Printable View
Some what of a thread drift but,,,, what would the power difference be between the weber 40 and 45? Little , big, not so much . Assuming tuning to the max for both? [ I already have a set of 40's and manifold but would like to get enough power boost over the stock carb to make it worthwhile] Thanks for the input......bobo
Bob,
Talk to Erik at QS, he has the data.
Obviously you wouldn't want to do it because you would have to spend money at the decal shop to have those FS decals made. [tongue-in-cheek]
About 10 hp in ultimate power, based on switching from a set of 45s to 48s on the Toyota 1.6L FA engine. That's pure top end power, too. In the midrange there is no practical difference on a 2 liter engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Wheless
After having driven the car this past weekend the performance is marginally better than a Zetec with a club map but it's not an atlantic car. I ran a bit slower than an FB down the straights with 45's. I will post a dyno sheet later today when I get to my office...
Yes, but, IIRC, it was the map that was lean on the top end in an effort to limit top-end power. Also, IIRC, the lean mapping condition was corrected before I ever ran my Zetec in 2009. I don't think the smaller restrictor was related to the lean condition.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbmwk1200r
You really think that is the current problem SCCA has with growth and "new blood" !Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
How many cars get parked everytime an engine/class change occurs, that costs the competitor a substantial sum of money or the ability to race competitively ?
Keith I can't speak to your neck of the woods but I've been pretty actively racing FC in New England for many years now and unless you go to F2000to race, FC cars are already parked here and have been for quite some time....
PF,
Have you thought about running a poll here on Apexspeed now that we've had some good input from both sides of the issue and first hand information from Dennis based upon his experience with the larger Weber?
$1,250 carb upgrade to run competitively now with club map Zetecs plus the ability to build longevity into your pinto engine at the next rebuild. Yea or nay.
Sid
Quite the baiting post. I know this thread has started to turn away from the original premise, so I'll bite and follow along. I'm not sure how you consider rules stability killing attractiveness of the class. My opinion is that it adds attractiveness. There's lots of hidden costs in racing and explaining to a prospective buyer that every couple years you're going to have to spend $1k to stay in the game kills attractiveness. Or attractiveness for me to stick around and not have to chase constant upgrades.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Locally, we've had a handful of new blood to our numbers. It sure wasn't in Zetecs. It was guys and gals realizing they could afford a Pinto car and at least be on a level playing field with the majority of the competitors.
As to more hp; everyone wants more horsepower but 10hp isn't going to change the game. Comparing Donohue and his 1500hp is a bit misleading especially for a period of racing with almost unlimited rules.
What's wrong with vintage. It's a bunch of guys going out and racing for fun. Sounds good to me. The biggest difference is that a lot of those cars are worth more. Why is there this air that formula car racing has to be serious and we have to have a governing body plowing a path forward with technology. How about we keep the engine rules stable and let me spend the extra $1k on developing my chassis instead of keeping up to date with the part-o-the-year. Might actually be able to move the class forward naturally.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
I keep getting the impression that there is no delineation between the F2000 series and club racing in this thread. The F2000 guys can do whatever they want. They have their own rules. It made sense that originally had a parallel rule set to the SCCA to draw competitors, but maybe the time has come to split them. It doesn't appear as though their are many competitors still doing both.
I vote Yea !Long live longevity !
Wow a suggestion to help equalize the cars for basically less then cost of a set of tires for the underdogs & many people lose their minds???
I really don't understand this.
When you write a set of rules, smart and competitive people parce them and figure out how to maximize them (example, allow .010 over bore to account for wear and the engine builder will build all new motors to that spec and negate the original reason for including it). Over the last 10 years the Zetec has been "developed" because the rules allowed it as originally written, but so has the Pinto (head, flywheel, etc). BTW, this is not unique- Take a look at the Mazda 2.3 ltr FA motor in the Swift 016: it now produces more HP restricted than it did in the Pro Series unrestricted. Technology moves on when there's motivation.
You cannot eqalize a Pinto and a Zetec. You can approximate them, but they will perform differently on the track. In the beginning, the Zetec had a 1.295 restrictor and the Pinto killed it on any long straight. The restrictor was moved to 1.34 and all was good....for about a year, then the Zetec performance started to creep. Also, and important, once the Zetec became the motor of choice, the developement work on the Pinto effectively stopped.
So...the Club has a choice; slow down the Zetec by rules change (map, restrictor, whatever), or allow some parts in the Pinto to help boost it a bit and hopefully add some longevity. The club is going to have to address the Zetec parts issue anyway.
The attractiveness of the class is a stable rule set, dog box, and the chance of the F2000 series coming to your neighborhood. You want more power, people will go to FB or FA. Adding 5-10 hp to FC will not change that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Regarding racers who want more power. The quote probably should read. "racers want more power, than the other guy they are racing against"
Earlier you said, what is different from 10 years ago for FC club racing. Here's my list
1. F2000 series. Has decimated the number of club racers. It is probably the number one reason FC has declined in the club ranks on the east coast. Almost everyone in the series that isn't a kid used to run a decent SCCA schedule. That in turn caused more people to want to come out. Good feedback loop is now gone.
2. FB. Those motorcycle cars look really cool, sound awesome, sequential gear box, etc. Way sexier than FC in every aspect. Every new guy to wings seems to go there, that has killed new blood.
3. Honda Fit motor. relatively cheap upgrade to a big chunk of cars made FF very attractive to people who may have been interested in FC. I see Fit cars for close to 30K, yet Zetecs are usually 40K+
Back to the original point. Losing 5hp will not scare a zetec driver away. Remaps are cheap, SIR are cheap.
Updating the pinto? It's still polishing a turd. Are you really going to get even double the longevity out of that motor by adding parts. I doubt it without spending lots of money.
Zetec guys are not in the class because they have 5 extra hp. It's because they have a motor that lasts significantly longer than the pinto. Taking away the power won't scare them away.
Let the Pinto guys decide what they want to do for longevity, competition between themselves, etc ....... then restrict the Zetec accordingly.
A restrictor is 5% of the cost of a set of tires ;)
Restrict the Zetec or allow the Pinto to increase HP, I really don't care which way you go as long as it makes the car more equal so they can both race against one another.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
More cars & better competition equals more fun to me.
I was attracted to FC for one very important reason. VALUE FOR MONEY it was/is by far the best deal in town. For a modest amount of money you have a wings and slicks car with decent speed potential in a fairly advanced package. Key to that value for money equation is the robustness (is that a word?) of the pinto engine. To me engine reliability and longevity are the most important factors in the engine rules for a club racer.
I would be in favour of any changes that;
a) are inexpensive (off-the-shelf parts!!!!!),
b) improve engine life (longer rods?),
c) reduces running costs (allow overbore),
d) allows me to continue running 100 octane fuel, and
e) levels out the power advantage (average pinto = average Zetec)
Note: I run a F2000 car in Canada but our rules are currently tied to the SCCA rules and should (logically) remain so for some time. I would also like to head south and run some SCCA events (Watkins Glen, Lime Rock, etc.) in the next few years, so it's important to me that the rules are consistent across the board.
Cheers
For a few minutes there I ran out of bait. But, I went to the ATM and got some cash and went to Crum's Mini Mall in downtown Panacea and bought some bait.
So here goes...
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you desire to increase duty cycle on the pinto with a different ring geometry, and allow over-bores, etc. Then the pinto's HP is going to climb just as I suggested in post #1.
Mr. Crum told me he should not run out of bait today. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bam Bam
+1, thumbs up, like, agree. Doesn't matter how you go about it, just do it.
First, I agree with the idea of progression, but killing the class?Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
I don't know what grids are like in SE but in the west the only classes with numbers are FC and FV. Yeah, if you want to podium, buy and FE, show up and you'll get 3rd.
FV and FC are the only ones with numbers out here...
This is a hobby (amateur thing) - supposed to be fun - with the exception of a few kids, no one is getting called up to F1.
FM and FE are specifically unattractive because of the sealed engines IMO. Basically design for the arrive and drive crowd....
The biggest cost related to any of these motors comes down to one thing. The guru tuners. I know there is a lot of people that would turn their own wrenches, but to maximize their competitiveness they have to pay a third party.
Is that the intent of the SCCA? Is that the spirit? We already know the Z is getting blueprinted when the rules specifically forbid it.
Alex is right. Off the shelf parts and allow real maintenance (overboring etc).
Nothing wrong with a slight bump in hp. This above I'd have no problem with. It's useful in getting the Pinto more in line with the Zetec and increase the usefulness of the engine over it's life. My only hope would be that its a "one and done". Make the change then don't change it again. Cost is reasonable, can be accomplished within a normal rebuild schedule, and won't be a huge increase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Like the original proposition in Post #1 there are some beneficial and easy updates, but when ideas about uncorking the Zetec and side draught carbs are thrown out there that's too much. Let's keep things reasonable and stable for the near future. I like the idea of the Pinto being in line with the Zetec as originally intended. But I don't like having to trade sets of tires for engine updates every other season.
Let's review the recent history of another pinto class: S2
Trick cars with full-time crews dominated the class (John and Randy and their beautiful Carbir).
Numbers fell. Then an engine change. Numbers down. Vintage numbers soared.
Now S2 has been merged into P2 where they don't stand a chance. So, the CRB will be allowing S2 guys basically free reign with their pinto as long as they show up for Majors. Think 185 HP. Maybe even future body work changes.
When the SCCA version of the Concorde Agreement goes into effect and the club tries to bring national classes down to 15, can't you see FM, FM, and FC all getting rolled together as the little winged class, and FB and FA getting rolled together as the big winged class. Just refer to P1 and P2 currently for a vision of where it is going.
One reason FC is strong out west this year is the Runoffs. The Left Coast pro series even deferred to let guys qualify for the Runoffs.
The reason a majority of active national cars are zetecs are because the owners that like to race many times a year do not have to refresh engines every year. Look back to 2005 Runoffs at M-O with the last large pinto field. Almost all the front ten had fresh engines.
You qualified as fast as you could in the spring using Sebring and Palm Beach, ran back to your Division, scored enough points, and then in the summer sent your pinto in for a refresh. The good ol' days.
I think that there are two arguments getting mixed up here depending on which point you want to make.
The simplest thing is to remap and/or restrict the Zetec for parity.
There is little to suggest that the long rod conversion wiill add to the longevity of the Pinto - nor will much else except a good air filter due to the 40 year old design. The newer pistons last way longer than the old stock ford and the rods took out catastrophic breakage for the most part. Longevity and competitive parity are not the same thing. Why make the Pinto's spend when the Zetecs are a mouse click away. More stuff to make the Pinto faster is going to cost more to install and run.
If FC wants more performance that's a whole separate discussion that should be discussed separately along with future engine strategy (this forum pretty much killed that discussion last time it was brought up because of the MZR and vested interests). Twin webers etc etc have nothing to do with Zetec parity that has been caused in large part by the F2000 pro series desire to have a bit more performance (from the organisers and competitors). But we are talking Club Racing here not either of the F2000 series. As for the FM FE FC all being in the same bracket - F1000 hasn't really escaped into a blazing success with more power.
If true then we should still have many openwheel classes to choose fromQuote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Closed Wheel Classes
Miata
Not Miata - Soon to be folded into a B-Miata class even before it begins
Sports Racers
P1
P2
That leaves us 11 classes for Openwheel to reach the magic 15!
so redo the equalization process up to new Zetec of the hour spec, dyno then track and tell us what to buy, then prepare it for the GCR, until then, Zetec if the guy kept up, appears to be illegal for the runoffs unless they do some research and go back to original restrictor and the non-leaning map, aaaannnnnnnnd they haven't chopped the crate/junkyard engine ......... I like that Legally blueprinted, course would have to do that up to the best or add material or that crate only goes to the pro series ..............
course u r picking the most expensive carb system u can above, with no hole in the glasswork for it
people aren't showing up (IMO) cause they are older, money, been there done that, kids, kids college, run when u want to get out of town, lot of work for short time on track, although extremely satisfying when things go right, extremely!!! ........
I still can't believe they let the Lotus Super Seven in EP but I guess they made 500 or whatever that rule was, may have worked in DP .....
Supprised the Pro Zetecs don't have carbon brakes, can u imagine a new young guy coming in and saying, "you spend all that money and the race car doesn't have carbon brakes??"
True enough, but one of the sub-arguments here is that FC is too slow for the run group it is usually put in. The FEs and FMs have more hp so get around FCs on the straights, but lack rear diffusers so are slower in the corners. Out here in SFR we run FC in the F5-FF-FV group, but that creates its own issues, so IMO the solution to both the parity and the race group problems is to give BOTH the Z and the P cars more power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Creighton
The Z cars are easy...new map and bigger holes in the $20 restrictor plate. The easiest way for the P cars to get to [insert target hp here] appears to be dual sidedrafts. Yes, it means spending some money, but at least it's spending money to go faster, not merely edging closer to "parity".
As always, YMMV. :greenflag:
Just to ask. Does anyone know (for sure) whether the dual webers- or whatever have to have more fuel pressure than the mechanical pump we now use. That supplies about 6psi. constant. Is the intake a purely shelf item or is massive rework necessary.
My Weber DCOE45 sidedrafts need only about 2-3 psi, so with 6 you'd need to run a pressure regulator. Other carb brands might need more, but I don't have any experience with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Westroc
I thought the 32/36 Weber Pinto FC's and Kent FF's use only wanted 3 psi. Here's a thread on the subject:Quote:
Originally Posted by Westroc
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...+pump+pressure
Twin weber side drafts just seem so 1964. ;)
hmmm....Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
http://www.burtonpower.com/omex-thro...omekpinto.html
Sooooo just flashed back to 2005..... The last great pinto year......32 of 34 cars took the start at the RunOffs in FC. 2013 10 of 11 took the grid. Just enough to have a championship race. This is clearly working really really well.
Really well as an example of how economics works, raise the price of admission by 15 to 20 k, and you have fewer customers, but not so well from a racing point of view.
Seriously this is not 100% due to the ztec, but it did contribute......a lot
We need to fix it or get equalized with FM and FE in the all new and improved FCME class (add vowel as you see fit)
Majors participation is being artificially inflated by western conference numbers that will vanish next year.
IMO, a lot of that was due to 2005 being the last Runoffs at M-O for a while...Quote:
Originally Posted by gcoffin
Dave
I agree there is rarely a direct cause and effect, and clearly no way to test history. But numbers are down by 70%, which I am guessing were more than overall numbers for the event. Pinto numbers were down 100%?
An interesting exercise would be to plot over all participation and the ztec pinto ratio as a function of changes in the ztec and pinto rule set.
There isn't anything your going to do to to revive the pinto which is why I decided to create an FS car out of my old RF95. Anyone who really wants to compete past entry level is going to buy a Zetec car. The whole idea behind the motor was to build something that would give an older car some snot and would eliminate having to rebuild a "national" quality pinto annually.
Obviously the two pro series have cannabilized the club but given the real costs involved of running a serious national club effort it's not a surprise, there is not a lot of difference.
I keep seeing the words cheap and affordable being bandied about throughout the discussion and want to laugh since we all know running an FC at anything above entry level is neither. probably the most value a pinto will have in the near future is being sold to be used in a vintage S2000. The single largest cost in being competitive even at the club level is and always will be tires which makes the whole motor deal pretty much moot. Like always those who really have a passion for and want to race will do so, I'm sure if Dave W added up all of the dollars over the years......:)
Stan
What I am trying to point out is that pinto- zetec parity is one thing. However as this forum tends to confuse issues with a bit of SCCA bashing stirred in we have morphed into bumping everybody up 20hp and moving them up the run group ladder - oh yes and its cheaper, right! Add into that the F2000 and USF2000 rivalry and we can really get off target.
Lets take the discussion of FC future to a different thread from one discussing parity of Pinto-Zetec. Engine, chassis,gearbox etc
Phil
Phil you say lets discuss the future of FC but lets not discuss the reasons people are not racing FC, I'm not quite sure how you do that? I think that they are germane to the conversation and should be part of the discussion. I think we can all agree that unless some angelic corporate sponsor is going to step up to the plate and subsidize new stuff costs aren't going to decrease in any meaningful way anytime soon. So you want to cut costs because you think it may bring out more cars where do you start? The regions say they can't lower entry fees. The tracks won't cut their rates. No one wants to hears spec tires, do they? Hotels may give you 10% for SCCA or Triple A but thats about it so where do you start if it's actually a cost issue?.
Quite a few years back after the sticker shock for rebuilding a 4 cylinder Pinto I approached QS and asked Sandy if he were interested in a motor project to lower long term engine costs by building a "long life" Pinto motor for club racers. I wanted to correct as many of the inherent issues with the stock motors such as the rod length, wrist pin placement, cam tower failures as possible once and for all.
Part of the idea of the project was for the average club racer to be able to reuse many of their exiting components such as the block, oil & water pumps, sump, manifold, carb, and headers. If finances prohibited a complete build, the motor could be done in stages over the period of a fews rebuilds if necessary, and a home builder could also build the "long life" engine.
About that time Doug Learned came out with a new aluminum head which solved most of the upper problems. I in turn had Sandy build a lower end that hopefully corrects the majority of the stock engine lower problems.
During the long life Pinto build process I bought another late model Pinto VD and after a season of running it realized if I were going to put a lot of hours on a motor it was simply a no brainer to convert to Zetec.
At that point the RF95 was not competitive anymore and since the only way to legally run the long life engine was in FS anyway I decided to up the HP bit on the long life Pinto and put it in the RF95. Sandy installed a different cam, A TWM manifold and 45 DCOE Webers.
As I stated above I doubt you'll ever get large club FC fields again short of a whole new package or the demise of the pro series altogether. Given all of the alphabet soup in our neighborhood regionals we have run with anyway over the last several years, I won't be staring at a field of exhaust pipes while out on the occasional fun weekend with my FS car. I've attached the super secret dyno sheet, it's really no secret as the NSA already has it anyway....
Dyno Sheet
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis McCarthy
That looks like fun. :D
True costs of running are not going to decrease, but any viable economic model actually needs to consider all points not just the ones that are convenient.
It is convenient to leave out the difference in capital cost. There are a lot more racers out there who can drop 12k - 18k as opposed to the number willing to dump 25k to 65k. There are a lot more racers out there who have the budget to run a few region races a year, than the mythical serious national effort.
Dennis
You are correct about the reasons . All I was trying to point out is that the parity issue is one facet amongst the existing Pinto cars not running. The other is to satisfy those that appear to want FC to become something more whether its engine power, sequential box, carbon tub, twin webers etc etc. This is not really the issue that Frog started discussing with sticking a bigger carb on there.
If there truly is a lower cost way of building a Pinto then get it submitted as an alternate configuration for discussion.
I'll leave that to someone with way more time on their hands. I built the motor and I'm going racing. It's much easier to simply run in FS....Quote:
If there truly is a lower cost way of building a Pinto then get it submitted as an alternate configuration for discussion.
So today we have monster pintos and average pintos. The fact that there are better than average pintos suggests that even after a rebuild some pintos are going to be less than average. We have rebuilds being done by the top pinto engine builders and set up to perfection on a dyno. We have rebuilds being done by competent engine shops but without the dyno nor the purpose specific experience and tuning. We have engines being rebuilt by shade tree mechanics. We have engines being rebuilt on a frequent basis and those that have long stretches between rebuilds.
So with the pintos short life and need for regular highly specialized and expensive work to get to and stay at their best and... with all the serious money moving into the pro series and blue printed Zetecs, how much engine parity do we really think we have now for today's club racers running Pintos?
:thumbsup::thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by kea
Pinto to pinto parity improved with the new cam as the carb essentially became the choke point. In addition the shape of the pinto curves are all roughly the same.
The ztec on the other hand makes significantly more power at lower rpms and have a relatively flat curve at higher rpms. Prior to the ztec creep a good pinto had less bottom end, but more top end than a ztec. So ztecs ruled corner exit speeds, but a pinto could catch up. That has gone away as the entire pinto curve now fits conveniently under the current ztec power curve.
Oh joy
Thanks Greg for the clarification.Quote:
Originally Posted by gcoffin
Does the "carb as the choke point" also mitigate the extent to which engine power is likely to fall off between trips to the engine builder also what about the "carb as the choke point" effect on any power advantage that can be expected by going with a top engine builder, dyno tuning, etc?
Someone told me once that a pinto makes the most power just before it's ready to self destruct. Don't know how much truth there is in that. My experience has been that the guys pushing the limits on time between rebuilds seem to be significantly down on power.
I appreciate any additional insight.
Sid Smith
That was an era when drivers raced more times a season and before the advent of the forged piston.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
Also, engine build shops did nothing to discouraged that line of thinking.
"Freshening" a pinto every year, even when raced the number of times as done back then, is not really needed. We just don't see it around here.
Purely anecdotal. ... a 'loose' engine is a fast engine, just not long lived. Seemingly, every engine I've ever raced really picked up the pace before blowing up, oft times in spectacular fashion. If the carb limits the top end, your good engine builder will get you there quicker. IMHO.
For the most part pintos do not 'blow-up" like a FA or FB engine. They just get "tired". Because at 6800 rpm the piston has a bunch of "wobble" the rings get rounded and the ring grooves wear. So on the first refresh you can change the rings. On the second refresh you need pistons. About the third refresh you need sleeves to get the cylinder walls back to spec.
Thus the reason almost all serious pinto owners own leak-down gauges.
While I think the 5.7 rod with a racing piston would buy us a longer duty cycle. As far as I know no one has assembled the configuration in an apples-to-apples comparison on a dyno to see if there are HP or torque gains to be had. In theory, the longer rod lowers the rod angle and thus should free the engine up a bit. But, those that have done it, for obvious reasons, aren't talking.
Keith, Your "around here" cars might be more interested in running the great GLC series and not care about Majors, or the Runoffs. How many GLC guys even care about the Runoffs. My proposal is directed at those guys that have late model cars with pintos that might want to go to the Runoffs. That is the class of folks the GCR is written to control.
Regions are free to write a CFC rule and freeze engines at 2007 rules.
It sure would be nice if something can be done to make the pinto package run at the front. There are a ton of cars out there that are sitting and not racing. The simple solution, IMO, is to allow an inlet system (carburetor) that will get the engine another 8-10 hp at the lowest $$$ cost possible. Does anyone have dyno data on a better carb mounted on the current legal manifold or perhaps a slightly modified legal manifold to make it fit on the manifold?
Let's do something ASAP!