HiTech Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 10.4 GOOD BUDDYS . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDish2 Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 1-Crew, There is no restriction other than listed under section G. for using the truck crank or the Esslinger crank, reference section H. The crankshafts on a 83-87 ranger block and 74-88 pinto/mustang are the exact same and would be legal to switch per TPS rules that you listed. The blocks in these two application use the same crank, rods, aux. shaft, the only item that is not interchangable is the pistons due to the original bore of the blocks. I know all these internals are free. I was refering that the blocks would not be interchangable under TPS rules but to naked eye these (2) blocks are casted exactly the same execpt for the bore. Under the rules: Unless authorized by TPS official, the Esslinger crank would not be legal with the ARCA head and 500 Holley. It could be used with the Holley 350 or with OEM head. That's one the main reason we sold the ARCA head and bought another SVO head after I found the destroker crank to get the most availible weight break and still be within the rules. Talk to you later 1-Crew and stay off all those racing tech forums I see you in LOL. Bryce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiTech Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 LOL YOU BEAT ME TO THE DRAW BRICE .WHERE DID YOU SELL THAT HEAD ..SEE YOU ALL AT THE RACES SOMETIME SOON .IM JUST WARNING YOU AHEAD OF TIME . NEIL THE 84 CAR HAD A PROBLEM WITH REAR END GEARS AND SHIFTER .THAT WAS WHY HE DIDNT MAKE IT RAN OUT OF TIME . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1-Crew Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 The 2300 can be de stroked, esslinger used to sell the kit for around $2700 a couple of years. My bad, I assumed that was an aftermarket piece. As for the other - knowledge is power, therefore I surf! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilTPS Posted March 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 1-Crew: Your interpretation of TPS engine rules is exactly correct. Neil Upchurch Race & Administrative Director Texas Pro Sedans Bryce: In the interest of balanced fair play, I must respond that since you are representing yourself in a public forum to be a Ford engine specialist and alleging that TPS wronged you and Jack about something that happened a year ago on March 11, 2006. I quote what you said a year later in your post when you wrote "During P&G Tech official left the probe in the #2 spark plug hole and had us crank the motor over with it in there scaring a $550 custom set of pistons (can't by just one of those) and bending a couple of valves then had to replace rings, bearing, gaskets, etc. 1/8" probe in a .30" quench area and you do the math something going to get torn up." Here is an exact copy of my private e-mail answer to you and Jack Dishman regarding that P&G incident and your claim that TPS was at fault. Subject: Memo to: Jack Dishman, Owner & Driver, TPS Car #2, Date: Monday, 24 April 2006 Upon receiving your claim that TPS should pay for all of your engine damage, I called David Mackey. I relayed to him everything that you told me ie: 1. You said you "compression tested your engine after the March 11 race and found the cylinder in question to be down about 10 lbs compared to the other 3 cylinders". 2. You said "you made the decision to not remove the valve for further inspection on a valve machine and to take a chance and run your engine on April 15". (Your decision negated further preventative maintenance). It is the opinion of myself and David Mackey that: 1. You didn't share any inspection information with either David or myself. Had you called us (as you said you would) we would not have agreed to your decision to "take a chance and run the engine on April 15" without further preventative maintenance. 2. We believe the warning sign was clear with that minus 10 lbs of compression test. At that point, removal of the head and a true test on the questionable valve should have been performed by a qualified Ford expert. Instead, it was not done because of your judgment, not our judgment. 3. We do agree that possibly, one valve might have been accidentally damaged by TPS official David Mackey. For that, we would have paid you the cost of one valve and a head gasket had a bent valve been discovered and replaced before you ran the engine again. 4. Since we had no part in your decision to "take a chance and run the engine on April 15", we sincerely believe that TPS is not responsible for any or subsequent damage to your engine. Regarding your statement on March 7, 2007 "Only downfall was dad placed 2nd and Donnie won we got P&G'd and 70 (winner) didn't." I will address that too. Jack's #2 Mustang came out with a much smaller engine (from 2338cc to 2060cc) late during the 2005 season. We never had an appropriate opportunity to verify the honesty of his/your smaller cc claim during those last few 2005 races. We had measured the #70 engine several times and had no doubt about the honesty of his claim. On March 11th, 2006, we were simply attempting verify the honesty of the #2 engine cc claim to validate a 305 lb weight reduction. I don't know if you can somehow understand the TPS official's option of P&G inspecting the engine of 2nd place and not 1st place in that instance. We also don't have to explain ourselves, but I have because you have chosen to attempt to degrade to quality of TPS officiating which I have defended for going on 32 years of Pro Sedan racing. Neil Upchurch Race & Administrative Director Texas Pro Sedans 210/655-3222 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maz1438 Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 3. We do agree that possibly, one valve might have been accidentally damaged by TPS official David Mackey. For that, we would have paid you the cost of one valve and a head gasket had a bent valve been discovered and replaced before you ran the engine again. Just out of curiousity, what would have been the procedure for Mr Dishman to verify his valve had been damaged? If it wasnt found until he got back home, who is supposed to look at it and verify the possible damage. And also, how long would this process have taken in order for himself to not have to missed the next race after this incident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilTPS Posted March 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 maz1438 - We'll never know the answer to your question because, as Jack Dishman told me, he made the decision to "take a chance and run the engine at the next TPS race on April 15" without further preventative maintenance. As I said in my private e-mail to the Dishmans and the post in this forum, "since we had no part in your decision to "take a chance and run the engine on April 15", we sincerely believe that TPS is not responsible for any or subsequent damage to your engine". In other words, if there was ever a warrantee, it expired when he put that engine back into race service without doing the commonly accepted maintenance process when their compression test warned them as to what they should do, but didn't. btw - that engine ran about 80 practice and race laps before it failed. Go figure. Thanks - Neil Upchurch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDish2 Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Maz, Finally someone gets it. There was no procedure to follow. It would of been in the best interest of TPS to pull the motor on the spot and taken the motor to a machine shop or cert ford tech but what ford tech is going to be certified on a esslinger aftermarket head therefore the series would have been in possision of the item they agree on they damaged and had componets in the #2 cylinder replaced to clear themselves of any future allegations pertaining to this incident. Yea we ran the motor and it blew up the next race night out in the same cylinder the probe was left in. IMO what changed if when ran or didn't run ya'll aggreed that damage was probably done in the cylinder then should of helped out reguardless. Took almost 6 weeks to get pistons custom made at JE for that destroked crank, I would say it needed 1 piston and both valves to fix it anyways. Had to miss 3 races waiting for pistons it would have needed 1 piston from the probe imprints in it but when the valve broke it tore the same piston up anyways. Just a bad deal all the way around. I should have done more research on the matter from the get go. Above is what I found to be the most used procedure. Who's to say by someone next time doesn't just take an old blown up motor in. (Hence rule change every track you now have to sign a release statement) It's just like if dad went out and installed a windshield and putting the trim on at the end he cracked it. Obviously as a business owner he knows he must install another windshield for his mistake but when the owner of the car is driving to dad's glass shop and hits a buzzard on the way destroying the whole windshield now who should pay for the windshield? Looks like the owner did it but originally the damage was already done. Dad would still replace because he knows originally he broke the glass reguardless of how bad looked when it arrived. Same senerio Official left a probe in the motor they should've ordered the parts for the cylinder reguardless if we went ran it. But pistons alone are $550 don't think he wanted to pay for them not included components in that cylinder plus our time and labor for someone elses mistake. Oh well should've pulled the P&G equipment out in SAS on the #85 car like you did for us because isn't some sort of destroked motor. Especailly after breaking track record by .5 tenths and qualifing .6 then better than 2nd qualifer and 1 sec faster than 3rd qualifier. It's fair to say the honesty should have been check on this since it new to the series and hasn't been checked yet. Just like #2 car that broke no records and finished 2nd that night. Seems to be more justification to p&g a record breaking car. Instead of your reponse for honesty purpose. I guess some people word is better than others. #85 congrats on the record and to bad about the 1st lap incident just using your car as example and by no means implying anything else. Good luck. Meet ya soon. From post below I will address that too. Jack's #2 Mustang came out with a much smaller engine (from 2338cc to 2060cc) late during the 2005 season. We never had an appropriate opportunity to verify the honesty of his/your smaller cc claim during those last few 2005 races. We had measured the #70 engine several times and had no doubt about the honesty of his claim. On March 11th, 2006, we were simply attempting verify the honesty of the #2 engine cc claim to validate a 305 lb weight reduction. I don't know if you can somehow understand the TPS official's option of P&G inspecting the engine of 2nd place and not 1st place in that instance. We also don't have to explain ourselves, but I have because you have chosen to attempt to degrade to quality of TPS officiating which I have defended for going on 32 years of Pro Sedan racing. Neil, no explenations needed but I do thank you for your time on the matter. Bryce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilTPS Posted March 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Typo ! - The engine on #85 was declared to be 2210cc (not a 2010 as mis-typed in the results which I have corrected). All other printed material such as www.TexasProSedans.com (membership list) and in the SAS program show 2210. The TPS weight calculations of #85 were based on 2210cc as was #85's listed minimum weight of 2109 lbs on his inspection tag. Neil Upchurch Race & Administrative Director Texas Pro Sedans 210/655-3222 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiTech Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 i have my zipper on .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickracer Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Neil im glad you have to keep up with all of this my noggin hurts!!! Not like the old TIDA late model days huh!! Rick Sinard from Bruce beddoe racing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeilTPS Posted March 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Rick: Thanks much for your nice comment. Any favorable comment is most welcome. As you can see, there is always that minority who never will really appreciate the hard word and patience it takes to keep a dependable series going so they can have a place to race, in this case for 32 years. So, all I can do is shoot back when it is appropriate. Please say hello to that great driver of yours, Bruce Beddoe. Neil Upchurch Race & Administrative Director Texas Pro Sedans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS70 Posted March 8, 2007 Report Share Posted March 8, 2007 Neil We think you deserve a trophy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ariel66 Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 Just wondering how he declares a 2210cc out of a 2300 block? No insults, no bashing, just wondering. Am i missing something here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poorboy Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 I think Greg Spreen, Mission, West side, Longs or any other reputable machine shop/engine builder can work on any Esslinger product. Neil does a good job with what he has to keep up with. Some people (and I'm not pointing fingers at anyone) think its unfair if they get beat by knowledge, money, or just pure skill. The guy that beats you is very seldom cheating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickHolt Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 Just wondering how he declares a 2210cc out of a 2300 block? No insults, no bashing, just wondering. Am i missing something here? Under the TPS rules, de-stroking is permitted execpt in certain engine/head combinations. As you know, the TPS rules are based on 1.1 pounds per cubic centimeter of engine displacement. If one can reduce the CCs of their engine, they can run less overall weight. It seems that certain teams have discovered a pretty effective balance between engine size and total weight. By the way, I am not giving away any information that is not readily available from published TPS documents as well as the sticker on TPS windshields that disclose both the CCs and total weight in plain view for the world to see. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joshua1340 Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 Just wondering where the extra weight break comes in on the #85. Didn't look at it myself but I heard some people questioning that it is a tube frame not an OEM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiTech Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 I think Greg Spreen, Mission, West side, Longs or any other reputable machine shop/engine builder can work on any Esslinger product. Neil does a good job with what he has to keep up with. Some people (and I'm not pointing fingers at anyone) think its unfair if they get beat by knowledge, money, or just pure skill. The guy that beats you is very seldom cheating. Good point poorboy . [ example ] you would not have a problem racen a minnie with our car with no restictions . cuz money knowledge .and skill got us restricted .lol . if it makes it fair . im for it .but it has to be at all ends ..now all things considered neil has done a great job with tps ..im 100 percent sure that some drivers did not like the ideal of us getting to run kyle with out the restriction ..but i can tell you one thing for sure i wont have a problem putting it back on if it proves to be a big advantage . im honest enough to admit it if it is to much ..in fact i would much rather leave it on and take some wieght off .jmo....not being a smart .a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickHolt Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 Just wondering where the extra weight break comes in on the #85. Didn't look at it myself but I heard some people questioning that it is a tube frame not an OEM? Joshua, Mike Balzer, Pat Lane and Vernon Burke are three of the most experienced and most knowledgable racers in our area. They put that car together for Ja, who is Pat's son. They did their homework, cloisely examined the TPS rules and put together what they considered to be the optimum configuration under the existing TPS rules. Contrary to the rumors you may haver heard, the 85 car has all the stock frame components. Amd it does not have an offset engine as widely speculated. Granted, it has some frame reinforcements that are similar to those you might expect to find in a fabricated frame, but reinforcements are permitted in TPS. Knowing Pat as I do, I'm pretty sure that if you asked him (in a nice way, of course), he'd let you look around the car. Whenever a car is fast right out of the box, it is natural for people to question what makes it so fast. They have done their homework, took advantage of all the current TPS engine and chassis rules and have lots and lots of racing experience behind the car. Actually, the car is quite a heavy under the exisiting rules. Even if their car was deemed to be a tube frame car, they wouldn't have to add a significant amount of weight. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cRt racing Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 nick sorry to say i pitted right next to them and when people would go over to look they covered it up saying there was to many inspectors around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickHolt Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 nick sorry to say i pitted right next to them and when people would go over to look they covered it up saying there was to many inspectors around Are you saying they would not let the TPS inspectors look at their car? Hmmm.. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiTech Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 nick sorry to say i pitted right next to them and when people would go over to look they covered it up saying there was to many inspectors around Are you saying they would not let the TPS inspectors look at their car? Hmmm.. Nick I THOUGHT YOU WOULD HAVE COME OUT WITH A NICER WELL THOUGHT OUT RESPONCE TO THAT NICK ....... SOMETHING TO THE POINT OF WELL CRT THEY ARE NEW AND PROBABLY DONT WANT ALL THE ATTENTION..THEY WOULD RATHER YOU ASK THEM IF YOU COULD LOOK . THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilnut 20 Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 I’m surprised that no one has taking advantaged of the rules regarding the Fords till now. Great job 85 Team, congrats to Ja on the new track record! I didn’t think we ever see Fords complain about Fords doing well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiTech Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 IM WISHING HIM WELL .LOOKING FORWARD THE TO CHALLENGE.I HOPE THAT PONTIAC RUNS WELL . GOOD RACE FOR YOU IN SAS .YOU MUST HAVE THAT NEW MOTOR HUMMIN ...WELL OFF TODAY SO .IM GOING NOW TO PUT OUR MOTOR TOGETHER .LATER .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilnut 20 Posted March 9, 2007 Report Share Posted March 9, 2007 Hey Mike, It was new, but will have to come apart again, too much blow by. I guess stock rings aren’t good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.