I am confused with the requirements for a bell housing (scatter shield). I have read and reread the SFI requirements and still am not sure what is needed. Do one really need a SFI 6.2 or 6.3 bell housing on a Ford 2.3 engine in a Thunderbird TurboCoupe? I know that Quick Time makes a 6.1 Unit to fit this engine but can't find anyone that makes a 6.3 or 6.2 without having it custom built.
Bill
I can't answer your question but I am curious. The book says either a 6.1 or 6.2 or 6.3 depending on application. OK. Where are the application rules? You can always use a home made external blow shield over a 6.1 if the 6.1 is not good enough.
The application rules are on the SFI web site: www.sfifoundation.com
Reading their web site is where it gets confusing to me..... :?
Bill
Judging by "TurboCoupe" I'm guessing that you're not naturally aspirated. If you're turbo then 6.1 won't apply because it says it's only for NA. You could use a 6.2 housing (if there is one available) so long as you use a 1.3 or 1.4 clutch assembly (contact your preferred clutch manufacturer). If you're turbo you should use a 6.3 housing with a 1.1 or 1.2 flywheel/clutch. I guess if a 6.2 or 6.3 isn't available then you'd make one (after being approved by either the tech chair or the head tech inspector) out of 1/4" steel which has been done many times before.
To totally honest with you, as an inspector, I have never once checked the SFI rating on a scatter shield because 99.99% of the time you can't even see it. We can however look at the scatter shield to see if it looks like what all other scatter shields look like and if there's one in place then you're usually good. If I see bare cast aluminum then you're a no go. If I see a red hydro-formed bellhousing that's 1/4" then I know it's a Lakewood scatter shield.
Did a car this year at Speed Week that had an Ecotec in it. There isn't a scatter shield for an Ecotec (that I know of) so the competitor made his own out of 1/4" steel that completely surrounded the stock cast aluminum bellhousing. Made it through tech just fine.
Esslinger sells a shield made out of 1/4" steel for a 2.3 Ford.
What did Rick Byrnes use (or is using now)?
PM him http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=11 (http://www.landracing.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=11) ??
Mike
Dick..thanks for the information on Esslinger but finding a scatter shield or safety bellhousing for a 2.3 Ford is not the problem...the problem is they are all SFI 6.1 rated. A 6.2 or 6.2 shield will have be custom built driving the cost out of the range of a backyard builder. For this reason I am thinking of using a C4 automatic instead..much lower cost.
Thanks Mike..Found an older magazine article of his engine..states that at the time he built it no one made a safety bellhousing for the 2.3 so they (he) machined a steel plate to adapt a V8 Ford scatter shield to the engine, it passed then (10+ years age) but I'm sure it wouldn't pass now. Thanks..
Bill
Quote from: BHR301 on November 14, 2011, 01:36:22 PM
Dick..thanks for the information on Esslinger but finding a scatter shield or safety bellhousing for a 2.3 Ford is not the problem...the problem is they are all SFI 6.1 rated. A 6.2 or 6.2 shield will have be custom built driving the cost out of the range of a backyard builder. For this reason I am thinking of using a C4 automatic instead..much lower cost.
Mike..Found an older magazine article of his engine..states that at the time he built it no one made a safety bellhousing for the 2.3 so they (he) machined a steel plate to adapt a V8 Ford scatter shield to the engine, it passed then (10+ years age) but I'm sure it wouldn't pass now. Thanks..
Bill
I think you are making this much too hard. Reread the rule book. Ricks belhousing will still pass today. Or just build one out of 1/4" plates welded together.
The picture shows one of at least 4 units currently being used in SCTA.
Thanks, you cemented something for me and made my life easier!
Quote from: Dynoroom on November 14, 2011, 02:50:08 PM
Quote from: BHR301 on November 14, 2011, 01:36:22 PM
Dick..thanks for the information on Esslinger but finding a scatter shield or safety bellhousing for a 2.3 Ford is not the problem...the problem is they are all SFI 6.1 rated. A 6.2 or 6.2 shield will have be custom built driving the cost out of the range of a backyard builder. For this reason I am thinking of using a C4 automatic instead..much lower cost.
Mike..Found an older magazine article of his engine..states that at the time he built it no one made a safety bellhousing for the 2.3 so they (he) machined a steel plate to adapt a V8 Ford scatter shield to the engine, it passed then (10+ years age) but I'm sure it wouldn't pass now. Thanks..
Bill
I think you are making this much too hard. Reread the rule book. Ricks belhousing will still pass today. Or just build one out of 1/4" plates welded together.
The picture shows one of at least 4 units currently being used in SCTA.
Double thickness flute-cored cardboard is the ideal modelling material for a scattershield. Use a Sharp art-knife and make all the cuts square, the gap you leave on the joins will be just right for welding it up,1/4 plate takes a bit of current.Actually we used 8mm which is close to 5/16..
This shot is of the scattershield when we were trying to work out how we were going to squeeze everything in.
(http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z187/fourdoorshitbox/motorsideview040-1.jpg)
Obviously it's entirely different for a unibody situation, but you can still perform the same process, takes time but it's pretty cheap.
Bill
I don't have a current rule book, but does the bellhousing requirement specify SFI of any category? The rule book did not require an SFI rating when I originally built my system. (1987). I used a lakewood 302 Ford unit with my own adapter plate, just like the articles stated. It passed tech at Bonneville as recently as 2004 when I tested the lakester. The housing has some mods to fit the narrow car.
IMHO SCTA is looking for 1/4" thickness of steel as a flywheel explosion protection device. After modifying and nickle plating my housing it never had the SFI sticker. I have the orig sticker in my documentation, but this has never been discussed when going thru tech.
If you are using a single disc 9" clutch and have a 1/4" steel housing, I think you will be OK.
Don't assume that any drag racing requirements pass thru to Land Speed Racing. There are many fabricated flywheel housing overlays that pass tech every year.
That being said, I am not an inspector, nor a real expert on every rule. My experience though, even being a foreigner to SCTA (don't reside in SoCal) if you build the car using the strongest, best parts you can, you will pass tech just fine.
If you are not happy with all this discussion, call or write the chairman of your vehicle build type.
BTW, what exactly are you building?
So far i have run a blown GMC and a Lotus 907, a 2 liter Pinto and most recently a Packard V8 that guess what? No blow shield in the Summit catalog. So I went down to the metal supply and bought some 1/4 inch steel and had it bent into a 540 degree loop. Then with my saw and welder I had a legal blow shield. Actually I adapted a SBF blow shield to the 907. Also to a 32 plymouth and a 26 Dodge Bros. I used a SBC blow shield on my 392. It's called Hot Roding. Ingenuity In Action. Back in the old days and still on the salt.
Thank you everyone...Looks like a SFI 6.1 Bellhousing with a 1/4" steel scatter shield (like we built for drag racing 50 years ago) will be legal for just about anything....To be honest, I feel that clutch and/or flywheel explosions would be a lot lower on my worry list that ending up on my roof or on fire.
Rick..thanks for your input on this.
Bill
So? Build one out of 1/4"
Why do you think you need a SFI rated housing PLUS a fabricated 1/4" shield? I'm an inspector and I gave you my perspective on this as such but from what you're saying it doesn't seem like you read what I wrote.
Nathan, I appreciate your perspective..I just remember how many 1/4" shields I saw blown open or bent back in the days before the safety bellhousing was perfected, I was just thinking that as long as a 6.1 bellhousing can be fitted to the engine inside a 1/4" steel scatter shield the extra protection won't be wasted. Thank you everyone for your input and ideas..
Bill
Or you could contact Wilcap about an adapter to an existing 6.2 or 6.3 shield
Bill, just remember whatever you do, any fuel lines running past your SFI or 1/4 inch shield need to be outside the frame rails, in heavy wall tube or have an additional shield (3.1)
Bill,
If I might pipe in again, and save you some work.
Clutches and Flywheels seldom fail these days. Especially on the salt.
I would suggest that a 9 inch clutch will handle the power you will make (and have some engine reliability).
I am currently turning a 2.3 to 9500RPM and not having difficulty with alum flywheel, single 9" clutch disc and a lighter weight pressure plate. (alum, with steel insert). Because of the higher engine speed, I am looking at a twin disc clutch, but for the next couple of seasons I don't think it is really necessary.
Do, look at how much wear you get with lots of chassis dyno testing. I had a clutch failure in 98 when we had about 6 trips to the chassis dyno and some track testing with the bonneville gearing. (lesson learned).
I am a proponent of OVER engineering/designing a LSR car, but don't and wont use much more than I have now. Pay attn to stainless. The additional 1/4" plate or 1/4" wall tube around the fuel line where it passes the plane of the flywheel is like everything, the minimum requirement. For the most part, weight is your friend.
My old Merkur was 4200 lbs ready to run on the salt, and it still spun the tires if boost came up too fast.
Good luck with your buld .
LONG LIVE THE PINTO MOTOR
Quote from: BHR301 on November 15, 2011, 03:00:21 AM
Nathan, I appreciate your perspective..I just remember how many 1/4" shields I saw blown open or bent back in the days before the safety bellhousing was perfected, I was just thinking that as long as a 6.1 bellhousing can be fitted to the engine inside a 1/4" steel scatter shield the extra protection won't be wasted. Thank you everyone for your input and ideas..
Bill
Okay, just don't want you to think that you're required to do both. Obviously safer is probably better and never bad but there's always the expensive of time and $.