Valve sizes on Lotus Esprit Heads
Discussion
Ron,
As always, Doc's specs are spot on, but realize there was also the Big Valve head which came standard on the S4s. This was the famous Zeus casting which accomodated larger valves, soory I don't have the specs available. But I have been led to believe that these valves may be retrofitted into the earlier head.
Happy Motoring!... Jim'85TE
As always, Doc's specs are spot on, but realize there was also the Big Valve head which came standard on the S4s. This was the famous Zeus casting which accomodated larger valves, soory I don't have the specs available. But I have been led to believe that these valves may be retrofitted into the earlier head.
Happy Motoring!... Jim'85TE
I believe that the S4S head had an intake valve that was 1 mm larger than the standard and the exhaust valves were no larger than standard size.
lotusguy said:
Ron,
As always, Doc's specs are spot on, but realize there was also the Big Valve head which came standard on the S4s. This was the famous Zeus casting which accomodated larger valves, soory I don't have the specs available. But I have been led to believe that these valves may be retrofitted into the earlier head.
Happy Motoring!... Jim'85TE
The big valves used in the S4s & Sport 300 were approximately 1mm larger in head diameter and they can be retrofitted into an older cylinder head.
VALVES
45° Angle of valve seats and faces
Head diameter – inlet
35.47 - 35.65 mm (1.396 - 1.404 in) -- S4
36.37 - 36.63 mm (1.432 - 1.442 in) -- S4s & Sport 300 (big valve)
30.70 - 30.90 mm (1.209 - 1.217 in) -- exhaust
Stem diameter
7.125 - 7.137 mm (0.2805 - 0.2810 in) -- inlet
7.955 - 7.970 mm (0.3132 - 0.3138 in) -- exhaust
Stem clearance in guide
0.015 - 0.053 mm (0.0006 - 0.0021 in) -- inlet
0.030 - 0.070 mm (0.0012 - 0.0027 in) -- exhaust
V a l v e c l e a r a n c e ( c o l d )
0.13 - 0.18 mm (0.005 - 0.007 in) -- inlet
0.25 - 0.31 mm (0.010 - 0.012 in) -- exhaust
VALVE SEAT INSERTS
Bore in head: standard
37.235 - 37.260 mm (1 .466 - 1.467 in) -- inlet
34.290 - 34.315 mm (1 .350 - 1.351 in) -- exhaust
+0.025 mm (0.001 in)
37.260 - 37.285 mm (1.467 - 1.468 in) -- inlet
34.315 - 34.340 mm (1.351 - 1.352 in) -- exhaust
+0.050 mm (0.002 in)
37.285 - 37.315 mm (1 .468 - 1.469 in) -- inlet
34.340 - 34.365 mm (1 .352 - 1.353 in) -- exhaust
+0.127 mm (0.005 in)
37.365 - 37.390 mm (1 .471 - 1.472 in) -- inlet
34.415 - 34.440 mm (1 .355 - 1.356 in) -- exhaust
Outside diameter of seat:
Standard
37.325 - 37.350 mm (I .4695 - 1.4705in) -- inlet
34.380 - 34.405 mm (I .3535 - 1.3545in) -- exhaust
+0.025 mm (0.001 in)
37.350 - 37.375 mm (I .4705 - 1.4715in) -- inlet
34.405 - 34.430 mm (I .3545 - 1.3555in) -- exhaust
+0.050 mm (0.002 in)
37.375 - 37.400 mm ( 1 . 4 7 1 5 - 1.4725in) -- inlet
34.430 - 34.455 mm ( 1 . 3 5 5 5 - 1.3565in) -- exhaust
+0.127 mm (0.005 in)
37.450 - 37.475 mm (I .4745 - 1.4755in) -- inlet
34.505 - 34.530 mm (I .3585 - 1.3595in) -- exhaust
VALVE SPRINGS
Dual Helical -- Type
Free length
42.2 mm (1.66 in) -- inner
44.8 mm (I .76 in) -- outer
Rate
12.99 N/mm (74.2 lb/in) -- inner
37.56 N/mm (214 lb/in) -- outer
VALVE GUIDES
Length
53.34 mm (2.100 in) -- inlet
53.34 mm (2.100 in) -- exhaust
Internal diameter (to ream after fitting)
7.153 - 7.178 mm (0.2816 - 0.2826 in) -- inlet
8.000 - 8.025 mm (0.3150 - 0.3159 in) -- exhaust
Bore in head (inlet & exhaust)
Standard
11.915 - 11.925 mm (0.4690 - 0.4695 in)
+0.025 mm (0.001 in)
11.940 - 11.950 mm (0.4700 - 0.4705 in)
+0.050 mm (0.002 in)
11.965 - 11.975 mm (0.4710 - 0.4715 in)
+0.127 mm (0.005 in)
12.040 - 12.050 mm (0.4740 - 0.4745 in)
Outside diameter of guide
Standard
II .940 - 11.950 mm (0.4700 - 0.4705 in)
+0.025 mm (0.001 in)
11.965 - II .975 mm (0.4710 - 0.4715 in)
+0.050 mm (0.002 in)
11.990 - 12.000 mm (0.4720 - 0.4725 in)
+0.127 mm (0.005 in)
12.065 - 12.080 mm (0.4750 - 0.4755 in)
Regards,
Tim Engel
Lotus Owners Oftha North
Minnesota, USA
VALVES
45° Angle of valve seats and faces
Head diameter – inlet
35.47 - 35.65 mm (1.396 - 1.404 in) -- S4
36.37 - 36.63 mm (1.432 - 1.442 in) -- S4s & Sport 300 (big valve)
30.70 - 30.90 mm (1.209 - 1.217 in) -- exhaust
Stem diameter
7.125 - 7.137 mm (0.2805 - 0.2810 in) -- inlet
7.955 - 7.970 mm (0.3132 - 0.3138 in) -- exhaust
Stem clearance in guide
0.015 - 0.053 mm (0.0006 - 0.0021 in) -- inlet
0.030 - 0.070 mm (0.0012 - 0.0027 in) -- exhaust
V a l v e c l e a r a n c e ( c o l d )
0.13 - 0.18 mm (0.005 - 0.007 in) -- inlet
0.25 - 0.31 mm (0.010 - 0.012 in) -- exhaust
VALVE SEAT INSERTS
Bore in head: standard
37.235 - 37.260 mm (1 .466 - 1.467 in) -- inlet
34.290 - 34.315 mm (1 .350 - 1.351 in) -- exhaust
+0.025 mm (0.001 in)
37.260 - 37.285 mm (1.467 - 1.468 in) -- inlet
34.315 - 34.340 mm (1.351 - 1.352 in) -- exhaust
+0.050 mm (0.002 in)
37.285 - 37.315 mm (1 .468 - 1.469 in) -- inlet
34.340 - 34.365 mm (1 .352 - 1.353 in) -- exhaust
+0.127 mm (0.005 in)
37.365 - 37.390 mm (1 .471 - 1.472 in) -- inlet
34.415 - 34.440 mm (1 .355 - 1.356 in) -- exhaust
Outside diameter of seat:
Standard
37.325 - 37.350 mm (I .4695 - 1.4705in) -- inlet
34.380 - 34.405 mm (I .3535 - 1.3545in) -- exhaust
+0.025 mm (0.001 in)
37.350 - 37.375 mm (I .4705 - 1.4715in) -- inlet
34.405 - 34.430 mm (I .3545 - 1.3555in) -- exhaust
+0.050 mm (0.002 in)
37.375 - 37.400 mm ( 1 . 4 7 1 5 - 1.4725in) -- inlet
34.430 - 34.455 mm ( 1 . 3 5 5 5 - 1.3565in) -- exhaust
+0.127 mm (0.005 in)
37.450 - 37.475 mm (I .4745 - 1.4755in) -- inlet
34.505 - 34.530 mm (I .3585 - 1.3595in) -- exhaust
VALVE SPRINGS
Dual Helical -- Type
Free length
42.2 mm (1.66 in) -- inner
44.8 mm (I .76 in) -- outer
Rate
12.99 N/mm (74.2 lb/in) -- inner
37.56 N/mm (214 lb/in) -- outer
VALVE GUIDES
Length
53.34 mm (2.100 in) -- inlet
53.34 mm (2.100 in) -- exhaust
Internal diameter (to ream after fitting)
7.153 - 7.178 mm (0.2816 - 0.2826 in) -- inlet
8.000 - 8.025 mm (0.3150 - 0.3159 in) -- exhaust
Bore in head (inlet & exhaust)
Standard
11.915 - 11.925 mm (0.4690 - 0.4695 in)
+0.025 mm (0.001 in)
11.940 - 11.950 mm (0.4700 - 0.4705 in)
+0.050 mm (0.002 in)
11.965 - 11.975 mm (0.4710 - 0.4715 in)
+0.127 mm (0.005 in)
12.040 - 12.050 mm (0.4740 - 0.4745 in)
Outside diameter of guide
Standard
II .940 - 11.950 mm (0.4700 - 0.4705 in)
+0.025 mm (0.001 in)
11.965 - II .975 mm (0.4710 - 0.4715 in)
+0.050 mm (0.002 in)
11.990 - 12.000 mm (0.4720 - 0.4725 in)
+0.127 mm (0.005 in)
12.065 - 12.080 mm (0.4750 - 0.4755 in)
Regards,
Tim Engel
Lotus Owners Oftha North
Minnesota, USA
Check your SCCA GCR. Last I checked, you're be required to have a shop-manual on hand which lists the valve sizes. The Production Rule Book actually has the valve sizes listed on the JH spec page.
If you want to build something without regard to the rules, contact Richard Raymond at West Coast Racing Cylinder Head. Richard has been installing bigger valves in JH engines for years (I think they are modified Motorcycle valves). He'll fully race port your head with the valves for about $1500.00
Also, Joe Huffaker offered to supply me with a ported head and matched cams for roughly $2500.00 a few years ago.
If you want to build something without regard to the rules, contact Richard Raymond at West Coast Racing Cylinder Head. Richard has been installing bigger valves in JH engines for years (I think they are modified Motorcycle valves). He'll fully race port your head with the valves for about $1500.00
Also, Joe Huffaker offered to supply me with a ported head and matched cams for roughly $2500.00 a few years ago.
Yep, just looking at what is out there. I have two heads, and will check them out to make sure they are servicable. No, we won't be cheating, but, I am going to check to see what is there for supply for new heads. If indeed Lotus would supply heads with bigger ports, if asked for as new parts, then indeed they can be used. Nobody forces you to scour junkyards looking for parts or paying big money to fix up old ones.
I have already see that is possible with the cams as JAE/Lotus has no NOS Jensen Healey cams and Dave Bean has no blanks to grind new ones to old specs. Of course, I can have mine re-done but lots of the IT racers take advantage of this rule where the original factory part is no longer available then you can run what the factory now specifies.
Ron
>> Edited by rlearp on Monday 18th October 23:53
I have already see that is possible with the cams as JAE/Lotus has no NOS Jensen Healey cams and Dave Bean has no blanks to grind new ones to old specs. Of course, I can have mine re-done but lots of the IT racers take advantage of this rule where the original factory part is no longer available then you can run what the factory now specifies.
Ron
>> Edited by rlearp on Monday 18th October 23:53
Ron,
Lotus re-tooled and the Zeus head is now the standard service replacement head... in terms of a machined casting. But the final assembly complete with valves, seats, guides and springs still varies per application... 907, 910, 910 S4s, etc. The port shapes are cast-in and would be part of any application. But order a complete, built replacement 907 cylinder head assembly and it will come with 907 valves and springs. You would have to order a replacement S4s/ Sport 300 cylinder head to get the 1mm larger valves with the revised head/stem shape. How far do the backdate rules stretch?
;-)
Best of luck on that.
J-H Fed-spec cams aren't available anymore? The C-cam was standard fare on all Federal Lotus 907's as well as the J-H version. Hmmm... I'm surprised. I have no info to the contrary... I'm just surprised they "can't be had".
What cam grind would be considered a rules-appropriate alternative to the C-cam? If it has to be a cam Lotus officially imported to the US, that restricts you to the C-cam or the 107 (Turbo) cam.
107... 252 Duration, .378 lift, 50-22-22-50
C-cam, 272 Duration, .340 lift, 66-26-26-66
104... 272 Duration, .410 lift, 66-26-26-66
The 104 cam would have the same event timing as the C-cam, but with much more lift and much more aggressive opening/closing ramps. Same seat to seat duration, but longer effective full-open time. If an inspector asks, just quote the 66-26-26-66 event timing and 272 duration. Casually overlook the high lift and wipe the green paint out of the pulley timing dots.
Regards & good luck,
Tim Engel
Lotus Owners Oftha North
Lotus re-tooled and the Zeus head is now the standard service replacement head... in terms of a machined casting. But the final assembly complete with valves, seats, guides and springs still varies per application... 907, 910, 910 S4s, etc. The port shapes are cast-in and would be part of any application. But order a complete, built replacement 907 cylinder head assembly and it will come with 907 valves and springs. You would have to order a replacement S4s/ Sport 300 cylinder head to get the 1mm larger valves with the revised head/stem shape. How far do the backdate rules stretch?
;-)
Best of luck on that.
J-H Fed-spec cams aren't available anymore? The C-cam was standard fare on all Federal Lotus 907's as well as the J-H version. Hmmm... I'm surprised. I have no info to the contrary... I'm just surprised they "can't be had".
What cam grind would be considered a rules-appropriate alternative to the C-cam? If it has to be a cam Lotus officially imported to the US, that restricts you to the C-cam or the 107 (Turbo) cam.
107... 252 Duration, .378 lift, 50-22-22-50
C-cam, 272 Duration, .340 lift, 66-26-26-66
104... 272 Duration, .410 lift, 66-26-26-66
The 104 cam would have the same event timing as the C-cam, but with much more lift and much more aggressive opening/closing ramps. Same seat to seat duration, but longer effective full-open time. If an inspector asks, just quote the 66-26-26-66 event timing and 272 duration. Casually overlook the high lift and wipe the green paint out of the pulley timing dots.
Regards & good luck,
Tim Engel
Lotus Owners Oftha North
Yes, the C-cam is the correct one. A casual call to sources didn't turn any up, but that doesn't mean they cannot be had. I have a set right now that are in good shape, and, might have another set but need to check the specs. I have a feeling my second set is a set of 104s, but I need to check the lift with a dial indicator.
My goal, over a period of many months, is to have two complete and running engines.
In IT nobody would care what you ran until you started winning. That said, I do not intend to do anything illegal to the car. It is the only JH running in IT and it already has a fair amount of attention focused on it from the mere fact it isn't another Honda, BMW, or Acura on the grid.
My goal, over a period of many months, is to have two complete and running engines.
In IT nobody would care what you ran until you started winning. That said, I do not intend to do anything illegal to the car. It is the only JH running in IT and it already has a fair amount of attention focused on it from the mere fact it isn't another Honda, BMW, or Acura on the grid.
Jeff,
That is a huge stretch and not my experience and understanding of the updating and backdating philosophy.
You may be thinking of the separate provision addressing replacement parts when a manufacturer is no longer in business, or replacement parts are no longer available.
Trying to prove replacement parts are NLA is extremely difficult (especially when they are plentiful). However, if the replacement part closely matches the original, there is no malice, and the part offers no competitive advantage, it's generally not challenged.
At any rate, the inspector isn't your problem, it's the guy you beat who will be lodging a protest.
If Ron gets to use a brand new Zeus head, why not a 2.2 crank or a 910 block w/ Nikasil liners? What about the transmission? Will Ron be able to 'update' to a Borg-Warner 6-speed just because the JH trans hasn't been made in 20+ years?
That is a huge stretch and not my experience and understanding of the updating and backdating philosophy.
You may be thinking of the separate provision addressing replacement parts when a manufacturer is no longer in business, or replacement parts are no longer available.
Trying to prove replacement parts are NLA is extremely difficult (especially when they are plentiful). However, if the replacement part closely matches the original, there is no malice, and the part offers no competitive advantage, it's generally not challenged.
At any rate, the inspector isn't your problem, it's the guy you beat who will be lodging a protest.
If Ron gets to use a brand new Zeus head, why not a 2.2 crank or a 910 block w/ Nikasil liners? What about the transmission? Will Ron be able to 'update' to a Borg-Warner 6-speed just because the JH trans hasn't been made in 20+ years?
rlearp said:
I have a feeling my second set is a set of 104s, but I need to check the lift with a dial indicator.
Be careful buying 104's. Jeff at JAE told me the designation has become a generic reference to any hot cam for the 9XX, and many vendors are grinding all kinds of profiles and calling them 104's. I've got a set of eBay "104"s ground by Delta Cams that I intended to install in a mild street engine. However, when I checked the lobes with a dial indicator and degree wheel, the duration was over 300° seat to seat.
Regards,
Tim Engel
Lotus Owners Oftha North
>> Edited by Esprit2 on Tuesday 19th October 17:21
Didn't buy these, they came in the trunk of the car I bought. I'll check them over though and see what the heck they are. I think they have more lift than the standard cam, you can see that with your eye ~0.1" isn't hard to see when you hold them up to another cam but the dial indicator will tell.
Ron
>> Edited by rlearp on Tuesday 19th October 04:46
Ron
>> Edited by rlearp on Tuesday 19th October 04:46
Judson, I agree with you. I don't like the rule, but it is used in practice in IT. The VWs use what is called a "G" grind cam that never came stock on the cars, and the Datsun 510s get to use aftermarket cams because the originals are no longer available.
Again, we agree in concept, just letting you know that things in IT world aren't always what they seem to be.
Example: who would have thought that allowing "any" chip that fits the stock ECU mount would result in $4,000 plug in Motec engine management systems that are built to fit in the stock ECU mount? Certainly not the intent of IT, but take a look at most of the BMWs and Acuras on the grid. They run these things.
Again, not debating you on intent, just letting you know that, especially in the last 3-4 years, the IT world has moved farther and farther from its original intent to more of a "true" racing series -- for better or for worse.
Again, we agree in concept, just letting you know that things in IT world aren't always what they seem to be.
Example: who would have thought that allowing "any" chip that fits the stock ECU mount would result in $4,000 plug in Motec engine management systems that are built to fit in the stock ECU mount? Certainly not the intent of IT, but take a look at most of the BMWs and Acuras on the grid. They run these things.
Again, not debating you on intent, just letting you know that, especially in the last 3-4 years, the IT world has moved farther and farther from its original intent to more of a "true" racing series -- for better or for worse.
Jeff, no doubt on the Motec stuff, it burns me up. How that is legal is way beyond me.
And, Judson, in response to your 2.2L crank - intersting story. I asked an SCCA tech inspector about where I could get some good crank work done. He told me. I made the comment well, I could purchase a new 2.2L crank no problem, although it would be illegal. His response, "Probably not a bad idea, besides, it is just IT racing".
I will use the date rule to run a 5 speed though, although a Jensen/Getrag 5 speed and not a Toyota replacement.
Unfortunately there are a lot of bad things going on in IT but with no real way to catch it. I am not going to become one of them, but, what you mention above is just a tip of an iceberg that is the illegal things in the class.
>> Edited by rlearp on Tuesday 19th October 18:51
And, Judson, in response to your 2.2L crank - intersting story. I asked an SCCA tech inspector about where I could get some good crank work done. He told me. I made the comment well, I could purchase a new 2.2L crank no problem, although it would be illegal. His response, "Probably not a bad idea, besides, it is just IT racing".
I will use the date rule to run a 5 speed though, although a Jensen/Getrag 5 speed and not a Toyota replacement.
Unfortunately there are a lot of bad things going on in IT but with no real way to catch it. I am not going to become one of them, but, what you mention above is just a tip of an iceberg that is the illegal things in the class.
>> Edited by rlearp on Tuesday 19th October 18:51
Jeff, Ron,
I think we're all in agreement. What the rules say and what people are getting away with are two different things. It all seems to revolve around the concept of, "It's not illegal until you get caught".
As we've discussed Ron, first priority is getting on the track and having some fun. While I really want you to blow the doors off the BMW325s and leave every RX7 in the dust...I won't be holding my breath until you get the car sorted-out.
Like we've all hinted, I wouldn't worry about the rules until you start winning. Even then, your competitors and even the tech inspector aren't going to know what to look for unless it's explicited stated in the GCR/ITSpecs or the JH service manual.
Let me know if you need an extra crewman next time you're at Road-A, Berber, or Roebling.
Judson
I think we're all in agreement. What the rules say and what people are getting away with are two different things. It all seems to revolve around the concept of, "It's not illegal until you get caught".
As we've discussed Ron, first priority is getting on the track and having some fun. While I really want you to blow the doors off the BMW325s and leave every RX7 in the dust...I won't be holding my breath until you get the car sorted-out.
Like we've all hinted, I wouldn't worry about the rules until you start winning. Even then, your competitors and even the tech inspector aren't going to know what to look for unless it's explicited stated in the GCR/ITSpecs or the JH service manual.
Let me know if you need an extra crewman next time you're at Road-A, Berber, or Roebling.
Judson
Judson,
Me too on the "blow some door off the BMWs and RX7s with Lotus power" but it will be a long time coming. And you are right, I need seat time now.
I just get slightly discouraged when I see what is going on in IT since this is supposed to be the cheapest and most accessible form of SCCA racing.
But, even so, I don't think anyone should even attempt it unless they've got about $15k laying around that can be used for racing. I'm CHEAP and do a lot myself, but to get this Jensen racing is going to cost about $9k or so, and that is even with me making a fair amount of money parting the Jensen out.
I suppose one could get by with less racing a Honda/Acura/VW, but, then one would be racing a Honda/Acura/VW. Just kidding of course, racing is good no matter what your're racing, I just needed rear wheel drive since that is all I know.
Jeff and I were just down at Roebling (Savannah) racing his TR8. If I had known you were close we could have meet up and had some beers with you and we can always use help at the track.
BTW, I now have two complete JH motors and it looks like one is just fine - that is, decent compression, good bits, etc. to run as a stocker to get cracking. I'm pleased as money is getting tight, anymore farmed out and the Minister of Domestic Affairs will put a budgetary freeze on all capital outlays effectively shutting down Team Earp - Powered by Lotus motorsports.
Me too on the "blow some door off the BMWs and RX7s with Lotus power" but it will be a long time coming. And you are right, I need seat time now.
I just get slightly discouraged when I see what is going on in IT since this is supposed to be the cheapest and most accessible form of SCCA racing.
But, even so, I don't think anyone should even attempt it unless they've got about $15k laying around that can be used for racing. I'm CHEAP and do a lot myself, but to get this Jensen racing is going to cost about $9k or so, and that is even with me making a fair amount of money parting the Jensen out.
I suppose one could get by with less racing a Honda/Acura/VW, but, then one would be racing a Honda/Acura/VW. Just kidding of course, racing is good no matter what your're racing, I just needed rear wheel drive since that is all I know.
Jeff and I were just down at Roebling (Savannah) racing his TR8. If I had known you were close we could have meet up and had some beers with you and we can always use help at the track.
BTW, I now have two complete JH motors and it looks like one is just fine - that is, decent compression, good bits, etc. to run as a stocker to get cracking. I'm pleased as money is getting tight, anymore farmed out and the Minister of Domestic Affairs will put a budgetary freeze on all capital outlays effectively shutting down Team Earp - Powered by Lotus motorsports.
Judson, would love to have you along.
The "classic" ITS cars still have a chance I think. There is a guy in the midwest who is quick with a TR8, wins some at Gateway against smaller fields and runs top 5 at Mid-Ohio against good S cars. 240zs still win races, including the ARRC.
I guesstimate my car at around 160 or 170 crank hp right now. 20 more or so and I will have a power/weight ratio close to second gen RX7s and far more torque. Ron believes the 20 is there, so I'm hopefull that with seat time and development, I can run top 10. I did not feel that way after my first year.
In many respects, I think the J-H has even more potential than the 8. It's weight is extraordinarily light -- 2240 with driver and fuel. If Ron can get 150 or 160 hp out of the motor (and you should know better than anyone if header/port matching/compression bump will do that) I think he will be a factor at Roebling and CMP, and decent at VIR and Road Atlanta.
The J-H is a very interesting car from a developmental and racing perspective. Long wheel base (good, in my view), driver far to the back, probably decent weight distribution, LIGHT weight, nice A-arm suspension up front. I see it stopping fairly well, turning in ok, and being very fast and stable in high speed sweepers. If you keep the revs up, I see a good solid amount of power up off the corner. I'm not sure there is any direct equivalent in IT today, as my TR8 is certainly more of a mini-wheelbased brute, and 240zs are more torquey as well.
I am really interested in what the car will do in Ron's 2nd and 3rd years. He's got a lot of good ideas and technical knowledge. If he can get past the first year "gee I am slow, must be the car" mentality that we all have (I sure did) I think that sweet white Jensen-Healey might surprise some people.
It's an odd word to use with a car, but I just think the J-H is a classy, elegant race car. Nice long lines, very low when lowered, cool dash, advanced motor and front suspension. Nothing else like it.
The "classic" ITS cars still have a chance I think. There is a guy in the midwest who is quick with a TR8, wins some at Gateway against smaller fields and runs top 5 at Mid-Ohio against good S cars. 240zs still win races, including the ARRC.
I guesstimate my car at around 160 or 170 crank hp right now. 20 more or so and I will have a power/weight ratio close to second gen RX7s and far more torque. Ron believes the 20 is there, so I'm hopefull that with seat time and development, I can run top 10. I did not feel that way after my first year.
In many respects, I think the J-H has even more potential than the 8. It's weight is extraordinarily light -- 2240 with driver and fuel. If Ron can get 150 or 160 hp out of the motor (and you should know better than anyone if header/port matching/compression bump will do that) I think he will be a factor at Roebling and CMP, and decent at VIR and Road Atlanta.
The J-H is a very interesting car from a developmental and racing perspective. Long wheel base (good, in my view), driver far to the back, probably decent weight distribution, LIGHT weight, nice A-arm suspension up front. I see it stopping fairly well, turning in ok, and being very fast and stable in high speed sweepers. If you keep the revs up, I see a good solid amount of power up off the corner. I'm not sure there is any direct equivalent in IT today, as my TR8 is certainly more of a mini-wheelbased brute, and 240zs are more torquey as well.
I am really interested in what the car will do in Ron's 2nd and 3rd years. He's got a lot of good ideas and technical knowledge. If he can get past the first year "gee I am slow, must be the car" mentality that we all have (I sure did) I think that sweet white Jensen-Healey might surprise some people.
It's an odd word to use with a car, but I just think the J-H is a classy, elegant race car. Nice long lines, very low when lowered, cool dash, advanced motor and front suspension. Nothing else like it.
Gassing Station | Esprit | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff