/FC.

[Latebraker]

Any reason the z-tec runs a 8.0 lbs flywheel and the pinto a 10.5 lbs flywheel the z-tec pull off the corners better than the pinto should the pinto be allowed to run the same weight flywheel as the z-tec to give it better drive off the corner 2.5 lbs is a lot, by losing 2.5 lbs it would wakeup the pinto and make it more fair without much expense and maybe close the gap between z-tec and pinto.

[Rick Kirchner]

This is a three-year-old old thread but covers the same stuff we were discussing last week!

[RacerDave51]

Rick what would the vintage tech guys say to a 5.7 rod Pinto engine with a 38mm Weber?
Just curious...
D

[Rick Kirchner]

I would say that several of us on the west coast are looking at longevity mods for the vintage Pinto. Personally, I'm not a fan of a bigger carb. it makes the car faster but we are not competing with Zetecs. it does not eliminate the need to dyno the engine and adjust dump tubes, so its a cost and performance increase with no other redeeming values.

VARA will always allow non-compliant cars to run in exhibition. the whistle and cam test would not find the long rod.

[Latebraker]

This is a three-year-old old thread but covers the same stuff we were discussing last week!

Sorry haven't seen anything new on subject may not be looking in the right place. I would like to know the answer to the difference in flywheel weights why the modern engine gets to run a lighter flywheel?
Thanks
Alan

[Purple Frog]

I've cut down a few stock pinto flywheels. Not sure you could cut one that light and it still be safe.
So, it would require a custom made unit. Not sure anyone builds one that light for the pinto. The custom ones available are built to meet the rules as written. $$$

[Buc01]

I've cut down a few stock pinto flywheels. Not sure you could cut one that light and it still be safe.
So, it would require a custom made unit. Not sure anyone builds one that light for the pinto. The custom ones available are built to meet the rules as written. $$$

I am running a 5.7 pound modified pinto flywheel (all steel). Had to purchase it from England. Sandy and Erik at QS were both a bit skeptical about it. But, has 5 race weekends on it now and is not showing any signs of excessive wear.

Aaron

[CGOffroad]

I am running a 5.7 pound modified pinto flywheel (all steel). Had to purchase it from England. Sandy and Erik at QS were both a bit skeptical about it. But, has 5 race weekends on it now and is not showing any signs of excessive wear.

Aaron

Did you take any photos of this flywheel prior to installation? Please provide some more information about it? Cost,delivery time, contact info for where you purchased it, etc. thanks.

[xmazdatracy]

I think we all knew the Zetec was the best choice currently but us lowly little regional guys didn't know to what extent. Even with all the info here on Apex we where shocked by how much faster the blueprinted Zetec was.

Scenario
Our regional group of FC's was 100% pinto last season we all generally chase Gcoffin as he has one of those monster pintos. Group of about 20-30 cars ish sadly never at one time but that's how many are rolling around out here.

Off season Zac.B buys a Zetec and so do I.

We roll up to our first race at Gcoffin's home track (Spokane) which is very much a HP track long straights not to many turns. We all run pretty much fully trimmed out wing wise only slight differences would be gearing. Which after checking was fairly close as well.

On Grid in Video
1. Zac.B 2002 VanDiemen Zetec (Blueprint)
2. Gcoffin 1999 Mygale Pinto (Big Pinto)
3. RSS 2004 Mygale Zetec (Crate Motor) - Camera car

Here is the video of Race 1 watch the first couple laps. This is Zac.B running 2.5sec slower than his fastest laps of the weekend while Greg runs about 0.5 sec off his fastest and i am about 0.2sec of my fastest laps.

http://youtu.be/KyWM9PFrBho

Now with a new car i didn't expect to beat Greg and i am within striking distance so pretty much where i wanted to be. Zac on the other hand brought a hand grenade to a knife fight by accident and pretty much nobody has a chance to catch him without a blueprinted zetec.

So how does this effect SCCA not at all as our group generally doesn't run SCCA other than this season due to the runoffs. But for anyone thinking of getting a zetec to run at the top of your regional group you may ended up all alone out front.

Wow, thats a depressing video to watch.

[Bob Wright]

Umm...zac's car came from my shop. When delivered out west the motor was crate, not blueprinted and had been in the car for at least two years, more like three. There was nothing special about the car. To further put things in some prospective, that car and some pintos raced very evenly in our series in the early days of FRP.

just a point of information.

[RSS]

We found out later I was probably 5lbs heavier per wheel as I was running Hoosiers and had steel wheel spacers on the rims. Since then switched to Avons and aluminum spacer and now have no issues keeping up in a straight line with the car Zac was driving or any other Zetec we have come across. The Pinto's still have no chance though.

[Buc01]

[QUOTE=CGOffroad;543000]Did you take any photos of this flywheel prior to installation? Please provide some more information about it? Cost,delivery time, contact info for where you purchased it, etc. thanks.[/QUOTE]

Yes I did. Will try an post the one photo I have. Do not have the Cost,delivery time, contact info available now.
Will look for it and post later.

Aaron

[Steve Demeter]

That isn't a flywheel.

It is a lot of air held together by a few bits of steel.

[Rick Kirchner]

please post an install pic from the carb side without bodywork

[xmazdatracy]

How much more time/life do you get from the longer rod mod for the pinto?

[Rick Kirchner]

well here's an interesting tidbit:

The Pinto rod/stroke ratio is 1.644 - which according to stuff I've read, is not "bad" at all. With the Chevy rods it goes up to 1.88!

Now here's the interesting part - the Zebec is 1.547.

So there's something else to the wear out issues beyond rod ratios.

[Buc01]

That isn't a flywheel.

It is a lot of air held together by a few bits of steel.

I agree! But man o man does it rev up quick. Ran against one PFM so far. Dead even on the straight parts. ;-)
Not too shabby for "just a Pinto".

AS

[Buc01]

Did you take any photos of this flywheel prior to installation? Please provide some more information about it? Cost,delivery time, contact info for where you purchased it, etc. thanks.

Sorry I could not find actual invoice. But I did find the contact information. See photo.

AS

[Purple Frog]

It is not the rod length that provides the longer life, it is the fact that with that longer rod you use a piston that has the wrist pin much closer to the rings.
In the standard pinto it is the "rocking" of the piston that wears the ring grooves and the cylinder wall. With a piston like the Wisco much of that rocking is eliminated.
The longer length does give a bit better rod angle. Maybe a slightly better power improvement. Less than 1%.

Erik at QS reports that one S2 group is allowing a .005" overbore. He says this gives them maybe twice as much life on the sleeves. They can get 4 refresh cycles on one set of sleeves. And I believe that is with the standard rod length.

Combine the long rod with the over bore rule, you might make some progress. Didn't I write this in 2002?

[Rick Kirchner]

I think the Ivey pistons come in standard and +.005.

From what I've read the slight additional power comes from a longer dwell time at TDC that allows for more complete burning of the mixture.

I figured it was the pin to piston top moment arm that was the overall issue.

I think you wrote it in '02 and every two to three years thereafter.

[FASTDAD]

It's now official in the GCR. " Wiseco piston P/N WD-06526 with rings, pin, Crower connecting rod P/N SP93235B-4 (withbolts), but without bearings: Minimum permitted weight with bolts, no bearings: 555 grams." Went to Crowers web site and checked their part no, rod length is 5.700. Checked Wiseco's part no. came up empty. Their search engine seems to need some work. GCR's part no. does not seem to be anywhere or maybe I'm not searching properly. So in reality this means the wrist pin is moved up in the piston .700 since the old rod length is 5.00. Anybody else have any luck with Wiseco's part no. search?

[RacerDave51]

Dad ck with QS. They did some work with the new rules.
Not sure about the 555gr though--may be a misprint. Seems light for the piston/pin/rod assy...??
DK

[holmberg]

Anybody else have any luck with Wiseco's part no. search?

In Google I tried this:

site:wiseco.com WD-06526

and got nothing. :-(

[BeerBudgetRacing]

In Google I tried this:

site:wiseco.com WD-06526

and got nothing. :-(

As I read this it's all standard bore - which is a problem.
It's probably a custom part at this point. Let's hope there isn't an exclusive right to order.

The rods are available anywhere:
https://www.summitracing.com/parts/cro-sp93235b-4

[FASTDAD]

The CRBSCCA to clarify the piston part no. situation. Informed them nothing came up on a Google search (Google knows everything) and went to Wiseco's web site and still came up empty. I'll post when I hear back. I suppose a person could call Quicksilver but the law of the land comes from the CRB so no money will be spent until one hears from the proper authorities.

[DaveW]

I think the Ivey pistons come in standard and +.005.

From what I've read the slight additional power comes from a longer dwell time at TDC that allows for more complete burning of the mixture.

I figured it was the pin to piston top moment arm that was the overall issue.

I think you wrote it in '02 and every two to three years thereafter.

A small additional amount of HP should come from the fact that the rod angle with respect to vertical is smaller with a longer rod, reducing piston side load and its resultant friction.

[racerdad2]

Has anyone found these GCR approved pistons ? I'm wanting to refresh my engine....

Thx for any info !

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Has anyone found these GCR approved pistons ? I'm wanting to refresh my engine....

Thx for any info !

I think quicksilver did the build and test so they would know. They will be giving the part info to the crb.

[Bill Johnson 42]

Talked to Erik at Quicksilver last week. The Wiseco piston is not a stock item from Wiseco, you need to call QS to order them.

QS did the work on their own dime to get the piston to work with engines from all of the different engine builders from over the years, to make that happen the piston had to be modified.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Talked to Erik at Quicksilver last week. The Wiseco piston is not a stock item from Wiseco, you need to call QS to order them.

QS did the work on their own dime to get the piston to work with engines from all of the different engine builders from over the years, to make that happen the piston had to be modified.

As I feared. They've granted yet another monopoly.

[Peter Olivola]

As I feared. They've granted yet another monopoly.

Let me see if I understand the logic of your position.

QS, out of it's own pocket, researched, developed and got approval of a solution that you've been advocating. That solution could not be done with a stock part, but you want to be able to bypass QS.

Seems to me, you should have developed this yourself, including getting SCCA approval, and then given it away out of the goodness of your heart if that's how you feel about things.

[MotorCade]

Talked to Erik at Quicksilver last week. The Wiseco piston is not a stock item from Wiseco, you need to call QS to order them.

QS did the work on their own dime to get the piston to work with engines from all of the different engine builders from over the years, to make that happen the piston had to be modified.

While I’m sure QS did some thinking, they certainly did not do it all on their own dime. I know at least one individual who ponied up real cash to get work performed.

It’s a step in the right direction, but allowing the .030 overbore would have given us an off the shelf part. Alternatively, SCCA could specify dimensions rather than a PN, which probably would have been more appropriate.

[RacerDave51]

What he said...

[MotorCade]

Interesting to me how people with no knowledge of how much work behind the scenes of many individuals, and no knowledge of the expenditures, are assuming QS would do this for free as a development project.

I’m not demonizing QS, but neither am I in favor of their paid effort earning them a monopoly.

[hdsporty1988]

As I feared. They've granted yet another monopoly.

This may or may not be an issue, isn't it a concern only if there is the perception that the price is elevated to the point of gouging? Certainly whoever funded the development should be able to recoup the expense.

[MotorCade]

This may or may not be an issue, isn't it a concern only if there is the perception is the price is elevated to the point of gouging? Certainly whoever funded the development should be able to recoup the expense.

If the parts are supplied in a timely manner and at a reasonable price, I agree. I agree that those who funded the project should get rewarded. So I know a couple people who should be getting royalties now, I suppose.

This is is something that I applaud QS for taking on, and I applaud further the individuals who took the risk to have experimental builds done that might have not made it through approval.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Let me see if I understand the logic of your position.

QS, out of it's own pocket, researched, developed and got approval of a solution that you've been advocating. That solution could not be done with a stock part, but you want to be able to bypass QS.

Seems to me, you should have developed this yourself, including getting SCCA approval, and then given it away out of the goodness of your heart if that's how you feel about things.

I call BS on QS funding it.

It's my understanding that a customer funded it. I heard about this "going to happen" months before.
They had been running a long rod engine for years and wanted to make it legal. Sure, QS lended it's influence and knowledge on how to test and report to the CRB. Maybe they funded that. But it was a customers engine and dyno time - you know - the expensive parts.

Why can't the rule be '5.7 in rods and pistons' with a weight specification? There are options out there.

QS has the monopoly on fuel injection for the Zetec. How did that happen? Who on the CRB allowed that to happen?

Is that the way it works? You can buy an exclusive right to sell?

In reality the GCR has become 'a loose guideline' for many racers and a curse to those following the rules.
The Zetecs are running methanol, modified maps, modified cams and blueprinted.
Many Pintos are illegal as well. I spoke with one racer that had been running a modified head, hot cam, and Weber 38 for years and he still couldn't keep pace with the Zetecs. He's driving a Zetec car now and suggested that all his Pinto mods were not enough.

And nobody is calling BS.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

This may or may not be an issue, isn't it a concern only if there is the perception that the price is elevated to the point of gouging? Certainly whoever funded the development should be able to recoup the expense.

You are correct, but, how can you compare a 1 of a kind product.

And that's my point. The CRB should not approve 1 of a kind options. My proposal to the CRB said any rod, any flat top piston with a minimum weight. THAT is how this should be specified.

There are at least 3 different 5.7 rod/piston suppliers out there. There are also 5.5 options.

[Peter Olivola]

I call BS on QS funding it.

It's my understanding that a customer funded it. I heard about this "going to happen" months before.
They had been running a long rod engine for years and wanted to make it legal. Sure, QS lended it's influence and knowledge on how to test and report to the CRB. Maybe they funded that. But it was a customers engine and dyno time - you know - the expensive parts.

Why can't the rule be '5.7 in rods and pistons' with a weight specification? There are options out there.

QS has the monopoly on fuel injection for the Zetec. How did that happen? Who on the CRB allowed that to happen?

Is that the way it works? You can buy an exclusive right to sell?

In reality the GCR has become 'a loose guideline' for many racers and a curse to those following the rules.
The Zetecs are running methanol, modified maps, modified cams and blueprinted.
Many Pintos are illegal as well. I spoke with one racer that had been running a modified head, hot cam, and Weber 38 for years and he still couldn't keep pace with the Zetecs. He's driving a Zetec car now and suggested that all his Pinto mods were not enough.

And nobody is calling BS.

Why do people think racing, SCCA Road Racing, is a large enough market for any product or service, that multiple vendors will create cheaper prices and better service?