Is the 'X' factor the best.

[Eric Falce]

Tim cannot believe that I am thinking of changing may 'X' flow which is now producing 150 bhp on HTs dyno for a 2ltr Pinto in my Mk1 Escort. The Escort is as a Mexico at the moment, dont want to modifie it to much, keep it to group 2 but would it be more fun with the Pinto.

[retro_msport]

You would have more grunt, but as a trade off, it would be slower to stop, turn in would be worse ..
But under the rules would you be allowed a Holbay/Warrior head, that could sway the argument

[andypipe]

Spend some cash on the X Flow. You know it makes sense Unc

[Al Weyman]

MK1 RS2000 is the class act in Post Historic Touring Cars thats for sure.

[GORDON STREETER]

Eric, you can get 200 bhp safely out of a Pinto without too much expense, compared to a 1700 + crossflow that costs loads to produce 185-190 reliably.
As has been pointed out the trade off in having a fair bit more weight up the front probably wouldn't make much difference in lap times. Also don't forget that the Pinto will give the rest of the transmission a bit more grief with increased torque, so it doesn't just end with an engine transplant.
But of course you have more or less decided that you want to do haven't you !!!

[Copperbottom]

Crossflow. You don't want a boat anchor.

[Al Weyman]

I guess it also depends on what championship you are running in. If for example it was CTCRC Pre 74's with a max 60 thou over and no stroking then I would definitely go for a Pinto. I have just sourced an engine for someone who is going to race a legal plus 60 thou Crossflow Mexico in the championship and I think that is around the 140bhp mark and should be reasonable competitive in the up to 1600cc class but I guarantee it will not be up the sharp end with the back to back championship winning Pinto engined RS2000.

Years ago we had someone running a 1600BDA in an Escort Mk1 in ModProds and the thing was never that successful, he eventually sold the thing and bought an HT Racing Pinto engine and that thing flew.

[phoenix]

A 'legal' 1600 is 1660cc with +60 thou bores. On the same basis a legal Pinto is 2062cc - 24.2% bigger.

The bigger bore of the Pinto allows for bigger valves - 44.5mm I believe is the 'big valve' spec most commonly used - and that means more power potential than the crossflow will ever have.

Having competed in classes with breaks at 1600 and 2000, there is no way in my experience that a well driven 2 litre car will be beaten by a 1600 car. 50 bhp more (minimum) and 24.2% more torque (minimum) says it all.

The weight difference in the engines is just a chassis tuning job - and it doesn't really figure in the BHP/tonne argument as a pinto is not 33% heavier than a crossflow! On the same tyres, there may be a small disadvantage in cornering speeds and possibly braking distances - so increase tyre sizes and that disadvantage will turn into an advantage too!

Apply the science, not the emotions

[Al Weyman]

Thats correct it can go 1660 with the 60 thou overbore and remain legal. The OHC configuration and later design of the Pinto would also be an advantage I would have thought.

[GORDON STREETER]

A good "Big Un" will always beat a good "Little Un" but as phoenix pointed out as long as its "well driven".
And Al I know its a later design but it hardly brilliant !

[Copperbottom]

Pinto engines are taller,longer and most of the extra weight is in the cylinder head and in front of the axle.

[Al Weyman]

Has less valve train weight so that must help surely. All I know is when I race against them they are damned quick. Didnt Zef say he can only reliably get about 140bhp out of his pre crossflows which are similar Kent engines.

[Copperbottom]

I get a reliable 170bhp (genuine) out of my crossflow with no expensive parts..........................And will have more power for next year without going away from my K.I.S ethos so it will still be non electronic with carbs etc.

Do ctrc regs stipulate standard carbs etc? 140bhp is low for a 1660 we used to get at least 150bhp with most being nearer 160bhp. Infact I've just found a rolling road report from my last 1660cc engine 153bhp.

[Al Weyman]

Homologated carbs allowed so that would be on twin 40 DCOE's. Not stunning power but the engine was very good value and complete with carbs and exhaust and turn key so a good step up from the bog standard Mexico engine its replacing. More cam would give it a few more bhp as its a road rally type cam at the moment but I predict it will be quite good on the tighter circuits. Even at 170bhp it wont hold a candle to a fully flogged Pinto 2.1 engine though.

[andypipe]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

. Even at 170bhp it wont hold a candle to a fully flogged Pinto 2.1 engine though.

I beg to differ there

[Al Weyman]

I dont recollect you regularly thrashing the likes of Len and Stan Colley, Scott Austin or even your mate Craig in his Pinto engined Saphire etc in yours Andy! I would bet any amount of money you want to put on the table that there is no Crossflow 1660cc Post Historic spec Mexico out there capable of going head to head with back to back Championship winner Steve Primett or Jason Christie in their Mk 1 RS2000's

[andypipe]

But im not talking historic. In the DMN i mix it quite well with the pinto boys.
Back in them days i was a total novice and they were experienced racers

[Al Weyman]

Like I said, it all depends on the championship and regulations.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Copperbottom

I get a reliable 170bhp (genuine) out of my crossflow with no expensive parts..........................And will have more power for next year without going away from my K.I.S ethos so it will still be non electronic with carbs etc.

Do ctrc regs stipulate standard carbs etc? 140bhp is low for a 1660 we used to get at least 150bhp with most being nearer 160bhp. Infact I've just found a rolling road report from my last 1660cc engine 153bhp.

Could I ask some questions?

1) what bore and stroke is your engine?
2) what size inlet valves do you have?
3) from which dyno does your 170BHP figure come from?
4) at what revs does your engine produce 170BHP?

Thanks

[Copperbottom]

Originally Posted by phoenix

Could I ask some questions?

1) what bore and stroke is your engine?
2) what size inlet valves do you have?
3) from which dyno does your 170BHP figure come from?
4) at what revs does your engine produce 170BHP?

Thanks

You've already had the info

Here goes anyway: bore 83.5mm, Stroke 77.6mm,inlet valves are 39.5mm,average of three different dynos (including HT racing),7700 rpm. You didn't ask for cam profile or CR so I guess you don't want to know.

Next year the engine should have an 86mm bore,84mm stroke (1950cc),41.3 mm inlet valves and should rev to 9k+

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by Copperbottom

You've already had the info

Here goes anyway: bore 83.5mm, Stroke 77.6mm,inlet valves are 39.5mm,average of three different dynos (including HT racing),7700 rpm. You didn't ask for cam profile or CR so I guess you don't want to know.

Next year the engine should have an 86mm bore,84mm stroke (1950cc),41.3 mm inlet valves and should rev to 9k+

I didn't realise you now had 170 bhp from the same engine, as previously you told me:

"The figures from a shootout for classic ford mag at HT racing were: 163.5bhp @ 7726rpm and 118 lbft @ 5722rpm"

So I had guessed you were now running an 1803cc or the 1951cc engine you were planning to build back in April.

Having used the HT dyno myself, what were the 'at the wheel' figures for your engine? (you will find them on the HT dyno printout). At the end of the day, these are far more useful than speculated flywheel numbers....

[Copperbottom]

At the time of the shootout HTs' rollers had a software problem also the ignition timing was retarded (unbeknown to me) when the HT thing was done,the engine made 180bhp (fw)on a different set of rollers once the timing was sorted. TBH though these are only figures, Eric can tell you how quick my car is with the current engine.

[graham bahr]

i can vouch for the fact copperbottoms car goes well for x/flow power, its very hard though to ignore that pintos usually make 30lbft if not more torque, on track im more concerned if a pinto powered car gets ahead of me because i know they are harder to repass

ultimately though in my view the added torque from a pinto plus the fact that it doesnt need as many revs to make power means it will be much more tractable, out weigh the added weight,

so in this case i would be looking to see the cost of the change, in andy pipes case with dry sumped engine its would be a very expensive swap, but if the engines were wet sumped it would be far more reasonable

[Copperbottom]

Maybe we should go back to the original question; which engine would be more fun to drive? That all depends on how you want to drive,if you like revving the engine between gear changes and a car that turns in well then the x-flow is the way to go IF you like a lazy/torquey engine and a less sharp turn in the go for a pinto.
You have to remember though that it's not just a case of swapping engines,there's quite a lot of extra work/expense involved.

One last thing; I sold a fast road 1700 xflow (120bhp/110ft/lb at the wheels) engine to an avo club member for a mk1 escort,he's also got an rs2000 with a vulcan pinto,guess whih one he prefers driving?.........................................................................yep the crossflow powered one.

[Al Weyman]

DOn't laugh but I once owned a 1300 crossflow Capri and I seriously thought it one of the best handling stock road cars I had driven at the time, I then bought a nearly new 2 litre S with the Pinto much more modern than the old 1300 with 5 speed box but I still think the old 1300 through the bends was a more precise ride. I guess with my Camaros you could equate it with the option I have as the car was made with both engines, the awesome power of the canted valve bigblock versus the 100+lb lighter small block. For drag racing the big block is the way to go for circuit racing the small block unless of course your name is Frank Gardener and you can somehow work in an all alloy big block past the regs at the time for BTCC although they only made a handful!.