if you want to make over the 150bhp it is indeed very expensive
i will not say how much i've spent on the engine (incase SWMBO
reads this) but it was more than a grand more than the delux kit but
with about 160bhp it goes ditch
can anyone tell me what the "standard" bhp output for a 1600 and 2000 pinto actually is?
I see all sorts of claims for uprated output, but from what?
cheers
http://www.burtonpower.com/technical_1/sohc_pinto.aspx
The Pinto engine seems to have been around for ever and its strengths and weaknesses ought to be well known by now. For what is basically a very
simple engine design there are complexities, especially in the valve train, that mean that many tuned engines don't realise anything like their
full potential. Made over the years in 1.3, 1.6, 1.8 and 2 litre capacities, it is mainly the 2 litre that is of interest for tuning purposes. Anyone
with a smaller engine would do well to fit a 2 litre as a first step - they are plentiful enough in breakers yards. 100 bhp per litre is just about
possible with the Pinto engine but it takes very good head work and attention to detail in the valve train. Not many rally/race spec engines actually
make more than 160 bhp if they are put together from off the shelf parts. Copyright David Baker and Puma Race Engines
[Edited on 25/1/08 by Mr Whippy]
1600 about 84
2000 about 100
2000 with injection head about 105 to 110
add a four branch exhaust a 285 cam and a DGAS weber from a 3litre V6 close to 130
After this its head work to about 150 after this its really special work and lots of money
Have a look at Vulcan engineering for power outputs and cost
[Edited on 25/1/08 by snapper]
less life aswell
Lots of people over quote there BHP the only true test is a rolling road.
The head and the valve train is the key to good bhp in the Pinto.
There are lots of little tricks that will give you a few extra bhp, a very good start is the single overhead cam injection engine, the rods will go to
7200 helping a lumpy cam to work, the head has much better inlet flow with a smoother short side turn.
A thinner head gasket will give 0.5 to 0.7 increase in compression ratio.
a 285 or 300 duration cam could add 15 to 20bhp
I have a letter from Ford technical department stating that my 2.0l Pinto May 1988 with 2V Weber produces 105 bhp in standard form
quote:
Originally posted by snapper
1600 about 84
[Edited on 25/1/08 by snapper]
i seem to recall from the haynes manual that the 1600cc had 74 bhp and the 2000cc had 105 to 108Bhp
if you want to make over the 150bhp it is indeed very expensive i will not say how much i've spent on the engine (incase SWMBO
reads this) but it was more than a grand more than the delux kit
but with about 160bhp it goes
ditch
Its an engine that responds very well to a bit of boost 
Cheap way to get 160 ponies plus
I have a Janspeed pinto turbo manifold I may be persuaded to sell if you twist my arm hard enough!
I have a pinto that has 140 bhp at the rear wheels that was on a r/road so what % do you use to work out the fly wheel bhp ?
Jacko
Thanks guys, that was what I wanted.
so 1600= about 80bhp and 2000=about 100bhp
At least now I can work out where Im going.
Lee if we can help in any way just ask
Jacko
turbo on carbs or on efi?
quote:
Originally posted by jacko
I have a pinto that has 140 bhp at the rear wheels that was on a r/road so what % do you use to work out the fly wheel bhp ?
Jacko
quote:
Originally posted by DarrenW
At boggs mine made 120 at wheels and they estimated flywheel to be approx 140
)
Mine is stock standard 2.0 bottom end thats done about 50K. Flywheel lightened a bit (just the mass taken off the back, not undercut in any way).
Injection head, diy ported, 40" skim, seats recut but not 3 angled. FR32 cam (not really wild enough for a sports car but ticks over nice and
power delivery is really smooth). Megajolt ignition, 4 - 2 - 1 stainless system (Mac#1 using vizard principles). Fuelling taken care of by set of
ZZR1100 carbs on boggs manifold.
120bhp doesnt sound a lot but im fairly confident its a true figure (i wonder if a different tuner could feasibly report 130 without touching the
car??). Car certainly shifts a bit. It has been said that a bit more care on the valve train and a better cam could see a bit more.
I've been told there isn't much in it between the piper 285 and kent FR32, but they are a bit different on paper and I haven't tried
either yet.
*Piper 285 -> PB= 2200-7000, In. dur= 270°, Ex. dur= 290°, lift= 11.81mm
*Kent FR32 -> PB= 2500-7000, In. dur= 285°, Ex. dur= 280°, In. lift= 11.22mm, Ex. Lift= 10.92
*Piper A8 -> PB= 2800-7800, dur= 304°, lift= 12.7mm
but there are loads of different ones for pinto's
*Piper 300 -> PB= 2500-7500, dur= 292°, lift= 12.57mm
*Piper 320 -> PB= 4000-8500, dur= 322°, lift= 13.7mm
*Piper 947 -> PB= 3000-7900, dur= 300°, lift= 12.95mm
never mind the other piper ones, kent ones, burton ones, newmans, holbay........... and most are designed for race/ rally or road but with heavy cars
- so all you can do is try one that someone you trust recommends
rather than lighten the flywheel I've got a steel flywheel (5.5kg with ring gear from burtons - far too expensive, but I needed it to fit the
crank & clutch I wanted) and the exhaust is the Dax std. one (4-1)
I've also had the bottom end balanced (piston, rods, crank, flywheel & clutch) and got a vernier cam pulley (kent steel one)
I've had the absolute min. skimmed off the block and then the pistons where topped by about 0.060" [1.5mm] to correct there CR height
(I'm using longer cossie rods) and make them flush to the top of the block - then the head was skimmed to bring up the ratio the rest of the way
(I'm not sure how much he took off in the end)
are the ZZR1100 carbs much bigger than the ZX9R ones ?
(BTW - mine is definatly not a 'locost' pinto, it would be cheaper to get a std. 2.0 duratec )
[Edited on 30/1/08 by mcerd1]
[Edited on 30/1/08 by mcerd1]
Our local engine builder says there is quite a bit to gain by machining the block height and matching the cylinder head. He also swares by retaining
the 2.0 capacity but paying attention to head porting, valve train geometry and balancing. Same guy built Mookaloid a very nice Pinto. He also gets
his cams made to won spec which certainly seem to work (but wont say what the spec is) - AndyD has one in his.
It sounds like you may be a touch above 120bhp when that is finished.
Im not sure how those carbs compare, i think the ZZR chokes are around 41mm.
When you say a 'touch above 120' are you meaning at the wheels ? (he asks hopefuly)
I'm not aiming too high just now anyway, just a little more than standard and get it tested and on the road, then I'll sort the head later
when want some more power (maybe even a cossie NA head - if I can find a cheap one lol )
quote:
Originally posted by DarrenW
Im not sure how those carbs compare, i think the ZZR chokes are around 41mm.
quote:
Originally posted by mcerd1
quote:
Originally posted by DarrenW
At boggs mine made 120 at wheels and they estimated flywheel to be approx 140
what's the spec of your engine ?
that's about the kind of power I'm hoping for when I (eventually) get my car on their rollers
I've got an EFI head with 3 angle valve seats and nothing else done yet and a Piper 285 cam
The blocks bored to 93mm (2090cc) and the head & block have been skimmed to take the CR up to ~11:1
and I'll be running it on ZX9R carbs (from Boggs) and Megajolt (from PaulF)
anyone want to guess how it'll do..... (assuming I put it together right of course
quote:
Originally posted by jacko
I will guess at 140bhp at the rear wheels .
your engine spec is about the same as mine
)
quote:
Originally posted by lee
Thanks guys, that was what I wanted.
so 1600= about 80bhp and 2000=about 100bhp
At least now I can work out where Im going.
Silk purse from a rotting sow's ear.
A standard 1.4 K16 produces more real power than a 2 litre Pinto.
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Silk purse from a rotting sow's ear.
The car I am thinking of putting a pinto into is an RMB Gentry, (Triumph Herald base, and an Alluminium body) which is a replica of a 1955 MGtf. So,
with a long and VERY narrow bonnet it is a question of space.
I doubt a dohc would squeeze in, also, as the car is so light (about700kg)
I really dont need masses of bhp to push it around. Besides which 1960's brakes, steering and suspenders coupled with a pokey engine would be a
scary prospect!!
So the basic idea is to end up with a fun car, stay alive, and for it to be reliable.
Sorry forgot to mention.
Original engine had a MASSIVE 55bhp
present engine (1500 spitfire) about 71bhp
so going to a pinto 2L at about 100bhp would be a huge hike in power, couple that to a type9 5 speed, and the result should be more than
"adequate"
[Edited on 31/1/08 by lee]
2 litre Pinto engine and box is an awful lot heavier than the Triumph ones.
The Pinto was a dog when it came out in 1970. It had such a bad reputation than in 1975 when it was put in the Transit in place of the awful Essex
V4 a lot of fleet managers put pressure on Ford to put the 1600 Xflo in the Transit 75 instead.
If you are concerened about braking the massive weight of a Pinto & type 9 isn't a good move.
The only real fault the Triumph 1500 engine has is a tendancy to big endbearing wear.
quote:
Originally posted by DarrenW
quote:
Originally posted by britishtrident
Silk purse from a rotting sow's ear.
Ooooh you bitch
Some people rebuild old cars rather than buying a cheaper faster new one - there is just something about the old stuff.
Cant argue with the 16V comments, we live and learn eh!!
Mcerd1 - oil pump drive and VR bracket arent as bad as they sound to sort out. Le me know if i can be of any assistance when the time comes to fabricate the bits. Ive had less success with throttle position sensor so if your carbs have one built in you are onto a winner.
Edit to ad - yes bhp at wheels.
[Edited on 31/1/08 by DarrenW]
PS our old road rally sierra with a fairly basically tuned pinto 2.0, could push 0-60 in under 8 secs (quicker than my 2.9i xr4x4) was totally reliable, fairly economical on either 38dgas or 32-36dgas carb, total engine budget was under £290 and the car was a hoot!
I've got a a dimensioned drawing of a std. 1.8 zetec that I can e-mail you (to your hotmail account once I find it)
quote:
Originally posted by DarrenW
Cant argue with the 16V comments, we live and learn eh!!
] quote:
Originally posted by DarrenW
Mcerd1 - oil pump drive and VR bracket arent as bad as they sound to sort out. Le me know if i can be of any assistance when the time comes to fabricate the bits. Ive had less success with throttle position sensor so if your carbs have one built in you are onto a winner.
)