Not supporting this discussion in any particular direction right now BUT: Isn't the above EXACTLY what the SCCA did with atlantic? It had a couple or possible outlier engines but was built around the de-facto standard of the 1600 Cossies and Toyotas. Then the pro series upset the apple cart with the 2300, and of course there had to be a home for those chassis and now there's this table of acceptable motors.Originally Posted by problemchild
And look at how healthy that class is.......
FA
I think that's a somewhat different situation from FC. In FA you have owners (not a lot, but some) that really want to race their cars somewhere. So allowing multiple engines, which are already in FA cars, to race against each other, even if the field is not very level, is a solution for that.
As noted many times, the issue in FC is that despite the fact that we only have 3 engines here, Pinto owners feel discouraged. The restricted ECU-based Zetec's and MZR's are pretty equal, but the Pintos are all over the place performance-wise. And, as I have said before, you'll never even get the Pintos to be equal to each other, let alone get them all as consistent as and equal to the Zetec's and MZR's. The issue there is: what Pinto do you use as a standard? A killer motor like Niki used to have, or an average one that most have access to? No matter what you do, there will be a LOT of inequality, and the reasoning of "my engine is not good enough to compete and too expensive to get that way" will never end.
Making them more reliable and lasting longer between rebuilds is a good idea, but that will not solve the basic issue of inequality.
BTW, to my knowledge, most of the inequality is in the cylinder-head porting. Usually the ports are too large, and nothing will fix that except for a new head with the optimum port casting, and EXPERT porting.
Last edited by DaveW; 12.19.17 at 3:48 PM. Reason: slight rewording
Dave Weitzenhof
The aluminum head was supposed to get at the inequality issue, but it is a pricey solution. Too bad it didn't take off.
Oh, tell me 10 times. I can call an engine builder but I have a sponsorship connection through a friend and a J&E distributor. If the distributor can get the part number, I can get the pistons.
Maybe:
An engine builder can give you the number ???
john f
Check the SCCA prelims!
Pinto rod/piston reliability upgrades are going to be evaluated.
Dave Weitzenhof
http://store.esslingeracing.com/cart...s-details.aspx
PISTON-PTO.3605.940.927.FLAT
it says they are made by J&E.
Saved you a click:
https://www.scca.com/pages/cars-and-rules
Then click on the January 2018 prelims.
Good news, imho. Waiting on the edge of my seat for those specs - I have two engines out and waiting on the details. Now let's get our pintos out and show that this was a move in the right direction!
Fyi
FC1. #22970 (Randall Smart) Pinto Longevity ImprovementThank you for your letter. The CRB recommends this be effective March 1, 2018.
The CRB is working with Quicksilver Racengines with respect to the development of a long rod and pistonoption for the Pinto engine as well as an alternative carburetor. The following is recommended for 2/1/2018subject to confirmation of performance via engine dynamometer testing.
Change 9.1.1.15.f: f. Pistons shall be standard Ford Mahle, AE Hepolite, CP, or J&E or Wiseco. Pistonsmust be unmodified in any way except for balancing and as detailed herein.
Add 9.1.1.15.f.6.: 6. Wiseco piston P/N TBD with rings, pin, Crower connecting rod P/N TBD (with bolts), butwithout bearings: Minimum permitted weight = TBD grams.
Change 9.1.1.15.h.: h. Full connecting rods may be standard Ford, Cosworth, Oliver, or Crower. Theapproved Crower part numbers are SP93230B-4 or SP93230PF-4. Standard rod length must be 5.00 inches (+.005” -.010”). Alternative Crowerconnecting rod part number TBD is permitted. It’s length must be TBD inches (+.005 -.010”). This rod maybe used only with Wiseco piston part number TBD as provided above. Any rod bolts may be used. Floatingpiston pins may be used. Machining is permitted to remove metal from the balancing bosses to achievebalance only. Tuftriding, Parkerizing, shot peening, shot blasting, polishing, etc., are permitted.
Change 9.1.1.15.k.: k. A single carburetor only will be used on a standard inlet manifold. The carburetor willbe a Weber 32/36 DGV 26/27mm venturi, its origin being from a 1600 GT “Kent” or 2000 SOHC NE engine.The Holly 5200 32/36 or Weber 38DGES (27mm venturis) carburetor may also be used;. carburetor withthe Swaged fuel inlet fittings shall be replaced by drilling and tapping the carburetor body for a threadedfitting. The air cleaner may be removed and a trumpet fitted.,Jets may be changed, both throttles mayopen together, cold start devices and diffused bar may be removed, internal and external antisurge pipesmay be fitted, and seals on emission control carburetors may be removed. The bottom of the lower columnportion of the auxiliary venturi may be machined for purposes of high speed enrichment. No othermodifications are permitted. Chokes (venturi) shall remain standard and no polishing or profiling is permitted.
AmenSaved you a click:
https://www.scca.com/pages/cars-and-rules
Then click on the January 2018 prelims.
Good news, imho. Waiting on the edge of my seat for those specs - I have two engines out and waiting on the details. Now let's get our pintos out and show that this was a move in the right direction!
Unfortunately those are 30 over and the proposed change does not allow for this.
Most of the long rod options available today are overbored and about 1000gms.
Burtons long rod option is 5.35. They have standard-ish and 50 overbore.
As I said before, my fear is this is going to be a custom single source expensive piston.
Let's hope Randall's investment makes a difference.
The objective with the long rod option is to improve longevity. Allowing an overbore, while initially attractive, puts every competitor in the position of looking to overbore for the additional displacement; It is a double edge sword.
I agree about the overbore issue. My point was commercially available long rod 'kits' readily available in the open market are frequently overbore. Burton has a standard bore 5.35in long rod option, but it's 1065grams compared to the lightest current options of 1240. There are other suppliers than Burton too. I believe I listed 3 in my letter.
I'm not sure they'll go for light AND long.
Once you get a set of good pistons they do last a while. Good long rod pistons should last a while x 2
My issue is that we should be using a readily available solution for cost savings but what is available is a larger change in weight than I believe the CRB will allow.
I guess I have to disagree on the overbore concerns listed above. The point of the long rod/piston combo was to reduce cost, and I don't think the intent included making the parts more expensive via an exclusive supplier deal. I don't know anything about Randall's letter, just Paul's. But an open rod piston combo within limits (weight/flat-top) and allowing the overbores common to this market is what makes the concept economical.
The concern about everybody having to upgrade for the additional HP based on the small increase in displacement is somewhat false logic. The long rod mod in and of itself will probably produce a few HP more, so I'm not sure if it matters that you do the mod for HP or longevity, you'll get both. Unless you only run one or two events a year, your rebuild cycle will be between one and two seasons in the future, and you'll be buying a piston/rod combo anyway. The cost is the same, and should be cheaper than the parts approved now, or with a custom rod/piston combo bought through an engine builder, and the overbore should save you a re-sleeve, so even more economical.
Quoting Froggie from back in August: "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?"
I'll make some assumptions here - but in my last re-build the simple addition of Ivey's new pistons (thinner oil control ring pack, different barrel) over the J&Es that came out of it was approx. 3hp - and that's in line with the RUMINT I'd heard for years.
Using my 153 HP as a baseline, and assuming the HP scales relatively linearly, and taking only overbore into account:
nominal bore 3.575, v=30.417, D=121.668 hp=153
.010 over, V=30.5874, D=122.3496 (+.56%) hp=153.85
.020 over, V=30.7583, D=123.0332 (+1.22%) hp=154.8666
.030 over, v=30.9296, D=123.7184 (+1.68%) hp=155.574
so a possible 2.5 hp increase with a .030 overbore, less than achieved with the previous piston design change! If they decide to require a specific custom piston/rod then for heaven's sake give us a reach-around and allow 10/20/30 overbores and those variants in the pistons. If you had three piston sizes and a spare motor you could cycle them in and out forever.
Along the same lines, adding the bigger carb does what? From a performance standpoint the pinto needs more "area under the curve" not top end HP - more likely done with cam. From a cost perspective, an intake that doesn't require dump tube mods to the carb and eliminating those mods saves on the dyno tune - set it and forget it.
This logic has existed in the club for years - when FSV went from Type 3 to Type 4, some genius thought that the Type 4 should be restricted to 1600 vs the 1700 stock displacement to prevent putting the Type 3 at a disadvantage - but those hand grenades were all gone ASAP and the type 4 motors were left with a custom piston/cylinder set. When those became unobtanium the 1700 parts were finally allowed. Then there was the Pinto J&E piston ring-pack nonsense.
It just seems these rule changes just get overthought with more worries about perceived short term impacts than actually occur. It seems like the Zetec argument was based on a life cycle cost basis but pinto stuff is based on a one-time cost basis.
Decent description of rod length effects: https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hc..../1827793.html
Dave Weitzenhof
This is a very interesting thread.
In the past i have had very extensive experience using chassis dyno for development work.
Thanks ... Jay Novak
313-445-4047
On my 54th year as an SCCA member
with a special thanks to every SCCA worker (NONE OF US WOULD RACE WITHOUT THE WORKERS)
GREAT!!... Just my frigging luck. I just spent 6k on a rebuild to the old rules.
I think that's $6k reason cars have been parked. You could do the carb upgrade though.
Dave, don't be discouraged. God bless you for doing an engine build and participating!! You may find in a year or two that your choice to build now was wise. There is surely going to be some 'try this' and 'try that' with some success and some 'back to the drawing board' When it is time for your next engine build the 'engine growing pains' may be over and you will be able to do the most cost effective parts swap at that point.
Assuming the "38" IS an upgrade...
From CGOffroad in the Weber thread:
My 2.0L is at Ivey right now for rebuild. I questioned him about the Weber 38. He said that a few times he has tuned engines with a 38. His results have been the same as the 32/36 or on quite a few occasions has seen the 38 to produce less power than a 32/36.
Dave Weitzenhof
This!
The words of encouragement are appreciated.
Mostly "false belly aching" on my part--sorry. As we know it will take a while for things to shake out with any new rules. My engine may need a build again by the time the smoke clears
I'm actually very proud of the numbers Nelson was able to get.
Cheers and a Merry Christmas to all...
D
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote