Jono racing Posted May 29, 2015 Author Share Posted May 29, 2015 (edited) Thanks John, Sounds scary. I've actually asked for some photo's of the engine, wiring and other bits, so that I can get an idea of the standard of build. Waiting with baited breath.... J Edited May 29, 2015 by Jono racing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 There's a lot in that description that would give me a very favourable first impression. I also thought I recognised the name; it's being sold by an old club member. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Williams (Panda) - Joint Manchester AO Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 dave is a westfield god.... so if he says its looks favourable i'm happy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 It's just little details in the description, they all add up to something worth having a look at, it's the knowledge of what works in a Westfield, etc. So things like the 1.8 flywheel and the water pump. The extra progression hole on the carbs, that many aren't aware of. ARP bolts etc. obviously, you'd need to check condition etc and that it matched the description! But it sounds like a good honest car that could be a decent building block. It's not mega spec, it's true, but it's not mega bucks either. Like I say, compared to many of the hit in the dark adverts, it's definitely one for the short list if on a budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SootySport Posted May 29, 2015 Share Posted May 29, 2015 That's a good spec. & price for 2.0 Zetec engine car, all tried and tested upgrades that a good deal of forum regulars would have on their car. Just the Spax's have to go . Note the weather kit extras all inclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jono racing Posted May 31, 2015 Author Share Posted May 31, 2015 Thanks Dave, Sooty & John, Well sure enough I've missed it. My problem was the distance and finding the time to do a almost 400 mile round trip is always gonna be difficult. I'm interested to understand the 1.8 water pump thing. Please can you explain? I'm cool with the lighter 1.8 flywheel, that makes perfect sense. Also, can you explain the extra progression hole in the carbs? So still looking... Thanks Jono Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingster Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 The water pump on a 2.0 goes one way and on a 1.8 goes the other - if you have a 2.0 then you need to add an idler pulley to make sure the pump works, but on a 1.8 the pump allows you to run it in the direction that is easiest! Blacktop - requires idlers: 2.0 Silvertop with 1.8 pump - belt run is simpler: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 What Chris said, re the pump. When the engine is converted to rear wheel drive in a Westfield, the standard water pump would turn backwards. The 1.8 version correct this without needing extra bits. The extra progression holes in the carbs are to better match them to a modern engine like the Zetec, reducing the flat spots as you move from an almost closed throttle to part throttle, (the progression holes are steadily uncovered letting extra fuel in, until the throttle opens so much the pump jet cuts in). Basically, they're signs of someone taking extra care to get the details right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rory's Dad Posted June 1, 2015 Share Posted June 1, 2015 Well sure enough I've missed it. My problem was the distance and finding the time to do a almost 400 mile round trip is always gonna be difficult. There'll be another one just as good for sale in the fullness of time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jono racing Posted June 1, 2015 Author Share Posted June 1, 2015 Many thanks for that. My endless searching has raised more questions, which I'm sure you can answer! ; Live axle v independant. I obviously know that the independant rear is going to work a little better, but I used to rally a Mk 2 Escort, with a live axle, and it worked fine and was fun to drive, even without a LSD. My question is ; Is it worth having, in particular for competition use (Sprints & Hillclimbs), or should I immeadiately discount anything that isn't independant? 2nd question is Bike engine V car engine. I've seen a couple of fireblade (or similar) engined cars with about 130 bhp. Would these be competative against something like 1.8 or 2litre Zetec, with perhaps 150 to 200 bhp? Or does having a BEC mean that I would have run against Hyabusa's with lots more power than 130? As a biker, I'm very aware that getting much more power out of a standard bike engine is very expensive, whereas I guess a moderate increase in power from a Zetec or Red top is not mega money. Am I correct? Still looking.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SootySport Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 Live axles are as you say, lively in the rear end department whereas an independent has the more controllable feel and seems more planted on the road. Nowt wrong with live axles as long as the rest of the suspension is set up well. Bec cars I know nothing about except they always seem pretty fast and frantic and more suited to the track, if you watch Terry Everall in his Fireblade in the sprints you'll see how fast they can go. As a bike man you may be more suited to these. Car engine cars like the road and track and as you say more simpler to upgrade yourself, good for tinkering on and are what I am familiar with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyonspride Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 IMO BEC really became "fashionable" 10-15 years ago, they sort of filled a gap where choice of engines was very limited and car engines were all ECU and fuel injection, which back in those days was a very expensive way to build a car. That said, nowt wrong with the good ones! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingster Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 The other point about BEC vs CEC is that a BEC will usually be considerably lighter and have a built in 6 speed sequential gearbox. So will be a good option for sprinting - and the power to weight ratio means even 130bhp will no doubt feel a lot more than it looks on paper. The downside of a BEC is usually that it will feel a lot slower with a passenger on board and might not be as user friendly on the road. I must admit, I really wanted a BEC when I first started looking at 'seven' style cars a couple of years ago, but ended up with a CEC as most of my time will be on the road (although as I have still to get my Reg no off the DVLA, I might change my mind in a month or two!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pickmaster Andy Lowe Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 As with kingster I wanted a bike engined car too but was put off by the extra strain on engine parts not designed for the force transferred from mega grip of the rear tyres And my amount of road use But plenty love them Here's a photo I took of Tim Nunn demonstrating that huge force required to lift a front wheel that a bec can generate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SootySport Posted June 3, 2015 Share Posted June 3, 2015 I can do that as well----- http://s606.photobucket.com/user/Manorpics/media/DSC_8389_zpscylz2qr3.jpg.html?sort=6&o=170 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.