50 replies to this topic

[High Chair]

Dan,

Do all of your engines receive the same level of craftsmanship? When you build an engine for say a 99, do you take the time to go through each one the same way?

[Dan Tiley]

Dan,

Do all of your engines receive the same level of craftsmanship? When you build an engine for say a 99, do you take the time to go through each one the way the same way?

 

Yes, but the build process is actually ALOT more detailed than shown in the video.  During the build, we also measure & log everything in the bottom end as well such as: weights of rods, pistons, crank, plus take dozens of measurements of the pistons, bores, ring end gaps, crank journals, rod bores, crank end play, piston to deck, etc., all down to the ten-thousandth of an inch (X.XXXX in).  We also CC & Whistle every engine and record that as well on the specific engine build sheet.    The video was moreso intended to show how compliance checks are made, than to show the engine build process.

 

Thanks Jamie.

[Dan Tiley]

Dan, very well done.  I will be sending this out to all NASA regions for the folks in Tech to review.  Keeping SCCA and NASA in lock step in tech is my new mantra for the few next years.  This goes a long way of those areas of the county that haven't done much tech in the past.  Thank you.

 

Thanks John....  yes, feel free to share as you see fit.  I think we'll all appreciate as much consistency in rules & tech between NASA and SCCA as possible.

[Dan Tiley]

Seems like the guy holding the tool to check the debur better have pretty steady hands? Does that tool rest against anything so it can't move while measuring?

 

It's a tough measurement to make, for sure.  There's really no guides or anything to hold the tool in place.

[LarryKing]

The audio is fuzzier than Dan's beard. I mean that in a constructive, positive way.

[Jim Drago]

It's a tough measurement to make, for sure.  There's really no guides or anything to hold the tool in place.

It is very confidence inspiring when they tell you are over by .25 mm on a procedure done by hand where there is a .50 mm in casting highs and lows, I can assure you

[Bench Racer]

Best Answer

Jim, have you view measured with a 3 X magnifying mirror? Dan, better than normal mirror??? I'm in the process of procuring a 3 X mignifying mirror, not that I do engines, want to experience viewing STR 3 X.

EDIT:
Does the CCC use a 3 X mirror along with measuring tool?

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Dan or Jim have either of you ever found a factory cam that was out of spec ?

Or any other factory engine parts out of spec ?

[FTodaro]

Jim, have you view measured with a 3 X magnifying mirror? Dan, better than normal mirror??? I'm in the process of procuring a 3 X mignifying mirror, not that I do engines, want to experience viewing STR 3 X.

Can we change your name to 3X or just XXX?

[Dan Tiley]

Dan or Jim have either of you ever found a factory cam that was out of spec ?

Or any other factory engine parts out of spec ?

 

With exception of cams damaged by oiling issues or crash damage.... No, I haven't.  

 

Regarding other parts... I've had just a few rods that were under the min weight spec, out of the hundreds that I've measured and logged.  When I was on the SMAC, we did a statistical study of a large sample set of rod weights, and made sure that the spec covered over 99% of all stock, unmodified rods.    

 

There were alot of '99 heads that had factory plunge cuts deeper than 9mm (old rule), but we updated that rule in the SMAC a couple years ago to 12 mm (same as the 1.6L spec) to accommodate that.

 

I suspect other builders have found a few anomalies as well.

[Jim Drago]

Dan or Jim have either of you ever found a factory cam that was out of spec ?

Or any other factory engine parts out of spec ?

Not the way Dan tested them( peak lift), but on the cam doctor yes we have. The spec was even changed as many of the cams have compliance issues at low lift. there used to be a spec at .010 lift ( where the cam does not even contact the lifter in most cases) that lots of cams failed. But I agree with Dan, peak lift, rarely are they off. It is rarely all the lobes, one lobe here or there is out. 

[wheel]

I was surprised how well the 1.5 mm showed up, with the magnifier.  Pretty obvious that those were under.  

wheel

[pitbull113]

Thanks for posting this.

[Alberto]

Insightful, education video.  

 

Makes me very glad that I have no interest in Nationals/Majors and expo$ing myself to all that work.

[Chris Windsor]

Now we know how they should be measuring, Great video Dan!

 

At least now the home builder and take the video to their machine shop and make an effort to do their own compliance check when their motor is being refreshed etc.

 

Should there be more areas defined by video? Not just for the racer but for tech to have the know how

 

Like how to use the whistler and other tech tools on the Miata's

 

Jim Drago maybe there should be a section added for approved tutorial video's - for tech to easily find and review?

[Steve Scheifler]

Speaking of non-compliant stock parts...

 

Brand new 1.6 manifold from Mazda, delivered today. A blind tech person with no fingers wouldn't pass this.  Every hole, all the way around on the flange and a lot of grinding on the welds.

 

Can't blame Mazda or their suppliers.  These aren't SM parts they are stock replacements or equivalent for street cars that are long past any obligation to maintain inventory.  But what are we supposed to do?  The one I bought about seven years ago wasn't this bad but it wouldn't have passed tech either, so I swapped a buddy for one from a street car.

 

It will only get worse and involve more parts and more cars.  We need a solution for this.

 

[B(Kuch)Kucera45]

Are you saying that is a new part Steve ?

If it is holy crap that's ugly !

[SaulSpeedwell]

 

Speaking of non-compliant stock parts...

 

Brand new 1.6 manifold from Mazda, delivered today. A blind tech person with no fingers wouldn't pass this.  Every hole, all the way around on the flange and a lot of grinding on the welds.

 

Can't blame Mazda or their suppliers.  These aren't SM parts they are stock replacements or equivalent for street cars that are long past any obligation to maintain inventory.  But what are we supposed to do?  The one I bought about seven years ago wasn't this bad but it wouldn't have passed tech either, so I swapped a buddy for one from a street car.

 

It will only get worse and involve more parts and more cars.  We need a solution for this.

 

 

 

 

After realizing I had probably flushed $174.76 down the toilet, I sent a similar pic of my brand new Mazda replacement header to Mazda and Ty (the cool Runoffs Scrut guy at our first Runoffs in 2006) in hopes I wouldn't be DQ'd for all those grinder and flapsander marks .... and then spent a few years trying to get everyone to approve a rule to allow removal of internal welds and alow external welds to retain structural integrity.  For $150 or a couple hours of DIY sander roll effort, the header playing field would have been level again?

 

But  - the "nuns" screamed bloody murder and claimed Spec Miatas would instantly turn into $70K Production cars that would unleash 5-12 qts of Accusump-bolstered Redline onto the track every 39 minutes if the car and the driver didn't both drink a 50 weight kale smoothie before every session .... 

 

...and thus ....

 

..... flowed 1989/1990 Miata headers sold for $500 and would crack if you sneezed on them ....

 

....while anyone naive enough to buy a new header would have something like what your photo shows ...

 

 ....so... "we" started porting and sandblasting newer headers to look as good but no better (THE HORROR! THE HORROR!) than the 1989/1990 headers ....

 

 ... but it was still way cheaper than $500! ...

 

... and then ...

 

....nobody cared about 1.6s anymore ....

[Steve Scheifler]

Yep, well done Dan, though as mentioned in the video not exactly the way tech should do some of it, so it isn't a suitable training tool.  However, any racer who doesn't know much about engines might benefit from a better understanding of what's inside.

 

That said, I would add a few comments and observations, all meant as constructive.  As Dan mentioned, the video tear down doesn't go nearly as deep as tech could, and should if they expect to find anything on a front-runner's car in the future.

 

Whistler - the actual motion of the piston, even moving slowly, can impact the reading.  In tech they should turn-stop, turn-stop, allowing the reading to stabilize each time.  The cylinder should be blown out and reasonably free of fuel fumes.  And although mentioned in the video you may have missed it, the temperature setting needs to be that of the air in the engine.  That probably isn't the same as ambient until long after you come off track.

 

Camshafts - I don't know about the newer cars but for the 1.6 there were cam "blanks" from the stock castings, so a simple visual ID was pointless.  There is enough potential from the rest of the cam profile that it would be stupid to also grind one with too much max lift.  Unfortunately this is one of the most difficult things to tech, so very tempting.

 

Head Height/Thickness - I don't think Dan mentioned this but a quick measurement of the head thickness is an easy one to check while it's off.  I'm not sure why this really matters if your compression passes, but someone would find a way to abuse it if no minimum exists. There is an impact on cam timing and therefore the power curve, I'm just not sure there is anything magic about the FSM number. And a thicker head gasket solves most of the problems. Perhaps spec a minimum including gasket. Probably not.

 

Valve Springs - I don't know about the later engines but you can't rely on anything with the 1.6.  Multiple very different variants are out there, all from Mazda.  The early "diamond wire" springs are probably what the FSM was written on but later engines, the crates, and what you get new today, are all different springs.  Many don't meet the FSM minimum length, have a different wire size AND wire shape.  Good luck to tech on inspecting them.

 

Valve Spring Retainers - No mention of inspecting these in the video but we did at least see that a magnet picked them up, so that's a start.   Don't write these off as completely irrelevant. 

 

Pop quiz: Which stock 1.6 valve spring retainers offer an advantage, what is the advantage, and how do you identify the "good" parts? (The difference is in the design, not part-to-part manufacturing tolerances.)   The first person, individual or pro builder, to PM me with the right answer wins a prize and proves he is a true 1.6 engine expert.  I wonder if Karl is still lurking, he might know.

 

Valve Seats - An oversight in the video but I'm sure tech will look more closely at the valve seats to see if there are no more than the three allowed angles and that they are clean cuts without radiused edges.  And I've never been clear about replacing the seats.  The 1.6 FSM has you junk the head rather than replace them, but I know many have replaced them as SOP repair/overhaul.  What about the FSM on later engines?  Karl was probably the first master of taking advantage of these, but surely not the last. Are there enough heads to toss one after just a couple valve jobs?  Heck, we can't even add shims as per the FSM!!  We need to reverse that terrible decision and get clarification on seats if tech is finally getting picky.

 

Cam Journals - Probably nothing much here but I suppose someone is probably super-polishing these to reduce minuscule friction.  Is it OK to "service" them if they get scored or bind a bit?

 

Pistons - The visual ID from the top is all you can do without further tear down, but once they come out there is more to check.  Weight of course, and as I recall the minimum is well below anything I have weighed.  (we still don't have weights for the overbore sizes?). As we learned years ago on the Sunbelt 1.6, there are nearly identical pistons for that engine with a slightly lower compression height (distance from pin to crown) which allows you to shave more off the block to get it straight relative to the crank, but not end up with pistons sticking too far out of the hole.  I don't know if something similar exists for the other engines, but if I were in tech I would be looking.  I would also be checking for coatings on the piston skirt.  Probably not the obvious stuff we found in the REs years ago, but possibly a more stealth variety.

 

Rings - We are limited to OEM rings now so hopefully nobody is still using the low-tension stuff we found years ago, but they should be checked. Exactly how do we identify OEM?

 

Connecting Rods - I weighed over 30 stock 1.6 rods the other day and the variance between heaviest and lightest is less than the difference between the lightest and the allowed minimum.  Makes me think that the rules are based on already lightened parts.  So if we have a minimum weight, why not just allow us to get there? I hate this kind of rule because the strictly honest guy is his own worst enemy.  Besides weight they should be of the correct length and free of any machining other than, arguably, standard re-sizing of the big end. 

 

Crankshaft - Once it's out weight is easy to check, but what about balancing?  Stock ones already have drill holes so this would be hard to prove if done carefully.  But I do wonder how many out there are close to the minimum weight.  Probably a lot more than came that way.  Again, if we have a minimum, let us get there.  I don't think there is any real issue with bearings, and anything else significant you could do would be too obvious. Maybe.

 

Oil Squirters - As we saw on the Sunbelt tear down, plugging the oil squirters was a bad idea because in addition to reducing "windage"and supplying more oil pressure to other areas, it reduced cylinder lubrication and cooling of the underside of the pistons, leading to multiple problems.  But those were completely plugged and I would not rule out the possibility that someone is still messing with these in some way.

 

Others? - There are probably more engine internal things I haven't thought of here, and plenty more external.  And that's the problem. Tech can't possibly check everything very often, and trying to "write paper" without almost certain knowledge is futile and expensive, not to mention politically challenging.  We don't need more protests, we need fewer cheaters, but we'll have to settle for better tech.

 

In summary, while Dan's video is worth watching, if you are interested in how you might be getting beat you probably aren't going to learn it there.  Too basic.  No sensible front-runner would be non-compliant on any of the measurements shown, or most of the ones listed above.   Then again, I probably would have said the same thing 6 months ago, so what do I know?

[TrailBrake]

Terrific video. That must have taken a lot of time and effort to put together. Great job.

 

Quick note for the non technical folks - a dial verniers (calipers) like he used for the bores will not give an accurate measurement because of the bore ridge. It's noted in the video that you would use a bore gauge or snap gauge, but I thought it would be good for people to know why.