OUTLAW EAGLE MANUFACTURING

Will R · Joined: 31 Jul 2005 Posts: 677 Location: NWT/Alberta

just a suggestion for people to ponder before the meeting in Nov... ford offers a sealed race enginePN m6007-s347jr that is a perfect competitor for the zz4(which is not a sealed race engine but should be and gm offers the sealed race engine...ct350/355 which is the motor the ford was built to directly compete with)if theres a class that i beleive should be a sealed engine only class its this one.

mikeyjl · Joined: 16 Mar 2008 Posts: 13 Location: LEDUC

Will you are going to race fx next year with a Ford 347?

Will R · Joined: 31 Jul 2005 Posts: 677 Location: NWT/Alberta

wasnt plannng on it but i am helping a couple local young fellas set their boats up for sbfx that will run the ford if allowed if not they'll have to run the gm.why do you ask?

mikeyjl · Joined: 16 Mar 2008 Posts: 13 Location: LEDUC

Just wondering because you are so vocal about the ford .

Forplay · Joined: 15 Sep 2008 Posts: 85 Location: Leduc, AB

Not sure I get the reasoning/understanding for the only allowing a "sealed" engine. So if I picked up a used FX Tunnel, and refreshed/re-bearinged etc the engine in it prior to the season - this would no longer be a sealed engine right? So under your proposed idea can I use it?

Ditto if your engine goes south during the season, can you repair it and fill out the spec sheet- or do have to go and buy a replacement factory sealed engine for it?

Opening up the FX class to more engine choices like the US side wouldn't be a bad thing, but only allowing the use of "sealed engines" would likely deter more people from getting into it due to the running cost. The spec sheet serves it's purpose, as if you choose to build one/fix one/buy one, it really doesn't matter as long as it's to the spec sheet right?

The FX class is basically now the entry level class in this sport, and it's already getting up there in cost without adding more to it. An 87-90mph tunnel is quite an entry class boat, to the point where I think we almost need to have more promotion of the steptech fx as the entry class. Make the entry class cheap to get into and run/maintain, and that would probably bring alot more people into the sport - than a choice of sealed engines (regardless of manufacturer) would do.

Later,

Garett

Will R · Joined: 31 Jul 2005 Posts: 677 Location: NWT/Alberta

lol yeah i know Mike! If you didnt know already Hay River is Ford town NWT.alot of Ford fans here and potential future jetboat racers.so i hear alot of it from them and i voice it on here for them.i just would like to see the option out there for them is all.as you obviously know i am a ford fan but love jetboatracing just a little more hence the reason my boat is chev powered.still havent totaly commited to what class i am going to run next year..could be unlimited,a,b or ls sorta depends on how many are availible for class as ill probably run to keep class alive if short on entries.but back to fx class i absolutly think this class should be sealed race engines only that way it eliminates modifications of any sort light weight rotating assemblies,cam changes, intake changes,cheater porting,this and that,etc.etc

mikeyjl · Joined: 16 Mar 2008 Posts: 13 Location: LEDUC

I thought my zz4 was sealed on the timing cover.But i could be wrong.The ct350/355 is the exact same engine except the oil pan and breathers or am I wrong to think that??

Will R · Joined: 31 Jul 2005 Posts: 677 Location: NWT/Alberta

ive discussed this in length with other racers and as long as the part numbers are the same as the parts that come originaly with the motor a race official can reseal the engine just some ideas a few of us are throwing around to keep everyone on an equal playing feild in the class.

Will R · Joined: 31 Jul 2005 Posts: 677 Location: NWT/Alberta

yeah its the same mike just that the ct350/355 is factory sealed and like you said upgraded oil pan and valve covers

mikeyjl · Joined: 16 Mar 2008 Posts: 13 Location: LEDUC

The ford is rollerd but the chev is not if i am reading correct??

Will R · Joined: 31 Jul 2005 Posts: 677 Location: NWT/Alberta

both are hyd roller

mikeyjl · Joined: 16 Mar 2008 Posts: 13 Location: LEDUC

ford= 395hp chev=355 hp not comparible.Dont get me wrong I am not trying to ruffle any feathers but I believe that the 1.6 stamped steel rockers on the zz4 are not roller rockers like the ford but would sure like to see some competition for the zz4 in fx racing so with some more research i think this can happen. The only problem I can see is Ford is just to expensive to compare to the zz4 in fx racing but I could be wrong.

mikeyjl · Joined: 16 Mar 2008 Posts: 13 Location: LEDUC

Sorry 1.5 stamped steel rocker arms

Will R · Joined: 31 Jul 2005 Posts: 677 Location: NWT/Alberta

mike the ford is not 395 horse its 350hp in fact they dont even offer a 395hp sealed race motor and what does it matter if the ford has rollar rockers and if you read the tech on this motor it was specificaly built to compete with the ct350/355 gm.the ford makes 350hp and 400ftlbs of torque the ct makes 355hp and 405ftlbs of torque.im just suggesting that it be considered as an option.if a guy wants to spend the extra and run a ford then that should be up to him.at least the option is there.

Forplay · Joined: 15 Sep 2008 Posts: 85 Location: Leduc, AB

The AWJA had the 351 GT-40 in as the Ford option. After some reading I see the new 347JR as a better fit. It's closer matched performance wise, and alot cheaper than the 351. Ford's dyno chart shows it @ 350hp using a 500cfm 2bbl carb, so with that combo it's right at the ZZ4/CT355 levels.

Agree the 347JR would be the one best matched up for the class as the Ford option. I was surprised that the JR is only a few hundred bucks less than the 415hp 347SR targeted for the Late models. Thought it would have been down there with the CT350/CT355 price range if that's what they wanted to compete with.

Pricing from Summit.

Chevy ZZ4 (24502609) $4099.95, or CT version is 4709.00

Ford 347JR (6007D347JR) $6999.99

How many would actually run it would be left for time to tell, but at least the option would be there if the rule was amended. If enough want it included so they could try it, hit the meeting and suggest it.