Which engine has the most potential for racing? I know quite a bit about the Triumph, and know that it has it's limits. So how does the old Pinto engine compare?
Which engine has the most potential for racing? I know quite a bit about the Triumph, and know that it has it's limits. So how does the old Pinto engine compare?
Here's some reading; http://www.burtonpower.com/tuning-guides/tuning-guide-pages/ford-kent-crossflow-tuning-guide.html
The Pinto is by far the engine with the most potential.
What Spohn said. Check out the forums on turbosport.co.uk or classicford.co.uk. They're still developing them. Try IK Engineering and 105Speed as well.
The link that pres posted listed a HP range of 135-145 for the kent. I know the Triumph engine can be built to easily make 160-170HP, and higher if not a street engine. So why would I want the Kent in my car instead of the Triumph?
In reply to bravenrace:
Because you don't have room for an inline 6? Or you don't want the weight of it. Anyways where do you stop in the pursuit of horsepower? What kind of car are we talking about here? Did I miss the new TVR purchase thread?
3.0 duratec?
Good enough for a Noble!
In reply to RossD:
I want to compare the pros and cons of each engine in a car that both can fit in. Its a theoretical discussion.
bentwrench wrote: 3.0 duratec? Good enough for a Noble!
Not applicable to this discussion, which is only about the 2 engines listed in my first post. 
TVR.... light. nimble....
pinto engine may make less HP, but handling, braking the big 2500 MAY cost you....
I know it doesn't fit your ideas... but I always though a Toyota 4AGE would make a great engine for an older TVR.....
oldeskewltoy wrote: TVR.... light. nimble.... pinto engine may make less HP, but handling, braking the big 2500 MAY cost you.... I know it doesn't fit your ideas... but I always though a Toyota 4AGE would make a great engine for an older TVR.....
I'm not talking about TVR's.
Having had a GT-6 with both the 2.0L and the 2.5L, and now a Morgan with a Kent based engine, a BDR. I would say that the Kent by far as more potential. The real factor is the power to weight the Kent can make. You have a choice of at least 3 different heads, the X-flow, Lotus, and Cosworth BD. On a more exotic level is the FVA, which is simply stated a 4 cyl version of the Cosworth DFV F1 engine. The Cosworth engines have almost unlimited power. The Ford RS200 was powered by a BD variant makeing somewhere around 350+- HP!
You can buy new Kent blocks from Ford, where as Triumph doesn't make cars. So there's that.
In reply to bravenrace:
As the NASCAR boys say you just can't beat cubic inches. These guys promoting the Kent aren't talking about the 1600cc push rod Pinto engine of which you speak. The box stock Euro spec FI 2500 in the TR5/6 was 150 hb stock. I know Group 44 was getting way. way more in their race TR6.
In reply to TR8owner:
Well that's what I'm really talking about. I can make 160-170hp from the 2.5 fairly easily, and up to 200hp with more work and money. I don't need more than that, so the question is which engine is better in the same (say 2000lb) car and why?
Potential for racing entails being around and running at the finish. That still leaves the Ford 2000 as the best choice.
The TR6 has a long stroke, eats thrust washers and is heavy.
BTW - why restrict the choice to those two - lots of vintage and modern engines out there.
Personally, as a former TVR Grantura racer, I'd love to see a nicely tuned 2 liter turbo Ecotec in one, but I'm not sure you'd be able to keep it on the ground with ~400 bhp/400 Tq.
"That still leaves the Ford 2000 as the best choice."
What part of the original post are you guys missing? He specifically stated the 1600cc Pinto engine. Sure you can spend a zillion bucks and get a wonderful Euro Ford variant but that's not what he was talking about.
My brother has a Lotus Europa twin cam with 3/4 cams, pistons and the Euro head with Webers but his modified TR6 with triple Webers and mods still puts out more power. The Europa is faster but only because it weighs quite a few lbs less.
Unless he has an unlimited budget then go with the Triumph 2.5.
wspohn wrote: BTW - why restrict the choice to those two - lots of vintage and modern engines out there.
Because racing has rules.
In reply to TR8owner:
Yes, thanks. This discussion is about the 1600cc Kent versus the 2500cc triumph in the same car. And I will add that we should compare them at a power level of 170hp.
I suppose it depends some on the car and how the engine choice would affect balance. Given similar HP, I lean towards the lighter engine. However, it sounds like the Triumph engine would be under less stress at 170 HP than the Kent would be.
Personally, I'd probably go with the Triumph for a few reasons. First, I'm more familiar with them (owning a GT6). Second, most vintage racing rules don't really limit much on engine internals and I know there are things you can do to the Triumph 6 to greatly increase reliability through lightening and balancing. Third, an uncorked Triumph 6 at full song is a glorious sound. 
In reply to TR8owner:
TR8owner wrote: What part of the original post are you guys missing? He specifically stated the 1600cc Pinto engine. Sure you can spend a zillion bucks and get a wonderful Euro Ford variant but that's not what he was talking about.
No, the OP has mentioned both the Kent and the Pinto inline fours. To me a Kent is an up-to 1600cc pushrod engine. A Pinto is a 2000cc OHC engine. Both were sold in some cars at the same time, like the Capri (which is why I ever thought about these) or the Pinto in the USA. I will agree that this thread seems to get both engines confused. It started pretty much from the first post; braven's thread title says Kent, his original post says Pinto. You can't really blame anyone for going after the Pinto engine at that point.
How much power can a Triumph 2500 produce safely in a reliable fashion for a long time? That would be the deciding answer to me.
Kas Kastner had his cars keeping up with the 240 Datsuns even though they were a generation ahead(at least) in terms of engine, transmission and suspension technology. His books are very interesting reading if you like to play with old Triumphs. He was getting almost 190 out of a 2 liter back in the day.
"What kind of horsepower can you get out of Triumph GT6 engines?"
Kas Kastner writes: The last engines I did for the GT-6 in 1972 made 187 bhp at 8000. This is with the stock crank, rods, valves, 1.5" Stromberg's and all the other stock stuff. It was 12.7 C.R and used 100 octane gas and the special velocity stacks I made which I see you have on your car.
This was a very reliable engine and I think the Group 44 car probably made about the same power as they were privy to everything we did and had. Brian Fuersteneau and Don Devendorf were having a ding dong trade the lead every lap race at the runoffs in 1972 and no advantage on the chutes. Don took my car off the road after coming under the bridge and that was that, but it seemed to me the cars were dead even in power. This is of course several years after your car. I would say in the 1969 time frame 170+ bhp is pretty accurate, the same power you are quoting.
My dyno's were used by Champion for spark plug work and they supplied me with their engineering plugs for experimenting and detailed reports. The same dynos were used also by the natural gas company as we were the only people that could supply TRUE numbers in repeats and from day to day.
There is only one horsepower number if the system is accurate and the operators are not fudging. I mention that because, my 170+ bhp GT-6 could pull a certain Datsun 2 liter supposed 190 bhp car right down the chute at Riverside. We always referred to my horsepower as horses having big feet with hair hanging around and they pulled beer wagons.
Geoff Byrne writes: I raced a GT6 in the 70s with a "Kastner motor" built to his specs and with his S5 cam and valve gear . With tripple 42mm Webers (worked better than the 45s) 12:1 cpmpression on avgas it had a very reliable 200hp confirmed on a reliable dyno . The only problem i had was breaking gear boxes and rear axles which was fixed by installing a TR6 box and axles. Conclusion is the 2litre motor is capable of producing a reliable 200hp if built properly.
pres589 wrote: In reply to TR8owner:TR8owner wrote: What part of the original post are you guys missing? He specifically stated the 1600cc Pinto engine. Sure you can spend a zillion bucks and get a wonderful Euro Ford variant but that's not what he was talking about.No, the OP has mentioned both the Kent and the Pinto inline fours. To me a Kent is an up-to 1600cc pushrod engine. A Pinto is a 2000cc OHC engine. Both were sold in some cars at the same time, like the Capri (which is why I ever thought about these) or the Pinto in the USA. I will agree that this thread seems to get both engines confused. It started pretty much from the first post; braven's thread title says Kent, his original post says Pinto. You can't really blame anyone for going after the Pinto engine at that point. How much power can a Triumph 2500 produce safely in a reliable fashion for a long time? That would be the deciding answer to me.
Maybe this was my error. I was just repeating what I read in an ad, that the Kent 1600 and Pinto 1600 were the same engine. If they are not, then my apologies. In any case I am concerned about comparing the Kent 1600 and the Triumph 2500. You can ignore differences in the engine weight or its effect on weight distribution in this discussion. I can compare those factors myself.
In reply to bravenrace:
Yeah, they're different;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Kent_engine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto_engine
The link I posted was to the engine I was sure you meant. The contents of this thread makes me think you can do more with the Triumph 2500 if there's up to 180hp in a reliable build of the Triumph 2000.
The early Pinto (car) had a Kent 1600cc X-flow. The later Pintos had the OHC 2000cc Pinto. As I understand it, the Pinto car and the Pinto engine were not named after one another.
You'll need to log in to post.
