Steel Cranks for FF1600

[Triple J Motorsport]

And at least one MS racer too

[Redracer77]

just buy a zetec or duratec

[blue nose]

But then you have to convert it to a Kent.

[mattray]

"But then you have to convert it to a Kent."

very good!!

[blue nose]

Is it true that Ford are making cranks again ?

[ff90]

My understanding is that Ford? is to do/has done the final machining but not the manufacture or inspection.

[blue nose]

Originally Posted by ff90

My understanding is that Ford? is to do/has done the final machining but not the manufacture or inspection.

Why are they making parts for a Kent it would only be in small volumes.

So would it make Hiltons illegal as it is not a Ford part .

[ff90]

Didn't say "Ford" was making them i've just been told ford is machining them but there again that comes from the same people who said the last batch was OK anyway, so it could be just to keep someone on side if happening at all. At the end of the day provied the new ones are a large inprovment on the last batch then the compain has bee a success if not the BRSCC are to blame. New crank cost £385 plus vat and carriage, SCAT $600,plus,plus for one.

[blue nose]

So it will still be like bolting a hand grenade to your engine.

[ff90]

Hope not BUT???

[Triple J Motorsport]

Originally Posted by ff90

Didn't say "Ford" was making them i've just been told ford is machining them but there again that comes from the same people who said the last batch was OK anyway, so it could be just to keep someone on side if happening at all. At the end of the day provied the new ones are a large inprovment on the last batch then the compain has bee a success if not the BRSCC are to blame. New crank cost £385 plus vat and carriage, SCAT $600,plus,plus for one.

So that's £452 plus P&P for the plastic ones and £315 plus tax and P&P for a fit and forget item!!!

[Crossflow]

There is no reason for a change to steel cranks.
1. You are not reving the engine hard at all 6800rpm you only need steel cranks for over 8000rpm.
2. alot of cranks have snapped because people don't run skid plates and let the flywheel hit the ground you will even break a steel one if you do this.
3. some are due to normal people building there engines and not getting the cranks crack tested so if it is cracked it will just let go.
4. The engine is only pushing around 500kg not alot of stress on the engine at all.

Has anyone actual found out why certain engine are blowing up????

[blue nose]

Normal people building engines.....I hope my engine builder was normal. Many of the Hilton ones are letting go after a couple of races and they are new.

I think you need to read what all the good people have put in this thread over the years

They are not steel cranks but a higher grade of cast the same material that the Zetecs use.

[kartingdad]

Originally Posted by Crossflow

There is no reason for a change to steel cranks.
1. You are not reving the engine hard at all 6800rpm you only need steel cranks for over 8000rpm.
2. alot of cranks have snapped because people don't run skid plates and let the flywheel hit the ground you will even break a steel one if you do this.
3. some are due to normal people building there engines and not getting the cranks crack tested so if it is cracked it will just let go.
4. The engine is only pushing around 500kg not alot of stress on the engine at all.

Has anyone actual found out why certain engine are blowing up????

Re your point no. 1.

So when an inadvertant overrev occurs you are agreeing that the crank can let go then.

Re your point 3. It is irrelevant who builds the engine as to whether the crank has a crack or not. The point is in fact that the crank has cracked. End of story. If an engine builder picks up on a cracked crank, then that is just lucky for the owner thast he has saved an engine, and lucky for the builder, 'cos he can flog a new crank!

I really cant see the point of not allowing people the option to fit a stronger nil performance advantage part. There is absolutely no logical reason to take such an attitude.

[Alan Raine]

Originally Posted by Crossflow

There is no reason for a change to steel cranks.
1. You are not reving the engine hard at all 6800rpm you only need steel cranks for over 8000rpm.
2. alot of cranks have snapped because people don't run skid plates and let the flywheel hit the ground you will even break a steel one if you do this.
3. some are due to normal people building there engines and not getting the cranks crack tested so if it is cracked it will just let go.
4. The engine is only pushing around 500kg not alot of stress on the engine at all.

Has anyone actual found out why certain engine are blowing up????

I agree with all you say, but only with the original cranks.

It appears the more recent batch of cranks supplied aren't up to the quality of the originals - hence the problem.

Steel cranks seemed to be a pretty good solution.

[StephenRae]

Originally Posted by Crossflow

There is no reason for a change to steel cranks.
1. You are not reving the engine hard at all 6800rpm you only need steel cranks for over 8000rpm.
2. alot of cranks have snapped because people don't run skid plates and let the flywheel hit the ground you will even break a steel one if you do this.
3. some are due to normal people building there engines and not getting the cranks crack tested so if it is cracked it will just let go.
4. The engine is only pushing around 500kg not alot of stress on the engine at all.

Has anyone actual found out why certain engine are blowing up????

I am driven to despair by some of the contributions to this thread and and usually dismiss them as uninformed pap. On this occasion I am moved to reply.

1. See how safe you feel standing next to a crossflow engine with a standard crank and flywheel which is revving at 7900.... which you say is 'safe'
2. I don't know of any post 1983 FFs which have the flywheel lower than the floorpan.
3. How do you think the cranks were cracked in the first place?
4. I wonder where you plucked that one from. Is there a book of sweeping statements I should be reading?

I acknowledge that most of us who want to change to a better crank have a vested interest and I am hoping that you will declare yours...

[A Quartermaine]

Originally Posted by Alan Raine

I agree with all you say, but only with the original cranks.

It appears the more recent batch of cranks supplied aren't up to the quality of the originals - hence the problem.

Steel cranks seemed to be a pretty good solution.

At the start of this season my crank shaft failied, it destroyed the block, sump, head, flywheel, starter, bellhousing and the put the input shaft through the gearbox. In all a rather expensive day out.

Fortunatley I have access to a vast number of spares through the good guys at my team, which has helped reduce the costs of repair. I do however retain control over the engine builder and when it next goes in I shall install a steel crank and forget about another similar blow up.

I do not see why this motion did not gain enough momentum for approval - its time to vote with your feet! The organisers sure won't settle our 10k billls for crank failure and I for one will not write another cheque for such a failure.

[ff90]

At the end of the day its the BRSCC and one person in particular!

The Cast steel crank has passed all the test asked of it by the club and scruts and still no answers the last time I asked for a formal method by which the change could be further proposed as the SCCA have in the US but nothing came of it.

I cannot help feeling the only reason for not using further Quality OE spec Pattern parts is some form of financial compensation the club gains form sticking to the current supplier something which the club members are not allowed to know about.

Hope you have better luck in the future and i'm sorry for your loss, and the club should look to the lost entry fees etc.

[Crossflow]

first reply to kartingdad it the forces that crack the cranks i've seen steel cranks from the around the same time crossflow ones would have been produced and i have seen crack in them aswell. It all down to how good the engine is treated.

Your second point you have a different understanding of it, be it any engine builder he or she should always pick up on cracks if they are doing the job properly and have the right equipment. It no about money making oppertunity. For e.g if you steel crank crack what are you going to say the the casting is **** or the cranks are ****?

stephenrae.

first of all you need to read point on again. I did not say you could rev the crossflow up to 8000, but the fact that if you were reving to 8000 all the time then you would need a steel crankshaft for the engine but were not!

A reynard 89, Van diemen 00, 01, 90 the list can go on

Can you expand on your point number three.

and the last point. the engine were designed for a four door family car weighting around 1200kg. Do you think the designers of the engine would have under speced the materials in the engine?

if you look at modern engine the crossflow is a very strong and relible engine that has gone for years in formula ford.

[blue nose]

Ten years ago the cranks did the job....But now they are made by the cheapest bidder and machined on a bamboo lathe in Turkey.

[Asp]

Whenever this thread has a resurgence, I often find myself wondering if I need to close it. Once again, I'm at that stage.

I understand that it's an emotive topic. But posting such dribble as we're beginning to see again is as far from productive as we can get. It's time to stop with hear-say; veiled attempts at humour; unfounded assumptions and personal attacks.

I am going to need to get strict on this I'm afraid guys. So don't make it difficult for me!

[Peter Mallett]

I've just received a whinging complaint from a poster and considering the quality of the posts from that individual I'm surprised the thread hasn't been closed previously. Needless to say I've taken the necessary steps.

[flat broke]

Sorry to go over this again but:

1) It is the harmonics at the RPM where our racing engines live that contributes to crank failure. You can't make sweeping statements that the standard crank should be good to 8000 RPM.

2) We are NOT revving the engines higher because of the SCAT cranks. They are not billet steel as some seem to think. They are not a performance advantage.

3) These are not "fit and forget" . Missed shifts, engine braking, ground strikes and the rest all shorten crank life. We have had failures of the SCAT crank.

4) With the US dollar weak we are paying about $800 Canadian for a SCAT crank. As crank failure usually costs us a motor, sometime a gearbox, often a racing season. At that price it becomes an item I am contemplating replacing at each rebuild.

5) I remain confused as to why there is resistance to a better crank at a reasonable cost.

[kartingdad]

Originally Posted by flat broke

Sorry to go over this again but:

1) It is the harmonics at the RPM where our racing engines live that contributes to crank failure. You can't make sweeping statements that the standard crank should be good to 8000 RPM.

2) We are NOT revving the engines higher because of the SCAT cranks. They are not billet steel as some seem to think. They are not a performance advantage.

3) These are not "fit and forget" . Missed shifts, engine braking, ground strikes and the rest all shorten crank life. We have had failures of the SCAT crank.

4) With the US dollar weak we are paying about $800 Canadian for a SCAT crank. As crank failure usually costs us a motor, sometime a gearbox, often a racing season. At that price it becomes an item I am contemplating replacing at each rebuild.

5) I remain confused as to why there is resistance to a better crank at a reasonable cost.

Re your point 5.

YOUR CONFUSED? So are we. At least you've got better quality cranks available.

We have the added benefir these days of a batch of cams from Ford that are made of plastic - the lobes are wearing out on the dyne, never mind the track.

The quality of product these days is scandalous.

[ff90]

Originally Posted by kartingdad

We have the added benefir these days of a batch of cams from Ford that are made of plastic - the lobes are wearing out on the dyne, never mind the track.

The quality of product these days is scandalous.

Sure you already know but in the Apendix D of the Ford Regs you will find this:

Recommended changes
Owing to the unavailability of entirely produced Ford
Motor Company camshafts, we strongly recommend
that Art 5.8 be modified as below:-
5.8 CAMSHAFT
a) The only permitted cam profile is that for the
Ford 1600 GT "Kent" engine production
camshaft.
b) The camshaft profile must remain entirely as
originally intended for the Ford 1600 GT "Kent"
engine, and cannot be modified. Tuftriding or
Parkerising is permitted. Shot peening, shot
blasting or polishing are prohibited. Offset
dowels are permitted.
c) The cam profile is defined by determination of
lift (L-l) against a flat footed follower at various
angles (Ø). Maximum lift at all points on the
camshaft must not be exceeded.

In the pasts people used "Kent" cams, but its my understanding that the FFI (Brscc supplier) are using Kent cams and they are failing quite quickly as happened with the ones they supplied to the mini racers some years ago which reared its head again last year. Sure Kent cams will rectify this soon

You could try Pegasus Racing supplies in the US