Pinto / Zetec Parity 09

[enjoythetrack]

... and if we'll have to run at 7,000 RPM we'll need the rods & pistons so we don't have to rebuild the engine every weekend!

Catch-22??

Yup, fact is wear gets exponential and things get MUCH more critical as you reach the top end of the rev range given current parts allowed. So anyone got PROOF of usable good engine life before rebuild with the new cam given the current metallurgy allowed?

Heck, may as well open up the whole piston/block/cam/etc metallurgy and let my buddies design bits that can easily go over 7k rpm. i'd make a small fortune reselling tweak parts...

...of course i'd have started with a much larger fortune

Just write the SCCA and let them know how you feel. It is like pissing on a live/active spark plug posting here.

[DaveW]

... and if we'll have to run at 7,000 RPM we'll need the rods & pistons so we don't have to rebuild the engine every weekend!

Catch-22??

Yup, fact is wear gets exponential and things get MUCH more critical as you reach the top end of the rev range given current parts allowed. So anyone got PROOF of usable good engine life before rebuild with the new cam given the current metallurgy allowed?

Heck, may as well open up the whole piston/block/cam/etc metallurgy and let my buddies design bits that can easily go over 7k rpm. i'd make a small fortune reselling tweak parts...

...of course i'd have started with a much larger fortune

Just write the SCCA and let them know how you feel. It is like pissing on a live/active spark plug posting here.

The cam change is supposedly just a small increase in lift in the intake. That will not require any more revs than you used before, since it doesn't change the peak HP RPM. A lighter flywheel doesn't either.

What is true is that to get the most out of a top-line pinto, you have to rev it close to 7K. But that has ALWAYS been true. I always advanced my cam a bit from QSRE's setting, even at the Runoffs, so I had more bottom end torque and almost never rev'd over 6800.

Bottom line, if you didn't rev to 7K before, there will be no reason to do so with the new rules package.

[azjc]

The cam change is supposedly just a small increase in lift in the intake. That will not require any more revs than you used before, since it doesn't change the peak HP RPM. A lighter flywheel doesn't either.

What is true is that to get the most out of a top-line pinto, you have to rev it close to 7K. But that has ALWAYS been true. I always advanced my cam a bit from QSRE's setting, even at the Runoffs, so I had more bottom end torque and almost never rev'd over 6800.

Bottom line, if you didn't rev to 7K before, there will be no reason to do so with the new rules package.

Taking a second look at the power curves I'd tend to agree - no extra rev's needed for a iron head pinto with the new cam.

But I see Rick's point - where does it stop??

For a regional car (like I'm setting up & Rick has) I'm not too worried as I'm already down on power @ 138. I can lighten the flywheel the next time the engine is out for a minimal cost and do like racing with a lighter unit. Could add a cam anytime and as long as it doesn't require much work setting up the rockers or jet changes it wont be any big deal.

If this "settles" down the class, gets more cars out - I'm all for it. Just that I'm a bit worried that SCCA wont try & "tweek" it again.

[TimW]

Realizing this is a solution for a problem that exists mostly at the national level, why are all the regional guys complaining that for $500 they can have the Mazdas out of their freakin way? I know I'd spend $500 for a 125bhp kent to get the fast 500s firmly in the mirrors...

[John LaRue]

For those of you participating in the thread, how many races have you run in FC or CFC in the past 12 months? I have run in four (4) (3 GL Div. and 1 Cen Div.) and there were not too many out there with me. If we could just get as much participation at the track as we do on Apex we would have it beat!

John

[RacerDave51]

For those of you participating in the thread, how many races have you run in FC or CFC in the past 12 months? I have run in four (4) (3 GL Div. and 1 Cen Div.) and there were not too many out there with me. If we could just get as much participation at the track as we do on Apex we would have it beat!

John

4 - all in the SE. 1 Nat (boy, was that a mistake on my part--new car w/ slow driver) and 3 Reg

'88-95 Citation

[DaveW]

...If this "settles" down the class, gets more cars out - I'm all for it. Just that I'm a bit worried that SCCA wont try & "tweek" it again.

The alternative is to do nothing, leaving both the iron-head pintos and the Zetecs at a distinct disadvantage. So, IMO, this proposed package is a very good thing.

Does this guarantee no rule changes in the future? Of course not. But if we do nothing, things will remain in disarray, and, for sure, no one will be happy. And, we will be left "cutting off the dog's tail" bit by bit, instead of all at once. Since we are the "dog" in this scenario, which would be less painful? I, for sure, would like to do it all it one cut!

[Steve Demeter]

Price a top line iron head from Sandy or Steve or Jay and compare it to the aluminium head price.

Then realize that the aluminium head is a bargin.

Chuck Moran always has told me the place to spend your money in CFC is to get a top line engine.
I think his reults speak for themselves.

So when it is time tio replace your iron head, you simply buy an aluminium head.

Those htat have to win at all costs will spend the money whether it be an aluminium head or a top line iron head form the aforementiioned geniuses.

If you want to go fastest you got to spend lots of money.

If you want to have fun and go fast you do not have to spend as much money.

But either way this sport aint cheap so let's decide on a rules package and get on with it.

We have a lot of good people who have put lots of hours in to try to come up with the bets package.

One can always second guess anything.

But let's get on with the racing.

[enjoythetrack]

Realizing this is a solution for a problem that exists mostly at the national level, why are all the regional guys complaining that for $500 they can have the Mazdas out of their freakin way?

Possibly that Nat guys know this thread is bunk so smart Nat drivers go right to the source for a solution. Posting here is a waste of time perhaps? As for the Mazdas, no problems gettting rid of them during my races.

For those of you participating in the thread, how many races have you run in FC or CFC in the past 12 months?

10, maybe 12... or was it 14 (must have 12 or so as darn tranny broke a lousy weak Webster gear that cost me two races during a three race weekend).

[BruceRace]

O.K.........I would like to ask if anyone can post the actual "proposed" changes, without any editorial; for me who has gotten lost in this thread.... Thanks BruceRace

[enjoythetrack]

O.K.........I would like to ask if anyone can post the actual "proposed" changes...

Yes, engine specs are pictured below (am trying to add some humor)

[rickb99]

Realizing this is a solution for a problem that exists mostly at the national level, why are all the regional guys complaining that for $500 they can have the Mazdas out of their freakin way?

First of all, I'm not complaining (as we are a regional car runner). How does this effect us even though we don't (or have not yet) run Nationals? Pretty obvious that if not done to ours, it effects the resale value and, eventually (hope we can keep racing) those whoop-te-do engines will come into regional events.

Point being ANYBODY who owns an FC is effected over time. This isn't "just" a National and Pro Series issue.

For those of you participating in the thread, how many races have you run in FC or CFC in the past 12 months? John

We did 5 race weekends (broke car or would have been 6) in 2008 plus a track day of testing. For 2009 (praying for a good economy), we'll probably do 7 to 8 race weekends.

Now, IF AND ONLY IF the idea of NO Federal Income or FICA taxes for the Feb/Mar/Apr is enacted by Congress.. maybe 8 to 10 weekend!!!!

O.K.........I would like to ask if anyone can post the actual "proposed" changes, without any editorial; for me who has gotten lost in this thread.... Thanks BruceRace

For the answer to that you have to go back 8 pages. But here's a link to the actual as pronounced proposed rule changes. Start reading bottom of page 6.

http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/0...strack-dec.pdf

[John Robinson II]

Now, IF AND ONLY IF the idea of NO Federal Income or FICA taxes for the Feb/Mar/Apr is enacted by Congress.. maybe 8 to 10 weekend!!!!

Yeah, and the will be parity between the 3 packages. One will always BE ASSUMED to be better then the other 2. What happens in 3 years when the runoffs moves to a tight drivers track???

As I understand the situation:
Zetec package is suppose to help save the class by supplying a relativley cheap per mile power source.

No manufacturer builds a car specifically for the pinto motor.

The lightened flywheel may add some longevity to the bottom end, but the zetec will maintain at a higher performance level for a longer period of time and the cam does nothing for longevity for the top end, may not hurt it but does not help.

The newer cars (vd) require expensive upgrades to make 1190 with a typical driver. I was told that very few of the participants at the ro came in close to the weight. There only being one weight for the class makes it easier for the techies.

The alum head is a done deal, so it is now the standard, the iron had was raised and the zetec remapped to match the dyno curve.


John

[Chas Shaffer]

It also looks like a lot of people are tired of getting their ass kicked by Niki, but he did that to you when you were driving Pintos, too..

Doug, I'm sort of surprised by this statement. After looking at the dyno curves do you really believe the zetec owners have nothing to complain about? How would you feel if you spent $20,000 under the premise that parity would be achieved by mid year 2007 but what you got instead is what's in those dyno sheets and 30 extra pounds?

Rob, I lobbied strongly to restrict the aluminum head so the steel head guys wouldn't have to spend money however I was told the CRB will never allow it, you can guess why (see my previous posts).

What I find really interesting are the steel head owners who feel its unfair to spend $400 for a cam but they don't seem to care about the new pistons the CRB allowed without member input that cost a lot more than $400, make almost as much HP as the new cam and require a complete rebuild to install. I'd like to know if the pinto curves on the dyno graphs had the new pistons as well. Either way, $400 for a cam, $200 for flywheel lightening, $800 for pistons = $1400 more to your next rebuild.

Of course that's nothing compared to the $20,000+ zetec owners spent converting their cars under the premise that parity would be achieved by mid year 2007.

I have to say that QS has done an awesome job achieving this proposed compromise. They've invested countless hours of dyno time, track time and phone time over the past year working this solution. I've been really impressed with their dedication to the class, willingness to help and above all else their integrity.

[Zebra]

Why does that Pinto engine exist? I am currently using one as a mooring for my Sailboat.

Chaz Fatboy

[Zebra]

I wouldn't be seen dead with a Pinto engine no matter how much better they make it. Plenty of ways to cheat with the Zetec, Run 2 ECU's in the car with a switch. How about soaking your tires for a couple of days in 55 gallon drum.

Chaz Cheatin FatBoy

[Zebra]

its going to be one cheatin year, sodium filled vales here we come

Chaz FatBoy

[jim morgan]

Chaz Cheatin,
Thanks for buying my video "Cheatin' My Way"

I own a 1991 DB-6 with a QS iron head pinto. In my hands it is a top regional car and a weak national car. In Cole's hands it can compete with Niki at Topeka and in my opinion anywhere else. While well engineered it is not a high expense setup.

Converting to Zetec is not an option for us since the frame will not take it without modifications more extensive than converting to FF for a profit.

In the period since Zetec was introduced we (Cole) has run FC Natioals, Cooper Tire Zetec, Cooper Tire Gold Cup [(Pinto) in three different cars ,the DB-6,10/10ths Van Diemen and Mark Defers car Van Diemen. Db-6 and 10/10 were top QS iron head, Defer was top Elite] and the F2000 series in St. Clair Zetec.

As such I think it is fair to say we have extensive experience with every engine except the aluminum head and a variety of maps and tire combos with the constant of a top driver.

In 2006 John La Rue and I had a interesting debate on line he was complaining about the Zetecs disadvantage and I was complaining about the pinto disadvantage at the same time. The only difference was we were in Gold Cup on Radial heavy tires and he was in club racing on light tires.

Move to 2007 F2000 with equal maps pro series heavy radial, pinto no chance because of torque,zetec no chance at SCCA because of no tire advantage and top end.

At this point in time all the reliability,expense and disenfranchisement arguments are clear. There is a disparity that needs to be resolved.

The best way to promote this class is to support the proposal. Those at the pointy end can choose between the alternatives and move forward and even mix and match to suit there needs track to track(racing can be expensive).

Anybody who is racing these cars for fame and glory is pissing in the wind. The kids come through and leave in a year or two if they are any good. Would't the rest of us rather have full fields with reasonably competitive events (F2000 for the last 2 years).

My vote is yes!

[andyllc]

Chaz Cheatin,
Thanks for buying my video "Cheatin' My Way"

I own a 1991 DB-6 with a QS iron head pinto. In my hands it is a top regional car and a weak national car. In Cole's hands it can compete with Niki at Topeka and in my opinion anywhere else. While well engineered it is not a high expense setup.

Everyone can claim to not be chasing Niki because he is just going to be whooping on everyone anyway however Cole in the DB6 would be THE one everyone is chasing at Road America, that is a fact.



Sorry for the off topic, irrelevant post

[JHandley]

For those of you participating in the thread, how many races have you run in FC or CFC in the past 12 months? I have run in four (4) (3 GL Div. and 1 Cen Div.) and there were not too many out there with me. If we could just get as much participation at the track as we do on Apex we would have it beat!

John

1 drivers school, Waterford Hills
1 Great Lakes FC/ CFC Challange/ Waterford Hills Race weekend 4 races
1 Waterford Hills Regular Race Weekend 2 races
1 Mid Ohio Regional Weekend 2 races
Plus qualifiers
8 races total

[dc]

Doug, I'm sort of surprised by this statement. After looking at the dyno curves do you really believe the zetec owners have nothing to complain about? How would you feel if you spent $20,000 under the premise that parity would be achieved by mid year 2007 but what you got instead is what's in those dyno sheets and 30 extra pounds?

Maybe it's just me, but I would never spend $20,000 on anyone's premise or promise. You trusted the SCCA rule makers to have your best interests at heart.

[problemchild]

I understand Doug's point ..... but ..... this is amateur car racing in North America.
I feel like we all take a giant leap of promise everytime we spend a nickle in this sport. All those racers who put deposits on FE cars. I built my FST car when there was no class. Fortunately a dozen others did too. How many $100Ks were invested in the FB dream. Now the F600 plan is spawning. All these classes now look like they will shape the SCCA future, as will a retooled FC class.
None of it makes any more sense than any other selfish hobby. Those of us that stay involved, find some level of contentment that keeps us chasing that promise. I do not believe it can be rationalized in any way.
Cheers!

[dc]

Agreed—we all take leaps of faith with anything we buy, especially in racing. However, when we make a decision to spend LARGE amounts of money to convert an already legal car based on hypothetical rules or information about what might happen in the future, and it doesn't pan out as we had anticipated, there are only thumbs to point in blame. Complaining about it to the majority who still campaign legal cars doesn't make sense to me.

If you built a FST, FB or bought a spec FE and the class never took off or the rules didn't develop like you had expected, who's fault is it?

I'm in the process of buying a Formula Ford. A dying or dead class maybe? What if the class disappears completely? Who's fault is it that I own this car?



Yes, the SCCA said that there would be Zetec equality in 2007 and it hasn't quite happened yet. But spending $20,000 to convert a $28,000 car on a leap of faith is a high risk vs reward endeavor in my book. You pays your moneys, you takes your chances...

[problemchild]

You are absolutely right Doug. I just thought your comment above was a little harsh .... considering we all do it. Pity the poor guys who bought into the Shelby CanAm concept

[dc]

You are absolutely right Doug. I just thought your comment above was a little harsh .... considering we all do it. Pity the poor guys who bought into Shelby CanAm concept

Or the Toyota Sports racer! Think about how many times racers have been put in a position to believe that there would be a future for a class of cars. We should all know better from history with the SCCA.


Yes, in a perfect world, parity within the class and the three different motor/head options would be a nice thing, and would more than likely build the class stronger. Yes, when the SCCA made the assertion that there would be competitive balance by 2007, it has proven to be untrue. Yes, it costs a lot of money to jump in the shallow end with both feet and make a Pinto FC into a Zetec FC. It's a risky move for any racer.

But the balance of the competition should NOT infringe on the majority (iron head Pinto) of for the sake of making one option more balanced.


I'm all for the changes proposed, but I disagree with the options necessary to bring the iron head Pintos into focus (the majority of the FC racers in the country). Reducing flywheel weight, adding a new cam and then ADDING more weight seems like an unreasonable solution to a problem that didn't exist before the aluminum head.

[Mark H]

^
^^
^^^
^^^^
^^^^^
^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^
^^^
^^^
^^^
See he gets it.

[Steve Demeter]

What Doug said.

[enjoythetrack]

...but I disagree with the options necessary to bring the iron head Pintos into focus (the majority of the FC racers in the country). Reducing flywheel weight, adding a new cam and then ADDING more weight seems like an unreasonable solution to a problem that didn't exist before the aluminum head.

Amen. There ARE guys with slim wallets who run Pintos as very few slim wallets run Zetec as best i can tell. This is indeed AMATEUR racing folks. If you want to go pro, go Mazda series or higher and have a team around you with a budget to match. Want a real rush, cough up $25k and rent a Porsche for the Daytona 24 and be supported by TRG.

ANYWHO, if the whizzy guys want to <cough>invest<cough> for all the whizzy ZETEC bits that is their choice. Just PLEASE do not drag the Pinto guys into the money-bucket of who has the bigger... in this AMATEUR league. Some of us on the sidelines could easily buy things... yet DRIVING TALENT is key imho versus the guys who show up in $$$$$$$ cars. Seen too many guys with more money than brains/talent on the track... a few whom i have had the honor to know have paid the ultimate/final price in the past few years due to their lack of realistic personal assessment.

Apologies for soap boxing.

Bottom line: leave the Pinto guys alone. If you want to chase the money-bucket, perhaps it is time you take it to the pro series where that game belongs. Or better still, move to Europe and get ready for possiblity some serious reassessment.

[RacerDave51]

What I'd like to know is how do I get one?

[Bob Wright]

Just one more 2c here...

Remember that history dictates when there is both a Pro and Amateur class with all rules aligned, it grows and stays strong. It also helps with the "investment" value of even the older cars. I think the object here is to have a set of rules where all FC's have the ability to carry as close to the same power as possible. There will always be good and bad motors in the pinto ranks- (don't ignor that the Zetecs are all a lot closer to the same power output) and not all cars and drivers are created equal.

Never the less, lets make sure that someone can start in a driver's school, graduate to regionals, nationals, and Pro within a unified set of rules in a car that can retain at least some value.

[DaveW]

...ANYWHO, if the whizzy guys want to <cough>invest<cough> for all the whizzy ZETEC bits that is their choice. Just PLEASE do not drag the Pinto guys into the money-bucket of who has the bigger... in this AMATEUR league. Some of us on the sidelines could easily buy things... yet DRIVING TALENT is key imho versus the guys who show up in $$$$$$$ cars. Seen too many guys with more money than brains/talent on the track... a few whom i have had the honor to know have paid the ultimate/final price in the past few years due to their lack of realistic personal assessment.

I am, by definition, an amateur. However, I converted to Zetec for largely financial reasons. So, while my budget is not small (I historically have spent $20 - $30K per year racing, EVERYTHING included - tires, engine rebuilds, travel, motel rooms, wreck repairs, etc.), the conversion looks to me like it will break even financially in around 4-5 years, and from then on, cost me less due to not needing a rebuild and new expensive parts for my Pinto engine every year or so to remain competitive.

[Dave Gomberg]

What I'd like to know is how do I get one?

The cam is a new one. It was chosen from among three "test" grinds done by Elgin as the best match for the aluminum head. Until the rules package is approved by the BoD, the cams will not be produced in bulk (I'm sure everyone can appreciate that business decision).

Dave

[rickb99]

Just a CURIOUSITY QUESTION:

There's been mention of this new cam costing $350 or so.

You mentioned 3 cams were looked at. Were any of the Esslinger cams considered? Just curious because their cams for 2.0 and 2.3 liter engines are only $180 or so. Complete kits with cam, springs, rockers and retainers are in the $350 range.

Would it be Elgins intention to sell COMPLETE pacakge at $350 or is that just the cam?? IF complete kit from Elgin, can you buy (will you be able to buy) the cam alone and use your favorite engine builders other parts?

I don't know maybe it's just me. Seems odd Esslinger can sell 2.0 liter cam grinds for $180. But (on Pegasus) SCCA legal cam (with followers) is $399 and a new Elgin will be $350. Appears to be a few 'extra bucks' in there somewhere for saying SCCA legal.

[DaveW]

Were any of the Esslinger cams considered?

Just an educated guess here... No one would make a cam that basically duplicates the stock one with the exception of just a tiny bit of intake lift increase. Other than for this specific purpose, who would pay the $ to buy it? So I'm guessing that any non-stock replacement cam would provide too great a performance increase. This, IMO, had to be specifically made for this exact purpose.

[Rick Kirchner]

IIRC, all the Esslinger stuff provides big boosts - and a lot of it above 7000 RPM, for heads that can have a lot more porting mods than ours. Same with the cams from the UK.

[rickb99]

I doe-no Dave. They make six different grinds plus a semi "stock" grind. Prices are all the same.

Just seems odd that 'our' cam ONLY is $350 while Esslingers "KIT" with all the goody's is that price. Just makes me curious what they would have charged for a stand alone cam with a modified grind to meet this spec? Considering the 'market size' if this is passed, I have a feeling it would be closer to $200 for the cam.

Makes me mad every time I think about it. We fight and struggle with the reliability issue with our 2.0 liter road racers. While the circle track guys (and Esslinger parts) are screaming along with power bands from 4,000 to 7,900 RPM RELIABLY!

NO, we don't wanna go circle track racing.

NO, I don't want another 100 HP out of the Pinto. But it seems to me they've addressed a lot of the reliability issues in ways we should look at.

Relevance of the above to this thead? The cost issue.

[Steve Demeter]

The Frog has been lobbying for as long as I can remember for a long rod being allowed.

The Crower Rods and J&E pistons if allowed in the long rod version should take care of any reliability issues, IMHO.

[Rick Kirchner]

One might think to allow some anti-friction coatings as well. Even if you move the pin all the way up into the oil ring I don't think the rod ratio gets as good as the FF engine. Better than nothing though.

I was going to post the Esslinger cams specs but cut and pase is not working from .pdf

[FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT]

[Dave Gomberg]

The price for the cam will be under $200 if your existing cam can be reground (the expected situation). If you need a new blank, it will be under $300.

Other cams were not tried. The goal was to improve the current cam to match the aluminum head. Going in, Elgin knew pretty much how to do it. It was a matter of doing three slightly different grinds to hone in on the best match. Other cams would have been shots in the dark.

Dave

[rickjohnson356]

Prior post talked about being able to regrind my existing cam (maybe) for 200.

So, I remove it, send it to them and wait for how long before I get it back and can go racing?

Can you imagine the wait at first, since all pintos will HAVE to do the upgrade?

Need to have a VERY quick turn-around in order to be able to get by with one cam and less $

otherwise, I have to spend 350 for the new one so I can make a race while my original is waiting to get reground.

Now I am up to 550 for this upgrade??? so, just buy a new one and throw away the old one. use the 200 to buy front tires.