HoseHeads.com | HoseHeads Classifieds | Racer's Auction
Home | Register | Contact | Verify Email | FAQ |
Blogs | Photo Gallery | Press Release | Results | HoseheadsClassifieds.com


Welcome Guest. Already registered? Please Login

 

Forum: HoseHeads Sprint Car General Forum (go)
Moderators: filtalr  /  hosehead


Records per page
 
Topic: Question on engine costs Email this topic to a friend | Subscribe to this TopicReport this Topic to Moderator
Page 2 of 2   of  35 replies
Murphy
June 11, 2018 at 07:06:46 PM
Joined: 05/26/2005
Posts: 1001
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: cheroger on June 11 2018 at 03:56:43 PM

If you combined the "run what you brung" with the "one engine only" rule, teams would be forced to build engines that also last, thus, reducing cost.



Maybe. Or the big money teams could build $100,000+ motors to last the full night.



kart31rac
MyWebsite
June 11, 2018 at 07:53:43 PM
Joined: 08/04/2010
Posts: 53
Reply

Staggerman if you would of read my post I said shorttracks, there is a reason that we didnt go to Knoxville Saturday night. We want to finish the season. LoL I worked for a USAC team that had 40-50 K motors. I know what the top USAC teams have. But WAR is averaging 35 cars a night with guys on a budget. And we still have fun, Casey and Brooke are running a great Program.  There is a some car counts are down and engine cost are a big reason. JMO



blazer00
June 11, 2018 at 10:09:12 PM
Joined: 06/10/2015
Posts: 2153
Reply

Donny Schatz tested a $20,000 Chevy crate motor a few years ago and it tested pretty decent. What if......a change in the weight rules? If you run a current 410 aluminum motor the car needs to weigh 1600 pounds. Run the crate motor and the weight remains at the current 1400 pounds. There should be an easy guideline to police the crate motor so it isn't "toyed" with too dramatically or even not at all. Seems like a rather simple solution.



alum.427
June 11, 2018 at 10:51:11 PM
Joined: 03/16/2017
Posts: 525
Reply

Wesmar... what in your opinion would be the answer ? Me, I've spent way to much trying to keep up. 



Dryslick Willie
June 12, 2018 at 05:26:07 AM
Joined: 12/17/2009
Posts: 1244
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: Murphy on June 11 2018 at 07:06:46 PM

Maybe. Or the big money teams could build $100,000+ motors to last the full night.



Exactly.   Isn't that basically what a NASCAR engine is.    They were at 900 horsepower before the new rule a couple of years ago reducing them to around 725 hp.   So their engines are built to have high horsepower and last 500+ miles and then do a burnout in victory lane...



kooks
June 12, 2018 at 07:30:13 AM
Joined: 02/27/2008
Posts: 620
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: Murphy on June 11 2018 at 07:06:46 PM

Maybe. Or the big money teams could build $100,000+ motors to last the full night.



And if a team is forced to finish the night with the same engine it forces them to run an engine in the feature that "didn't feel right" in the heat race.     

Possibly subjecting it to further (more expensive) damage if they want to race the feature.

 

The answer to saving engine costs in sprint car racing is in unhooking the cars.   If you can't get 900 hp to the track there is no need to try to build a 1000 hp motor.   The answer to unhooking the cars lies with the wings and tires.

 

Since the WoO certainly aren't going to do it, I wish that a track with some power such as Knoxville would take the lead and force changes.    If Knoxville announced the following changes to take effect in the 2020 season for all shows at Knoxville including the Nationals you can bet your hiney that the WoO would want to come to the table and talk about rule changes.  If the WoO doesn't want to come to the table they don't have to come to the most prestigous highest paying sprint car race in the world, it will go on without them.       For those that disagree, how did the minimum weight rule get started?    The WoO certainly weren't the leaders in bringing that into effect.

 

1) Smaller (narrower) rear wheels (L & R)

2) Rock hard (think 100,000 mile car tire for hardness) spec tires (L&R), only 1 size available for the RR any changes for stagger has to happen on the left side.      Best weekly racing I've ever seen was back when Huset's was running that rock hard American Racer right rear in the late 90's early 00's.   Track would look like glass top to bottom but it NEVER took rubber.

3) Smaller side panels (take 6" of height off of each side, should have minimal affect on appearance) on the wings and put restrictions on wing angles.  Limit the maximum angle that the top of the wing can run.    Very easy to check.

 

I know none of these thing is the cost problem, but they are all related to hooking the cost problem to the track.  If you unhook the cars you reduce the need to constantly speed more $'s to get more hp.   Everyone is always worried about making parts (wheels and wings) obsolete through stricter rules but everytime someone comes out with new engine parts that produce more HP that effectively makes 100's of existing engines obsolete.   Engines are where most of the increase in expense has come from over the last 20-30 yrs.     Get rid of the need for 900+ hp and they just might be able to go back to running a "sprint" (no fuel stop) for the Nationals A main.

 

Knoxville is one of the few tracks (possibly only track that could do so) that has any power to stand up to the WoO on its own.   They need to act before they're down to 12 car A-Mains for weekly shows.     And they need to do the same things to the 360 class as well.     I really don't want to ever see the "Sprint Car Capital of the World" start adding more "support" classes because of low and continually falling car counts in the current 3 classes.

 

Knoxville is also one of the few tracks that could afford to hand out some new parts (to their regulars) to replace the parts (wheels and side panels) that are forced into obsolescence.   Start handing out the new parts at this years postseason awards banquet.    

 



Hawkeyeracer09
MyWebsite
June 12, 2018 at 10:27:59 AM
Joined: 06/12/2018
Posts: 1
Reply

First let me say it is not the price of the motors it is the money won that makes racing so expensive if I want to win a 40,000 dollar show you have got to give your driver the best shot possible so you spend 65k on the motor ,put them on new rubber, buy the lightest and trickist parts. I have been racing all my life .Even when I raced RC cars if you wanted to win you spent the money. So all this Brainstroming of do this or do that means nothing . All racing cost cash, Hell even horse racing the best genetics. Wins more races. Leave things be We all know to go fast it' going to cost ya. I do have one beef tho I hate the World of Outlaws format it caters to the team' that run the outlaws full time. Don't understand how having the fastest cars line up on the front row promotes good racing. Let' just. Go Racing .



revjimk
June 12, 2018 at 12:21:27 PM
Joined: 09/14/2010
Posts: 4079
Reply
This message was edited on June 12, 2018 at 12:38:54 PM by revjimk
Reply to:
Posted By: kooks on June 12 2018 at 07:30:13 AM

And if a team is forced to finish the night with the same engine it forces them to run an engine in the feature that "didn't feel right" in the heat race.     

Possibly subjecting it to further (more expensive) damage if they want to race the feature.

 

The answer to saving engine costs in sprint car racing is in unhooking the cars.   If you can't get 900 hp to the track there is no need to try to build a 1000 hp motor.   The answer to unhooking the cars lies with the wings and tires.

 

Since the WoO certainly aren't going to do it, I wish that a track with some power such as Knoxville would take the lead and force changes.    If Knoxville announced the following changes to take effect in the 2020 season for all shows at Knoxville including the Nationals you can bet your hiney that the WoO would want to come to the table and talk about rule changes.  If the WoO doesn't want to come to the table they don't have to come to the most prestigous highest paying sprint car race in the world, it will go on without them.       For those that disagree, how did the minimum weight rule get started?    The WoO certainly weren't the leaders in bringing that into effect.

 

1) Smaller (narrower) rear wheels (L & R)

2) Rock hard (think 100,000 mile car tire for hardness) spec tires (L&R), only 1 size available for the RR any changes for stagger has to happen on the left side.      Best weekly racing I've ever seen was back when Huset's was running that rock hard American Racer right rear in the late 90's early 00's.   Track would look like glass top to bottom but it NEVER took rubber.

3) Smaller side panels (take 6" of height off of each side, should have minimal affect on appearance) on the wings and put restrictions on wing angles.  Limit the maximum angle that the top of the wing can run.    Very easy to check.

 

I know none of these thing is the cost problem, but they are all related to hooking the cost problem to the track.  If you unhook the cars you reduce the need to constantly speed more $'s to get more hp.   Everyone is always worried about making parts (wheels and wings) obsolete through stricter rules but everytime someone comes out with new engine parts that produce more HP that effectively makes 100's of existing engines obsolete.   Engines are where most of the increase in expense has come from over the last 20-30 yrs.     Get rid of the need for 900+ hp and they just might be able to go back to running a "sprint" (no fuel stop) for the Nationals A main.

 

Knoxville is one of the few tracks (possibly only track that could do so) that has any power to stand up to the WoO on its own.   They need to act before they're down to 12 car A-Mains for weekly shows.     And they need to do the same things to the 360 class as well.     I really don't want to ever see the "Sprint Car Capital of the World" start adding more "support" classes because of low and continually falling car counts in the current 3 classes.

 

Knoxville is also one of the few tracks that could afford to hand out some new parts (to their regulars) to replace the parts (wheels and side panels) that are forced into obsolescence.   Start handing out the new parts at this years postseason awards banquet.    

 



Makes perfect sense to me. Tires are much easier to check than engines, & harder, narrower tires might even make "run whatcha brung" engines possible... no need to junk existing engines either



Wesmar
June 12, 2018 at 12:47:45 PM
Joined: 09/29/2005
Posts: 592
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: alum.427 on June 11 2018 at 10:51:11 PM

Wesmar... what in your opinion would be the answer ? Me, I've spent way to much trying to keep up. 



  Honestly I really don't know.  I mean now a days technology changes so rapidly today's hot item will be tomorrow's old news.  But that's in every form of racing, it's crazy.



Salina Engine
MyWebsite
June 12, 2018 at 06:30:48 PM
Joined: 11/22/2017
Posts: 8
Reply

I'm not sure where this notion that 360's which cost $10k less make 100 less hp. The primary difference in costs in our packages

is in the valve train and through light weight components. Our base 360 uses the same heads and induction that our more

expensive package uses, so it makes similar power on the dyno. There are a few other things we can do with the more

expensive package that let us make gains, but nothing near 100hp or even 50 hp. The major increase in cost is through alll the

extra lightening options and external parts on the engine.

 

As for curbing the cost, the notion of cutting the wing down and putting harder tires on is spot on. That it turn will make it so that

builders wouldn't necessarilly have to use the strongest most expensive components to keep these engines together. My thought 

was to do a more spec engine like some of the modified sanctioning bodies have tried (USRA/USMTS Concept Engine) 

  • rpm limit
  • compression limit
  • run an as cast head (suggest that a head be cast larger so it will make power similar to the ported heads)
  • no block or cylinder head lightening
  • no titanium in engine
  • max 3 stages on dry sump
  • spec butterfly diameter

I doubt this will ever happen however. Circle track racing has fallen prey to General Motors and the most likely solution will be a 

crate engine. My only comment to this is from a large component manufacturer all the way to an engine builder the sport lose will 

sponsorship on both the track level and on the team level, why would comp cams sponsor a race if none of their components 

can be used in any of the cars.


Salina Engine 
Salina Ks
(785)823-2273

kooks
June 16, 2018 at 09:55:36 PM
Joined: 02/27/2008
Posts: 620
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: Salina Engine on June 12 2018 at 06:30:48 PM

I'm not sure where this notion that 360's which cost $10k less make 100 less hp. The primary difference in costs in our packages

is in the valve train and through light weight components. Our base 360 uses the same heads and induction that our more

expensive package uses, so it makes similar power on the dyno. There are a few other things we can do with the more

expensive package that let us make gains, but nothing near 100hp or even 50 hp. The major increase in cost is through alll the

extra lightening options and external parts on the engine.

 

As for curbing the cost, the notion of cutting the wing down and putting harder tires on is spot on. That it turn will make it so that

builders wouldn't necessarilly have to use the strongest most expensive components to keep these engines together. My thought 

was to do a more spec engine like some of the modified sanctioning bodies have tried (USRA/USMTS Concept Engine) 

  • rpm limit
  • compression limit
  • run an as cast head (suggest that a head be cast larger so it will make power similar to the ported heads)
  • no block or cylinder head lightening
  • no titanium in engine
  • max 3 stages on dry sump
  • spec butterfly diameter

I doubt this will ever happen however. Circle track racing has fallen prey to General Motors and the most likely solution will be a 

crate engine. My only comment to this is from a large component manufacturer all the way to an engine builder the sport lose will 

sponsorship on both the track level and on the team level, why would comp cams sponsor a race if none of their components 

can be used in any of the cars.




IMO, depowering the engines would have the same effect as giving everyone traction control or Nascar using restrictor plates.
 
Lots of cars going the same speed that are locked down to the track.
 
 
Unhook the cars so that the guys that are using 2-5 yr old engines aren't at a huge disadvantage to those that are constantly chasing another 10 hp and let the drivers that can use both feet shine.

 



ThrowbackRacingTeam
June 16, 2018 at 11:42:42 PM
Joined: 07/31/2014
Posts: 35
Reply

Take wings off. On slick half miles like Knoxville and Terre Haute they only use 1/2-3/4 throttle in the feauture. Much easier on motors than wings and obviously you don't have to have the greatest motor. The top cars win because they handle the best and have the best drivers. Jesse Hocket used to win without having the best motors. I was told he won at Putnamville with a 360!



madsen
June 17, 2018 at 01:08:42 PM
Joined: 10/09/2010
Posts: 382
Reply

LS based spec engines are definitely in the future.  Engine costs just cannot continue to rise.  Will owners pay $100,000 for an engine 4 or 5 years from now?  How many FT cars will be in the WoO when that happens.  

ASCS thinks spec engines will be mandated by 2022 as an article in Flat Out implied..

ARCA stock car series has been using an LS based spec engine for two years now.  

There are several local series in the country that use spec engines now.  IMCA mods use the 605 or is it the 604 GM spec engine.  

 

 


Europe died during Hitler's deathcamps. If not 
for WWII, Jewish people in Europe would number 30 
million-all making important contributions. Instead 
Europe has 30 million people of another persuasion 
trying to destroy Europe. 

RHC
June 17, 2018 at 04:33:01 PM
Joined: 12/07/2004
Posts: 392
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: madsen on June 17 2018 at 01:08:42 PM

LS based spec engines are definitely in the future.  Engine costs just cannot continue to rise.  Will owners pay $100,000 for an engine 4 or 5 years from now?  How many FT cars will be in the WoO when that happens.  

ASCS thinks spec engines will be mandated by 2022 as an article in Flat Out implied..

ARCA stock car series has been using an LS based spec engine for two years now.  

There are several local series in the country that use spec engines now.  IMCA mods use the 605 or is it the 604 GM spec engine.  

 

 



Ron Shaver built a LS engine for the 410's about a decade ago.

I know that Knoxville & Huset's allowed for this engine package for a couple of years, but apparently, that didn't seem to go over too well.

 



jwerkman
June 18, 2018 at 04:05:13 PM
Joined: 11/08/2006
Posts: 473
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: RHC on June 17 2018 at 04:33:01 PM

Ron Shaver built a LS engine for the 410's about a decade ago.

I know that Knoxville & Huset's allowed for this engine package for a couple of years, but apparently, that didn't seem to go over too well.

 



THE YEAR SCHATZ RAN THE CRATE IN THE FRIDAY NIGHT SHOW HE STARTED IN THE BACK AND WON THE THINK


 

LeviArMo
MyWebsite
June 20, 2018 at 09:15:20 AM
Joined: 06/08/2018
Posts: 2
Reply
Reply to:
Posted By: Salina Engine on June 12 2018 at 06:30:48 PM

I'm not sure where this notion that 360's which cost $10k less make 100 less hp. The primary difference in costs in our packages

is in the valve train and through light weight components. Our base 360 uses the same heads and induction that our more

expensive package uses, so it makes similar power on the dyno. There are a few other things we can do with the more

expensive package that let us make gains, but nothing near 100hp or even 50 hp. The major increase in cost is through alll the

extra lightening options and external parts on the engine.

 

As for curbing the cost, the notion of cutting the wing down and putting harder tires on is spot on. That it turn will make it so that

builders wouldn't necessarilly have to use the strongest most expensive components to keep these engines together. My thought 

was to do a more spec engine like some of the modified sanctioning bodies have tried (USRA/USMTS Concept Engine) 

  • rpm limit
  • compression limit
  • run an as cast head (suggest that a head be cast larger so it will make power similar to the ported heads)
  • no block or cylinder head lightening
  • no titanium in engine
  • max 3 stages on dry sump
  • spec butterfly diameter

I doubt this will ever happen however. Circle track racing has fallen prey to General Motors and the most likely solution will be a 

crate engine. My only comment to this is from a large component manufacturer all the way to an engine builder the sport lose will 

sponsorship on both the track level and on the team level, why would comp cams sponsor a race if none of their components 

can be used in any of the cars.



I am just a local guy with very little knowledge of what it takes to build a legit 360 motor. I have most of a motor sitting in my garage that I plan to assemble at some point to run with the ESS series. I am in need of heads, valvetrain, and pistons to get it finished up.

With that said, I based what I said on the prices that I have been quoted or told by local builders or part suppliers. I have looked at your engines and honestly wondered how you make any money selling the budget 360 for $30k. I think that you guys are doing a great service with that motor and I agree with all of you other points too! Someday I may have one of your engines in my car, but for know I will do what I can with what I have. Thanks!

 

Levi





Post Reply
You must be logged in to Post a Message.
Not a member register Here.
Already registered? Please Login





If you have a website and would like to set up a forum here at HoseHeadForums.com
please contact us by using the contact link at the top of the page.

© 2018 HoseHeadForums.com Privacy Policy