Printable View
[QUOTE=FASTDAD;557785]My letter is still in the que waiting for answer an answer about the part no. Any idea what the part no. is? And are they available thru Wisceo or only thru Quicksilver.[/QUOTE
Quicksilver is the only supplier, as far as I know. They sell the pistons, rings and wrist pins. Std bore of 3.575 "
Keith- I assume you are referring to FRP when you say "an east coast series" and I need to respond.
We did NOT change our rules away from SCCA Club. That is a wrong statement. Club wrote in some specific line items that allowed the builders to 'adjust' the specs found in the crate motor in perfectly legal manner so of course they did. See GCR 9.1.1.16, then read our technical specifications.
What we have done is adjust the map to make the motor start better which is why we have a different map. Everything else is the same as Club. Oh, yea- we added 10 lbs to minimum weight to compensate for the heavier radial tire so people didn't have to spend stupid money to shed 10 extra pounds.
What a great description!Quote:
Originally Posted by RobLav
Issues came and go, and the real agendas are sometimes impossible to follow, but .....
but the old boys club always gets their way.
Thanks John. Just so others get a feel for my position, did it come across as Zetec/parity bashing, whining complaining or, as intended, a focus on restoring Pintos to the grid?Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
I would like to discuss it in the near future. I have found your feedback has always been genuine and helpful.
Paul
Paul,
There is a lot to your letter and while I think there are some voids I did understand that your objective is to drive the older Pinto cars back onto the grids. I assure you that everyone at SCCA would like nothing more than to have that happen. I look forward to chatting with you.
John
I have been away from FC cars for way too long but am looking to get back in fairly soon because, for the money, FC cars are some serious bang for the buck. So, with the new pistons and long rods, what we are really looking at - from what I understand - is another increase in longevity but not necessarily much, if any, of a horsepower gain, correct? I may have missed this earlier in the thread, so apologies in advance, but is anyone estimating how many miles between rebuilds a Pinto will likely have with the new rods and pistons? Is there a power increase as well?
On a related subject, is the aluminum head the better option vs just going with the cast iron head but running the new cam? Forget the money involved, is the aluminum head going to give you better power?
This is a very interesting subject to me-thanks!
-RK Siler
Long Rod Motor will have a significant time increase between rebuilds. I would imagine at least double
In all but a few cases the aluminum head provides a power boost.
Mainly because it was a serious attempt to copy the best iron heads available.
So, that said, if you don't have one of the really great iron heads, then the aluminum head will be the better choice (budget being no concern).
In all cases the aluminum head helps lower the center of gravity of that big iron lump behind your shoulders.
Cooling issues? I thought I ran across a thread that indicated that with alum head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Purple Frog
your very mistaken imo. The members of the fsrac are very serious about their jobs and they all love Club Racing.Quote:
Originally Posted by problemchild
Was rereading part of this thread today and veering back on track (no pun intended), to me a good path would be:
1) Allow an overbore (.030?) and the subsequent compression increase (makes more blocks viable w/o sleeves) - keeps the head "as is" and allows lower cost first build of junkyard block (vs. sleeve)
2) Allow an alternate carb on the stock intake (several have been mentioned in the 36 - 38 mm range) - sub $300
3) Allow any 5.7" rod w/any flat top piston that does not exceed the stock deck height (allows competition)
4) Require a spec rev limiter w/ a spec chip w/larger carb- (extends lifespan of motor).
This would seem to be a (relatively) cost effective package that would allow a modest performance and durability upgrade.
Just my $ .02
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig71188
1. My understanding of the newly approved Wiseco piston is that it is a stock diameter. Doing an overbore would probably be fine for an engine that has not been sleeved. But, for those engines that had to be sleeved during their life, overboring the sleeve is most probably not an option. So, staying with a stock size bore works for everyone whether your engine is sleeved or not. To me, this appears to be the logical choice.
I contacted Quicksilver to ask about pricing and availability of the recently approved long rod and piston. Their pricing was right in line with what I have researched other long rod piston combos to cost. From Quicksilver's message, they plan to order 3 complete sets of rods and pistons at a time. They will keep these in stock and when that stock is depleted they will order more. Sounds logical to me. Only concern I see here is the duration of time it will take for them to get new stock when theirs is depleted.
2. Look at the most recent GCR. 9.1.1 Section 15 Ford NE engine. In here you will see that the carburetor you are mentioning has recently been allowed. The price you quote may or may not be accurate. I was told by one of the engine builders that on their dyno they didn't see much difference between 32/36 and 38/38. So, my guess is to see any gains, a 38/38 would need to be tuned by someone that knows what they are doing. I have proven to myself that I am terrible at tuning a carb. So, I don't bother. I keep a prepped carb which came from an engine builder in my trailer at all times. It cost more than $300, but if I am at an event that I just paid $1000 of entry fees, motels and travel time... the dollar value of having a 'hot standby' in my trailer is worth it.
3. See comments under #1
Yes Bob, I'm talking about the FRP. The following from SCCA's GCR has not been followed. There is even a current advertisement for a car selling on Apexspeed that has a "blueprinted" motor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Wright
This is what the GCR has to say;
"16. Ford Zetec Engine
The Ford Zetec ZX3 engine shall conform to the following specifications and may be modified only as specifically allowed. If these specifications do not explicitly allow a modification, then it may not be done. The philos*ophy of the Zetec engine in FC is to allow limited engine rebuilds but no performance modifications to the engine. Blue printing, balancing, head porting, polishing, etc. are strictly prohibited and against the spirit of the Zetec formula. Where Ford part numbers are specified, normal industry part number supersession is expected and the superseding part numbers are automatically included."
I'll bet if we had a proper SCCA tear-down at the Run-Offs that these illegal modifications would have be found years ago.
The increase of power in the Zetec, over when it was first allowed in the Pinto powered FC class, has nothing to do with a newer design but performance improvements that have not only, not been kept in check by race organizations, but with those same groups having turned a blind eye to the practice.
My 38 is being race prepped right now. If tuned correctly one of the biggest benefits is even burn across the cylinders and better low end response. I should have mine for the ButtonWillow race at month end.Quote:
Originally Posted by CGOffroad
As I've been told they just won't tear 'em down without a racer challenge. They aren't police.Quote:
Originally Posted by kea
Just think if that was the way the real police operated.
The quick-tech-check they do at the majors involves checking the restrictor only. Whoopee....
I think there is a need to understand the word "blueprinting" in context to the above post. The word was use by someone advertising their car. The engine builders our series use seal their motors: that seal is their certification (and their reputation) that the motor is legal to the rules. Our rules and SCCA dovetail, and we accept that the sealed motors in our series are legal. When we think otherwise, we check them (pull intakes and exhausts, cc them, use bore scopes, etc). We have never had to tear a motor to the crankshaft yet and yes, we have tech people who know how to do it.
But this thread is about Pinto upgrades. The package as it now stands should be very potent, and the motors should last far longer between rebuilds than what I experienced when I raced them.
I also know that QS will be very accommodating if they can do group rebuilds (more than 5 motors at a time) so they can set up an assembly line. They also have very reasonable shipping costs.
I'd still like to see details of just what these "illegal" modifications are that are alluded to every once in a while. In reading the GCR, there are actually quite a few areas that are allowed to be modified that can all help gain HP, and I would bet that the builders are doing just about everything they can to find the best combination of dimensions withing what the rules allow.
Selective parts building is perfectly legal, if that is what is going on, and can indeed yield extra HP.
For just about every OTHER engine in the book (GCR) BUT I'd say "selective parts building" flies in the face ofQuote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
the GCR " The philosophy of the Zetec engine in FC is to allow limited engine rebuilds but no performance modifications to the engine." Swapping parts for performance (as opposed to replacing worn out parts) is not in the spirit of the GCR.
Isn't the Zetec the only engine that contains that statement in the GCR?
Richard,Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
It may be for some engine types but by the rules that allowed the Zetec in the first place, not legal.
"The philosophy of the Zetec engine in FC is to allow limited engine rebuilds but no performance modifications to the engine".
What about machining the intake and/or exhaust ports of the heads due to core shift of the casting?
That's a funny one..... you are kidding right?Quote:
Originally Posted by RobLav
If you're serious, geez, absolutely not. I'd call that a "performance modification".
The whole 2014 Miata-core-shift fiasco should be a lesson that engine builders don't understand the very rules they write.
Either they don't understand, choose to be vague, or choose to interpret with a lot of latitude.
So that makes them either stupid or cheaters. Take your pick.
Another flaw in the "system".
On a spec engine correcting core shift is legit. This isn't the case with the Zetec.
Kea: There are almost 2 pages worth of details on areas that the Zetec can be massaged within certain specifications.
"The philosophy of the Zetec engine in FC is to allow limited engine rebuilds but no performance modifications to the engine"."
Define "performance modification" in a manner that it can be followed without questions.
The GCR allows the building up of a motor as a rebuild. Within what is normal in a rebuild is the use of selected components that are within the specifications in the GCR. Legal, and within what the GCR specifies.
You are also allowed to sleeve the block, and there are (I expect, anyway) sleeves available that are lower friction. Again, legal and within what the GCR specifies.
And no, Rob, machining of Zetec ports is specifically not allowed.
The rules recommendation that came out of the zetec committee was basically to use a crate motor unmodified in any way. What was finally voted on by the BoD had some minor changes which allowed for a little wiggle room, which is what we are talking about here. BTW, if the rule was unmodified crate motors only- we'd be out of business as there are no crate motors anymore.
I can tell you from experience as both a driver of a Zetec, and owner of the Series for the last 13 years- there is very little difference between a motor that's been 'tweaked' and a straight crate motor. IIRC, Tim Minor won two championships with a crate motor- the same crate motor- and also went to the runoffs with it.
What goes into making these cars go fast is waaaayyyy beyond the motor.
Sounds like it's time to get a Pinto FC, get the motor updated, and have a giggle!
My turn......Here's the solution....two classes, FC /Pinto, FC / Other......all done..... we all race together, let the cars / drivers decide. I'm sure that Michael Andretti driving my '90 Reynard, could have broken track records wherever I raced!!!!!!!
Can you imagine how expensive these motors would have been had only "as delivered" crate motors been allowed? Crate motor HPs are not all the same, so you would need to buy multiple motors, dyno them all, and select the best one - any you still have no assurance that it will be as good as the next guy's. Add to that, if the requirement was that - only "as delivered" being allowed - by definition you would not be allowed to rebuild them, meaning that you would have to go through the whole process all over again when your crate motor finally wore out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Wright
That was the case with the Sports Renaults when they first arrived. The engines varied widely and people were dynoing multiple engines to get the best one they could find. When I was doing the testing for them, I tested and ran several different cars, and the engine in every one was different from the rest. One had to have the pee wound out of it to work, another wouldn't get within 500 RPM of redline w/o petering out, but had great torque. And some were just not very good.Quote:
Originally Posted by R. Pare
John - much has been made in this thread about the "process". Given that it's been referred to as a "process" where are the specifics documented? If dyno information is required, what are the requirements? Say Art Smith and I built up a motor and took it down to Bobby Cram's dyno out on Inyokern road and compared that engine against my recent Cricket Farm's rebuild? What would make that data sufficient - or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by John LaRue
From Peter Olivia: " It has been my experience that such letters fail to consider all aspects of the process, focusing only on those parts that support the request"
Again, referring to a "process". What is this process?
I personally would like to see comparisons between Zetec, and "new" Pinto with long rods and pistons. The dirt tracker guys around where I live have been using the long rod short piston idea in their cars for the last several years. Would be interesting to see if and how these various configurations compare and if the "new" (really old) technology in the Pinto is really worth doing.
Somehow....I betcha QS already has them...
Rick; the process is fairy specific and has been detailed by John LaRue in other threads. The CRB has a lot of leeway but needs enough information to make an informed decision. It will also take into account long term ramifications of the proposed change. To maybe answer your specific question- data from different dynos usually is insufficient.
once again, this wasn't about Zetec vs pinto......
Yea... But the same people always make it about that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
If they are running in the same class or group for the same points in a championship it will always be Zetec vs Pinto. As long as we have a competitive bone in our bodies no one wants to give up any competitive edge to the next guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
I'm running a bit behind on keeping up with this thread-thanks to Monte and Purple Frog for your responses! So, if mileage between rebuilds doubles with the new rods and pistons, are we talking about 3,000 miles between rebuilds, or...? And, do the aluminum heads have an overheating issue? I have not heard of this but as I said in my first post, I have been out of it for a while (tired of being an interested spectator...).
Thanks much!
-R
Still curious about aluminum heads based on this short thread:
http://www.apexspeed.com/forums/show...+aluminum+head
Well I started that thread and have had no issues. There are still west coast S2000 guys running them. Since there aren't a lot of Pinto FCs coming out you don't see the AL head, but other than increasing the HP, which increases the cooling load, i've had no issues.
I suppose if it cracks I can get it welded.
Okay, so no apparent user-wide problems with aluminum head. Good to know!Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
I have the solution to this entire fiasco. The claimer rule!
While I say that in jest it's not an entirely out of left field suggestion. It sure would alleviate the arms race of engine updates and rebuilds.
The fact that aluminum conducts more heat to the coolant than the iron head, which keeps more heat in the combustion chamber, also contributes to an increased cooling load.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricP
I think you would have to get that from the engine builders. This is just my personal experience.
I only see a few problems with the Al head.Quote:
Originally Posted by EricP
1. Cost - about $4k new. At that point other options would come into play. Find a used one (good luck finding and good luck with condition). There was one bare for $1500 a couple months ago. I'm thinking maybe 50 of these were made.
2. Marginal improvement. It's no Zetec killer if that is what you expect.
3. Increased operating cost and maintenance. It doesn't improve longevity and does nothing to get cars out.
Other than that, the long rods, Weber 38 and Al head will make a good engine.
Any thoughts on how an engine with the aluminum head with the original cam compares to an engine with an iron head with the alternate camshaft? I guess what I'm asking is, "how much additional power is in the swap to the alternate cam"?Quote:
Originally Posted by BeerBudgetRacing
I've got the FC (alt) cam and have never driven a car without it. That said, others have said it help, yet some say it does nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmart
My conclusion is that it depends on your style of driving's compatibility with your cam of choice.
Rick can chime in on total power gains but he did mention the 21lb difference is worth about 3hp everywhere.
Again, my criticism of the AL head is totally related to it's cost and lack of improvement in grid sizes. As I said to Rick, it may be a hindrance as some Pinto owners feel they can't even compete in the Pinto group without a big spend.
AL head + new Ivey pistons got me +9HP over my decent Ivey Iron head; but those comparisons weren't from the same dyno.
Losing 21# up high and rearward sounds nice.
Or or we can go nuclear: http://www.burtonpower.com/alloy-cyl...-sc1211as.html
Thanks for the info. I'd like to take 21 pounds off the top of the engine, but I've already got 18 pounds of lead under my knees to make weight. Not sure I've got room for 21 more pounds of lead but the 9 hp gain is certainly attractive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner
there's always the opportunity to run two big varley's and never worry about starting power again.....
As Rick said - not from the same dyno, so don't count on (all of) the 9 HP gain.Quote:
Originally Posted by rsmart
Apparently you've missed a meal somewhere. Fix that. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by rsmart
Straight out of the posted Fastrack -
1. #24155 (Todd Stark) Request new piston part numberIn GCR section 9.1.1.15.f.6, add the wording as follows:"Wiseco piston P/N WD-06526 as supplied by Quicksilver with rings, pin, Crower connecting rod P/NSP93235B-4 (with bolts), but without bearings: Minimum permitted weight: 555 grams."In GCR section 9.1.1.15.h, add the wording as follows:"Alternative Crower connecting rod part number SP93235B-4 is permitted. It’s length mustbe 5.700 inches (+ or .005 -.010”). This rod may be used only with Wiseco piston part number WD06526as supplied by Quicksilver above.":thumbsup: