What do we do if Honda is getting out of the game?

[Daryl DeArman]

No, you are not correct and are just making assumptions. Do the actual math.

I use the SCCA's own numbers. See that actual calculations I just posted. This is why I really did not want top do this because everyone would pick it apart with innuendo and hyperbole.

I'm neither making innuendo nor speaking in hyperbole.

The max CR ratio on the uprated engine has been 9.3:1 since at least 1972.

Oversized pistons were allowed and no change to CR, which means you better make some other allowed modifications to ensure that you aren't exceeding the max CR. If that means no more decking the block, or no more machining seats/valves so that they sit as proud then so be it.

The only thing you've discovered is that IF you take advantage of all the physical maximums and minimums you will exceed the calculated maximum compression ratio.

[Daryl DeArman]

No, you are not correct and are just making assumptions. Do the actual math. I use the SCCA's own numbers. See that actual calculations I just posted. This is why I really did not want top do this because everyone would pick it apart with innuendo and hyperbole.

I'm neither making innuendo nor speaking in hyperbole.

The max CR ratio on the uprated engine has been 9.3:1 since at least 1972.

Oversized pistons were allowed and no change to CR, which means you better make some other allowed modifications to ensure that you aren't exceeding the max CR

If that means no more decking the block as much, or no more machining seats/valves so that they sit as proud then so be it.

What you've discovered is that IF you take advantage of all the physical maximums and minimums you will exceed the calculated maximum compression ratio, not a math error.

[Art Smith]

I'm going to take a stab here and say none of this crankshaft stuff matters. It's a pretty simple textualist's approach to reading a rule or law. Here is why - the GCR only lists the stroke and weight specs:

An alternate cast steel crankshaft meeting original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions and weight is permitted.
Weight:24 lbs. 8 oz. Minimum
Max Stroke (at piston):3.056” +/- .004”

There are three elements, and only three, here. (1) cast steel, (2) 24lbs 8oz, (3) 3.056" stroke.

Reid-

not surprisingly, I disagree! ".....original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions....." is the only means in the rule as currently written to control the polar moment of inertia of the alternate crankshaft. reducing the polar moment of inertia of a 24.5 lbs crankshaft sounds like a cost effective approach to improved corner-off performance compared to paying for a 5.5" clutch and replacing it frequently! ".....original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions....." is the only means in the rule as currently written to control the windage drag of the alternate crankshaft's counter-weights. a quick stop at the winbergcrankshafts.com will find pictures of glorious examples of what polished airfoil shaped counter-weights could look like for an alternate crankshaft. its my sense political expediency is one way ticket to an even deeper hole. by its very nature, all steel is cast................ removing the word "cast" from the rule removes the only ambiguity in the rule as currently written. cleaning up the non-compliance situation is a technical problem that deserves better than a political band-aid.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Bill Manofsky]

.

[Bill Manofsky]

Reid-

not surprisingly, I disagree! ".....original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions....." is the only means in the rule as currently written to control the polar moment of inertia of the alternate crankshaft. reducing the polar moment of inertia of a 24.5 lbs crankshaft sounds like a cost effective approach to improved corner-off performance compared to paying for a 5.5" clutch and replacing it frequently! ".....original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions....." is the only means in the rule as currently written to control the windage drag of the alternate crankshaft's counter-weights. a quick stop at the winbergcrankshafts.com will find pictures of glorious examples of what polished airfoil shaped counter-weights could look like for an alternate crankshaft. its my sense political expediency is one way ticket to an even deeper hole. by its very nature, all steel is cast................ removing the word "cast" from the rule removes the only ambiguity in the rule as currently written. cleaning up the non-compliance situation is a technical problem that deserves better than a political band-aid.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

100% in agreement with Art. "Dimensions" connotes outside shape...essentially all the numbers on the engineering drawings to make the part. At 6000RPM through an oil fog, the shape of the counterweights comes into play...so the reason why knife edging is not allowed.......even slightly blended and rounded weights will have an effect on enhancing performance.

This "vagueness" in the GCR is exactly what I am trying to point out in their compression ratio spec....it does not add up.

[reidhazelton]

Reid-

not surprisingly, I disagree! ".....original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions....." is the only means in the rule as currently written to control the polar moment of inertia of the alternate crankshaft. reducing the polar moment of inertia of a 24.5 lbs crankshaft sounds like a cost effective approach to improved corner-off performance compared to paying for a 5.5" clutch and replacing it frequently! ".....original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions....." is the only means in the rule as currently written to control the windage drag of the alternate crankshaft's counter-weights. a quick stop at the winbergcrankshafts.com will find pictures of glorious examples of what polished airfoil shaped counter-weights could look like for an alternate crankshaft. its my sense political expediency is one way ticket to an even deeper hole. by its very nature, all steel is cast................ removing the word "cast" from the rule removes the only ambiguity in the rule as currently written. cleaning up the non-compliance situation is a technical problem that deserves better than a political band-aid.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

I agree - I should have been clearer. When I said "none of this crank stuff matters" I was referring more to the debate of legality, not performance. I agree, someone could go make a fancy crank that is an advantage based on those rules. Where I disagree is where the argument was made about the Scat crank being illegal. From what you describe in the tricked-out crank hypo, that would be legal as well based on the current rule as I read it. The fact that a crank with ground counterweights is being sold and legal proves that is true. Your hypothetical crank has just had more grinding, in part.

Like I said, the rule could be written better. Without the GCR specifically referencing an additional document or set of measurements, the three that are there are all we can go on. I think of it like a contract - these are the rules we all agree to race under. Extrinsic sources not included or referenced in the contract (GCR) are not relevant. If that was the case you'd have everyone pulling out new supporting documents to make the rules read whatever they want.

I also bet that with enough though, just about any rule could be picked apart to some extent.

[Peter Olivola]

My guess is that if I submitted these to the SCCA CRB, and all the powers to be agree they are correct, there is a good chance that the SCCA might just remove the Kent and Cortina specs from the GCR instead of make a revision.

Why do you say that? It's much more likely they'll respond, "rule is adequate as written." Is it really necessary to go into deep FUD mode over this?

[problemchild]

Rather than continuing to criticize the SCCA crank rule, it would be helpful if people would focus on fixing the wording to allow the Scat crank.

[Art Smith]

it's important to keep in mind this latest round of discussions regarding the Kent crankshaft rule is
the direct result of Joe Fisher's proactive AND constructive letter to the CRB requesting the ambiguous
word "cast" be removed from the rule as currently written; all steel by its very nature is cast so the
inclusion of the word creates compliance verification ambiguity/risk. removing the word "cast" and its
associated compliance ambiguity is the only fix needed to the rule. the rule as currently written directly
or indirectly specifies the complete performance envelope: stroke, weight, material, polar moment of
inertia, and crankshaft throw cross section. changes to fix compliance verification problems are a political
band-aid best-on-best and won't address the root cause of the problem in my view.

analogies attempting to link contract law and the SCCA are humorous, bordering on black comedy! in
the real, world lawyers are paid good money to create objectively verifiable contracts and engineers are
paid good money to create objectively verifiable specifications. ambiguous terms are not tolerated in
either the world of contracts or engineering specifications.

the compliance argument is simple requiring only elementary logic. Ford OEM crankshafts spin in Ford
OEM cylinder blocks without modification. I've never seen a combination that was even close to requiring
"relief". any crankshaft that will not spin in an unmodified Ford OEM cylinder block clearly does NOT
"....meet original Ford Kent and SCCA dimensions...." because Ford OEM crankshaft will ! I would further
argue that a crankshaft spin in an unmodified Ford OEM cylinder block is necessary but NOT sufficient.
for example, crankshafts at, or very near minimum weight, with nominal main and rod journals that spin would
be suspect in my mind because Ford OEM crankshafts with nominal main and rod journals weigh more............
the logic is analogous to taking a roll of quarters to the supermarket, the clerk doesn't unroll the quarters and
count them but instead weighs the roll enabling comparison with their written standard for a roll of quarters.
and finally, advertising has never been an accepted or recognized form of compliance verification.

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[billtebbutt]

So 168 posts about a different subject altogether that has devolved into the righteousness of the existence of a single word, "cast", on a page in a book that nobody reads.

It will be nice to see spring get here, perhaps some racing, and the death of this thread if only for my mental health. Or at least a return to the original subject.

best,
BT

[reidhazelton]

Art, my friend, help me out here - what does the word "cast" have to do with a crank claimed to be illegal because it doesn't fit a stock block? If you removed the word "cast", by your definition of illegal, the Scat crank is still illegal and you can make the very same argument. It's not being argued it is illegal because of the word cast - it's argued it is illegal because it doesn't fit.

Are we just trying to get billet cranks?

My reference to contract law was misunderstood - it's a parol evidence issue. You can't interject secondary, unspecified information into a contract and you shouldn't do it with a rule book for the same reason. Claiming there are some OEM Ford measurements that are undefined, unmentioned and unspecified in the GCR is the exact same thing. It goes to the vary point you made about objectively verifiable rules/clauses/specs. Being able to add in other source documents not referenced or defined in the original writing (the GCR) only adds to unverifiable and ambiguous rules.

[Art Smith]

Reid-

the word "cast" in the rule as currently written is the only thing in my opinion that's needs fixing AND that has nothing to do with non-compliant alternate crankshafts! objectively verifiable rules are of no value if they're not used or only used to minimize the risk of competition in the market place.

I'm worried about the sudden zeal to "fix" the "compliance verification problems" with a political band-aid and the likelihood that ends up making the rule as currently written worse through unintended consequences. writing about what needs fixing in the rule and differentiating that from the "compliance verification problems" people now want to address is just me trying to reduce the probably the rule is made worse in the search for political expediency (aka: a global get out of jail free card)............................

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[reidhazelton]

Reid-

the word "cast" in the rule as currently written is the only thing in my opinion that's needs fixing AND that has nothing to do with non-compliant alternate crankshafts! objectively verifiable rules are of no value if they're not used or only used to minimize the risk of competition in the market place.

I'm worried about the sudden zeal to "fix" the "compliance verification problems" with a political band-aid and the likelihood that ends up making the rule as currently written worse through unintended consequences. writing about what needs fixing in the rule and differentiating that from the "compliance verification problems" people now want to address is just me trying to reduce the probably the rule is made worse in the search for political expediency (aka: a global get out of jail free card)............................

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

Ok, so two separate issues. (1) Scat cranks are argued to be illegal because they don't fit stock blocks. (2) Casting is an ambiguous term because at some point, a billet forging started life as a cast ingot so a billet crank could be also fit the requirement for cranks to be "cast."

I'm going to guess SCCA will rule the same way they did when the Radon group tried to argue carbon fiber was "non-ferrous." Everyone knows what cast and forged/billet cranks refer to. I'd be surprised if the club removed the word, rather than further defined what "cast" means. Scrubbing the word "cast" would open up the Ford engines to billet cranks.

[Daryl DeArman]

My reference to contract law was misunderstood - it's a parol evidence issue. You can't interject secondary, unspecified information into a contract and you shouldn't do it with a rule book for the same reason. Claiming there are some OEM Ford measurements that are undefined, unmentioned and unspecified in the GCR is the exact same thing.

Curious if you feel the same way about the camshaft profile requirements with regards to them being referenced but not spelled out in the GCR?

[Art Smith]

Ok, so two separate issues. (1) Scat cranks are argued to be illegal because they don't fit stock blocks. (2) Casting is an ambiguous term because at some point, a billet forging started life as a cast ingot so a billet crank could be also fit the requirement for cranks to be "cast."

I'm going to guess SCCA will rule the same way they did when the Radon group tried to argue carbon fiber was "non-ferrous." Everyone knows what cast and forged/billet cranks refer to. I'd be surprised if the club removed the word, rather than further defined what "cast" means. Scrubbing the word "cast" would open up the Ford engines to billet cranks.

Reid-

Joe Fisher's letter requested deletion of the word "cast"; it absolutely did not request authority for forged billets. it's my sense cast billets are plenty good enough to address the high speed reliability concern!

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[reidhazelton]

Reid-

Joe Fisher's letter requested deletion of the word "cast"; it absolutely did not request authority for forged billets. it's my sense cast billets are plenty good enough to address the high speed reliability concern!

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

Without the word "cast", what is there in the GCR to stop people from using billet cranks?

[ejpoulsen]

I am basically new to formula car racing, having started from scratch only a couple years ago. In my area, the Fords are as fast as the Hondas. While this thread has gotten into some deep minutia, here are a couple of my thoughts, untarnished from years of history and old axe-grinding. These are the reasons I chose the FF class.

1. The Fit engine--reliable
2. The Fit engine--cheap and low maintenance.
3. The Fit engine--long lasting.
4. SCCA FF class has some of the closest racing and most position changes of any class I've seen. The 2020 runoffs are a good example. Even in our small region, the last event saw the first 5 cars qualify within 1 second.
5. The Hoosier spec tire (it is what it is).
6. Most of the FF chassis that are less than 30 years old can be developed to be very competitive.

PS, off the topic at hand, I agree that SCCA should consider consolidating to FV, FF, FC, and FA (and maybe FE2 for spec lovers).

Eric

[JCond]

Similar to Eric’s comment above, if the concern is potentially getting new blood in to the class, I thought it would be worth while to voice my perspective. Hopefully Matt (mboian90) who lives down the road from me will chime in as we both talked extensively about pros and cons of various classes before each buying our own Honda powered FF.

I’m not mid-20s as someone mentioned previously, but early 30s and finally have enough disposable income to go club racing without any intention or delusion of “moving up the ladder” to additional classes beyond FF, provided not being forced out with changes to the below.

The reason I chose the class and drove ~30hrs round trip to pick up my car a couple years ago:
1. Option for Honda or Kent - flexibility to balance cost and reliability with parity for the avg racer or newbie. I ultimately chose Fit for some additional cost because in my personal situation it made sense for some upfront fixed cost to allot my limited free time to solely chassis tuning/development
2. Select spec components but not a spec class- like the flexibility for certain modern aspects and room for personal development of car. Not tied specifically to Hoosier radial, but like the idea of a reasonable wear spec tire to keep costs manageable and casual racers a little more competitive.
3. Non-aero open wheel class - Coming out of FSAE program, sparked OW interest, but wanted to avoid complexity from introducing aero starting out especially now without a team

The key point is I largely picked FF because of viewing the modern engine choice as an enabler to more easily get started club racing in a non-spec OW class still with every intention of getting beat early on by more experience regardless of powerplant.

[mboian90]

JCond and I actually discussed this tread this weekend while I was over visiting and he shamed me into posting some of my thoughts. I was initially turned off by the typical devolvement of the discussion but he is correct in that our opinions might be valuable if the concern is new blood in the class.

I was in high school when the Honda discussion first came up and followed along by reading here on apexspeed. Like JCond I participated in the SAE collegiate design series and it wasnt until I graduated college that I got into a position where I could buy a car. My reasons for deciding on an FF are basically identical to JCond however I specifically was looking for a Honda because the engine technology is something I am more comfortable working on. If nothing else I have never worked on a carbureted engine unless you count ones made by Briggs and Stratton. To me it was another skill set on the steep learning curve of open wheel racing that I could avoid.

In 2015 I ended up buying the PIper DF-2 that was converted to a Honda power by John Vlasis. I have pretty extensively autocrossed it since then which included a few season with JCond as my co-driver before he bought his DB-1. My latest excuse for not club racing it has been an inability to comply with HNR requirement. I bought a hans at the end of 2018 expecting to road race the next year but found out that with my body type the "back board" hits the harness mount bar and the fuel cell enclosure. This winter I have been working on fixing that issue (still not fully resolved) and hope to get my license in May. I need to end up club racing at some point this year just so JCond will shut up about it.

Matt Boian
CM 14

[billtebbutt]

You two are a breath of fresh air! Thanks for joining the FF crowd - we need more (a lot more) like you. Bring your friends!!!

Its not a huge sample size, but these last two posters are more than just anecdotal evidence that "some" younger drivers are turned on to the sport because the Fit makes it easier for them to commit. So be it. Only more numbers will save the class; the Fit is a step in the right direction for some, not all, but some.

cheers,
BT

[jchracer]

Good on you newbies.

I guess I don't understand the panic here relative to the Honda pull-out. They produced over 500,000 FITs for North America. Used engines should be available for a long time. Conversion kits can be easily reverse engineered and produced by Fast Forward or others for a reasonable price. What am I missing?

[Daryl DeArman]

What am I missing?

Not much, it would appear.

[Lotus7]

Conversion kits can be easily reverse engineered and produced by Fast Forward or others for a reasonable price. What am I missing?

My only thought is that there might be a legal issue with intellectual property if a third party intends to make and sell these kits.
That said, if Honda were to the rights to scca, scca in turn can contract the work to anyone they choose, no?

Edit: I use the term Honda generically; maybe its HPD, or another sub-group.

[problemchild]

I think it is absolutely awesome that people are buying back cars they had or wanted to have, 40 years ago. I lived that when I bought my Reynard (which I would have killed for in the early 80s). Others are getting to race cars that their parents once raced.

By the same token, not everyone wants to race their grandfather's race car.

Great to see new racers join our group!

[OneWayOut]

Conversion kits can be easily reverse engineered and produced by Fast Forward or others for a reasonable price. What am I missing?

The electronics, which are the bulk cost of the kit. If someone wants the Fit to be adopted, they are going to have to find a vendor to produce the wiring harnesses and ECUs needed for retrofit.

A EFI kit with electronics for the Kent would be nice.

And keep in mind, Kent parts are still being produced. Is Honda still going to keep making Fit parts?

[Bob Wright]

The questions that are not being asked:

1) when will one of the 'new' kits actually become available (there are no current ones available).
2) What will it cost
3) what is the cost of prepping one of the used "500,000 FIT motors" that are out there somewhere

There are some new cars being produced that do not have motors and have no prospect of getting them anytime in the future. That does not help the class.

[Bob Wright]

And keep in mind, Kent parts are still being produced. Is Honda still going to keep making Fit parts?


No, HPD is out of the business of making FIT kits- that is the point of this thread....

[Pi_guy]

When I started multiple manufacturers were turning out FF cars there were many engine builders. The ladder system had you starting in FF and moving up, and there were many pro driver that had Skippy school patches and FF time. We had a race track here on LI were you could test developmental projects on Friday, now if you are not a certified race car from an approved organization you have no where to test. We had multiple air craft suppliers and manufacturers now we are down to one or two.
In the early 80's I did tech seminars we had close to a hundred people the last time I did one where we had Hunt's F1 car on display we had maybe ten people.

Had many local sponsors help run people from the area, you could talk a sponsor to a fun event at a race track and you always could find some money from sponsors for almost any motorsports program. Now if your not out to save mother earth you don't get in the door. I do have a bit of a issue with going green, sort of if you are willing to risk your life how can it be green.

Back then if you did not know how to set points in a street car you were screwed, now there are so many that don't drive and think that cars are evil. Now with the push to non dinosaur fueled engines people will know less about cars. From driving an electric Zamboni I really miss the propane powered one we had the acceleration curve is flat and short on batteries.

When I started the supporting races were normally a driver, crew chief and helper. So there was always work about never had a problem finding some here on LI. Now race teams are large organizations that run several clients at a race or it is a do it your self'er with free help from friends. Not much of an open market there.

We got participation trophy's the little dash plaques that listed the event which is no longer done, and then we had corner workers and timing and scoring people and a beer party that often lead to late night fun.

The days of 40 car competitive FF are long gone I am sorry for that, it was a blast glad I had the chance to be a part of it. Made many friends some are gone, my oldest friend from racing is still beating the odds.

So after the last nightmare year I am moving on from racing, I think it is time it is my 64th year. At some point I will list my racing equipment for sale. But would be very happy to swap racing stuff for Tuna Rods.

Have a boat, taking USCG 6 pack class for captain then going fishing.

[Rick Kirchner]

"There are some new cars being produced that do not have motors and have no prospect of getting them anytime in the future"

Produced by who?

[Bob Wright]

Spectrum, Ray, for sure and possibly Firmen.

[alangbaker]

I think it is absolutely awesome that people are buying back cars they had or wanted to have, 40 years ago. I lived that when I bought my Reynard (which I would have killed for in the early 80s). Others are getting to race cars that their parents once raced.

By the same token, not everyone wants to race their grandfather's race car.

Great to see new racers join our group!

I feel this.

I got into FF because to me, when I used go to Mosport with the family for the Canadian GP or the Can Am series, it always felt to me that the Formula Fords were the first truly real racing cars on track; built to be so.

I didn't understand about the Kent engines back then, but the rest of the car clearly showed its kinship with the F1 cars which were going to be on later in the day.

But that's the thing: I don't want one of those cars. That's nostalgia.

I've got the newest FF I can afford and I've got one that allows me to have the most fun with the least effort.

We all spend more time prepping the car than we do racing it (unless we can afford to pay a prep shop!), and for some, working on the car is a part of the fun, I know. I love that the Honda engine allows me to spend less time prepping and/or spend more of my time on improving the car's setup.

I'm glad to see young guys recognizing what Formula F can be. We've got one up here in BC this year who chose a different route and bought a Kent-engined car.

It's not about which you choose, but we all benefit if there are more cars out there.

[Raceworks]

Spectrum, Ray, for sure and possibly Firmen.

Is Piper not doing cars any more?

[Raceworks]

A dozen years ago and a grand total of how many kits sold?.

I recall a press release about selling their 100th kit around 2015 or 2016.

[Bob Wright]

yea, missed that. I think Doug will build a car to order, but not on spec.

[M.Sauce]

If there was a market for these Honda parts that amounted to reasonable numbers I am sure some vendor would build them.Honda's departure is not unexpected by many who opposed the Honda to begin with.It had a time limit and a bottom line to Honda. They never cared about FF only about selling parts.Wow news flash!

[Daryl DeArman]

If there was a market for these Honda parts that amounted to reasonable numbers I am sure some vendor would build them.Honda's departure is not unexpected by many who opposed the Honda to begin with.It had a time limit and a bottom line to Honda. They never cared about FF only about selling parts.Wow news flash!

What? A company concerned with the fiscal responsibility of their endeavors. Of course it had a time limit and a bottom line. If I recall correctly the 1.6L Kent hadn't been produced for a production car for over 28 years before Ford was enticed to make new engine blocks. Many of those years had good field sizes too. Selective memory perhaps.

[problemchild]

What? A company concerned with the fiscal responsibility of their endeavors. Of course it had a time limit and a bottom line. If I recall correctly the 1.6L Kent hadn't been produced for a production car for over 28 years before Ford was enticed to make new engine blocks. Many of those years had good field sizes too. Selective memory perhaps.

There was a group of FF enthusiasts at HPD who came up with an awesome solution for the engine issues of several decades ago. While some turned their backs, it brought others, like myself into the class, with a new passion. I have had a dozen Honda powered cars though my shop in the last decade, owning 4 myself. I love the package that allowed me to return to the class as a driver and race team operator. That would never have happened without HPD.

We will weather this transition period. Bob and others, can search out the next (and likely final) evolution of the FF engine, and I will do what I can to accommodate and assist that mission. Others can chuckle and race vintage if they prefer.

Those FF enthusiasts at HPD are retired or gone. While I an frustrated and annoyed with the current HPD administration, and upset over their gross mismanagement of this part supply transition, I am thankful for their passionate support of the class and the fine people in it, for the previous decade or more. Thanks HPD!

[M.Sauce]

There was a group of FF enthusiasts at HPD who came up with an awesome solution for the engine issues of several decades ago. While some turned their backs, it brought others, like myself into the class, with a new passion. I have had a dozen Honda powered cars though my shop in the last decade, owning 4 myself. I love the package that allowed me to return to the class as a driver and race team operator. That would never have happened without HPD.

We will weather this transition period. Bob and others, can search out the next (and likely final) evolution of the FF engine, and I will do what I can to accommodate and assist that mission. Others can chuckle and race vintage if they prefer.

Those FF enthusiasts at HPD are retired or gone. While I an frustrated and annoyed with the current HPD administration, and upset over their gross mismanagement of this part supply transition, I am thankful for their passionate support of the class and the fine people in it, for the previous decade or more. Thanks HPD!

Greg so how long do you think Formula Fords have had the Honda engine?It was voted in in 2008 or 2009 if I am incorrect I will certainly acknowledge that. So barely more than a decade goes by and they bail. I agree in the long run the Honda is a more cost effective package but now they bail when the cost effectiveness could out weight the availability of parts and service.Nice!

[problemchild]

Greg so how long do you think Formula Fords have had the Honda engine?It was voted in in 2008 or 2009 if I am incorrect I will certainly acknowledge that. So barely more than a decade goes by and they bail. I agree in the long run the Honda is a more cost effective package but now they bail when the cost effectiveness could out weight the availability of parts and service.Nice!

People have very short memories. Ford engines had major issues with reliability and massive performance differences. The class cost had exploded with $600 wheels, $5K shocks, DA systems, absolutely stupid tire wear and choices. I left the class in the early 90s for this reason. The condition of the class by the early 2000s was a mess, and is the reason that some FF enthusiasts at HPD came up with a plan for an alternate engine package. Hundreds of people embraced it and many people did not. Ford abandoned the class 50 years ago, and people still love their kent engines. The recent improvements in the kent package is due to Jay, and others, finding solutions, and nothing to do with Ford or their performance division. There is no reason that racers and venders cannot extend the FIT engine life, just as was done with the kent. Most of us can run our current engines for the next decade without buying parts or service.

Mike, you can hate all you want. I, like many others, love my FIT engined FF/F1600 and will do whatever it takes to keep racing and supporting the class. I encourage all other, whether kent or FIT, to do the same.

[M.Sauce]

People have very short memories. Ford engines had major issues with reliability and massive performance differences. The class cost had exploded with $600 wheels, $5K shocks, DA systems, absolutely stupid tire wear and choices. I left the class in the early 90s for this reason. The condition of the class by the early 2000s was a mess, and is the reason that some FF enthusiasts at HPD came up with a plan for an alternate engine package. Hundreds of people embraced it and many people did not. Ford abandoned the class 50 years ago, and people still love their kent engines. The recent improvements in the kent package is due to Jay, and others, finding solutions, and nothing to do with Ford or their performance division. There is no reason that racers and venders cannot extend the FIT engine life, just as was done with the kent.

Mike, you can hate all you want. I, like many others, love my FIT engined FF/F1600 and will do whatever it takes to keep racing and supporting the class. I encourage all other, whether kent or FIT, to do the same.

Greg- I am not a hater I like my Honda powered cars and see the benefitd, but you can't tell me and the numbers have improved with the Honda engine package. The average entry in FF is down in most areas and has been for several years. I do think that someone will pick up the production of these parts and produce most of what we will need.The Ford motor didn't have parts problems Jay had taken care of improving parts for many years and I am sure that will continue. Jay deserves our support and our thanks for sustaining FF.