Correct, the Duratec Mazda is the best option. But as above, the story only start cheap, at the end nothing comes for free.
Correct, the Duratec Mazda is the best option. But as above, the story only start cheap, at the end nothing comes for free.
I have contacted dyno guys running the TomaRacing and they confirmed that the given results refer to power at the engine, not wheels... Therefore the results are what most of you thought and the head is the one to blame, most probably. Thanks again for all suggestions and advices. I will have to build a new Pinto head or change the engine to compete against other cars (in FIA 3 category).
If second way - which engine, ford brand up to two liters, in your opinion is more similar in its technology / structure to BDG? Zetec or Duratec? First has the belt where second is run by chain (although material wise is better as block was made of aluminum as in BD). Question might be silly as all those engines are very different but as I mentioned - if I prove that "replacement" engine doesn't have any technical advantages over the homologation (BDG) then they might accept it, disregarding it is much newer. I would have to put TB's I guess but iniection was used in those times right ? (Nothing found in homologation 650 about it)
I think, Kugelfischer and Lucas mechanical drive injection pumps were used. Nothing electronic was involved in those day’s induction systems. Today’s TB set up is something else.
Are you trying to get the car accepted for a national historic spec or something else ?
Yes, for national historic championships. It is based on FIA but has some exemptions regarding using newer parts. One might get a permission once prove that new part is much easier to get but not better technically. It is always individual procedure and if granted they put annotation it in that rally cars book.
Ok so it's another thing I had no clue about...thought the TBs are the historic solution especially that I've seen something like it in homologation 5566 for mk1 (with warrior head).
Last edited by grzelu; 18-01-2018 at 21:37.
5566 photograph N, that is a mechanical injection. Very very expensive to have such a system. Plus, you can not tune that system without some serious professional help.
By the way, whatever the modern engine you are going to use, nothing is wrong with carburetors. Carburetors are great induction as long as you know you get them tuned correctly.
Zetec or Duratec, they are both inherently strong and reliable engines as far as I read. One may be some advantage over the other but there are huge amount of parts available to make them extremely reliable etc etc.
But, naturally they have nothing to do with the real historic engines apart from just being like the most 4 cylinder in line 8 or 16 valve engines ( chain or belt driven )
“Not better technically” quote is rather debate-full, in my opinion. There are so many aspects but in my opinion with the similar treatments ( modifications ) to BD engines and to the modern engines, modern engines may be regarded better easier, if not better probably then probably more reliable.
Last edited by hawk1903; 18-01-2018 at 22:07.
I would have someone with all the knowledge of the Pinto head build an engine.
You build a correct 2 ltr Pinto (you can get 190 Bhp and even little more). Or.....
If you want to come as close as possible to history, the Holbay / Warrior replica maybe the best solution. Not cheap but it never comes cheap. But this head can make serious power.
There is indeed nothing wrong with a correct setup carb. I'm almost 100% sure, it can do better as many Lucas or Kuchelfisher setups from the late 70thies. I've been tuning Kucherfisher in my early day's, with the exception of autocross, they had no real advance. The advance in autocross was, the car could stand on his nose and still running. Your engine for example, will not make a single Bhp more on programmed fuel injection as long as the carb is right tuned. Waste of time and money.
Looking at the power graphs and if the CR is what you say it is I bet that the cam that's in the engine is not a RL31.
We are never sure what can was in it unless you first measure the camshaft with electronics.
At least in my engine the cam was 100% RL31 and Power was also under 150 Bhp (145). It was also a big valve head (but from what I know now very poor build) and indeed it was on 44 IDF, with DCOE style I would have expected little more.
Believe me, I've seen very low Bhp numbers in good big engines and the only difference was the cylinderhead. Since a very long time I know the camshaft is far from the biggest choke on Power. The head is the main source.
i dont have a dyno i have to use other peoples, but what i do have is a flow bench and for sure air flow is the key, ive seen radically different heads and engines including completely different manufactures make very similar power, what they all have in common is the head flow the same! for sure you can play with cams carbs, exhausts etc and play with the power but x amount of air will only make x amount of power, and at the end of the day an engine is just an air pump, it sucks it in and blows it out!
currently im milling a jenvey pinto manifold to take 48 throttle bodies, do i believe the old 45's were choking the engine, no defiantly not! but on an engine short of airflow we can probably hold on the torque a bit longer ( note i dont say make more) and thus release a couple of bhp more at the top if i can reduce airflow losses through the induction system
Last edited by Graham; 20-01-2018 at 12:27.
Spot on, my friend also has a flow bench, he measures the head and give you the approx max power. Assuming you use decent cam but it does not even matter so much, it does not make a very big difference at all.
The problem making the inlet bigger is, you loose pulse tuning. That's what I cam across. So, maybe it's going to work, maybe not. What I did found for the Pinto was (and time after time) the engine makes best power with a trumpet that does not fit an Escort body shell. To long. So I hope you can find the right compromise between being able to run higher RPM's and still make more power without lost elsewhere.
pulse tuning is another story all together, i will probably stick with the same 45mm trumpets because they have the simple 90 degree flare at the end. on Freddie's 14 engine (equipped with 48 tbs) the original full radius 48 trumpets were swapped for the 45 trumpets with the simple 90 flare and he gained power everywhere
Until date, I've never had a full radius trumpet been working as well as a normal straight or slow taper trumpet with a small flare. I do not even know why they keep producing them. May work on very high rev engines but never for the one I got in. This was one of the first things we discovered when I installed my dyno.
If you stick with 45 trumpets, does it make sense to use 48 mm throttle bodies?
I've been using 40 mm trumpets on 45 mm Webers but this was because carb was to big and could not fit smaller carbs for budget reasons. These engine did produce beter power and torque with the smaller trumpets but I would have started with 40 mm cabs in the first place.
i might change my mind after testing, but a 45mm trumpet has no internal obstruction to airflow, a throttle body does, when i flow tested the head with manifold and throttle bodies attached airflow went up after i removed the bodies, that can only really be down to either the the butterfly causing a restriction, or friction between the incoming air and the walls of the induction system.
what i do know is the most powerfull pintos have always run carbs much bigger than they theoretically need. i know of one that makes 225bhp, that is on 50mm carbs, now im sure that a pair of 50's will probably flow enough air for over 100bhp more than that engine makes.
the problem here is chasing that last couple of bhp, i could probably get 95% of the same power from 42mm bodies, but its that last bit they all want.
i have another engine in bits at the moment, i gave the customer exactly what he asked for in terms of power, rev range etc etc, said car and engine goes like stink, but in the tight twisty stuff is hard to keep on cam ( gearbox doesnt have close enough ratios) customer has asked if i can bring the power in a bit earlier, sure i says, i will just switch to some milder cams, the power will come in sooner but your loose a little at the top end, oh no i dont want that was his answer! what he needs is a close ratio box or less power and he will go faster, but the worry is that loosing 5bhp @7800 will make the car slow, hell it probably wont even notice!
because they look fast and looking fast, sells fast! you should know that Dirk!
i bet if i had a batch of 50mm inlet valves made for a beetle i could sell them all instantly even though we know they wont work. ive got some 48mm bmw valves that dont work either, but schrick still sell them!
Last edited by Graham; 20-01-2018 at 16:37.
Yes, I know. It only has to look fast.
I normally don't care about 5 bhp at full top end power. Specially not if you are going to loose torque about everywhere.
What I do know is, specially with silly 5 speed gearboxes, the car is sometimes more handy with a cam that can keep rev-ing higher like a Cart engine. So they don't have to change gear. This usual mean using a cam that makes the same power 1000 RPM or more higher in the rev range. Just what I had when I switched from HT1e to RL31. Same power but he could not rev like crazy anymore.
Possible the shaft is a restriction but I've done a test with 45 DCOE on an engine, with and without the shaft and plate fitted (started open air and had the dyno on to control the RPM). No difference in power and if you look at Motorcycle engines like Honda, Yamaha en Suzuki, they use very thick shaft end do zero to nothing to make them smaller (10 mm in some throttle bodies and only middle part is made smaller).
I've done the same test with ITB's and where relative small. I believe 42 mm for 240 Bhp. No gain and engine was already good tuned.
Yes, bike tuning must be complete different compared to cars. High rev's are asking for a different setup.
BTW, no idea they do make gain over standard setup. Also here, bigger is better. I remember they fit an extra inlet cam on the Hayabusa exhaust but not so sure this is a real gain. They where also using racing fuel, making 10% more power. I had some liters and did the test in a car engine, zero extra power and they told me it did not matter all rest like extra CR, it was just "stronger" fuel.
So to answer the guys original question, we're all saying the Ashley RS2000 competition 3 piece 4-2-1 then?
By the way, I would talk to Graham about building you a Pinto that works. I have the pleasure of a 2.2 pinto he built for me that gives 200hp at the flywheel, 170 ish at the wheels
I've been using it in my MK1 for track days and I can say it has surprised just about everyone in our club and even overtaken a few expensive cars
Cheers
Dazzle
would a 4-1 manifold make my pinto scream like a b**tard ?
No but it would sound great down the pub when you said it did 😂
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Then I would respectfully suggest that your on the wrong forum. 👍
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When I was in my youth and did n't have a lot between the ears I used to rev the Knackers off engines on Rallies. The spectators would often comment how well the little Lotus Twink sounded to me. My late Father always said to me they are n't the ones that are paying for the damage you are causing by doing that and they are certainly not going to put it right.
It look me a long while and massive expenses over the years before I realised he was right. You might be better off investing in a BDA instead of a Pinto if you are intending getting close to 9000 rpm.
Best exhaust manifold out there at the moment for a high spec pinto is Mark Schilaber's (SRD) stainless 4-2-1, i gained 8 lb/ft over a Grp2 Ashley...with 6 more HP on the top end after a rejet.
https://www.historicmotorsport.net/s...aust-manifold/
Last edited by Erikmex; 17-03-2018 at 11:34.
Looks a nice one, but they said "the 2 litre test engine produced a corrected 217 BHP on twin 50 webers"
Hum, 217hp with a 2000cc pinto... sure Dirk will comment this.
from what i understand it had a raised port head, straight inlet manifold, and was pretty trick, so allowing for differences between dynos id say its fairly accurate.
several times ive raced against a guy with a 2.3 225bhp srd pinto engine, and i have to say judging by the fact i only had marginally more straight line speed with a 240bhp engine that engine probably was making iots claimed power
So thoses SRD engines are serious ones !
All I'm willing to say is, this exhaust looks really well made. It does not say anything about how much more the power it can produce but for this price, it's probably the most nice exhaust manifold i've ever seen for a Pinto.
Maybe somewhere someone can build a 217 Bhp 2 Ltr Pinto but all I had in, was lower. I do believe with some extra time and budget I would have been able to see 200Bhp on my dyno but for the price I had to sell those engine, it was not possible. 217 is a LOT more as 200 Bhp so.... you may never say impossible unless you have been measuring the engine.
30 years ago all Cars and Car Conversion books where full of 300 Bhp BTTC engines. Rev limiter set at 8500 Bhp. Still wondering how they can managed this. At least, I can't, we where stuck round 240 Bhp, some claim 250 and I'm willing to believe 260 is possible. Still a long road to find 300
About these 250 Bhp engines, when I was at 220 we could already beat them time after time from the starting line or if we failed, pass them in the straight line. The point is, where did they made 250 Bhp and how did the torque curve looks like.
SRD engines are very well respected race winners, no bullshit here im afraid.
Maybe I' m sceptical but I am with Onyd on this one. I don't believe that there are that many post 200 bhp Pintos out there, especially in 2.0 form. I would like to see anyone making that claim to have their engines independently tested on on a third parties accurately calibrated static Dyno.
I am not doubting any engine builders claim but it would be nice to see if their figures were true. After all what have they to hide?
On the SRD manifold, it looks a nice piece of kit and at that sort of money represents good value for the price.
In practice, any 2 ltr Pinto making close to 200Bhp is a no Bullshit engine and probably beating all other with a mile. Most Pinto's I've had on my dyno barely made 175 Bhp (the good ones). It has been rare to find one making over 185 Bhp, many many stuck round 165 Bhp. And yes, you can build a 190 Bhp+ Pinto with heads like Vulcan, CNC-heads, Brook etc.. but going over 200 Bhp must be difficult.
Still, we can never say it's not possible. In Germany there is a 1835 Beetle engine in drag racing. NA engine, no idea about the power but it is turning RPM's like a motorcycle and beating almost every other VW engine, no matter the size (T4 engine usual up to 2700 cc). How they do it, no idea
Id say building a 180hp Pinto is relatively simple with a decent head, its at that point most get stuck, most 200HP+ Pinto, the good ones are on raised port heads, SRD heads feature a raised port, 165HP is a fast road Pinto on cast pistons, BVH and Rl31, vry easy to build. Dave Brookes heads are a bit of step up from Vulcan heads, they have a riased port and make more power than Vulcan heads which are good but fairly budget, i ahve one of their Ultimax heads which makes 196hp on 40mm chokes with an HT1e, SRD heads are up there with Brookes heads fro flow characteristics, far superior to Vulcan and CNC in my opinion.
i dont have the answer to what makes the best pinto head, but what i do know (port filler aside) is conventional porting will only get you so far. for real power you need something different.
as ive recently said a couple of times, its dawned on me given a decent amount of cam and other stuff being right, you can predict the power output from head airflow, within reason cc doesnt have a massive effect, it just varies the rpm at which that power occurs, i noticed that years ago at walkers place, we had run several duratecs 2.0,2.2,2.3,2.5 they we all within a couple of bhp of each other at 300, only the rpm at which that power occured changed.
last week i had two cars on the rollers, i know the airflow for both, neither were pintos, one was my 6 cylinder m20 beemer, the airflow on that would make a 170-180 bhp pinto, which as a 6 cylinder would of been 255-270bhp, we got 267bhp, another was a 2.0 vw 16v engine, airflow said 220bhp and we got 218.9! in fact niether engine had quite peaked, but we were starting to push rev limits!
later this year we will get a bit more evidence, airflow says Andy pipes pinto will make 220bhp
Don't fully agree with the cylinder head "list of power". I've tested many engines and heads in the past but one time I've tested Dave Brook head, Vulcan and CNC in a very short time on the same bottom end. All complete heads, incl. the camshaft fitted as they wanted.
Vulcan came with HT1e, CNC Piper A8 and Brook with Newman 4,75. Brook raised head stuck round 185 - 187 Bhp. But very good torque. CNC slightly higher and Vulcan made 193 bhp. Had an other Vulcan head and again over 190 Bhp. Swopped around cams but make no real big diff in max power, only the RPM did vary little and torque lines changed.
Fitted the 193 Bhp Vulcan head on a 2,3 Ltr bottom and made 210 Bhp. Nice increase but the best of all was a massive increase in torque.
There was a 4th one, not UK based, and quoted 235 or 240 bhp with this heads on a 2 Ltr. Because he asked so much money for the head I was still willing to try (was over 5000 €) but asked him, if the head is not making at least 220 Bhp (he could ask whatever carb, exhaust etc.. I had to use) I could send the head back and collect my money. I've never ever had an email from him again so could not test the head. Sad. No idea why but if I advertise with 190 Bhp Pinto's and someone ask me if the engine is not making 180 Bhp or more, can I return the engine, I will agree. OK, so there is one head making at least 235 Bhp but I can't buy it.
My experiences of course, open for other measures.
Hi Graham, is this head currently flowing 220 CFM? 220 Bhp from 2 Ltr of bigger engine?
OK, usual, in a 2 Ltr, 220 CF mean you can get 220 Bhp and more. 210 CFM should at least be able to make 210 Bhp. Must say, it's not always so; My friend also does. lot of flow test work. One day he improved a Hayabusa head. Flow numbers where very good and finally the engine made less power on his dyno as with the original head. So CFM numbers only are not always all what is needed.
For beetle engine, it's almost always correct.
Please note, I still got my 2,3 Ltr bottom and are looking for a serious head to complete this engine. If this head is making the power we think it can make, I'm willing to buy such a cylinder head. I would like to see 230 Bhp (or close).
Bookmarks