Could some one please enlighten me as to the rules of what engines are allowed in which cars and the vehicle stays in class and not moved to class 7.For example the Mk1 Ford Escort, as I see it the options are: 1100, 1300 1600 crossflow, 1600 Lotus twincam, 1600 BDA and 2000 pinto.Are there any others that are allowed and the car stays in class?
in simple terms [that's how I like them], the rule is, for production cars, that any engine that was fitted by the maker can be used...[plus,I believe, similar derivatives thereof, as long as the layout of the engine remains similar to the original....]..... so your list for the Escort just about sums it up. ie no Zetecs although, would a dolomite sprint engine be allowed in an MG midget [not a sprite, that would be sacrilege]...seeing as how it was derived from the 1500 ex=triumph unit used in Midgets..?[not suggesting it would be a wise move, though] How does a VW Beetle fare, if fitted with a type 4 engine? [no silly answers please] what about using a Reliant engine [SV of course] in an Austin Seven?
ReplyDeleteNo zetec's? hmmmmmmmm thats interesting
ReplyDeleteForgive me if I'm a little out of date but when we established these technical regulations some years ago ( I served on ACTC committee and tech panel at the time the original Class 7 regulations were written) the engine criteria for cars running in the production based classes was that the engine had to be from the same 'manufacturer' and of the same 'configuration' as any engine offered in the original model. Therefore Escort owners were permitted to fit virtually any Ford four cyclinder inline, i.e. ohv, ohc, twincam. But a Ford Pop would have to have a Ford four cylinder inline sidevalve. Likewise a Spridget could use any BLMC inline four cylinder ohv engine, that would rule out a Dolly Sprint engine. A Beetle can use any VW flat four ohv engine etc, etc. Class 7 had a clause permitting production based cars modified beyond their normal class technical regulations, i.e. permitting change of engine manufacturer and configuration, change of gearbox, extensive body modifications, etc (but the regulation was later claused to include the proviso that the original production car full length chassis wheelbase is retained, don't get me started!) So the class was a catch-all for the Baja bodied VW Beetles, the one-offs such as Imp/VW, 1600 ohv engined Pops and then all the various kit cars that fitted within the wheelbase and seating position criteria laid down for the class. Simon Woodall would be able to confirm the above, or otherwise, he was also part of the technical panel at the time these regulations were written. Best regards Mr-Moustache-T6
ReplyDeleteThis isn't corrent anymore, the rule is now that as long as it is an engine of same manufacturer and configuration. for example any ford inline 4cylinder in an escort. Hence the Duratec thats appeared in Dick Bolts escort.
ReplyDelete>the rule is now that as long as it is an engine of same manufacturer and configuration. for example any ford inline 4cylinder in an escort So I could have an engine from say an Avenger or a Sunbeam in the back of my Imp and not be forced into class 7? Or the 1725cc Hunter engine? Or taking it to extremes, the 205 GTi, since Peugeot Talbot took over Chrysler in Europe and were still using the Ryton factory until last year. Not that I'd want to, theImp transaxle is not the strongest thing in the world.
ReplyDeleteOr even better stick a Lotus Sunbeam engine up the back end of your imp , then stand back and catch the flying diff bits
ReplyDeleteBlue Book Rule J68 states:-
ReplyDelete"There are no restrictions on engine tuning, providing the cylinder block is of the same manufacture and configuration as the original". Traditionally "configuration" has been interpreted as being both the layout of the cylinders and the operation of the valves. So you couldn't put an OHV engine in a car that normally has a OHC engine. However J69 sentence 2 also states that "the position of the engine mountings in the chassis may not be altered" which gives a certain amount of freedom to fabricate an adaptor, but engineering constraints would control how that might change the position of the engine.
Peugeot engine in a Imp? no way - definately not the same manufacturer. Sunbeam Talbot engine in an Sunbeam Imp, possibly, as they are both OHC, but would it fit the Imp mounts and would it fit without chopping the bodywork about?
A Midget could use a Triumph engine but not a Dolomite Sprint - OHC v OHV.
A VW Type 4 engine is the same layout Flat-4 as a Beetle, and uses the same mounts (strictly speaking, a Beetle has no engine mounts - the engine just hangs off the gearbox, and the gearbox has all the mounts)
A Reliant engine in a Austin 7 would mean that the Austin 7 was no longer a prewar car and therefore no longer eligible for Class 2 so that debate is not worth considering.
Duratec in an Escort?
ReplyDeleteSure, why not? Duratec is DOHC, but so is BDA and Lotus Twin Cam
so based on the above, a Peugoet 405 Mi16 engine in a 205 is allowed ? both PSA 4 cylinder inline OHC.
ReplyDeleteor in theory even a 405 T16 ? though maybe not as suitable for trialing but im just trying to clarify the current interpretation of these two rules.
(for those interested here's a useful breakdown of these engines : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSA_XU_engine)
or how about the diesel versions - has anyone tried trialing with a diesel turbo ??
ReplyDeleteI remain confused but at least on a higher level!
ReplyDeleteSo does that mean that as there is now an Escort with a duratec, I can now fit one in the Dutton as I think the rules says "as fitted to Escort" . . ? Sorry - a bit of a wind-up, but with a serious point. Xflow bits are still available, but at a price. But I could nip down the local breakers and get a complete, running, more modern Ford engine, for less than the price of a set of pistons for the xflow. Bri
ReplyDeleteYes you could, but you would soon find out that its not quite as cheap as you first thought. Unless you can fabricate all the bits yourself that is.
ReplyDeleteIf it applies to a Dutton then it may also apply to the Husky - as it's also Escort based - a bit lighter than the Pinto I think - out with the welder then !
ReplyDeleteSo, yes to the M16 engine in a 205. Actually I don't think that's a change of engine, its just a different head, the blocks are common. Duratec in a Dutton or Husky? Alas No, the rule does not say "as fitted to Escort", thats the gearbox. The spec sheet says quite clearly Ford Kent or Pinto. But bear in mind that The Owners Club, as well as the manufacturer can submit a different engine to ACTC for approval. (All applications to me please wrapped in a bunch of used fivers)
ReplyDeleteTurbo Diesel? Unfortunately I don't think that any of the current turbo's kick in smoothly enough to work on a trials car, with the possible exception of the very latest VW Diesels which use something called "Variable Vane Technology" which keeps the turbine spun up even at very low revs. Maybe one of the Golf hotshots would like to try one, then they could win one of the alternative fuel trophies that have started to crop up.
To clarify you last point Simon. From a rules point of view a diesel/turbo diesel could be used technically but it might not be that effective in practice.... There's no reason why anyone would want to use one but... water cooled flat four vw engine in a beetle????
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarification Simon - I didn't realy think I could change the motor in the Husky, but just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing somthing ! Out of interest could I use a Rover 220/420/820 (all same T serries motor) in the TR7 as they are both OHC motors and part of BLMC - also I think the T serries was based on the O serries as in Ital/Marina ? food for thought. ( not that there are many Marinas around now -supposedly the most scrapped car !)
ReplyDeleteThanks Simon, i thought that was the case but thought it would be best to check!
ReplyDeleteRover engine in a TR7, that would have to be taken under advisement. My instinct would be "No", as Rover and Triumph are different manufacturers and the "T" series engine was never in anything with a Triumph badge on it. Additionally, BLMC is not a manufacturer, its a holding company. The view is easy with Ford, a Ford is a Ford is a Ford.
ReplyDeleteIt gets much more complex when take-overs are involved. For example should you be allowed to fit a Ford Zetec, as fitted to the current Volvo C30 (because it is based an a Ford Focus platfom) into a DAF 66 (because that was marketed as a Volvo 66 at the end of its life). {Answers on a postcard please.....}
Watercooled FlatFour in a Beetle? easy answer, Yes, its already been done.
Sorry for the wind-up - I already knew the answer ;-). Now for a more serious question . . . a non-Ford production car that used a Ford CVH engine for part of it's life cycle. Could you back-track a touch and fit a xflow into it if you had one that worked and a CVH that didn't? Not OHC, but it's definitely OHV . . . I've wondered about low pressure turbo charging - not often that we run out of power, but occasionally when wheel speed is needed in blasting, some more power might be nice to pull 2nd. And as induction is free . . . Just need the time and enthusiasm to do it. And by the way, A&PMCC are running a car trial on the 26th on a very nice hillside between Keighley and Skipton/Colne - if anyone is interested, I can forward an entry form. Bri
ReplyDeleteDo you need some CVH bits? Got new 1600 cranks, rods, pistons and a block or two here. Also got loads of head gaskets and other odds and sods.
ReplyDeleteThanks again Simon - I will carry on with what I have got and not make more mad plans just because I happen to have some of the bits which would fit together - you never know I might actually have time to do some local events !!
ReplyDeleteHi Simon,
ReplyDeleteWould love to drop a TDI engine in the golf, unfortunatly the gearbox is also needed, too much torque for the Mk 1 gearbox.
Returning to the engine spec question, having now perused the book after the suspension question, I do see that J68 does indeed state "There are no restrictions on engine tuning, providing the cylinder block is of the same manufacture and configuration as the original". But surely that does mean the "cylinder block"? Not the assembled engine, including the cylinder head? Maybe a rule clarification might be needed? I was looking at various Ford mods on the internet - zetec blocks with CVH heads (or was it the other way round . . . getting too old to remember) - either of which would pass the letter of the rule as they are simply tuning the original block . . . I must admit that this is unlikely to bother me, as our potential new vehicle used various engines, from various manufacturers, through it's production life, both single and twin cam. Just interested in a bit of time passing, internet discussion - I'm not allowed in the garage to make mess as the house is up for sale . .. ;-) Bri
ReplyDeleteHey Bri, how long are you going to keep the folk in suspense? A Ford engine of various sizes and also other manufacturers, not in class 7 or 8? Answers on more used fivers, please. Or come and look on my drive, it won't fit in the garage at the moment. I'm going to have to change my name from Yeller Dutton to White *******
ReplyDeleteYou are righ that the rule states "cylinder block". Which is why earlier inthis thread, I said "yes" to the fitting of an M16 (twin cam) engine into a Peugeot 205 (SOHC) as the blocks are the same, just the head is different. ditto a OHIV conversion on a side-valve. But if the block originally had a cam running in it, (Pushrod OHV) and the new one doesn't (OHC) then thats a different block configuration. See?
ReplyDeleteSimon, you mean if I leave the old cam in, revolving along but doing nothing else, I can convert to a OHC head? Anyone doing an OHC conversion for Austin Seven Engines?
ReplyDeletethere might be a motorcycle cylinder head that might fit? anyone had a look at the tuning specs for that new GasGas sidevalve engine? I wonder if they've done something other sidevalvers haven't already thought of? fuel injection and an ECU for the Austin Seven??
ReplyDeleteI think I heard about the Reliant racing folk using a BMW
ReplyDeletebike head, how common are the Austin 7 dimensions?
Thomas:
ReplyDeleteIn order to retain your Class 5b status, you have to stick to prewar bits. Unless you know where there's an ex Bert Hadley twin-cam head you might be struggling, but you might know more about these cars than me.
Obviously this thread is all about Dicks duratec, and not the 'examples' that are being given. My view, if any one wants it, is that it will change class 3 as we know it. Already class 3 gets a tough time by The MCC, (eg restarts for 3,7 &8 on Blue Hills1) so this will only make things worse.
ReplyDeleteI did mean to further add to my last posting, but my pc had other ideas! All that I can see being achieved, is that the duratec will dominate class 3 until all of the other usual front runners have gone the same way. The trial organisers will make sections harder to try and stop 'em, and the guys with standard cars will have no chance at all. So where will it end? What should I do next time my motor takes a sickie?
ReplyDeleteDave - I can see your point but there is a parallel for Beetles in Class 6. Here you are technically allowed to use a type 4 engine, which immediately gives you significantly more power and greater reliability. The late Graham Brazier was very successful with this (around ten years ago) and I believe at least one other driver went this way. I felt the same as you do about the Duratec and downsized my engine so I could go in class 4 to escape the type 4's. Graham sold his car (to David Alderson and it disappeared from trialling). Since then the type 4 engines have faded away from class 6 although they are still around (John Parsons has oe in his Buggy). So maybe the Kent will survive!
ReplyDeleteMichael
Michael, I did know of the Beetle engine saga, and to be honest am surprised that it has died out. I do however believe that this could have more of an effect than you think. Picture this; A four wheel drive car, with the front drive arrangement disabled to satisfy the scrutineer, can run in class 3, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. So, that leads me to the 4wd Escort cozzy. The best way to disable the front wheels is to remove the drive gear completely. Still legal? Ok, that leaves one very light rwd saloon, which would probably be better with a duratec, so we'll fit one. Still legal? Those Escorts run 15'' wheels as well, oh, and independant rear suspension. To keep the cost down of course , I could modify an ordinary fwd shell to rwd, no need to use a genuine cozzy one is there? My car will have all of the plus points of a modern BMW, but without the weight penalty, and everything and more than an Escort could offer. But, am I losing sight of what 'production saloon' means.
ReplyDeleteDave - Now I am not always the greatest fan of the establishment. But, I believe they have the interest of the sport at heart and I am sure they would step in if things went to far! Also I am minded by a story told to me by Ian Davis (Ian - please come in and correct me if I have got this wrong). Ian decided to start serious trialling, so purchased the award winning VW buggy from the all concquering Richard Penhale. Ian did very, very badly and found that the buggey was a heap of s**t. His conclusion. Richard Penhale was a bloddy good driver. Personally I think trialling is like Moto GP. The nut controlling the throttle is the most important factor. I am very aware that my Beetle is one of the best cars in class four, and probably has the most powerful engine, but.... Michael
ReplyDeleteJust to let you know that the "establishment" is watching this one, but.....
ReplyDeleteHaving won in Ebworth and on the Exmoor Clouds against weak opposition, Dick faced Sticker Martin on the Tamar, and lost.
As for an Escort Cosworth, whether home made or not; although up to this point 4WD vehicles running in 2WD mode have ben tolerated, because their performance is rubbish, I would draw your attention to J55 last sentence which reads:-
"Four-wheel drive vehicles operating in two-wheel drive mode are not eligible, unless Permitted by SRs". It is also a moot point as to whether or not an Escort Cosworth falls within the model range of Mk5 Escorts, as it is based on a Sierra platform, NOT a modified Escort one.
Ok, I have always been on good terms with Dick, and very much intend things to stay that way, so I am going to stop holding the cats a*$e to the fire incase this is seen as being personal. I am convinced that the establishment was wrong to ok this conversion, as it will lead to declining numbers in class 3. Michael admitted that he dropped out of class 6 for the same reason, and how many more did the same? My first thoughts on reading of this were similar. I am assuming that Dicks duratec is in answer to the ever more powerfull BMWs, not the other Escorts. The fact that Sticker beat Dick on the Tamar will not carry much weight. Dicks car will be still under development, and if it starts to beat Stickers car regularly, you can rest assured that Sticker will get one too. We have also in class 3, several garage proprieters running competitive Escorts, so no problem for them going the same route.... There may be more who will have to dig deep to stay in the game, and I think lots more who will not be spending the money and will tire of being thrashed every time out. Those are the cars that will be lost from the class and probably not seen again. As I said at the start of this posting, I will say no more on the subject. Lets hope I am wrong about the eventual outcome, but I bet I am not.
ReplyDeleteJust stirring the fires a little more . . . Old, original shape Renault 5. Engine behind the front wheels, gearbox right out front. Soft, long travel suspension. Different wheelbase each side as standard due to rear suspension design. But in the same range - the R5 Turbo - with the engine in back and RWD . . . Renault Clio. FEFWD. But also in the same range, a RERWD . . . So can I take a shopping verion of either of these cars, and as the rules say, improve it within specifications of the manufacturers range? By sticking the engine in the boot! Bri
ReplyDeleteLadies and Gentlemen - Can I suggest we give this thread a rest for a while. It has raised some significant issues and Dave in particular has expressed views shared by many. However, we can't expect the ACTC/MCC to make decisions here. Simon has kindly contributed and let us know the message has been heard. Our elected officers need a chance to chew things over. In fact the correct formality for those that consider stongly about a matter is to write to the ACTC/MCC or raise them at the respective AGM's. However, I think the committees may discuss it anyway! I would like to say thanks to everyone for making their points in a friendly way (and humerous Brian!) but again I do think its best to call a halt on the debate to allow the views expressed to sink in. Michael
ReplyDeletei did start to build a renault 5 turbo replica and did ask the actc for thoughts on it ,the reply was ok but some of the rulings when carried over in to other projects were a no no ,so had the car ever seen the light of day i dought it would have been accepted in its class ,although i think its all down to how well it goes and whos complaining
ReplyDeletePolite Reminder - No More Posts on this Thread Please - See message 40 - Michael
ReplyDelete